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
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
One year on from the appalling Manchester Arena attack, I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House in saying that on this day our thoughts are with those who lost their lives and their families, and those who suffered life-changing injuries. We will remember them with a minute’s silence later today.
The UK’s 5.7 million small businesses make a vital contribution to our economy, employing 60% of the private sector workforce, and the Government are determined to facilitate their success. We are keeping taxes low and ensuring that firms can access the support that they need to thrive. Following the patient capital review, we are expanding the tax reliefs available to entrepreneurs that will support them in growing their businesses, and we have launched a patient capital action plan to unlock £20 billion of funding to help high-growth firms to reach their potential.
Sir David Amess
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will not raise taxes on small businesses, and will he share with the House what help the Government will give to entrepreneurs who are setting up for the first time, with particular regard to the business rate?
Mr Hammond
We have already introduced business rate concessions to reduce the burden of rates on small businesses, including by bringing forward by two years the switch in indexation from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index. We are ensuring that Britain is the world’s leading place to start and grow a business, including through reducing corporation tax rates. There are almost 7,000 small businesses in Southend-on-Sea alone, and this Government back them every step of the way. I can tell my hon. Friend who will raise taxes on small businesses, and has said so publicly: he is sitting opposite me.
Huw Merriman
In the rural and coastal parts of east Sussex that I represent, infrastructure delivery is key to bringing more businesses and entrepreneurs to the area. What plans does the Chancellor have to continue investment in road, high-speed rail and broadband connections so that we can attract more businesses to rural parts of this country?
Mr Hammond
The national productivity investment fund is investing in all those areas. We have the biggest rail investment programme since Victorian times and the biggest road building programme since the 1970s, and we are investing in superfast broadband, which is critical to this country’s future. As my hon. Friend will know, in his area we are investing in the A21, and we are working with Network Rail on exploring options for connecting HS1 services to Hastings via Ashford International.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely the Chancellor knows that the thing holding back most businesses—small, medium-sized and large—is the lack of good skilled people to work for them. When is he going to give the Secretary of State for Education a good shaking and make him do something about the apprenticeship levy, apprenticeship schemes and the higher education graduate apprenticeship scheme?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Gentleman is right that skills are a critical factor for business in an economy with such high levels of employment and low levels of unemployment as we have achieved. We are investing in apprenticeships with the new apprenticeship levy, providing funding for more and better apprenticeships; we are investing in T-levels, improving substantially the level of technical training for 16 to 19-year-olds; and we are reviewing the operation of tertiary education funding.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Marks & Spencer is closing 14 stores, affecting hundreds of jobs, and Debenhams and House of Fraser would be doing the same were it not for their longer lease commitments. The nature of the high street is changing, and the risk is the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. What are the Government doing about this, and will the Chancellor consider meeting me and businesses in Croydon as we push ahead for a new Westfield shopping centre in what is undoubtedly a difficult environment?
Mr Hammond
The hon. Lady correctly identifies the underlying problem: the nature of retailing is changing. Britain is leading the world in the adoption of online retail, which has huge opportunities, but will also bring huge changes. This is a microcosm of the changes we will face in this economy over the next 10, 20 or 30 years, as the digital revolution changes fundamentally the way we do business. The answer is not to try to resist change, but to embrace it, and to make sure that we train our people so that they can take up the new challenges and have the new opportunities that this economy will bring.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Mr Hammond
We have taken steps that I have already outlined this morning to reduce the burden of taxation on businesses large and small, although of course small businesses are most beneficially affected by the £10 billion programme of reducing business rates costs and through the reduction in corporation tax levels. But we are always looking for further ways to support the smallest businesses and to encourage them to become larger businesses.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Chancellor’s remarks about the Manchester bombing.
For the Chancellor to make up his own small business tax policies on the hoof is one thing; making them up for the Labour party is a fantasy. The Government have ruled out a customs union with the European Union worth £16 trillion for an alternative customs union with British overseas territories worth only £22 billion. Is the Chancellor happy with that decision? Can he give us any clue about how such a decision will support businesses and entrepreneurs?
Mr Hammond
I do not know whether that was an announcement of a change in Labour party policy. My understanding is that the Labour party’s position is to increase corporate tax rates for small businesses. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he has changed his position.
On the question of our future customs arrangements with the European Union, the hon. Gentleman will know that I have consistently sought arrangements that will protect our existing trade with the European Union, allowing British businesses to continue to trade freely with the minimal possible friction at the border with the European Union. We do not believe it is necessary to be in a customs union to achieve that.
Peter Dowd
For the Chancellor’s information, he can easily find our policies on www.labour.org.
When the Chancellor met David Cameron last October to give a thumbs-up emoji to Mr Cameron’s UK-China investment fund, presumably to help businesses and entrepreneurs, was he aware that the fund is to be domiciled in the Republic of Ireland? If so, did he think to ask the former Prime Minister whether that was for the purposes of tax avoidance?
Mr Hammond
I have already answered the hon. Gentleman’s questions about my meeting with Mr Cameron last October. In a meeting that ranged across a number of issues, Mr Cameron was good enough to inform me of his intention to take up this role with a fund promoting investment both in China and the UK. The Government support all initiatives that improve trade and investment between the UK and China.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
People’s disposable income is now 4.6% higher in real terms than in 2010. That is because we have turned around the economy and held taxes down.
Trudy Harrison
According to recent figures from the Office for National Statistics, real household disposable income is £1,600 higher than in 2008, while the proportion of lower paid workers has fallen to its lowest level for 35 years due to the national living wage. Does my right hon. Friend think that those statistics would be as positive if we had taken the advice of the Labour party?
Elizabeth Truss
As my hon. Friend knows, the advice of the Labour party is that we need to “overthrow capitalism”. If we were to do that, there would be fewer businesses, fewer jobs, higher taxes and higher mortgage rates—and we would all be queuing for food, as people are in Venezuela.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Families with three children are at a greater risk of poverty than other families, and next year the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will take £1.2 billion away from them. Does she agree that this is the least family-friendly Government in history?
Elizabeth Truss
What we have done for families is make sure that more parents and families are in work than ever before, enabling them to look after and support their children. We are also investing a record amount in childcare—£6 billion a year—to help more parents into work.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right that we need to keep taxes down, but we also need to recognise the role that free enterprise and free markets play in encouraging competition, allowing new products to come to the market and keeping prices low. The reason why we have low food prices and cheap air fares is because we have successfully kept those markets open. The Labour party advocates abandoning that.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Tory austerity will result in annual social security cuts of £4 billion in Scotland by 2020. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that 1 million more children will be pushed into poverty across the UK. With planned devolution covering only 15% of social security spending, the blame lies firmly at the Chancellor’s door. Does the Minister think that is acceptable?
Elizabeth Truss
What I find incredible is that the Scottish National party, which has been in power in Scotland for many years, presiding over declining education standards and now raising taxes in Scotland, has the audacity not to take responsibility for its own policies and actions.
Kirsty Blackman
The Chief Secretary did not answer my question. Once a fortnight someone comes into my office with so little income that we have to refer them to a food bank. When will the Chancellor realise how much harm he is causing? When will he reverse the cuts and when will he end the hunger?
Elizabeth Truss
The reality is that we have seen more people in work in Scotland, as we have across the country, and that is delivering more real income. We have held taxes down across the country, to the tune of £1,000 per basic rate taxpayer, which means that people have more disposable income to spend.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Well, that was fascinating.
The Chief Secretary knows full well that 67% of children in poverty live in working households. The Child Poverty Action Group expects cuts within universal credit to push up to 1 million children into poverty by 2020. When all the Government’s policy changes are included, lone parents have lost an average of £5,250 a year since 2010. Families with three or more children have lost £5,600 a year. Families with a disabled parent and a disabled child have £6,500 less every single year. Is she complacent or just callous?
Elizabeth Truss
Surprise, surprise: we have not heard Labour acknowledge the excellent news from the Resolution Foundation that we now have the lowest share of low-paid employees for 35 years—before the Labour Government were in power. Under Labour, we saw rising unemployment and more people left on the scrapheap. We saw a welfare system that did not support people into work.
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to make faster progress. If people could keep their questions brief, and if answers could focus, as constitutionally they must, on the policies of the Government, that would be the proper procedure in the House. The right hon. Lady is very experienced and I know she knows that extremely well.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
We will come forward with a new long-term plan for the NHS and provide a new multi-year funding settlement in support of that plan. What is also important is that we are developing policies on artificial intelligence and digital services to make sure that our NHS delivers better outcomes for patients.
Wera Hobhouse
To raise the amount we need for long-term sustainable services for my constituents and people across the country, will the Chief Secretary consider introducing a ring-fenced health and social care tax that would bring together spending on both services into a collective budget?
Elizabeth Truss
As the hon. Lady knows, the problem with such hypothecated taxes is that if the revenues from them go down, the consequence is a reduction in support for our NHS or our social care services. That is why we believe in funding those services out of general taxation. We put an extra £6.3 billion into the health service at the Budget. We are looking at the longer-term settlement, but it is important to note that this is about not just the money we spend, but how we spend it.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The vast majority of PFI projects—86%—were signed off under the last Labour Government. Since 2010, we have reformed the approach so that PF2—private finance 2—contracts, in the selective circumstances in which they are used, now deliver better value for money for the taxpayer, so far delivering over £2 billion of savings.
Liz Twist
Recent research from the University of Greenwich suggests that bringing existing PFI contracts back in house could pay for itself within two years. The National Audit Office has noted that Government Departments reported the “operational inflexibility” of PFI, so can the Chancellor explain why his Department is still pushing the increasingly discredited and scandal-ridden PFI model under the disguise of PF2?
Robert Jenrick
Under the last Labour Government, the average number of PFI contracts signed per year was 55. In the last two years, the Treasury has signed off none. We will use this approach selectively when it delivers a genuine transfer of risk and provides value for money for the taxpayer, not as the last Labour Government did.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
As the Minister said, PFI was hugely popular under the last Labour Government. Will he confirm whether PFI stands for “private finance initiative” or “pay for indefinitely”?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend highlights the cost and legacy of the PFI projects signed off under the last Labour Government. Hon. Members can be assured that we will use this approach wisely and selectively, in particular for the most complex infrastructure projects requiring a transfer of risk and the expertise of the private sector.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
On PFI hospitals, the National Audit Office report recently found
“no evidence of operational efficiency”,
and that in the NHS,
“the cost of services, like cleaning…hospitals is higher under PFI contracts.”
Will the Chancellor explain why his Government persist with imposing higher costs than necessary on local health budgets instead of ensuring value for money for the taxpayer?
Robert Jenrick
I think that the hon. Lady is having amnesia. These contracts—86% of the contracts and 91% by value—were signed under the last Labour Government. In respect of some of the items that she mentioned, such as cleaning and security services, we have reformed PFI contracts under PF2 so that those items are not included in the standard contract.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend be interested to learn that when I was a lowly Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Treasury in 1996 and 1997, John Major was constantly trying to make us finalise PFI contracts, but we in the Treasury refused because they were bad deals? As soon as Labour got in, they went straight ahead and entered into those bad deals.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The initial intention of PFI was to transfer risk, when appropriate, to the private sector, and to drive up innovation and quality in a very small number of selective cases. That was perverted under the last Labour Government by Gordon Brown.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
We have learned from the experience of PFI; this Government—[Interruption.]
Anneliese Dodds
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This Government have not. In the light of last week’s report on Carillion, we want to know whether the Minister can indicate which PFI contracts are being delivered by contractors that are deemed to be actually or potentially high risk. Following last week’s reports that failed bidders for PFI contracts will be compensated, can he rule out bailing out firms that fail even to win contracts? We need answers on these questions now, not a history lesson.
Robert Jenrick
As I have indicated, this Government’s approach to PFI is entirely different from that of the last Labour Government. The hon. Lady says that she has learnt the lessons. Well, it is a pity for the taxpayer, and for our children and grandchildren, that they were learnt so late.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
In the first financial year, 2017-18, there was no unauthorised withdrawal charge in place. The data for 2018-19 is obviously not yet known, but HMRC will publish it when it is available.
Justin Madders
Will the Minister look at the effect of the withdrawal charge more closely? A first-time buyer has told me that he has found a home that suits his needs, but because his lifetime ISA is less than a year old, he will not only lose his Government bonus but have to pay a £375 penalty charge back to the Government out of his own money. Why are aspiring homeowners being penalised in this way?
John Glen
I am of course happy to look at that case. Following my appearance at the Treasury Select Committee, I asked my officials to look at the guidance on the website, as I am anxious not to put misleading advice on there. The LISA is available for long-term savings. That was the scheme’s objective when it was set up.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I am pleased the Minister just mentioned his appearance before the Select Committee, where we explored the issue of the 25% charge and the fact that a further 6% of capital can also be lost. Will he update us? He has talked to officials about looking at the website. Will he ensure that the Treasury website is fully compliant with Financial Conduct Authority rules applicable to firms in the private sector?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
We have junior ISAs, cash ISAs, stocks and shares ISAs and lifetime ISAs. Will the Minister consider simplifying the entire ISA system to help young people in particular with long-term, cost-effective saving?
John Glen
The Government have developed a range of savings products and incentives, or encouraged providers to do so, to reflect the range of needs. We have also raised the ISA allowance to £20,000 and introduced the personal savings allowance, meaning that 95% of people do not pay any tax on their savings income. It is important that we have that range of options for all age groups.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The Budget showed our determination to improve productivity, increasing the national productivity investment fund by £8 billion to £31 billion. With substantial investment in the regions of the UK, such as the £1.7 billion transforming cities fund, we want to help all parts of the country achieve their potential.
Andrew Bowie
I am sure the House will be united in rejoicing that the UK’s productivity last year grew by 0.7% and in the last quarter increased at its quickest pace in six years. Does my hon. Friend agree that raising our productivity is the only way to deliver higher-paid and better jobs for the future?
Robert Jenrick
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Raising productivity is the only sustainable way to grow the economy, boost wages and improve living standards, which is why we have given it such a clear and determined focus. With respect to Aberdeenshire, the North sea oil and gas industry is one of those sectors that have seen the greatest productivity increases in recent years. We will continue to support that with a highly competitive tax rate.
Mike Amesbury
Given that average UK productivity is 30% below German levels, does the Minister agree it is now time to rebalance our economy and support further devolution for areas such as Cheshire and Warrington?
Robert Jenrick
It was of course this Government who one year ago created the Mayors across the UK, including in Greater Manchester, and several of them, including Andy Street, have had a great impact on their local economies. I have had conversations with the leader of the Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership and the Minister responsible at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to take such matters forward.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is only with sound management of the public finances that we can continue to invest in the skills required to grow productivity, and that is exactly what we are doing with increasing investment in apprenticeships, through the apprenticeship levy, and with the T-levels, which will be largest change to our secondary education system since the introduction of A-levels and which we will be seeing in the coming years.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Robert Jenrick
We have had numerous conversations with local partners in north Wales, and with the Welsh Government. I urge the hon. Gentleman to take the message to the Welsh Government, but they also need to engage with the UK Government to secure that important deal, which, as he says, will link the economy of north Wales with the north-west and the northern powerhouse to drive productivity.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that cutting corporation tax to 19% has encouraged business investment, boosting productivity as well as encouraging the creation of 3 million new jobs?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we reduce the tax to 17%, we will see those productivity gains increase—and, contrary to what the Opposition have claimed, revenues have increased.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Eurostat figures show regional inequality in the United Kingdom, measured by output per hour, to be the worst in Europe, and the Government have failed to close the gap since 2010. When will the Chancellor commit himself to making the investment that is needed to end regional imbalances that have seen the north of England set to receive just one fifth of the transport investment per capita in London?
Robert Jenrick
The Infrastructure and Projects Authority, which has conducted the most rigorous analysis of Government spending on infrastructure, has made clear that the north of England will receive more funds from the present Government than any other region in the United Kingdom, including London and the south-east.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
The Government are committed to helping firms to harness the benefits of new technologies, and we are taking action to do so. For example, we have set the annual investment allowance at £200,000 a year, its highest-ever permanent level; we have announced a 10-year action plan to unlock more than £20 billion to finance growth in innovative firms; and we have delivered the biggest increase in research and development investment in 40 years.
Mr Hammond
Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his commitment in this regard, especially in his role as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the fourth industrial revolution. Science, research and innovation are areas in which the UK has huge strengths. Our challenge is to provide the right environment—including the right tax environment—to ensure that that potential stays in the UK, and is developed here. We have introduced a range of incentives through the tax system, such as R&D tax credits and entrepreneurs’ relief, as well as the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Given that Northern Ireland is the cyber-security centre of the UK, what steps is the Chancellor taking to provide tax relief to encourage global businesses to consider using Belfast and other equipped cities as their bases?
Mr Hammond
We have a globally competitive offer for businesses seeking to locate in the United Kingdom, and, of course, Northern Ireland will have corporation tax flexibilities of its own in due course. However, we seek to make all parts of the UK attractive to foreign direct investment, and Northern Ireland has done extremely well from that.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Will the Government please explain what is being done to help firms in places such as west Oxfordshire to harness 5G and broadband, making them more competitive, making them raise more money, and creating the capital that will enable us to fund the public services that the Labour party wants to overthrow?
Mr Hammond
This is partly about public investment and partly about private investment to encourage the roll-out of full-fibre broadband technologies and give companies access to the funds that they need to make investments and take advantage of the public infrastructure. We will make further announcements about our forward broadband strategy during the summer.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Scottish Government’s Budget included a 70% increase in investment in business R&D. To prevent that investment from being undermined by the Government’s approach to Brexit, will the Chancellor commit himself to maintaining the EU levels of R and D funding beyond the current cycle?
Mr Hammond
Once we have left the European Union the money that was reaching the UK from EU sources will be allocated to the UK shared prosperity fund, and over the course of this year we will consult on both the distribution and the application of those funds and the size that that fund should be.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
In the last Budget we abolished stamp duty for first-time buyers for the first £300,000 of a property’s value up to £500,000 in total. That has meant that 95% of first-time buyers have paid less stamp duty and a full 80% of first-time buyers have paid no stamp duty at all.
Stephen Metcalfe
Last November the Chancellor announced an ambitious package to tackle the broken housing market. How many first-time buyers have benefited from that package, particularly in Essex, and where can people find further information about this so we can make hopefully impressive numbers even greater?
Mel Stride
Some 69,000 individuals have already benefited from this vital tax relief and over 1 million will do so over the coming five years. We do not have disaggregated data specifically for Essex, but I can tell my hon. Friend that within the south-east 12,900 individuals have benefited from first-time buyer tax relief.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Mel Stride
As I outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) who asked the preceding question, in the south-east 12,900 first-time buyers have benefited from this relief, of whom 9,000 purchased a property of a value of between £300,000 and £500,000 in total.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has taken a variety of steps to reduce overpayments of tax credits including real-time income data in-year, guidance that is very clear on these matters, and of course providing appropriate contact routes with HMRC so that those who have changed circumstances can indicate that to our tax authorities.
Chris Elmore
Overpayment of tax credits can have disastrous impacts on families; a constituent of mine has been left with a bill of £8,000 as a result of purely administrative errors admitted by HMRC. Such errors can create real financial hardship and in the past have even pushed some families into poverty. Will the Minister start instructing Treasury and HMRC officials to do more to tackle this problem?
Mel Stride
HMRC is doing a great deal, as I have already outlined to the hon. Gentleman, in terms of making sure that the correct information is provided. Overpayments do not solely emanate from HMRC; there is of course customer error and there can be negligence or a failure to report a change of circumstances. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that HMRC is always sympathetic and careful in its approach to anybody in the kind of situation he described.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
The best way to drive economic growth is to raise our productivity growth rate. That is why since 2010 the Government have overseen over half a trillion pounds in capital investment including in the national productivity investment fund, have increased investment in skills and have reduced taxes for business, and I tell my hon. Friend that the way not to support economic growth is through more borrowing, more debt and higher debt service costs.
Andrew Percy
After we voted to leave the EU, a vote endorsed by huge numbers across the north of England, we were told by some that mismanagement of the economy would occur under this Government. The reality in the north, despite those who talk the economy down, is that we have record employment and some of our areas have the fastest growing economies in the country, so may I urge the Chancellor to continue investing in the north and to ignore those, on the Opposition Benches especially, who repeatedly talk down the north of England?
Mr Hammond
Since 2010 the shadow Chancellor has predicted that the UK would go into recession on no fewer than eight separate occasions—that is eight out of zero. But the UK economy is growing steadily and is now 10.7% bigger than its pre-crisis level, and the Office for Budget Responsibility expects it to continue to grow in each year of its forecast to 2022. While we know that the shadow Chancellor does not think that a growing economy matters, let me tell him why I do: a growing economy means more jobs, more prosperity and more security for working people.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
What consideration has been given to the contribution that varying certain business taxes, such as VAT, according to the nation or region of the UK could make to encouraging economic growth?
Mr Hammond
The Government’s view is that a unified rate of VAT across the United Kingdom is an important part of our single market of the United Kingdom, which is an essential economic good for the whole of this country.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Mr Hammond
We absolutely look forward to being able to make progress on the Moray growth deal, and I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. I know that the Exchequer Secretary, who is dealing with this matter, would also be pleased to meet him.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The Government acknowledge that they want to spread wealth and economic growth across the United Kingdom through their industrial strategy. Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore agree with the Welsh Affairs Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), that the money from the cancelled rail electrification between Cardiff and Swansea should be spent in Wales, so that we can have that shared prosperity?
Mr Hammond
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I firmly believe that the service that will be provided on the route from London to Swansea will deliver exactly what passengers have bargained to get, without the need for the disruption and cost of overhead electrification. We will look at the funding needs of all parts of the United Kingdom appropriately, to support economic growth and to reduce regional disparities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has question 21, which is not altogether dissimilar from the one with which we are dealing, but which will probably not be reached. If he wants to come in now, he can. If he does not, he need not do so. But he does, so he will.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Mr Hammond
Precisely, Mr Speaker. It is the economic growth generation potential of housing development that we will take into account when evaluating transport proposals. In relation to the specific project to which my hon. Friend refers, the Exchequer Secretary advises me that the Department for Transport is eagerly awaiting a business plan for the project from the relevant local authority.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Does the Chancellor agree that a devolution settlement for all Yorkshire with an elected Mayor, as supported by all Conservative councils in the county, could improve economic growth in the region?
Mr Hammond
The Government will look carefully at proposals from Yorkshire leaders for a devolution settlement, provided that it does not undermine the existing South Yorkshire-Sheffield city region devolution settlement that has already been established, with a Mayor already elected.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The port operator Associated British Ports, the Hull and Humber Chamber of Commerce and many local businesses are giving serious consideration to free port status for the Humber ports in the post-Brexit world. Will the Chancellor or his Ministers agree to meet representatives of the business community in the area and to give serious consideration to this proposal when the idea has been further developed?
Mr Hammond
As my hon. Friend will know, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has a great interest in that proposal. Without even needing to consult her, I can say without hesitation that she will be delighted to meet him and his colleagues.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
From 2002 until the crisis, young people saw their real wages grow more slowly than the UK average. In fact, their wages fell more during the recession. Since 2014, young people’s wages have been rising faster than the UK average.
Elizabeth Truss
The most important thing is that those young people are in jobs, and under Labour we saw unemployment rise to 20%. Youth unemployment has reduced by 40% since 2010. I recognise that we need to see those young people get better skills. That is why we are investing in IT training, that is why we are developing the maths premium so that more students study science, technology, engineering and maths, and that is why we have developed the apprenticeship levy to get more people into apprenticeships.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The social and economic costs of organised crime, of which money laundering is a key facilitator, total tens of billions of pounds a year. The Government are committed to tackling illicit finance in the UK and have implemented recent measures including the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and the updated money laundering regulations, both of which were brought into law in the past year.
David Hanson
The cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee said only yesterday that the Government should show stronger political leadership in tackling the importing of dirty money into the United Kingdom. Is it not time that the Government supported the Labour Front Bench’s proposals for an overseas register of interests?
John Glen
I acknowledge the report of the Select Committee. This Government stand by the rule of law. We do not do random confiscations but, alongside the work being undertaken, work is under way across Whitehall to examine what further steps are necessary. I am eager that we go as far as we can, and we must do so in ways that are consistent with our values.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Chancellor’s eloquent words on the Manchester tragedy. I also commend the emergency services that operated on that day.
“The Government cannot afford to turn a blind eye as kleptocrats and human rights abusers use the City of London to launder their ill-gotten funds”.
Not my words but the words of yesterday’s Foreign Affairs Committee report. For eight years this Government have turned a blind eye to the flow of dirty money through the City. Not only have they delayed until 2021 the introduction of a full public register of overseas companies that own UK property but they have refused to introduce the tougher scrutiny and regulation of City flotations that we have demanded, and they have failed to broaden the definition of “politically exposed persons” to include more individuals linked to crime or criminal regimes.
Will the Government do as the Foreign Affairs Committee has demanded and start taking money laundering and tax avoidance seriously by bringing forward the date for the register of overseas companies that own property in the UK?
John Glen
We will continue to take these matters very seriously. We will freeze Russian state assets where we have evidence that they will be used to threaten the life or property of UK nationals and residents. As the Prime Minister made very clear in her statement to the House, the National Crime Agency will bring all UK capabilities to bear against serious criminals and corrupt elites. As somebody who has experienced that directly in my constituency in recent months, I stand by the Prime Minister’s statement. There is no place for these people and their money in our country.
John McDonnell
That is just not good enough. We were promised a register in 2015, and we are still having to wait another three years. The Government are letting the crooks, the tax avoiders and the money launderers off the hook again. They have failed to introduce and enforce stricter due diligence for companies as registered companies, they have failed to take on the service providers that set up these laundering scheme, and they have refused to legislate to create a new offence of failing to prevent money laundering. Those are all amendments that the Opposition tabled to the recent Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. The people of this country are entitled to ask why this Government are soft on tax evaders and money launderers.
There is another issue that has to be addressed today, as highlighted by the allegations against Lycamobile. Will the Government bring forward legislation requiring any political party found to have accepted donations from money launderers and tax evaders to forfeit or return that money?
John Glen
Obviously, it is impossible for a Minister to comment on live cases, but we will continue to use powers to disrupt and pursue money launderers and terrorists. We will use the anti-corruption strategy, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime is committed to using the National Economic Crime Centre to pursue those who need pursuing, but we will do so within the rule of law, consistent with the values of this country.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The Government have brought in more than 100 measures to clamp down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance since 2010, and the associated powers that HMRC has had in that respect. We have protected and brought in £175 billion across that period, which is substantially more than we invest in our national health service every year.
Laura Smith
Almost 15,000 HMRC and Valuation Office Agency jobs have been lost since 2010, and that is alongside tax office closures up and down the country. With potential changes to our customs border on the horizon, does the Chancellor not agree that now would be the time to invest in HMRC, and put a stop to all planned cuts and closures?
Mel Stride
I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Lady that we have been investing heavily in HMRC to clamp down on the issues she has raised—we are talking about some £2 billion since 2010. We have 23,000 staff in HMRC engaged in that purpose and we consequently have about the lowest tax gap in the entire world, at 6%, which is far lower than it was in any year under the previous Labour Government.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Philip Hammond)
My principal responsibility is to ensure economic stability and the continued prosperity of the British people, and I will do so by building on the plans set out in the autumn Budget and the spring statement. The Government’s balanced approach to the public finances enables us to give households, businesses and our public services targeted support in the near term, and to invest in the future of this country, while also being fair to the next generation by at last beginning to reduce a national debt that is far too large.
Tom Brake
On prosperity, Mark Carney has just said that household incomes are now about £900 lower than was forecast in May 2016, before the referendum. How much lower still does the Chancellor estimate household incomes will be when the UK leaves the customs union and the single market? When will he publish his analysis?
Mr Hammond
On the publication of Government analysis, I have made it clear on several occasions that once Parliament is being asked to vote on a proposal—on a package—it will be appropriate for the Government to publish the analysis that they have, to make sure that that debate is as informed as possible. The future trajectory of household incomes will depend, in part, on the quality of the deal we negotiate as we exit the EU, and we are focused on getting the very best deal for British jobs, British prosperity and British businesses.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
I know that my hon. Friend represents some of the finest English sparkling wine vineyards, and I am pleased to say that some new ones have recently opened in Norfolk. We now have record exports of more than £100 million a year of our fantastic sparkling wine and we will continue to look at our policies to promote this brilliant product.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
Mr Philip Hammond
The hon. Lady focuses rightly on output per hour. The problem is a productivity gap between the regions of the UK and the most prosperous areas of London. We have to close that productivity gap. That is in the interest of not only those individual regions, but our overall national economy. We will do so by investing in public infrastructure and in skills, and by ensuring that the conditions are right for business investment, both domestic and foreign.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Lenders are not restricted from extending mortgages beyond the age of 75, as long as the consumer can demonstrate affordability. Several lenders are currently looking into this issue. There is considerable merit in interest-only retirement mortgages.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
What action are the Government taking to tackle payroll and umbrella companies, some of which—not all—are used to perpetuate bogus self-employment and undermine terms and conditions?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
We are looking very closely at this policy area, not least in respect of the Matthew Taylor review of the different ways in which individuals choose to work. The Government’s overriding objective is to make sure that the way an individual works is reflected in the way they are taxed, and that they are taxed properly.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I can reassure him that HMRC has written to a total of 800,000 people to inform them of the issue he has raised, which is also set out and made clear on the very first page of the child benefit application form. I can also reassure him that we will review this policy area in the current period to see how we can make changes going forward.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
John Glen
It is a matter for banks to make commercial decisions on the basis of their assessments, and there are rules on how they inform the affected constituents. I am, though, very concerned about the situation in rural and sparsely populated areas. I shall visit Scotland over the summer recess to address some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
Sadly, it is a rare day on which a Treasury call for evidence on tax stirs the enthusiasm of the general public, but this one has. We received a record 130,000 submissions from throughout the country. We are determined to take the issue seriously and to tackle the scourge of single-use plastics. The Chancellor has been clear that we want to do so in a way that both tackles the environmental issues and drives innovation to support the jobs of the future.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I am sure that Ministers will be just as concerned as the rest of us about the startling revelations about the conduct of Lloyds and HBOS outlined in the Project Turnbull report. Will the Treasury now demand that, after three years, the Financial Conduct Authority pulls its finger out to expedite its investigation into this matter? Has the Treasury received any requests from police authorities to fund appropriate investigations into criminal activities? If so, will it look favourably on them?
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that the events at HBOS in Reading constituted criminal activity. As such, it was right that those responsible were brought to justice. He referred to a report by an internal employee; that matter should be taken seriously by the FCA and is being taken seriously by Lloyds, and it will be followed up on in due course.
Several hon. Members rose—
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Mel Stride
I am very pleased to inform my hon. Friend that we have raised and protected £175 billion since 2010 by clamping down on evasion, avoidance and non-compliance. That comes as a direct result of investing in HMRC to the tune of £2 billion, and has resulted in the lowest tax gap in the world.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Colleagues can help each other by being very brief, which I am sure they will be.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
With child poverty set to increase by another 1.5 million by 2022, according to the Economic Council for Equality, what will the Treasury be doing to help the very poorest households?
Elizabeth Truss
What we have seen in the past few years, since 2015, is a 7% rise in the real wages of people on the lowest incomes, and a reduction in income inequality.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
Mel Stride
My hon. Friend talks about complexity. The Office for Tax Simplification is looking into the way in which inheritance tax and the regime operate. Changing the way that tax reliefs operate in the way that he describes would add very significant cost. However, we do, of course, keep all taxes under review.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The TUC estimates that the number of working households in poverty has risen by 1 million since 2010. Inaction on low-paid, insecure work and punitive welfare reform measures have led to record numbers of people accessing food banks. A responsible Government would measure food insecurity to create policies that end hunger. My Food Insecurity Bill does that. Why will the Government not back it?
Elizabeth Truss
We are the Government who have introduced the national living wage. We have reduced tax bills for those on the lowest incomes, and we are keeping our food market competitive and have some of the lowest food prices in Europe.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The UK productivity and prosperity funds are meant to benefit all local authorities across the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to talk about how Scottish local authorities can apply directly to those funds?
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The cap on charges on payday loans legislated for by Parliament has made a huge difference in bringing down the costs, but it is now more expensive for a person to go into an unarranged overdraft at their own bank. Will the Government look to extend that legislation to cap also the rip-off fees and charges put on customers by our banks?
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
In the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced the extension of the railcard from age 26 to 30. When will my constituents be able to take advantage of that?
Mr Philip Hammond
A pilot railcard for that age group was launched as a trial, and was fully subscribed very quickly. The Department for Transport will be announcing in due course when the continuation of the scheme will take place.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
As the Minister knows, the communities that I represent in Carmarthenshire received the highest form of EU structural aid. Will he give a guarantee that they will not lose a single penny following the introduction of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund?
Mr Hammond
As I think I have already said earlier in this session, we will be consulting, during the course of this year, on the design of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, the scope and scale of the fund and how the money in the fund should be allocated. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s input to that consultation.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Research has shown that those who live in rural areas are getting hit harder at the fuel pump than those in urban areas. Can my right hon. Friend update me on what his Department is doing to ensure that motorists in Angus, and indeed across the United Kingdom, have their taxes cut?
Mel Stride
I am clearly not going to speculate about future tax changes from the Dispatch Box this morning, but I point out that we have frozen fuel duty for eight successive years at a cost to the Exchequer of over £40 billion.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
A Home Affairs Committee report published in summer 2016 found that the suspicious activity reporting system intended for use by the banks to crack down on money laundering was not fit for purpose. The Committee demanded immediate reform, but the Government stated that they would implement the reforms only by 2018. In the light of the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Russia, criminal financing and the UK, will the Minister immediately bring forward plans to reform and improve the system, as was recommended two whole years ago?
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The people of Bloxwich will soon be hearing more about blockchain. Will the Chancellor confirm that the Government will continue to invest in this innovative technology to keep the public’s data safe?
Mr Speaker
Sounds fascinating, and I think we are going to hear more about it.
Mr Philip Hammond
The Government are committed to exploring all technologies that will keep data safe and create opportunities for innovation. Blockchain is one such technology, but the Government will also be examining other even more innovative distributive ledger technologies.
Mr Speaker
I look forward to learning more about blockchain. I am uninitiated on the matter, as the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) can tell, but I feel sure that he will put me in the picture erelong.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Governor of the Bank of England has stated that economic uncertainty caused by the Brexit vote will knock 5% off wage growth and is costing the UK economy £10 billion a year. Does the Chancellor agree with the Governor?
Mr Hammond
We have not yet concluded our negotiations with the European Union, so it is impossible to make any assessment of the impact of our departure until we know what the future relationship with the EU will be. This Government’s agenda is to get the best possible deal for Britain that protects jobs, prosperity and businesses, so that we can protect our existing trade with the EU as well as build new trade opportunities beyond Europe.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) need not worry; I am perfectly clear that he wishes to give us his thoughts. I am saving him up. It would be a pity to squander him at too early a stage of our proceedings.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
Today’s figures from the Office for National Statistics reveal that we are at the lowest level of public borrowing since 2006. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out what that will mean for future investment in public services, as opposed to maxing out paying off the nation’s credit card?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right that we have successfully turned the economy around. We have brought the deficit down, and next year, for the first time in many years, we will see debt fall as a proportion of GDP—[Interruption.] Some Members are laughing, but the same people are proposing that we increase our debt by half a trillion pounds and push our country into penury.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
What will ministers do to support the “Great Western Cities” initiative, which promotes collaboration between Bristol, Newport and Cardiff and has enormous potential for the wider region?
Robert Jenrick
We are already engaging with that important initiative. We continue to support the Mayor of the West of England in Bristol, and we are investing over £600 million through the Swansea and Cardiff city deals.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Manufacturing accounts for 24% of the west midlands economy but, as others pointed out earlier, there are skills shortages. Will the Chancellor therefore support any bid from the Mayor of the West Midlands for a devolution deal to take over responsibility for skills from the Department for Education?
Mr Philip Hammond
I am tempted to wonder whether my hon. Friend might have discussed that question with the Mayor of the West Midlands before asking it. It would be remiss of me to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that I would accept any bid, but I am certainly willing to consider any proposals from the Mayor of the West Midlands, or from any other elected mayor, to address the skills challenge that we face across the country.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Several of my constituents who are highly skilled migrants made entirely legitimate and timely changes to their tax returns and are now facing removal by the Home Office under immigration rule 322(5). Will a Treasury Minister confirm that people should make entirely legitimate changes to their tax returns? Will they also have a conversation with their Home Office colleagues to prevent these highly skilled contributors from being removed from the UK?
Mel Stride
The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that people should clearly continue to make appropriate changes to their tax returns. I reassure her and the House that Treasury Ministers and HMRC officials are working closely across Government—particularly with the Home Office—on the issues that she raised in order to ensure that we get these matters right.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
The Government have decided not to proceed with the legislation that they committed to bring forward to protect consumers from the rip-off practice of logbook loans, despite the Bill being prepared and ready to go through the accelerated procedure. Will the Minister explain why he is prepared to allow innocent buyers to continue to be exploited through this outdated, misused legislation?
Transport Emissions: Urban Areas
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his Department will be taking to improve transport emissions in our urban areas.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
Mr Speaker, thank you for granting this urgent question.
Air pollution is the greatest environmental threat to human health in this country and the fourth biggest public health killer after cancer, obesity and heart disease. Today marks the publication of the latest stage in this Government’s determined efforts to reduce and reverse the impact of air pollution on our health and on our natural environment. Our clean air strategy consultation, published today, outlines steps that we can all take to reduce the emission of harmful gases and particulate matter from all the sources that contribute to polluted air.
It is important to recognise, as I know my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) does, that air pollution is generated by a wide variety of sources—from the fuel used for domestic heating to the application of fertilisers on agricultural land, and from the use of chemicals in industry to sea, rail, air and road transport. The strategy published today outlines specific steps that we can take to reduce the use of the most polluting fuels, to manage better the use of manures and slurries on agricultural land, and to ensure that non-road mobile machinery is effectively policed, among other measures.
My hon. Friend asks specifically about urban transport pollution. Last year, the Government published their UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations. The plan allocated over £3 billion to help to reduce harmful NOx emissions, including £475 million to local authorities to enable them to develop their own air quality plans. Since then we have been working with local authorities to help them to deliver specific solutions. We have also issued ministerial directions to 61 local authorities to ensure that they live up to their shared responsibilities.
Our plan committed us to phasing out the sale of conventional diesel and petrol cars by 2040 and taking them off the road altogether by 2050. This is more ambitious than any European Union requirement and puts Britain in the lead among major developed economies. Alongside that commitment we are dedicating £1.5 billion to the development of zero and ultra-low emission vehicles, including support for new charging points across the country.
We were of course helped in the preparation of our clean air strategy by the excellent report produced earlier this year by the Chairs of the Select Committee on Health, the Select Committee on Transport and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In their excellent report on air quality, the joint Select Committees recommended introducing a new clean air Act. We will indeed be introducing primary legislation to clean up our air. They suggested that we initiate a new health campaign. As the Secretary of State for Health has emphasised, we will be introducing a personal messaging system to ensure that those most at risk receive the information that they need about pollution risks.
It was also recommended that we place health and environment, rather than simply technical compliance, at the centre of our strategy. We do that with ambitious new targets that match World Health Organisation metrics on improving air quality. Of course, we were also asked to reduce emissions from tyres and braking—the so-called Oslo effect—and today we have announced action to work with manufacturers to do just that.
Emissions have fallen consistently since 2010, and my predecessors in this role are to be commended for the action that they have taken, but today’s strategy marks the most ambitious steps yet to accelerate our progress towards cleaner air. I commend the strategy to the House.
Neil Parish
I thank the Secretary of State very much for publishing the clean air strategy today. I know that he feels very passionately about this and works very strongly to get our air cleaner in this country. I also welcome the proposals for improving air quality. That demonstrates progress. However, I am concerned that the strategy is not as wide-ranging as it could be. I welcome the fact that we seem to be cleaning up our wood-burning stoves. We also need to deal with agricultural pollution but, in particular, we need to deal with the hotspots in our inner cities.
The strategy says that, to reduce particulate emissions from tyre and brake wear, the Government will work with international partners to develop new international regulations for particulate emissions from tyres and brakes through the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. I very much welcome that, but is it adequate? To cut the levels of particulate matter from vehicles, the Government should reduce the need for private vehicles in congested urban areas by improving public transport and by making sure that public transport is much cleaner. We have done a lot in London but we need to do much across the rest of our cities in this great country.
It is not clear that the Government have taken on board our report’s key finding that Departments are not necessarily working together effectively. This is not a criticism of the Secretary of State; it is very much to say that we need to work more with Transport to deliver many of the solutions.
Will the Secretary of State support our calls for conventional petrol and diesel engine cars to be phased out by 2040? Will he offer more support and resources to local councils to improve their air quality so that this can be tackled at a local level as well as a national level? Can we be sure that all the monitoring systems through DEFRA and through local authorities actually work?
I welcome the fact that there will be new powers for the Transport Secretary to compel manufacturers to recall vehicles for any failures in their emissions control systems and to make tampering illegal. I still continue to ask why Volkswagen has got away with what it did and why we did not do enough to make sure that it was brought to book. That is not you, Secretary of State—that is the Transport Secretary. However, can the Secretary of State offer more support for cleaner fuels that consumers can use in vehicles, especially bioethanol—E10—in petrol? That is good not only for the environment but for farmers who supply the wheat that makes the bioethanol in the first place.
Michael Gove
As you have indicated, Mr Speaker, I think we are all admiring of the Select Committee Chair for managing to pack into his allotted time so much that was useful. I will do my very best to reply appropriately.
My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the way in which tyres and brakes generate particulate matter that finds its way into the air and contributes to air pollution. We will be working with manufacturers, exactly as he says, in order to deal with this method of pollution. He is also right that particulate matter is a particular problem with regard to public health. One of the biggest generators of particulate matter is domestic wood burning and coal burning. The clean air strategy goes further than ever before in making sure that we can deal with both those means of generating particulate matter.
My hon. Friend asks that we improve public transport. Specifically with regard to NOx emissions, the diesel vehicles on which so many rely for public transport—buses and so on—do need to be modernised. We work with local authorities to ensure that there is appropriate retrofitting of these vehicles so that the diesel emissions that contribute to poor air quality can be effectively dealt with. We are spending £475 million with local authorities to ensure that they can have bespoke solutions. That can involve the retrofitting of public transport. It can also involve engineering solutions to bring down the concentration of harmful emissions in particular areas.
My hon. Friend makes a point about the 2040 target. I completely agree that it is important to hit that target. He also draws attention to the fact that some motor manufacturers, in effect, attempted to get around regulations in order to produce vehicles for sale that did not meet the requirements for air quality that we would all want to see. We can all reflect on the way in which the regulation, which was of course fixed at EU level, did not work effectively. There has been reference, and I know there will be subsequent reference, to the court cases that have found a number of EU countries, including Britain, to be in breach of EU law on this matter. The truth is that one of the reasons Britain and other countries are in breach of EU law is that there are vehicles on our streets that had technical compliance with EU rules but, in terms of real-world emissions, were not fit for our use.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
What we needed from the Government today was a comprehensive clean air strategy to show that they are really serious about tackling this public health emergency, but what we have instead is yet another consultation, which has a focus on emissions from agriculture and wood burning and is weak on cutting roadside pollution from diesel vehicles. It is worth remembering that, since the general election, there have been 25 DEFRA consultations and not one piece of primary legislation delivered.
We know that air pollution is responsible for at least 40,000 premature deaths every year. We know that it is particularly harmful to our children and our vulnerable elderly people. Effective national action must be taken to address the emissions from road transport that are contributing to illegal and harmful levels of pollution. The UK is currently routinely responsible for exceeding the legal levels of pollution. Today’s strategy states that the Government aim to halve the number of people living in unsafe levels of pollution by 2025, but that is simply not good enough. If today’s announcement is the extent of their ambition, it poses a serious question about whether this Conservative Government can really be trusted with our environment and with dealing with illegal air pollution after the UK leaves the EU.
The strategy still does not legally provide for a network of mandatory clean air zones, which DEFRA’s own analysis shows is the quickest and most cost-effective way to bring NOx levels down to legal levels. Yet again, we see more shunting of new responsibilities on to our cash-strapped local authorities, which have been cut to the bone by the Government’s unrelenting austerity agenda. All the new promises we have heard today will mean very little if local councils do not have the money or the resources to implement them.
The Government say time and again that they are committed to this being the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it in, but I see no evidence of actual action being taken to deliver that. Anything being mooted by the Government on tackling air pollution will be effective only if there is a serious and independent environmental regulator after Brexit to hold the Government to account, but the Government’s recently announced environment watchdog has been roundly condemned as entirely toothless.
Labour has been calling for primary legislation on air quality since the last election. This Government only ever take action on illegal air pollution when they have been held over a barrel in the courts. I remind the House that there have been three legal challenges and a referral to the European Court of Justice. When will the Government treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves? The time for half-measures and public consultation has to end. We need real action now to tackle this public health emergency.
Michael Gove
I thank the hon. Lady for her points. She asks for a comprehensive strategy. That is what we have produced today. She specifically refers to our target to ensure that half of the population live in areas that meet World Health Organisation standards for air quality by 2025. What she omitted to tell the House is that this Government are putting forward a more ambitious aspiration for the cleanliness of our air than any other Government in a developed nation. It seems that, in her desire to be grudging, she failed to share with the House the detail of our ambition.
The hon. Lady asked about clean air zones. Clean air zones can be implemented by local authorities if they believe that that is the right solution. We on the Government Benches believe in the “local” in local government. It is right for local authorities to make an appropriate decision, depending on the circumstances in that area. A one-size-fits-all approach imposed from the centre may be appropriate in the Marxist-Leninist world of the Corbynistas, but we believe that it is appropriate to work with local authorities and metro Mayors. When necessary, we will apply ministerial directions, but it is appropriate to have the right approach for each individual area.
The hon. Lady asked about primary legislation. Let me remind her that a Labour Government were in place for 13 years, and how many pieces of primary legislation did they bring in on air quality? How many? It was a Conservative Government who brought in the Clean Air Act 1956 and a Conservative Government who brought in clean air legislation when John Major was Prime Minister, but when Labour was in power, we did not have clean air Acts—we had dirty diesel subsidies.
It was the Labour Government who introduced a deliberate ramping up of the number of diesel cars on our streets. We had a confession recently from none other than the hon. Member for Brent North, a man to whom I always pay close attention. Barry Gardiner admitted—it is perhaps not the first confession he will be making this week—that there is “absolutely no question” that the decision the Labour Government took on diesel was “the wrong decision” and:
“Certainly the impact of that decision has been a massive problem for public health in this country.”
Until we have an apology from those on the Labour Front Bench for the errors that they made, we will take their words on air pollution for the hot air that they manifestly are.
Mr Speaker
I always richly enjoy the Secretary of State’s performances, almost as richly as he does himself. I hope, however, he will not take it amiss if I gently point out that to refer to the hon. Member for Brent North is in order, but to name him is not.
Mr Speaker
It is shocking, as the right hon. Gentleman observes in a disorderly manner from a sedentary position.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The clean air strategy rightly sets out the compelling case for action to reduce public exposure to air pollution in order to save lives and improve the quality of life for many. We also know that there is a compelling case to get Britain moving and get us out of our cars, and that cycling and walking, even where there is a lot of traffic, exposes people to less air pollution than driving. Does the Secretary of State share my disappointment that there is only a single paragraph in the strategy on active travel? I urge him to go further by strengthening measures to get people out of their cars and, where possible, on to their bikes and walking for their benefit.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a vital point. Today’s strategy deals with a number of sources of air pollution, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport for showing leadership on precisely the area that she draws attention to. We have spent £1.2 billion on a cycling and walking investment strategy. When my colleague the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was Mayor of London, he introduced a cycle lane network across the capital, which has contributed hugely to an increase in the number of people cycling across the capital. I absolutely believe that we need to have a switch away from an over-reliance on traditional internal combustion engines, towards new modes of transport, and part of that is making sure that we can cycle and walk wherever possible.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
In Scotland we have achieved progressively clean air over recent years through increasingly strict control of industrial emissions, tighter fuel and emissions standards for road vehicles and control of smoke from domestic premises. However, after going to court numerous times, the UK Government are not taking serious action. They are just dragging their feet by announcing yet another consultation. As has just been said, the Secretary of State has issued more than 25 consultations since the 2017 general election, but none has yet produced new laws.
The Government’s own research shows that clean air zones are the most effective solution to air pollution, so why are they ignoring their own advice? Surely they should follow the Scottish National party Government, who are funding low emission zones to take the most polluting vehicles out of the most polluted areas of Scotland. The Health Secretary has said that
“Air pollution is contributing to a national health crisis.”
Why is the Environment Secretary ignoring his own Cabinet colleagues and not taking serious action now?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He makes the point about the number of consultations we have brought forward. Call me old-fashioned, but I think it is appropriate to consult before one legislates. I think it is absolutely right to make sure that we take account of the views of the citizens of this country and interested parties before moving to legislate. However, I note that in his demand for us to legislate was implicit Scottish National party support for the laws that we will bring forward. I will bank that kind offer of support from the SNP for the legislation that we will feel necessary to bring forward in due course.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Scottish Government have shown leadership on this issue. Indeed, I am happy to acknowledge that there are members of the Scottish Government, whether it is Roseanna Cunningham or others, who take an approach to the environment that dovetails with our own, and I enjoy working with them. The hard work behind the scenes that both Governments exhibit to improve our environment is sometimes not reflected in the exchanges we have on the Floor of the House, so I want to take this opportunity to thank the Scottish Government for the work that they do behind the scenes to advance our shared environment. It is vital, as we leave the European Union, that there is effective working across the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom to achieve the goals that we all share.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is action he could take now that would not cost the Government money and would not require him to legislate further? Regulation 98 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 states that it is already an offence to leave an engine idling when stuck in traffic or at traffic lights. Is he aware of Westminster City Council’s “Don’t Be Idle” campaign? Why do we not put some beef behind that campaign, spread it across the country and do something now that would really help, would not cost money and would make a big difference?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The phenomenon of idling engines—often, ironically, outside the very schools whose children we most want to protect from deteriorating air quality—does require action to be taken. I commend my hon. Friend for pointing out the leadership shown by Westminster, among many other councils, and I believe we need a wider application of the already existing powers that local authorities have to deal with this.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Our joint Select Committees report called for ambitious, co-ordinated cross-departmental action, yet there is virtually nothing in the Secretary of State’s new strategy to tackle the impact of road traffic. As the Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) has said, modal shift gets two paragraphs and active travel just three sentences. He has clearly rejected a ban on diesel and petrol cars before 2040. Can he point to a single measure or funding pot that he is announcing today that will better align urban planning, public transport and fiscal incentives, as our Committees recommended?
Michael Gove
It is important to realise that there was widespread recognition in the report produced by the hon. Lady and other Select Committee Chairs that road transport was simply one of the sources of air pollution. In this strategy, we are complementing what was already announced last year in our roadside NOx emissions strategy, with action on ports, air travel and trains, which is a signal of the determined efforts we are taking across the Government to deal with all the sources of air pollution.
The hon. Lady says that we should move faster than to get rid of internal combustion engines by 2040, but I have to say to her that no other major developed economy is taking that step. We need to take a balanced approach towards setting a firm deadline for moving away from conventional petrol and diesel engines, while also providing industry with the time to adjust.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Precisely what are my right hon. Friend’s plans to interfere with my fireplaces and my bonfire?
Michael Gove
I know that my right hon. Friend is one of the most responsible dwellers in the New Forest. He would never burn wet wood or coal with a high level of bitumen; only the driest and most parched twigs will find their way on to his fire and he will use only the appropriate and less smoky coal. I also know that he lives in one of the most beautiful parts of rural Hampshire, and as a result any emissions he generates are unlikely to form a particularly toxic cloud.
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State is obviously immensely familiar with the right hon. Gentleman’s domestic arrangements, and we are all greatly fortified by the knowledge of that important fact.
Mr Speaker
For the benefit of those attending to our proceedings, the right hon. Gentleman says that the Secretary of State is very kind, but quite right, so there we are. We all feel a bit better informed.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Over the past 30 years, the cost of motoring has fallen by 20%, while the cost of bus travel has risen by 64%. Will the Secretary of State do what he can to reverse those figures? Will he look in particular at the situation in Brighton and Hove? He has written to me about my concern that data on NO2 exceedances in the city are not being taken properly into account by the Government. Does he acknowledge that we have such exceedances in our city, and if so, will he look again at our grounds for appealing the decision not to award us money from the clean bus technology fund?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. I will look at that decision. I recognise that it is important to have accurate measuring of exceedances, but as the hon. Lady will acknowledge, one of the reasons why we have them is that the current Euro 6 diesel cars have been found to emit six times the lab test limit on average, and the new regulations that have come into effect do not accurately ensure that we can bring down exceedances to the level that we both want to see.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is a friend, rightly, of the bees and of the fish, but he also needs to be a friend of hard-pressed motorists. The fact is that, as he acknowledged, diesel motorists were told by the previous Government to buy such cars, and his plans will give a green light to many local authorities up and down the country to whack taxes on to diesel car owners. Will my right hon. Friend look at this again? It has happened in London, and motorists are taxed far too heavily, so will he change these plans?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend has been a consistent champion of small businesses and of those who rely on diesel vehicles to provide the services on which we all, more broadly, rely. As the nature of the debate in the House indicates, a balance needs to be struck. That balance is between recognising that there is an appropriate place in the next couple of decades for diesel as part of the transport mix—where either the private sector or local authorities can find support for a scrappage scheme, we will of course endorse and do what we can to facilitate that—and, as well as making sure that small business can thrive, ensuring that our children, critically, are protected from the greatest concentrations of pollution that we find in some urban areas.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right that local authorities have a big role to play in this, but they could do an awful lot more if they had the resources. Central Government have an even bigger role to play. In Tinsley in my constituency, NO2 levels are regularly above safe limits because it is next to the M1 motorway, which is a central Government responsibility. What are the Government going to do about that, apart from adding an extra lane to the motorway? In Sheffield city centre, the pollution hotspot is around Sheffield station because of diesel trains, yet this Government have just cancelled the electrification of the midland main line. When are we going to get some joined-up government on this matter?
Michael Gove
I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman for all the work he has done both to ensure that the case for appropriate support for local government is made and to ensure, when it comes to planning, that we all take a thoughtful approach that takes the environment into account. However, there is one more thing he could do, which is to have a word with his Labour colleagues on Sheffield City Council and ask them to stop the tree felling campaign in which they are engaged. If we want to deal effectively with air pollution, one of the things we can do is to continue to ensure that trees—they not only act as a source of beauty and natural wonder but contribute to the fight against air pollution—are allowed to survive, rather than being chopped down by a council that is, I am afraid, in thrall to its own officers.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
A properly targeted diesel scrappage scheme would enable us to get rid of the most polluting cars on our streets, and if it was properly targeted it could be done without hammering those people on the lowest incomes. Will my right hon. Friend commit to pressing the Treasury to agree to such a scheme, because ultimately it will have to do so?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The success of any scrappage scheme depends on effective targeting. What we cannot do—it would be irresponsible—would be to use public money to subsidise people who are already making a choice to get rid of a particular vehicle. The deadweight cost associated with that would not be money appropriately spent. He makes the very good point that if we can effectively target such vehicles and find the individuals whom we can incentivise to move towards a green and more sustainable method of transport, we should of course support such measures. I am entirely open-minded about any proposals that might come forward, whether from metro Mayors, local authorities or others.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State noted the very striking finding in our joint Committees report that the fumes and pollution inside a vehicle are 10 times worse than those outside a vehicle? As part of the public information campaign that he has just announced, will he ensure that it is directed at parents who drive their children to school, thinking they are protecting them when they are actually doing them much more harm than if they walked or cycled, as well as exposing other people’s children and families to more pollution and congestion?
Michael Gove
Absolutely spot on. I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. All of us need to know more about the sources of air pollution, and he is absolutely right. I did not appreciate that until the Select Committees brought it to my attention, and I am grateful to him for bringing it to the attention of a wider audience today.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
There are three hotspots in my own constituency all of which are in towns. What are we going to do to increase electric charging facilities in those places to overcome this problem?
Michael Gove
We have devoted £1.5 billion overall to supporting the growth of zero and ultra-low emissions vehicles, including a wider network of charge points, but I think there is more that we can do. One of the things I will be exploring with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Housing, Communities and Local Government is how we can do everything possible—both in planning and in the legislation that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), is bringing forward—to build on the leadership that my hon. Friend has shown.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Everyone has the right to clean air, including people in villages such as North Hinksey and market towns such as Abingdon in my constituency, yet those places have hotspots, and those sorts of conurbations are not mentioned at all in the clean air strategy. Will the Secretary of State confirm that his ambitions extend to smaller conurbations, not just cities?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes a good point. There are concentrations of poor air quality not just in our major cities but in other areas. There can be a combination of factors, including roadside emissions and emissions from domestic heating. Critically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, acknowledged, sometimes emissions also come from agriculture. The strategy commits us to providing support for all those sectors, to move towards a cleaner future.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
In my constituency, the badly thought through planning policy of the failing Labour council is failing properly to take into account the critical issue of air quality. How will today’s announcement improve my constituents’ lives, given that at the moment they are at the mercy of a failing Labour local authority?
Michael Gove
The powers envisaged in the consultation will allow local authorities to act on everything, from unwise choices made about domestic heat generation to making sure that some of the diesel machinery involved in construction and for other purposes is appropriately licensed and controlled. I note that, following recent local election results, it seems that the leadership shown by my hon. Friend has been recognised by voters in his constituency, who have moved away from their previous allegiance.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State outline progress on E10 regulations, on proper investment in hydrogen vehicles and on what is being done to tackle secondary generators and transport refrigeration units?
Michael Gove
On secondary generators and other generators of emissions, we are giving local authorities and others powers to deal with the consequences of poor air quality as a result of their deployment.
More broadly, on hydrogen and other vehicles, the Department for Transport is neutral about future technologies but supportive of the investment required to ensure that a suitable range of technologies is available. One of the key features of the legislation being brought forward by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, which originated under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), is to facilitate precisely the type of innovation that the hon. Gentleman alludes to.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman in question is in our midst, and that fact will not have gone unnoticed.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that new primary legislation announced today will give authorities such as Cornwall Council the power they need to protect communities such as Tideford and Gunnislake in my constituency from air pollution?
Michael Gove
Absolutely; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. We want to work in partnership, and local authorities such as Cornwall Council can make sure that the communities in her constituency—in particular the children who attend primary schools in those communities—can be protected from the impact of air pollution. I am grateful to her for championing much of the work in this consultation throughout her time in this House.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has repeatedly told the House that the UK leads the way in phasing out combustion engines by 2040, but he must keep up to date with current events in the German Bundesrat, which has already passed legislation for them to be phased out in Germany by 2030. We also believe that in China combustion engines will be phased out by 2030. That makes our policy a laughing stock in the world.
Michael Gove
There are some countries, including some outside the European Union such as Norway, that have a more ambitious target than our own. However, I do not think that the legislation has yet been given effect in Germany.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may seek to control what goes into them, but may I invite him to confirm that he has no intention of introducing a ban on wood-burning stoves? Manufacturers, retailers and users of them in the UK will be listening very carefully to what he has to say. Such stoves are an important part of domestic heating.
Michael Gove
We have been working with the domestic heating industry to ensure that higher standards can prevail in future. We want to ensure that all stoves sold in future meet those new higher standards.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I commend to the Secretary of State the clean air Bill proposed by my colleague Simon Thomas in the National Assembly for Wales. In the spirit of the decentralised approach that he proposes, what consideration have the British Government given to devolving vehicle excise duty and fuel taxes to Wales, so that the Welsh Government can have a revenue stream to implement alternative transport solutions?
Michael Gove
I am all in favour of devolution, but any questions about vehicle excise duty or taxation are properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, I met Simon Thomas and some of his colleagues from the Welsh Assembly a couple of weeks ago. I was hugely impressed by the work that they are doing, and I would like to work closely with the Assembly and the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s move towards phasing out petrol and diesel cars, but the key part will be the charging infrastructure, particularly for when people are away from home—when they are visiting Torbay this bank holiday, for example. Will the Secretary outline what plans the Government have to develop the necessary infrastructure?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are investing £1.5 billion, but it is also important for us to reflect on where people are likely to find themselves at particular times of the year—now and in years to come. One of the things that many of us will be doing this coming bank holiday weekend will be visiting beautiful English seaside resorts such as Torbay. It is important that, as they move towards cleaner and greener forms of transport, people have the opportunity to enjoy the natural beauty of the southern riviera without polluting the air at the same time.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On the subject of natural beauty, Hull was one of 49 UK towns and cities that failed World Health Organisation standards for air pollution.
I want to return to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). What discussions has the Secretary of State actually had with the Transport Secretary about the scrapping of rail electrification schemes and his championing of bimodal trains which, as I understand it, will still pollute the air?
Michael Gove
We have had extensive discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport, who has been leading efforts to ensure not only that we can scrap diesel trains altogether at an appropriate point, but that we can ensure that there are appropriate alternatives to those that exist at the moment.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The use of dirty coal to generate electricity in our country plummeted by 25% last year, and such generation now stands at less than 7% of the overall energy mix. Will my right hon. Friend recommit the Government to the ambitious target of getting rid of coal completely from the energy mix by 2024 and maintaining the UK’s global leadership in this important field?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point and reminds us of the steps that we have already taken to ensure that we move towards cleaner methods of electricity generation. In that respect, I commend to the House the recent work of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, who has been outstanding in ensuring that we can make the transition to which my hon. Friend alludes.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Government are in the dock at the European Court of Justice for the premature deaths of 40,000 people a year. As we approach Brexit, is it not time that we had a clean air Act with the focus and priority to deliver the standards and enforcement institutions that we enjoy in Europe? We should at least match the 2030 targets for the Netherlands, Ireland and Germany so that we do not end up being the dirty, coughing man of Europe.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. He has been in the lead among Members in pressing for primary legislation, and we acknowledge the need for such legislation in the strategy. I know the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make—it was also made by the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis)—but it is important to remind the House that the vote in the Bundesrat was non-binding. What we have in this country are binding commitments that we are determined to meet, and that is a significant contrast.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Yesterday I met representatives of Honda and BMW, both of which are determined to make a difference in this important area. Will the Secretary of State urge his colleagues to provide more clarity on the use of hybrid engines and technology as a way to help to reduce emissions year on year?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The existing motor companies will play a critical role in ensuring that we can move towards a more sustainable and cleaner method of providing personal transport. He is absolutely right that hybrids will have a role to play. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be saying more about that in due course, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and other Members who represent manufacturing and industrial sectors for the constructive way in which they have helped to bring people together.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am sure that the Environment Secretary gets very frustrated with the Treasury dragging its feet on some of the initiatives he wants to push forward. It was recently reported that the £400 million plan for electric car charging infrastructure is being held up by the Treasury because it has not even recruited somebody to be in charge of the private sector investment element—it says it will recruit this summer—so will he please put a rocket under the Treasury and tell it that while people want to buy electric cars, they will not do so unless the infrastructure is in place?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for trying to present the issue in the way she did. The truth is that I cannot think of anyone in this House, apart from possibly my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who is cleaner—keener, rather—on investment. [Laughter.] He is very clean. Cleanliness is next to godliness. I do not think there is anyone in this House who is keener on moving towards ultra low emission vehicles than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As Transport Secretary and in his current role, he has led efforts across the Government to make sure we are moving in the right direction. I do not think it is at all fair to criticise him or the Treasury in that regard.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I declare an interest as the owner of two very efficient renewable fuel-burning wood stoves. On traffic emissions, it was recently discovered that the monitoring equipment in Shoreham high street had been broken for several years, which might explain the fact that Shoreham’s air quality is always deemed to be good. Volunteers have now had to carry out those tests. If we are to be serious about the quality of the air, may we put a duty on local authorities to properly maintain accurate and reliable equipment?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I will investigate what we can do.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than pursuing HS2, a greater priority would be the introduction of regional public transport schemes to electrify our rail lines, and to encourage the introduction of hydrogen and electric buses in our towns and cities?
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
The development of electric vehicle battery technology will be crucial to encouraging a supply side revolution in the uptake of electric vehicles, which would help to reduce emissions in urban areas. What progress has the Secretary of State made, jointly with the Department for Transport, in this area?
Michael Gove
We have been working with not just the Department for Transport, but the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to ensure that we can make Britain the most attractive home for new technologies. It is striking that great British inventors such as Sir James Dyson have dedicated themselves to ensuring that Britain can compete with competitors such as Elon Musk’s Tesla to provide the right technology for clean, green, effective and sustainable transport in the future.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The clean air strategy says that during the transition to zero emission vehicles
“we will ensure the cleanest conventional vehicles are driven on our roads.”
The Secretary of State will know that most people buy second-hand cars, not new ones. Under changes introduced by this Government, vehicle excise duty rates for used cars registered after March 2017 make no distinction whatever between those that produce lower levels of carbon dioxide and pollutants that are harmful to air quality, and those that produce higher emissions. How is that compatible with a promise to ensure that the cleanest conventional vehicles are driven on our roads?
Michael Gove
It is the case that the increase in vehicle excise duty on new cars is helping to contribute to ensuring that local authorities receive the money they require to have appropriate clean air strategies. I think that any keen student of the second-hand car market would recognise that the value and resale value of diesels has fallen, reflecting the fact that people know that they need to move away from that polluting form of transport.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
With a characteristic mix of insight and eloquence, the Secretary of State has once again made the case for extending the electric charging infrastructure, thereby addressing one of the reasons why people do not buy electric cars. He will know that when we debated these matters in the House—he paid tribute to my pioneering of that legislation—one of the reasons for local authorities’ frankly inconsistent application regarding on-street parking was that the guidance was not strong enough. Will he now ensure that all local authorities make provision for electric charging infrastructure on streets?
If I might just add, Mr Speaker, I initiated a competition as Minister for the design of such infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State reinvigorate that competition so that the charging infrastructure is one day as iconic as the pillar box or a Gilbert Scott telephone box?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes two very important points. On the first point, we absolutely need to make sure that the infrastructure is there, and his second point is also important. One of the reasons why we cherish the environment is natural beauty. When we think about the steps we take to safeguard and enhance natural beauty, we should think about man’s contribution to making sure that the aesthetics around us reflect the best of us. The best of us is, of course, exemplified by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
My constituents and Londoners more generally want more ambitious measures implemented, and sooner, than are outlined in the Government’s strategy. They breathe in toxic fumes on a daily basis. Why has London been exempted from the clean air fund?
Michael Gove
We have specific arrangements with the Mayor of London to ensure we can help him to meet his ambitions. I saw the Mayor last night. I do not expect him to endorse everything in this package, but I find his constructive approach to working with central Government to improve air quality heartening. We will continue to work with him. A little while back the Mayor himself said that while resolving road emissions was critical to improving air quality, there are many other things that the Government are required to do. It was partly a result of what the Mayor said that we brought forward the strategy today.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
There are 40,000 premature deaths nationally, with 10,000 in London, and the schools in my constituency fare among the worst. What impact assessment has the Secretary of State’s Department done to consider how many deaths would be prevented under the new strategy compared with if the Government committed to a clean air Act and phasing out diesel engine use by 2030?
Michael Gove
One thing we have done is to work with the academic community. Indeed, I met some of its members yesterday at Imperial College, one of our best universities, to look at the impact of the steps we are already taking to improve public health and to save money for the Exchequer. By definition, that work is publicly available to all. I take on board the hon. Lady’s point. We are bringing forward primary legislation. We can use the model that has been constructed to see how different impacts could be generated by different policies, and I look forward to sharing those results with her.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Emissions from road traffic cause the majority of air pollution in my constituency. Given that the M4 and traffic related to Heathrow are outside the purview of the London Mayor and the London Borough of Hounslow, how exactly will the Government ensure that post-Brexit regulatory regimes will have the same powers as their current European equivalents?
Michael Gove
On the first point, I want to make sure that, as we envisage the expansion of aviation capacity across the south-east, we do everything possible to make sure that all contributors to air quality in the relevant areas are taken properly into account as part of a balanced approach towards policy. On the second point, we are consulting on what shape a new environmental regulator should take.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Hope Street in my constituency has long been acknowledged as one of the most polluted streets in Scotland, so I am sure that the Secretary of State will have been as glad as I was to see that Councillor Anna Richardson is bringing forward a low emission zone in Glasgow as one of the first acts of the SNP city government. One of the inhibitors to the success of low emission zones is of course haulage and bus transport. Will he tell us a bit more about what conversations he has had with those industries about progressing to more environmentally friendly vehicles?
Michael Gove
We have been keen to make sure, certainly when it applies to buses and public transport, that we make money available to local authorities for appropriate retrofitting. Hauliers recognise that there will need to be a shift. One of the things we need to do—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is doing this—is to make sure that we can move to a more efficient method of haulage in the future.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I was pleased that the Secretary of State raised electric vehicles in his opening remarks, as I have been pursuing this issue since I came to this place. I have created a nine-point plan, which I raised with the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth and more recently with the roads Minister in a debate on electric vehicles in Westminster Hall. The ideas include matching Joint Air Quality Unit funding with Office for Low Emission Vehicles funding and getting three-phase electric points. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss all nine points of my plan?
Mr Speaker
Order. A point of order would ordinarily come later. Does it appertain to these exchanges?
Mr Speaker
And is it uncontentious and not a continuation of debate, but an honest pursuit of truth by the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee?
Mr Speaker
Very good. I will give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt.
Mr Betts
I am sure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would not want an inaccurate statement to go uncorrected. He said that Sheffield City Council was felling trees and that that was adding to the pollution problems in the city. The truth is that while there has been some contention about the removal and replacement of some trees on some streets, overall there will be more trees in Sheffield at the end of the programme than at the beginning, and the city will have low-energy LED street lights throughout, which I hope the Secretary of State will welcome.
Mr Speaker
It is always useful to have a bit of additional information. We have learnt a bit more about the Sheffield tree situation, which is potentially reassuring. If the Secretary of State wishes to leap to his feet to respond, he is welcome to do so.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman signals that he is content, such is the—
Mr Speaker
Well, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees, but he gives no evidence of disagreement. The emollient tone of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has served his purpose for now—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) chunters from a sedentary position that this is an explosive issue. I do not know whether it is—[Interruption.] Locally; well, that may well be so. Very good, honour is served.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe following the new charges brought against her in Iran.
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and constancy in relation to the needs of her constituent and the families. We remain deeply concerned for all our dual national detainees in Iran, including Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and we are doing everything we can for them, including trying to secure access and ensure their welfare. We will continue to approach the case in a way that we judge is most likely to secure the outcome that we all want. Therefore, the hon. Lady and the House will forgive me if I am limited in my comments on her case and those of other dual nationals, both at the moment and in relation to any continuing developments.
The Prime Minister raised all our consular cases in a telephone call with President Rouhani on 13 May and the Foreign Secretary raised the cases in a meeting with Foreign Minister Zarif in Brussels last week. I also raised the cases with my contacts with Iran. Our ambassador in Tehran has raised concerns with the Iranians at the highest levels and spoke by telephone with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe this Sunday. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials are in regular contact with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s families.
Tulip Siddiq
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his update, and I have a few questions for him. Will the Government make it clear today that they will condemn the new charges brought against my constituent and call for her immediate release? Ministers have said that they will not provide a running commentary on the case, but when we met the Foreign Secretary in November, he promised that he would leave no stone unturned. I press the Minister to update the house on how his strategy is being conducted in practice.
Will the Minister update the House on whether the historic debt owed by Britain to Iran has been paid, and when is the next court date scheduled? Nazanin spoke to our ambassador to Iran after meeting the judge, and she requested that he sign a formal letter of protest to the Iranian Government. Will the Minister confirm that this constitutes an overdue acceptance from the Iranian judiciary that Nazanin is indeed British? Will he say whether he anticipates that this will lead to further consular protections being granted? Will he today confirm that the ambassador will send the note of protest that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has requested? Will the Minister press the Iranian authorities to allow Nazanin temporary release to spend Gabriella’s—her daughter who went with her to Iran—fourth birthday with her?
I finish by saying that I bring these questions to the House in good faith. All we want in West Hampstead is for Nazanin to return home. All our constituents, including her husband, Richard, who is in the Public Gallery today, believe that Nazanin is innocent. She is British, and she deserves to know what her Government are doing to secure her release and to reunite her with her families back home.
Alistair Burt
I refer to remarks I made earlier about how we intend to conduct the case and the answers that I can give to the hon. Lady’s questions. We remain of the assessment that a private, rather than public, approach is most likely to result in progress in Nazanin’s case and ultimately, her release, which is all any of us want.
I can answer one or two questions. On diplomatic protection, the FCO is in discussion with Mr Ratcliffe and his legal representatives on the merits of a claim for diplomatic protection. It would be remiss of me to comment any further until these discussions have concluded. I am not making any comments about the charges or anything similar.
As I have said, our ambassador spoke to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe on Sunday. He assured her that we continue to prioritise the case and do everything we can to bring about her release, including requesting consular access, requesting access to medical reports and requesting a temporary furlough so that she can indeed celebrate Gabriella’s birthday with her family.
On the International Military Services issue, we do not share the view that the IMS debt or any other bilateral issue is the reason for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s detention. The UK has always been clear, both publicly and in private discussions with Iran, that the two issues are entirely separate, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has publicly stated on several occasions that there is no link. We will meet our legal obligations in relation to the debt, and funding to settle the debt was transferred to the High Court several years ago.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Foreign Office advice relies on the fact that this experience is a powerful corrective to any notion of dual nationals that they might return to Iran?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. We publish our advice on travel to Iran on our website—it is public—and the issue of dual nationals is specifically mentioned.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. It is deeply regrettable that we need to be standing here again asking an urgent question on the plight of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. It was only in November last year that the shadow Foreign Secretary—my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—tabled an urgent question on the case of Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe, yet sadly here we are once more.
This week’s events only further highlight the pressing need for urgent action to end the arbitrary and illegal detention without due process of a British citizen who has been incarcerated in Tehran’s Evin prison since April 2016. The Iranian judiciary has now brought a second false charge against Nazanin and has denied her access to a lawyer. However, even to this day, the Government have yet formally to call for her release. They have stated that they have raised the concerns of Nazanin’s family with the Iranian Government, but have not formally called for her release. Is that not the lowest possible expectation a British citizen can have of their Government, and should not the Minister call for her release today?
However, it is good to hear that for the first time since her arrest, Nazanin was allowed direct contact with the UK embassy in Tehran. What is the Minister’s assessment of this development? Does he believe that it signals that the Iranian regime is finally starting to treat Nazanin as a British citizen? What action has the British embassy in Iran taken to ensure that Nazanin is able to access the legal support, including access to a lawyer, to which she is entitled during any further hearings?
The Foreign Secretary has repeatedly mentioned that he has spoken to his counterpart, Foreign Minister Zarif, about these issues, but he will know as much as anyone that Nazanin’s fate ultimately lies with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Will the Minister of State today explain what pressure has been placed on the IRGC to ensure Nazanin’s release? Has the Foreign Secretary actually made any efforts to meet those elements in the regime who are really responsible for Nazanin’s detention in order to call for her release?
Alistair Burt
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions, but I am unable and unwilling to answer many of them—in the circumstances I outlined earlier, it would not be appropriate—and I know he would not press me to deal with the detail of the negotiations and their handling between us and the Iranian Government in such a sensitive case. I can well understand the reasons for the questions, which were all perfectly fair, as were those of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), but their position is different from mine in terms of dealing with the answers.
Like everyone, I share the sense of regret that we still have to discuss this in the way we do—even though we are limited in how we can talk about it—but I can only repeat the assurances I gave a moment ago: at the highest levels here in the UK, with the Prime Minister’s call to President Rouhani and the Foreign Secretary’s intervention, and through our ambassador’s interventions, we continue to call for access and the temporary furlough. We are doing all we can in our belief that this is the right way to handle this delicate situation. I do not think it would be appropriate or helpful, however, to deal with some of the hon. Gentleman’s questions.
There is no indication yet of any change in the attitude of the Iranian authorities towards Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s status, and we are having to work with what we have, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that no conversation goes by at any senior level in which these issues are not raised. Our consular team handle this very carefully, and representations will continue to be made, but as I indicated, to deal with every single part of this would not be the appropriate way to help Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her families.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The shocking news reported last night that a judge in Iran has told the jailed British-Iranian teacher, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, that he expects her to be convicted on a new charge of
“spreading propaganda against the regime”
is truly appalling. As Amnesty International has stated,
“this is yet another body blow for Nazanin”,
who, we must remember, has denied all the charges brought against her. Can the Minister confirm that the future of Nazanin is not enmeshed in the long-standing British debt of more than £300 million and that this has been agreed by both Governments? Does he also agree that now is the time to issue a demarche, as Nazanin discussed with the UK ambassador, given the treatment she has so far received and does he further agree that she has already been subjected to a blatantly unfair trial and sentence? Finally, will he now agree to significantly escalate the UK Government’s response to Nazanin’s plight by asking for the Prime Minister’s personal intervention so that this further injustice can be brought to an end swiftly? This has been going on for far too long.
Alistair Burt
Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s last remark about the time. First, as I indicated earlier, there is no link between the debt owed by the UK and the dual national cases. Secondly, it is not appropriate at this stage to deal with the detail of any particular type of contact between the embassy and the Iranian Government. On escalating the matter still further, the Prime Minister has already raised the matter, which is being handled at the highest level by the British Government.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
As a result of Nazanin’s treatment in prison, Redress has written to many of us asking for the intervention of the UN special rapporteur on torture. What action will the UK Government take to protect Nazanin from any further torture and ill treatment and to ensure she receives an independent medical examination and any necessary treatment in compliance with international law? Does the Minister agree with Redress that the UN special rapporteur should intervene?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer to the urgent question. Does he not agree that the time has come to use all our diplomatic influence, and can he confirm what action we can take with our allies collectively to bring about an end to the brutal emotional and physical persecution—it is nothing short of that—of Mrs Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe?
Alistair Burt
As always, the hon. Gentleman speaks from the heart, and his point certainly needs to be considered in this case. The humanitarian circumstances have been made clear to the Iranian authorities. This is a woman separated from her child some time ago. As the House knows, I have met the daughter and family in Tehran, and I am well aware of the circumstances. We make the case on the humanitarian basis as much as we can to indicate the pathway forward, and the UK will continue to do so in a manner that the House would expect and understand.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
When we had a debate on this matter in Westminster Hall last July, I was not the only MP who said that many of their constituents were really exercised by the plight of this lady. I still get emails from constituents about it. Am I really in a position to assure them that the British Government are doing everything they can?
Alistair Burt
The short answer, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), is yes. It is difficult to explain to constituents who would like to believe that the answer to everything happening abroad lies here, but it does not. We will do everything we can, and are doing so, not only in this case but in the cases of other dual nationals. We will not know how successful that is until the happy day when she and others are released.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her tenacity on behalf of her constituent. Last November, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he was willing to hold discussions with the Iranian authorities about their targeting of the BBC Persian service—not only journalists in the UK but their families in Iran. There are real fears for their safety. Can the Minister update the House?
Alistair Burt
Yes, I can assure the hon. Lady, whose own tenacity in other respects also deserves commendation, that the issues affecting the BBC Persian service have been raised directly both by the Foreign Secretary and me. We are conscious of the pressures under which they work and the diligence with which they go about their duties, and I can assure her that those matters are indeed raised.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Last year, I met Redress, which has been mentioned already, to discuss not just this case but that of Andy Tsege. It published a report in January saying that more than 100 British citizens a year were reporting being mistreated in jails abroad and not being provided with the humanitarian or consular assistance that the British Government should be giving them. It also says that there is inconsistency in the support provided, particularly for dual nationals. What can the Minister do to assure us that any British national, whether a dual national or not, will receive the same consular support if they find themselves in that position?
Alistair Burt
They are certainly offered all the same support, but the blunt fact is that not all states treat dual nationals the same: some recognise dual nationality and allow access to the UK authorities, others do not accept it and treat the dual national solely as a national of their own state. In those circumstances, they do not believe they are required to give access. I can assure the hon. Lady, however, that in each and every case the UK Government make exactly the same representations seeking access, because we believe that dual nationality means what it says: dual nationality, not sole nationality.[Official Report, 4 June 2018, Vol. 642, c. 1MC.]
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Taking on board the lessons of the mistakes made in this case, will the Government review how they deal with such situations in the future to ensure that no other British citizen has to go through the misery that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family are experiencing at the moment?
Alistair Burt
I wish I could give the hon. Lady the assurance she seeks, but the decisions of foreign courts and states and their impact on UK nationals are not always within the power of the UK to resolve at the speed or in the way we would wish. I can assure her that, as any contact between colleagues and our consular officials should make clear, although every case is individual, note is taken of how cases are handled in particular states so that if there are lessons to learn, they are learned. As I have said, we are sometimes dealing with situations that are not entirely within the United Kingdom’s control, and each case may need to be handled with a different degree of dexterity. People are released from foreign detention every day, unknown to the House, unknown to the press, known only to their families and sometimes to us, so not everything is done publicly; but everything that the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our consular service try to do is for the best in terms of their welfare.
Point of Order
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday a written ministerial statement entitled “Road Haulage Update” was published by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), setting out plans for a solution to the problems of Operation Stack, and explaining how the Government intend to avoid queues 20 miles long should customs checks be introduced post-Brexit.
This is an issue of strategic national importance, which, if mishandled, will devastate not only Kent but the national economy. The Secretary of State did not make an oral statement yesterday, and has failed to give the House an opportunity to scrutinise the announcement. Can you advise me, Mr Speaker, on how the Secretary of State might be encouraged to come and make a formal statement to the House?
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristic courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to raise this matter. The short answer to him, and for the benefit of the House, is that the decision on whether to make a written or an oral ministerial statement is a matter for the Minister; it cannot be decided by the Chair.
I recognise the importance of the issue to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and it is evidence to me—and doubtless to others—that he is, to put it mildly, perturbed, or even irritated, by the absence of an oral statement. He asked what recourse he has in the circumstances. The answer is that the hon. Gentleman is a most dexterous individual in respect of the use of the Order Paper and the facilities of the Table Office, and he is not unaware of mechanisms by which he can secure further answers. If he thinks that the matter remains of urgent importance, he can seek to secure the presence of the Minister to respond to him.
I think we will leave it there for now, but meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman has ventilated his dissatisfaction.
Social Justice Commission
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the Social Mobility Commission.
Social justice is the defining issue for our country, and I was delighted that the Prime Minister’s key message in her “burning injustice” speech in July 2016 was that the Government would fight injustice in our society. The Social Mobility Commission, then led by Alan Milburn, was to play a crucial role in that mission: its purpose was to shine a light on progress towards tackling injustice. In December last year, however, Alan Milburn resigned, alongside his fellow commissioners. He explained his reasons in his letter of resignation, stating specifically that roles on the commission had been vacant for nearly two years, and expressing his belief that the Government were—in his words—
“unable to devote the necessary energy and focus to the social mobility agenda”.
Social justice is one of our themes on the Education Committee. We want everyone in our society to be able to reach and climb the ladder of opportunity, and the resignation of the commissioners was naturally a source of serious concern. We held a public evidence session with Alan Milburn, Baroness Shephard and David Johnston, and published a report with our conclusions. We concluded that there should be a body inside Government to co-ordinate and drive forward initiatives to ensure social justice across the country, and to ensure coherence and cohesion across Departments. We also said that a few relatively minor legislative changes would result in a more effective commission, and it is those changes that the Bill seeks to implement.
By the time the commissioners walked out in December, there were only four of them left. The commission had started with 20, but there had been no renewals since March 2015. An appointment process at the beginning of 2016 was described as “farcical”. The commission was left to dwindle, which seems totally at odds with the Prime Minister’s commitment to social justice. Baroness Shephard was the deputy chair of the commission. She said that
“the writing was very firmly on the wall anyway. It had to be because we could not get answers. There were delays. Not delays, but blank walls as far as appointing new commissioners was concerned, and I thought there was no point…there was no point at all.”
The Bill would create a minimum membership of the commission, of seven members in addition to the Chair. I see no reason why the Government should aim for the number of commissioners to be fewer than 10, although I recognise that there may be occasions on which the membership may, for one reason or another, fall below that number. However, introducing a minimum membership in law will mitigate the risk that such attrition and neglect will happen again.
The commission has conducted in-depth research, and has a focus on data and analysis. It is therefore in an ideal position to analyse Government policy objectively for its effect on social mobility. The Government already recognise the value of independent advisory bodies’ objectively assessing financial implications of policy: the Office for Budget Responsibility is one example. Why should that not apply to social justice as well? The Bill seeks to give the commission specific powers to publish social justice impact assessments of both policy and legislative proposals. Those assessments should be used to help Governments to improve policy, not just as a means by which negative effects are flagged.
The legislation that set up the commission provides that it must, on request, give advice to a Minister of the Crown on how to improve social mobility in England. However, Alan Milburn told us that the Government
“lacked the head space and the band width to match the rhetoric of healing social division with the reality”.
He noted that
“there is only so long you can go on pushing water uphill”.
We are not confident that Ministers regularly and usefully request advice from the commission. The Bill would give it power to give advice proactively to Ministers on how to improve social justice in England, as well as its duty to give advice on request.
Our final suggested legislative change is to the name of the commission. I do not like the phrase “social mobility”. It reminds me of a Vodafone advertisement. While it can convey the idea of people moving up the ladder of opportunity, the phrase “social justice” goes much further. It describes helping the most disadvantaged to reach that ladder of opportunity, and supporting them should they fall. Changing the name of the commission would make abundantly clear what it is seeking to improve. It is the Ronseal principle: it does what it says on the tin—not just improving the chances of some people, but offering all people equal access to opportunities. As its name has already changed twice since 2010, a further small change would be consistent with its changing role.
I am delighted that our report was agreed unanimously and that the draft Bill has the full support of the Education Committee. I pay tribute to all my colleagues on the Committee for their hard work and support, and for their commitment to social justice. We may be members of different parties, but we are united in addressing social justice in education. I thank the officers of the Committee as well.
We are convinced that the relatively modest changes proposed in the Bill, in addition to a body inside Government to implement recommendations and co-ordinate across Departments, will result in a more effective social justice commission. We want to see the commission empowered to monitor and report effectively on progress towards achieving social justice in England. We want the Government to hear the commission loud and clear when it suggests remedies, and when it advocates on behalf of those in our society who need a voice the most. An effective social justice commission working in tandem with an implementation body at the heart of Government could really begin to heal some of the great social divides in our country. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will support the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Robert Halfon, Lucy Allan, Marion Fellows, James Frith, Emma Hardy, Trudy Harrison, Ian Mearns, Thelma Walker, Lucy Powell and Mr William Wragg present the Bill.
Robert Halfon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June and to be printed (Bill 213).
Mr Speaker
Before we proceed with the main business of the day, I remind the House that we will interrupt the debate at 2.30 pm, or possibly a few seconds before, to hold a one-minute silence to remember the terror attack in Manchester on 22 May 2017.
Serious Violence Strategy
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Serious Violence Strategy.
A year ago today, 22 innocent people, including many children, lost their lives in an appalling and cowardly attack on the Manchester Arena. Today, we remember their lives and share a thought for all the families who were affected on that tragic day.
We are reminded today of the devastating consequences that hatred and violence can have for ordinary lives. This Government’s absolute priority is the safety and security of their citizens. No one should feel unsafe on our streets and in our communities. That is why I am here today to talk about another issue affecting the lives of ordinary citizens and to lay out the Government’s strategy for tackling violent crime.
This Government are determined to end the deadly cycle of violence we see on our streets today. We are clear that these crimes are unacceptable, that there is no place in society for these horrendous crimes and that anyone committing these acts of violence must feel the full force of the law.
The recent increase in serious violence is of deep concern to us all in both Houses, and I assure Members that the Government take this very seriously. That is why on 9 April we published our “Serious violence strategy”, which sets out the action we are taking to address serious violence and in particular the recent increase in knife crime, gun crime and homicide.
The Government have also made a commitment to bring forward legislation in the coming weeks. Our strategy represents a step change in the way we think about and respond to serious violence, establishing a new balance between prevention and the rigorous law enforcement activity that is already happening up and down the country.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister will know that recorded incidents of violent crime have risen from 700,000 in 2009 to over 1.3 million in 2018. Does he think in any way, shape or form that the 20,000-plus reduction in the number of police officers in that time has any connection to that rise in crime?
Mr Wallace
I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s observation. What I do know is that, during the last spike in knife crime, in 2009-10, there were more knife crime offences than there are now and police numbers were at much higher levels, so it is not entirely connected, as he will know. If it were, his logic would have said that there would have been fewer knife crime incidents, when the police numbers were much higher, than there are today. Perhaps he can answer this question: in 2009-10, why was there a spike in knife crime given that there were such high police numbers then?
David Hanson
The figures are clear: there were 700,000 violent incidents in 2009 and 1.3 million now. I was the Minister dealing with knife crime then and there was a spike. We put investment into early prevention, after-school activities, higher policing visibility at the school gates, visibility at night and alternative activities for people in the streets and we reduced knife crime incidents; they were recorded at hospitals and at accident and emergency. In his violent crime strategy, the Minister is now reinventing those measures, having cut them in 2010.
Mr Wallace
I note the right hon. Gentleman’s examples, but none of them—hospitals, local schools, local government—was about police numbers; they were about similar things to the things we are talking about today in the strategy and the broader response by society to tackling why violence is being embedded in communities. So it is not purely about the police numbers debate.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I reject utterly that connection. We would have to swamp the streets with policemen; there would have to be policemen available at every violent incident for it to make that form of difference. We would be back to Cromwell saying, “If I arm one in 10 will that be enough?” Of much more significance in terms of the propensity to violence is the lack of attention to the question of young people—particularly very young people—and parenting. That is where the Government’s efforts must be directed.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s point. It is certainly the case with any type of crime, whether violent crime, serious crime, organised crime or terrorism, that it has to be dealt with not purely by arresting our way out of the problem.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Wallace
I am going to press on.
We can debate police numbers all we like in the House, but the simple fact of the matter is that, unless we get involved in prevention and share the burden more broadly in society—[Interruption.] As important, because it often slips the mind of the Opposition, is the fact that if we do not live within our means we will not be able to sustain the spending on our communities and public sector. I regularly have to remind the Opposition that in 2010 the deficit in this country was £150 billion. We were spending more than we got in tax receipts. Unless we start to live within our means we cannot sustain the investment in our communities. We can live with the Opposition’s fantasy politics of nationalising everything on a Monday, funding everything on a Tuesday and borrowing all year round, but we will pay for that in the end. That is why we have set about balancing the economy and taking a strong and stable determination in how we invest in our policemen.
Our approach is not solely focused on law enforcement, important though that is, but depends also on a range of partnerships across many sectors such as education, health, social services, housing, youth services and victim services. It requires a multiple-strand approach, involving a range of partners across different sectors, such as those framed in our four pillars: early intervention and prevention; tackling county lines and misuse of drugs; supporting communities and partnerships; and an effective law enforcement and criminal justice response.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
I am encouraged by what the Minister says about partnership models. Can he set out some localised examples of best practice at work, so we can get away from this artificial debate around police numbers and look at what actually works on the ground and how to put these solutions into practice?
Mr Wallace
Here is a good example. I visited Merseyside recently to see the work it has done on organised crime groups and county lines. A particularly nasty organised crime group was operating from one part of Merseyside and sending people up into Lancashire; a 15-year-old was sent into Lancashire to deal drugs in the Rossendale valley.
We decided to take action against that organised crime group. The local police, alongside some first-rate leadership from Merseyside council and officials in the council, set about dismantling that group. They dismantled, effectively, the café where it met; they co-ordinated with Lancashire police so they could deal with the 15-year-old who was in Rossendale; through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 they targeted the huge amounts of cash being used by that organised crime group; and they dismantled the whole group. We used the local authorities in both Merseyside and Lancashire and both police forces, and we used imaginative methods and the powers that POCA and other legislation have given these people to make sure we took apart the money that enabled them to operate. That crime group is no longer active, and that community has taken back control and managed to deliver a successful response.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
The Minister knows that there are difficulties in London at the moment. He is also aware that Cressida Dick has requested additional resources to deal with them. I came here today in the hope that we would have a fair and balanced debate about what we need on our streets, rather than this Punch and Judy nonsense. What he has suggested is that it is okay for nine children to have died in my local authority area because we do not have the money for the police force. May I ask him to be a bit more sensitive in the way he is dealing with this debate?
Mr Wallace
Is the hon. Lady suggesting that I said it was okay for nine people in her constituency to die? That is the worst example of Punch and Judy and immature politics I have heard in this House for a very long time. It is fine for her to ask about resources, and it is fine for her to say that she does not think the response is correct, but she seems to suggest that a Government Minister is saying it is okay for nine people to die. Is that the measure of the debate we are going to have today from the Opposition? She insults the police, the local authority and her own constituents. The reality is that people are dying on the streets because of a whole range of issues. Tragically, people were dying on the streets long before the Tory Government or the Labour Government were here. I remember patrolling the streets where people had died, and people were not going round half the time saying that it was purely the Government’s fault. There are lots of factors involved.
One of the factors behind the rise in violent crime is the use of smartphones and encryption, where we have seen a big shift. Those networks empower people to trade drugs and to communicate in a safe space. They allow connections between groups in a way that never happened before and that makes those groups much less vulnerable to the work of the law enforcement agencies.
In the old days, if anyone wanted to import huge amounts of cocaine to this country, somebody had to go to Colombia and meet people there. They had to physically go there and order the drugs. Then they had to take the cash and launder it. In the space of about eight years, these changes have meant that no one has to do that anymore. People can sit at home and order and deal drugs, and they can launder the money almost instantaneously through Bitcoin and elsewhere. That is a real challenge for the police, and it will not be fixed purely by putting more patrols into communities. It is also about changing how policing is done and investing in upstream National Crime Agency issues—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is right to say that there are issues of resource, and that is why we have increased some of the resource. I am informed that £49 million more is going into the Met, and the violent crime strategy comes with some new money.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I really want us to get back to a serious tone. I am grateful to the Minister for specifically mentioning the cocaine market. Will he say something about our Border Force? Will he also say something about resources for the National Crime Agency? He will understand that the average black teenager in Tottenham barely knows where Colombia is and certainly does not have the means to organise trans-shipment routes. Will he also say something about eastern European gangs?
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Gentleman makes a clear point. In the past, there were plenty of middlemen between the local gangs and the big serious organised criminals running out of Colombia or the Balkans. That has now reduced. Through safe and secure encryption, young people have the ability to order drugs and gangs have the ability to have delivered to their door large packets of drugs from Albanian or Serbian drug gangs, or indeed from local drug gangs: United Kingdom citizens—it is not the copyright of the western Balkans. That has put real power into the system.
At the same time, the United Kingdom is fast becoming the biggest consumer of cocaine in Europe. There is high demand from the consumer, and cocaine is no longer the preserve of the yuppie or the rich. We are seeing cocaine in my villages, in rural communities and in communities in London that would not previously have used it. It is a high-margin, high-supply drug at the moment, and that is fuelling the increase in violence.
With those Albanians or those serious organised criminals comes the enforcement of the county lines. They do not just put a 15-year-old into a house or “cuckoo” the house; they provide a weapon to enforce the drug line. Sometimes, if the 15-year-old is not a willing participant, the gangs will ruthlessly enforce that county line with violence. They will kill those people and they will kill the local drug dealers if they get in their way.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and I, through the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime, recently met some girls who had been involved in county lines. They had become involved because of boyfriends, because of money and because it was a solution to the problems they faced in their lives. They said that nobody had ever told them not to do it. No one at school or earlier on in their lives had explained that these things might be offered to them and that there were choices to be made. There was no one in their school telling them about that. Does the Minister agree that schools have a duty to keep our children safe, and that they need more resources to ensure that children know what good choices to make?
Mr Wallace
I totally agree that we have to educate children about the dangers that they are exposed to.
I go back to the point about modern communications and smartphones. In the past there was often a gulf between streetwise communities where young people grew up exposed to crime and were sometimes exploited by it, and other areas where people would say, “I never see gun crime in my village”. In the past, there was no connection between the two, but now it is all joined up. Now, young people can be exploited wherever they are, and whatever their background, by being able to access drugs using their smartphones. That is why we are seeing this problem seeping in, and that is why the first place to go is the schools—as low as the primary schools—to teach children about how vulnerable they can be online and how vulnerable they can be to being approached.
Another part of my portfolio involves child sexual exploitation. People are being exploited, manipulated and organised through those telephones. That is a real challenge, and I am not going to pretend that we have a solution.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I take the Minister’s point about this impacting on young people of all backgrounds, but there is no doubt that there is a clear link between what is going on and deprivation, inequality and poverty. Does he agree that if this issue were affecting a different group—a privileged, more wealthy group of young people—it would be headline news every day of the week? Surely this is why we must think about how we approach our young people, and why we must adopt what many are describing as a public health approach to this issue. We are not looking after the mental health and wellbeing of too many of our young people living in deprived communities, including some of the wards in my constituency.
Mr Wallace
I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who I know is on the violent crime taskforce. I often find that the crimes in my communities do not get reported. As a north-west MP, I sometimes feel that when crimes happen in London they get a higher profile than they would in Lancashire. We have a duty to point out to all our young people where they are vulnerable. I agree that some communities do not get the attention they deserve. Certainly, some of the crime we have seen in London has too quickly been put down to gang crime, rather than to serious organised crime. It is often serious organised crime groups that are exploiting these young people, but because this crime is put down to gang crime, there is a tendency to say, “Well, we have dealt with gangs like that for many years.” Those young people are just as vulnerable and exploited as any other type of child.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Five young men have been stabbed in my constituency in the past month alone. The community is traumatised, and people are worried that things are going to get worse, as they always do, as the long summer nights roll in. I know that lots of London Members here will be wondering what can be done in the immediate term, in addition to the strategy, in terms of extra funding for prevention and diversionary programmes to ensure that we do not have a summer of escalating violence in our capital.
Mr Wallace
I understand the fear about the challenges on summer nights. If five people had been killed in my communities, I would feel as horrified as the hon. Gentleman.
First, we are building on the things that have been happening for years. We are getting everyone around the table—the Mayor of London is on the serious violence taskforce—because it is about engaging everyone. I am not deaf to the resource issue, and I do not pretend that the police have not been under stress. We can disagree about why they have not had more money. We also have to recognise that policing has to change as crime changes. We have seen them do some good stuff. We have sometimes seen money spent in the wrong place. We have to work on making sure money is spent in the right places.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
So-called drill music often glamorises violence, stabbings and even murder. When allied with social media, drill music can amplify tensions between gangs and groups. How can we call the social media platforms to account and encourage them to wake up to their responsibilities?
Mr Wallace
I welcome the statement over the weekend from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on consulting on measures to remove both illegal and legal harms from the internet, and on the exposure of people, certainly young people, to those harms on the internet. I would welcome any suggestions from either side of the House, and the Home Office, alongside DCMS, will tackle those harms.
I met Google this morning to discuss how it can do more to take down violence-inspiring videos. The level of violence to which my young children are exposed quite early in the day on television, let alone the internet, will come back to haunt us.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
In his answer to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), the Minister said that he was not blind to the idea of resources, particularly in relation to London and the real crisis that is happening in our city. Will he give us a little more hope because, like the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich and many London Members here, I worry about the trend continuing into the summer months?
Mr Wallace
In the Home Office we are always open to listening to more demands. After Manchester last year I, as Security Minister, received a demand from Mark Rowley and the head of MI5, and we worked hard at the Treasury to get £50 million of extra money to respond to the operational pressures.
It is not just London. Merseyside MPs saw a spate of murders and gun crime at the start of last year. There is a real pressure that we have to try to address. Of course the Home Office will work with colleagues to see where we can get more out of the resources we have.
We have found more resources. We have put £49 million into the strategy, and we have put more money into some of the broader responses, including local government and community responses. We will work with the Mayor of London, with whom we will discuss what his priorities may or may not be, on which we may or may not agree.
I wish I had more money. We did not come into Government to cut things. There is sometimes a suggestion that we had a choice and we chose not to spend money. We will try to do our best to meet the resources, but burden share is important, and it is the same in other growing areas of crime. We cannot arrest our way out of some of these things. We have to burden share, and we are doing a whole range of things. A new contest will be launched in the next few weeks and, in order to meet the growing scale of the threat, we have to burden share with both the private sector and the public sector on keeping us safe on the ground. That is the scale we face not just here but internationally.
John Cryer
The Minister is right to say it is not just about the police, because it is also about the other agencies. The problem is that every agency across the board has faced cuts, certainly in London. My east London constituency covers two boroughs. Waltham Forest has faced cuts of around £100 million, and Redbridge has faced similar cuts. The boroughs cannot mount early intervention and provide greater resources through schools and social services while, at the same time, carrying the burden of £100 million in cuts over seven or eight years.
Mr Wallace
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. As I have said throughout, where we can find more resource to meet this pressure, we will. We might disagree on the wider economy issue but, nevertheless, we are trying to balance the books. Without doubt, it is important that we have this framework in place, with £49 million of early investment, as well as other sums, to make sure that we start the process of gelling together all the people who can help to deliver on some of these issues.
Mr Wallace
No, I really have to press on. I have given way quite a lot. I am about to read my speech backwards, and Members will not want to hear it twice.
As I have said, it is vital that we steer young people away from crime in the first place. We have to support positive alternatives and timely interventions to provide them with the skills and resilience to lead productive lives free from violence. In the strategy we propose a range of universal targeted interventions, including the early intervention youth fund, which will be launched this summer and to which police and crime commissioners can apply to support early intervention and prevention activity with young people. We will also provide support to Redthread to expand the pilot and its youth violence intervention programme outside London and to develop its services in London hospitals.
We have reviewed the evidence, and the strategy sets out the trends and drivers of serious violence. The analysis makes it clear that the rise in serious violence is due to a range of factors, but the changes in the drug market are a key driver of recent increases in knife crime, gun crime and homicides, which marks the second element of the strategy.
Crack cocaine markets have strong links to serious violence, and evidence suggests that crack use is rising in England and Wales due to a mix of supply and demand factors. County lines drug dealing is also associated with violence and exploitation, and its spread is also a key factor.
In addition, it is thought that drugs market violence may be facilitated and spread by the social media I talked about earlier. The strategy sets out a range of activity we will undertake to tackle serious violence, including more than 60 specific commitments on action. We are providing £40 million over two years to support the initiatives in the serious violence strategy, including £11 million for the early intervention youth fund and £3.6 million for a new national county lines co-ordination centre that will sit in the National Crime Agency.
We are particularly concerned about county lines because of the violence they are now developing. The links behind the county lines are complicated, and the threat crosses police and local authority boundaries, which is why the national county lines co-ordination centre will be key not only in sharing intelligence but in co-ordinating responses and in making sure that victims are supported or diverted away from the county lines.
We will also work with the Department for Education on the support and advice offered to children who are educated in alternative provision, including those who have been excluded, to reduce their risk of being drawn into crime or on to the pathways into crime. In addition, we will work with the Department for Education and Ofsted to explore what more can be done to support schools in England in responding to potential crime.
However, taking effective action means that the issue needs to be understood and owned locally as much as nationally. Communities and relevant partners must also see tackling serious violence as their problem, which is the third pillar of our approach. We are supporting communities to build local resilience and awareness by continuing to match fund local area reviews, which identify the resilience and capability of local areas to respond to gang-related threats, including county lines. That follows on from our support to help partners.
Police and crime commissioners have a vital role in working with community safety partnerships, or the local equivalent, in providing local leadership to bring communities together. That is why the Government are also committing £1 million to our community fund for each of the next two years. The fund, which was launched last week, provides support for local initiatives that work with young people to tackle knife crime. Those initiatives include early intervention and education, as well as mentoring and outreach work. In March we launched a major new media advertising campaign, #knifefree, aimed at young people and young adults to raise awareness of the risks of carrying knives. That was chiefly delivered through social media targeted at young people and it has had a positive response from our partners. We must pursue, disrupt and prosecute those who commit violent crimes, and a robust response from law enforcement therefore remains critical. As I have said, we will bring forward legislation to strengthen our response to violent crime. That includes the introduction of new measures such as—
Mr Speaker
Order. Colleagues, we will now hold a one-minute silence to remember all those affected by the terror attack in Manchester a year ago today.
The House observed a one-minute silence.
Mr Wallace
A year ago, I was in Manchester, from very early in the morning of the attack, and I wish to take this opportunity to place on the record my appreciation of Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Manchester, of the leader of the council and of chief constable Ian Hopkins for the fantastic and amazing work they have done over the past 12 months in helping to heal Manchester and bring that community together. Having visited the investigation on many occasions, I cannot say just how much regard I have for the police and intelligence services, who are still pursuing leads and still working to keep people safe. I believe we have the best police and intelligence services in the world, which is why Manchester is back on its feet, alongside a great community who are determined to make sure that the spirit of Manchester lives on. Although I am not there with them today, many of us are there in spirit and we stand ready to continue to help that great city.
We must pursue, disrupt and prosecute those who commit violent crimes, and a robust response from law enforcement therefore remains critical. As I have said, we will introduce legislation to strengthen our response to violent crime. That will include the introduction of new measures such as restrictions on buying and carrying knives and corrosive substances; and banning certain firearms. An offensive weapons Bill will be introduced into the Commons or the Lords in the next few weeks. We will also continue to support and facilitate police action such as Operation Sceptre—weeks of action designed to tackle knife crime—and action to prevent violent gang material on social media. The serious violence taskforce has been established to drive the implementation of the strategy and support the delivery of key objectives. The taskforce brings together Ministers, Members of Parliament, the Mayor of London, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the director general of the National Crime Agency, other senior police leaders, and public sector and voluntary sector chief executives.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned social media. The Met police have reported more than 400 incitement to violence videos on YouTube alone that are still online today. Do the Government support police authorities across the country having the power to compel YouTube and other social media outlets to remove content that is violent or incites people to violence?
Mr Wallace
I absolutely support our forcing these outlets to take this material down where we can. I met Google and YouTube this morning to discuss exactly that subject. The challenge around the world on videos and YouTube stuff is not on cases where a clear crime is involved, such as bomb-making manuals or child abuse; it is where companies—often based abroad—decide that our version of incitement or extremism is not their version of it. That is where we have to look at all alternatives. That is what the announcement at the weekend on the consultation by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was about. We have to have a proper collective discussion and ask, “Where do we start and stop? How do we draw a line about what is freedom of speech, what is incitement and what is violent extremism?” That is not as straightforward as people say. However, 98% of violent extremism on those internet platforms is being taken down within 24 hours and some of it is being taken down within two hours. We are pushing for this to happen even quicker, through using artificial intelligence and machine learning to recognise those issues. We want these companies to put more of their resources into that, to make sure these things are taken down. I also want them to report this content when they take it down so that our police and agencies can do something about it.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The Minister makes the point that it is difficult to tell, but we do not have a problem deciding whether something is incitement to violence offline. I fail to see why we cannot apply that logic to online content and why he cannot work with the internet providers and the platforms to administer online what we have offline.
Mr Wallace
When we see these things and we report them, these providers take them down. We are asking them to spot them in advance before they are uploaded. That is what we want. On the plus side, when, through the Met police’s internet referral unit, we report these things, the providers do take them down. The simple scale of the internet means that we want them to do this before or during the uploading. They have made some progress on this matter, although we still think they can do more. I am acutely aware that they have made more effort only when we have talked about regulation, tax and harder things; it is not as though they jumped through the front door offering. However, I think they have had a realisation, through seeing the patience that is being tested internationally.
I was at the G7 recently with people from France and Germany, and they were all saying to the lead four companies, “We have sort of had enough.” Those companies are now starting to move and move rapidly. We have supported the Global Internet Forum, set up and chaired at the moment by both Governments and the big four. We have to make sure that they do more about the small providers, because as they are taking more stuff down, small providers and platforms, based in jurisdictions we cannot get at, are popping up and handling most of that content. We have to do more on that. We have to put more pressure on the United States about some of the far right websites. As the Select Committee on Home Affairs rightly pointed out, we will proscribe National Action yet it will still be running a website—or it has in the past—in the US. However, we are working hard with the Americans and they have said they will do more, as will the internet companies. They are now moving, although they could have moved a bit faster—that is how I would probably say it.
Gareth Thomas
Nigh on three weeks ago, two teenagers in my constituency were shot at and seriously injured. I do not doubt the commitment of Cressida Dick and the Metropolitan police to finding the perpetrators of that shocking incident, but my constituents and I worry about the decline in the visibility of the police presence on our streets in Harrow. I therefore take this opportunity to underline to the Minister the profound concern, particularly from London MPs, across party, as well as from others, about the lack of sufficient resources for the Metropolitan police. I urge him to do whatever he can to lobby the Chancellor for further funding for the Met.
Mr Wallace
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point on the funding. I also say that it is important to work with Cressida Dick and to ask about policing priorities and how she chooses to deploy her force. All police forces do things differently. Members may recall significant gun violence in Nottingham a few years ago, when the city went through a patch that included the murder of a jeweller’s wife. Interestingly, Nottingham got a bad reputation in the early-90s or mid-90s, but that was driven by two people and when they were taken out it had a profound effect on that community. There are definitely operational decisions here as to how police forces spend their resources, but I also hear the point about resources.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Wallace
I really have to move on. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will respond to the debate and can certainly answer more questions on those points.
I believe that the approach set out in the strategy—a multi-strand approach with a greater emphasis on early intervention—will address the increase in serious violence and help young people to develop the skills and resilience to live happy and productive lives away from violence, and it will also ensure that people feel safe in their communities and homes.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
We Opposition Members also want to honour the anniversary of the Manchester atrocity. We share the Minister’s appreciation for the leadership of Mayor Andy Burnham, and for the work of the police, security services, fire services, NHS and other public sector actors. Above all, we want to honour the people of Manchester, who did not allow the bombing to tear them apart and who showed outstanding love, solidarity and strength.
I am pleased that the House has this opportunity to debate the important serious violence strategy. Serious violence is an issue that concerns people all over the country. Here in London alone, bloodstained month has succeeded bloodstained month since the new year. Just in the past few days we saw in Islington the 67th homicide victim in London this year, who was also the 42nd victim of a fatal stabbing. But it is not just a big-city issue. The county lines phenomenon has brought violent gang-related crime into the heart of the countryside and county towns.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for what she is saying in her speech. She talks about serious violence not being just a London issue; it might not be very well known but throughout Norfolk and Norwich we have seen the biggest surge in violent crime in the entire country in the past couple of years. There has been a fifteenfold increase in knife crime and a 70% increase in gun crime. In the midst of this perfect storm and this rising tide of despair and woe is increasing youth homelessness, more children in care, more children permanently excluded from school and community policing completely and utterly cut—Norfolk was the first county police force in the country to do that. Some £30 million has been cut from the police budget in Norfolk—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. If you want to speak, I can put you on the list. Short interventions, please; it will help the House.
Ms Abbott
Serious violence is not just a big-city phenomenon. Earlier, after some of my hon. Friends’ interventions, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) said that this was artificial politics. Let me say to the House that nothing could be more real than mothers crying over their dead sons, and nothing could be more real than keeping our constituents safe. This is not a parliamentary game; this is about our constituents’ lives.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just about the £253 million that is going to be cut from the Metropolitan police in the next 18 months? The cuts to youth services since 2010 have also fuelled this despair and worry.
Ms Abbott
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and shall return to those issues later in my speech.
We welcome the broad themes in the serious violence strategy—tackling county lines; early intervention and prevention; supporting communities and local partnership; and law enforcement and the criminal justice response—but I hope the Minister will agree that it is reasonable to talk about resources when we discuss those themes. For some time, Ministers claimed that they were protecting the police budget and that crime was going down. I am glad to hear them now admit that there is a major problem with serious violence, the crime about which people are most frightened and concerned.
In the latest 12 months, police recorded gun crime is up 11% and knife crime is up 22%. There are widespread reports of serious violent crime, including knife crime, throughout the country. Reported deaths have risen sharply from the beginning of this year. Ministers have said that the Home Office serious violence strategy is designed to address all that. In her foreword to the report, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), said that £40 million of public funds have been committed to the strategy and that it is a
“significant programme of work involving a range of Government Departments and partners, in the public, voluntary and private sectors.”
Are Ministers really telling us that the resources that they are promising are adequate? To be clear, in the past 12 months the police recorded almost 40,000 knife crime offences and well over 6,000 firearms offences; the funding allocated to discourage, prevent, divert and detect serious weapons-related violent crimes is therefore just a few hundred pounds for each offence.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an important point about resources, and it is clear that there are not enough. As she rightly says, it is about not just big cities but towns, too, and it is also about having the resources to detect and prevent crime and to get the intelligence. That is one of the biggest problems. It is about not only having police officers on the streets but being able to prevent crime in the first place.
Ms Abbott
My hon. Friend is right. We talk about the lack of resources because the role of the police is not just to detect crime and prosecute; the role of the police is to be in communities and to know what is going on, and to be trusted stakeholders with whom community groups, parents, schools and others can work. If we do not have the police officers on the ground, that affects our ability to respond to serious violence, in more than one way. It is unclear from the Government’s published strategy whether there is any new money at all or if it has just been stripped from the existing police budget, which has already been cut in real terms since 2010.
When we look at stakeholders’ response to the strategy, we see their scepticism about the level of resources. The chair of the Local Government Association’s Safer and Stronger Communities Board said:
“Only with the right funding and powers can councils continue to make a difference to people’s lives by supporting families and young people and help tackle serious violent crime”.
The Association of Directors of Children’s Services said:
“The strategy emphasises the importance of local communities and partnerships yet provides little for local authorities to develop local responses”.
If Ministers are to be taken seriously on this issue, they have to listen to what stakeholders say about resources.
Chuka Umunna
I completely agree with the shadow Home Secretary on this resourcing issue. First, does she agree that no one on the Opposition Benches is saying that resources alone or more police numbers alone are going to solve this? The point is, though, that the current state of affairs makes it so much harder to address this problem. Secondly, on prevention, does she agree that it is high time that this country elevated the status of our youth workers? Too often, youth work is treated as a useful add-on or a voluntary activity, but we need to treat youth work in the same way as we treat teaching. Youth workers sometimes spend more time with our young people than teachers in our society.
Ms Abbott
I agree with my hon. Friend. Nobody on the Opposition Benches is saying that having more police officers would solve the issue of serious violence on its own, but the Government cannot expect the community to believe that they are taking the issue seriously unless they provide the right level of police officers. The Government have long been in denial about the effect of their own cuts to the police. They have cut 21,000 police officers since 2010, and more than a quarter of police community support officers have been axed. They have not protected police budgets, which have fallen in real terms. According to the National Audit Office, which I hope Ministers will regard as a reliable source, central Government funding to police forces reduced by 25% in real terms between 2010-11 and 2015-16.
The Government talk about making more money available, but much of what they are talking about is the capacity of police and crime commissioners to raise the precept. Why should keeping people safe come out of the pockets of the community? When will the Government acknowledge that people expect national funding to meet national need?
While the Government have been in denial about the fact that they have not protected police funding, chief constables are clear that those cuts have consequences, especially for the police’s ability to tackle serious violent crime and other important areas of crime. The most senior police officer in the country, Cressida Dick at the Metropolitan police, has said this about the effects of cuts:
“There’s a whole load of things, but of course I would be naive to say that the reduction in police finances over the last few years, not just in London but beyond, hasn’t had an impact.”
It is time that Ministers started listening to chief constables and listening to stakeholders such as Cressida Dick.
Cressida Dick accepts that many reasons contribute to the rise in serious violent crime, but she also accepts that police cuts are one of them. Even the Home Office itself, in a leaked memorandum, accepted that resources are part of the problem. The Home Office document, “Serious violence; latest evidence on the drivers” said:
“So resources dedicated to serious violence have come under pressure and charge rates have dropped. This may have encouraged offenders.”
It is unlikely to be
“the factor that triggered the shift in serious violence, but may be an underlying driver that has allowed the rise to continue.”
Neil Coyle
On the issue of the lack of charging and prosecuting, what message does my right hon. Friend think that the Government are sending to Mariama Kamara whose 16-year-old son was murdered in September 2015 in Walworth, or to the mother of Rhyheim Barton who was shot and killed in my constituency on 5 May? Those mothers see the plateauing of prosecutions and know that there are people out there who are literally getting away with violent crime and murder.
Ms Abbott
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. If the level of charging has plateaued and people are literally getting away with murder, communities must think that, for all their protestations, Ministers do not really care. [Interruption.] Well, Ministers may try to reject that analysis, but the thoughts of the people in our communities must turn to that.
We want a serious violence strategy, not just increased levels of stop and search. Evidence-based stop-and- search has a role, but any serious strategy to tackle violent crime will involve a number of Departments and local stakeholders, as the Minister has said. We need to learn from what works. The Home Office’s own research into stop-and-search shows that there is
“no statistically significant crime-reducing effect from the large increase in weapons searches during the course of Operation Blunt 2. This suggests that the greater use of weapons searches was not effective at the borough level for reducing crime.”
Research from the College of Policing came to exactly the same conclusion. When the New York Mayor, Bill de Blasio, completely ended stop-and-frisk, he found that it coincided with a decline in crime. The Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, had this to say:
“I strongly believe that stop and search should be used proportionately, without prejudice, and with the support of local communities”.
I agree with her comments then, even if her views and those of other Conservative Members differ now. Indiscriminate or mass stop-and-search has no discernible impact on reducing crime. Only targeted, intelligence-led stop-and-search has shown to be effective.
Ministers will be aware of the advances in tackling knife crime and other violent crime in Scotland. In 2017, there were no deaths from knife crime in Scotland, even though Glasgow was once thought to be the knife crime capital of this country. The approach taken there, which itself developed from lessons learned in the United States and elsewhere, was to treat knife crime as a public health issue. That means tackling the gangs and the gang culture, including diverting people from crime and helping young people get out of gangs. It includes work in communities and in schools, and ending the widespread use of school exclusion, rather than class exclusion.
Catherine West
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although we have good and outstanding schools in many local authority areas, including in my own, sadly, the numbers of exclusions are going up, which seems to correlate with the rise in youth crime? That seems to hold up the evidence on the public health approach, as keeping young people in schools, or in some sort of care, seems to be an effective anti-crime approach.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
As someone who was a councillor in Glasgow when the initiative was introduced, I can say that it made an absolutely huge difference. I do not know whether she heard of the call-ins that we had in the medics against violence programme when gang members were brought into the courts and shown testimonies by parents and by medics. Did she see that and does she think that an initiative, whereby people could see the direct result of gang violence to families and communities, would make a difference in London?
Ms Abbott
I have heard of that initiative, and it is certainly worth trying. Dealing with violent crime is not just a question of policing and arresting. The initiatives used in Glasgow are well worth looking at. Anybody who thinks that we can simply arrest or stop-and-search our way out of this crisis is deluding themselves.
A senior commander at the Met told me recently that an entire gang operating in one part of London was put away for lengthy sentences for drug crime. The result was not that the level of drug crime and the level of violence dropped, but that violent crime in the area actually surged, as competing gangs moved into the vacant territory. We need an integrated, joined-up approach. Seizures, arrests and sentencing will all play a part, but we also need the right level of resources, and those can only ever be a part of a much broader strategy involving schools, hospitals, local communities, social workers, resources for youth centres and recreation and much more. Of course, all those things have been cut as a result of this Government’s austerity, and we are now living with the consequences. We cannot keep people, and our young people, safe on the cheap.
I try to visit the families of every young person who is stabbed or a victim of homicide in my constituency. I remember visiting a family recently. They were broken, and the mother could not stop crying. In my closing remarks, I want to say to the House as a whole that we need to remember that, whatever the circumstances, violent crime is a tragedy for the protagonist, a tragedy for the family, and traumatising for entire communities. That is why the Opposition believe that the Government must give the issue their continued attention and the right level of resources. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), the Minister said that if five people in his constituency died, he, too, would be very upset. Communities want Ministers to behave as though five people in their constituencies had died. Our constituents want the Government to pay more than lip service to the issue and to learn from strategies that have succeeded, whether in America or in Glasgow.
Mr Wallace
The right hon. Lady can question our policies or our funding, but to question our motives or suggest that we do not care is just insulting. Glasgow has done a fantastic job in reducing knife crime to zero—[Interruption.] Police Scotland has done that; it is a devolved matter. According to Police Scotland, the number of police in Glasgow in 2015 was 5,544. In 2017, when knife crime had been reduced to zero, the number was 5,530. Therefore, on the numbers, police in Glasgow managed a reduction, but they used broader shoulders to solve the crimes and the problem, and they should be rewarded for that. If there is an example to show that it is not all about police numbers, that is it.
Ms Abbott
I said earlier that I am not arguing that this is all about police numbers, and I touched on some of the other issues, such as education, youth services and community services, that are also part of the answer.
I have always believed that part of my role in this Parliament is to be a voice for the people who would not otherwise have one. In my community and in others that I have visited, there is serious concern about how much the Government are prepared to do about this issue. We want Ministers to act as though they believe that every young person’s life has a value. We want Ministers not just to talk the talk, but to put resources, police officers and support into strategies that can relieve our communities of the burden of constant reports of death and killing.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It might be useful for me to begin with the genesis of the debate. I draw attention to it not merely to emphasise my role, but to illustrate that the request for this debate sprang not from one part of the House, but from across the House. When I raised the matter at business questions on 19 April, I was quickly followed by several colleagues, including the hon. Members for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and others, who were determined to ensure that we had time and space to debate the issue. We did so exactly in the spirit that was mentioned earlier: not out of a desire to make party political points, but a proper and responsible desire to talk about both the causes of and potential responses to the problem.
I was encouraged, perhaps even inspired, to begin that process—although I share the credit entirely and equally with all my colleagues—by a wireless programme that I heard on Radio 4, on which the mothers of victims of knife crime were interviewed. It was extremely poignant, as one might imagine, and we have all seen or heard similar interviews, I am sure. Those mothers not only described the tragedy of their loss—of course they were going to speak about that, which would have been sad enough—but, chillingly, claimed that people in positions of power did not know enough and, more than that, did not really care. Without bitterness—just as a bold fact—one of the ladies said, “Well of course they do not care, because it is not their children at risk.” When I heard that as I drove to come here, I thought to myself, “I know many people in this House—some better than others, but I know people across the House extremely well—and there is not a single Member of this House who does not care.” We needed this debate and the chance to speak out not just because the matter deserves airing, but because we need to broadcast from this Chamber not only that we care, but that we are prepared to do something about the things about which we care. That was the genesis of this debate.
I had no idea—
Mr Hayes
I will give way to somebody whom I know well and like a lot, but only after I have finished this point.
I had no idea that the hon. Member for Gedling in Nottinghamshire, where I spent the first part of my adult life, or the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford in south-east London, where I spent my childhood, were going to follow me at business questions. It was not staged, but it might as well have been, because it was highly effective. The Government responded to our call, and I am grateful to Ministers and, as I said last week, to the Leader of the House for doing so.
Chuka Umunna
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am glad that he recalls the audio that he heard on the radio. Just to contextualise the comment made by the shadow Home Secretary about the sense that people in this House do not care, I have certainly heard, in my constituency, what the right hon. Gentleman heard on the radio, and we must face up to that. Too often, we focus attention on the matter when we see the numbers jump, as they have recently, and the perception is that we forget about it afterwards.
As someone who served in government for some time, the right hon. Gentleman may have noted something that I find disappointing. It is good to see the two Home Office Ministers here, but Ministers from all the other Departments affected should be here, because the only way that we are really going to grip the issue and show that we really care and will do something about it is if there is join up. Where is the Minister for Skills? Where is somebody from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government? That is vital.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is of course absolutely right. As has already become clear from what has been said so far this afternoon, the issue touches so many aspects of life that it is bound also to touch many aspects of Government. We have heard about youth services, education, employment and everything that is associated with what sustainable communities are and how they are built. That affects the work of all kinds of Departments, and the work of all kinds of Departments affects those communities. He is right that we require a lateral approach.
The hon. Gentleman will also know, as I do having served in many Departments, that one of the weakest parts of our system of government is its ability to combine the efforts of Departments effectively. It does happen. Sometimes, an initiative, campaign or effort can span Departments, but the nature of how Governments are constructed, with ministerial responsibilities essentially following a vertical pattern, means that it is hard to get Departments to be as effective as they need to be in combining. That is not an excuse, and certainly not a justification, but it is perhaps a reason for why successive Governments have not done as well as they might have done in bringing people together. Perhaps today marks an opportunity to do so. [Interruption.] I see the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) on the edge of his seat—I first met him when he was a Home Office Minister, and he was a very good one indeed.
David Hanson
I was just moving slightly following what the right hon. Gentleman said, but when Labour was in government and I was the Home Office Minister responsible for policing and security and my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and Baroness Hughes of Stretford, the former Member for Stretford and Urmston, were Education Ministers, I assure him that we met every week for a year as part of a knife crime action plan to try to bring the figure down when the spike mentioned by the Minister occurred. That co-operation between Departments drove a reduction in knife crime.
Mr Hayes
Yes, I did not want to suggest—and I did not, actually —that it does not happen at all. What I said was that we did not do as well as we might. That is not to say that efforts are not made. I was involved in all kinds of cross-departmental work in various Government Departments, including when I did the same job as the Security Minister, who opened this debate. However, we do need to work more at having that kind of cross-fertilisation, application and collaboration. If the right hon. Gentleman can point to a precedent that could be followed, so be it. Governments should learn from their predecessors, regardless of party. All Governments do some things well and some things badly. All Governments have their moments in the sun and their periods in the darkness, do they not? All Governments have their brightly shining stars, although far be it from me to claim such a mantle. The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) is smiling because, of course, we worked together so effectively in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, and he knows well the approach that I took there.
This is a real opportunity. It may be an opportunity to stimulate just the kind of work I just mentioned. It is an opportunity for the Government to sit back and consider what they are getting right and what they are not, and what more can be done. It is also an opportunity for us to critique the effectiveness of the current policy, and to articulate some new ideas and thoughts about what we could achieve as time goes on.
This debate is a salient one. The hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford and for Leyton and Wanstead, myself and my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) and others called for this debate because, although violent crime, knife crime and gun crime are not new, there is a qualitative and quantitative difference now. There has been a step change in volume and a change in the character of the events that lead to the appalling crimes with the consequences that have already been described by others Members.
I want to speak today not really on my own behalf. By definition, I always speak on behalf of my constituents, but I also want to speak for all those who have been affected and are being damaged by these tragic events not just in London—as the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State said—although urban places have of course suffered most, but in places across the country. We have heard already that nearly 40 people have died this year as a result of knife crime and that more than 65 people have lost their lives in London since the beginning of the year due to violent crime. Yesterday, of course, saw a murder on a high street in broad daylight.
It needs to be said that this crime disproportionately affects particular communities. Despite making up less than 2%—about 1.4%—of the whole population, young black men represent a third of the victims of these crimes. We must do something about the disproportionate effect of violence in those communities. We owe all our people a duty; and when we look after all our communities, this House can feel truly proud. But by the same token, if we are not taking action and if any group of the population feels neglected, as the mothers of those victims clearly did, it is a cause not merely of disappointment, but of shame. I do not want to be shamed by a failure to act and I know that Ministers do not either, so let us be clear: we all want to make a difference. We are here because we care about this issue. I know both Ministers on the Front Bench, and I know that they care about getting this right as much as anyone in this Chamber.
Let us now talk about cause and effect, because so far in this debate there has been some meandering between the two. I want to be clear that we cannot just deal with the effects; we have to deal with the causes and we have to be honest about them. Yes, gang violence is a part of it. Yes, gang culture is a part of it. Yes, it is fed in part by social media. It is certainly affected by the character of the communities in which these people live. When people’s lives are stripped of purpose, they lose pride. When people lose a sense of place, pride and purpose, hopelessness prevails, and hopelessness leads to all kinds of malign and malevolent outcomes, including violence. If people have nothing to belong to, when there is nothing that give their lives shape and meaning apart from the membership of a gang, they are very likely to join one.
Chuka Umunna
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about gangs, but does he agree that we must actually be very careful about the way in which we use the term “gang”? It is unhelpful to put people, particularly young people, into that bracket because they are not gangsters. In some senses, using the term reinforces the notion that they are. There is also the problem that, if we put the issue into that bracket, we condition agencies and public sector bodies to think, “Oh well, that’s how those young people act.” There is then almost an expectation that that is how it is, and that we should just put people in that box. Does the right hon. Gentleman share my hesitation about that, not least because—due to social media, as was mentioned earlier—people are no longer acting in big groups, and the situation is much more localised and parochial than it was before?
Mr Hayes
It would be myopic—even misguided—to isolate the reality of violent crime, particularly knife and gun crime, from social and civil decline. We have to look at the character of community and the nature of civil society in order to get to the root of why this is happening at the scale and in the way in which it is. If this is the qualitative and quantitative change that I have described, we have to be straightforward, but also thoughtful, about the cause, and I think that part of that cause is the decline of traditional structures.
I spoke at the beginning of this debate about growing up on a council estate in south-east London. I had an idyllic childhood in a stable, loving family in a strong, responsible community in a place that I was proud to call home. Now, I do not for a moment claim that my family or the others that we lived among were wealthy. We certainly were not wealthy. By that stage, of course, people had a reasonable standard of living. We had enough food to eat, a well-furnished home, a seaside holiday for a fortnight a year—usually in Kent—as well as a polished second-hand car outside the door and a clipped privet hedge. This was not like the background that my father endured of abject poverty before the war; my childhood was not wealthy, but neither was it uncomfortable.
The key thing about that time was that the values that prevailed in that community were the kind of values that encouraged a sense of responsibility and purpose, which delivered the pride that I mentioned earlier. When people are purposeful and proud, they are much less likely to behave in a way that is socially unacceptable and they are certainly less likely to get involved in crime and violence. That is not to say that there was not crime then—of course, there has always been crime—but the character of those communities has absolutely changed from the time when I was growing up. I am sure that that is about family breakdown and the values that prevailed then that are no longer routine. It is also about all the civilities and courtesies that once informed daily life. I do think that some of that civil and social decline—that communal deterioration—is associated with the way in which individuals behave, and the way in which that behaviour sometimes spills over into crime and violence.
I agree with the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) that of course it is not all about gangs. The point I was making was that, in the absence of a positive social structure, alternative social structures will sometimes fill the void, and they are not all desirable. Some are fundamentally undesirable—indeed, they are malevolent in both intent and character. In essence, that is a very longhand way of saying that I broadly agree with him.
What are some of these social changes? I have spoken of some of them by way of illustration from my own life. We know from endless research that young people who grow up in broken or disjointed families are much more likely to be involved in antisocial behaviour, crime and drugs. We know that, when some of the other ties of community break down, both individual wellbeing and the common good are detrimentally affected. I spoke of having a loving family. There is no better element of civil society than strong, supportive families.
Our popular culture, however, celebrates success over respect, ego over reflection, opinion over knowledge, and desire and feeling over virtually everything else. Social media’s role in this is that it may have provided a platform to celebrate some of the things that I have described. Social media perpetuates a very egotistical perspective on the world as it celebrates all kinds of characteristics that are not necessarily those which build strong civil society. Knife crime is a devastating consequence of social and cultural malaise. Crime feeds on excess, irresponsibility and selfishness. From the desolation that flows from the kind of doctrine that places individual interest above communal obligations, and individual will above all else, first lawlessness and ultimately violence springs.
It may be convenient for the wealthy white City worker to believe that recreational drugs are his own private business. He may well assume that, as the godfather of liberalism, John Stuart Mill, would put it, his actions are doing no harm. Yet the boom in the middle-class market for cocaine is the root cause of the recent gang wars over county lines that have resulted in so many young lives being lost. Selfish individualism may indeed benefit those who spend their days safely ensconced in guarded office blocks, in the back seat of an Uber, or in gated communities exclusively for the wealthy, but for others it has resulted in desolation and life stripped of meaning and purpose. We cannot hope to find a successful cure for the wave of violence unless we accept the proper diagnosis.
It is not good enough for Governments to say that they can do nothing about drugs and the drug culture. We need a serious clampdown on middle-class drug use and an examination of how that drug use relates to the kind of violence that we are debating, because the lines of supply and demand are closely associated with gangs, with crime, with violence and with murder. I do not say this because they are my Government, or even my Ministers, if I might put it that way; I would say it about any responsible Government. The reasons for society’s failure to do that thus far are ironically, perhaps even paradoxically, the same as the reasons for the growth in the problems we face.
It is a disastrous consequence of the liberal consensus that stop-and-search was seen as part of the problem. I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about this. [Interruption.] No, no. Although we are, I hope, having a good-humoured and positive debate, as it should be—there are contributions from all parts of the Chamber that I will hear and certainly value, and I know that that will also add value to the considerations of Government—I do think that there is also a proper place for disagreement. I am going to talk a bit more about this, but I want to start by being very clear: freedom from being searched is really not more important than freedom from knife crime. Where is the freedom in living in fear of gangs, as so many young people in London do? Where is the freedom for young children drawn into a life of violence and crime as the runners for county line drug networks, or increasingly as drug peddlers in small towns and rural communities, as the right hon. Lady described?
The spike in knife crime must be a spur to action, not just for us to toughen our approach, which is urgent and necessary, but also for deeper measures to restore purpose and pride for people in places that are stripped of both. But first, we must restore the safety and security of our communities. That must mean extensive use of stop-and-search. Moreover, the police must be a visible part of those communities. People would be much less antagonistic towards the police—and towards stop-and-search, by the way—if they did not feel that these are the only times that they ever see them. When policemen were a regular feature of local life—when they were seen in circumstances that were not adversarial and were just there as part of the community—they enjoyed a different relationship with those communities. If policemen are seen to be there only when there is trouble, they will be defined by trouble, and that will change the relationship between the law-abiding public and the police.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
On the police’s relationship with the public, about a fortnight ago, on a Saturday morning, hundreds of members of the public turned out in the Willenhall area of Coventry because they were concerned about a lack of police numbers at the same time as an increase in crimes such as burglaries and assaults. That gives an idea of the level of public concern, certainly in Coventry and different parts of the west midlands, regarding the question of policing.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is always a well-informed and intelligent contributor to these debates, and, not for the first time, I both recognise and respect his view, but I suppose that what I am speaking about is the culture of policing rather than just the extent of it. I was describing a kind of policing that was once taken as read—routine. Policemen understood that their role was largely non-adversarial, with the policeman coming to one’s school, popping into the shop to pick up local information, or seen as a friendly face in the town, village, suburb, shopping parade or estate like the one I once lived in.
I am a great supporter of the police, as my local chief constable will testify, and an admirer of all that they do. I do think, however, that a sensible conversation at the Home Office and more widely in Parliament about the kind of police service that we want to grow, and the culture that prevails in it, is timely. People would be much more comfortable with the idea of police engagement if they perceived the police in the way that they once did.
Therefore, I do not think it is entirely about numbers. I am not saying that this is unrelated to them, but I think the Minister was right when he pointed out—as, to be fair, did the shadow Home Secretary—that it is not wholly about numbers. It may be about resources, but it is not wholly and probably not even mainly about them.
Sir Edward Davey
I suggest the right hon. Gentleman reads the serious violence strategy, which says on page 24:
“Some have questioned whether the reduction in the use of stop and search is driving the increase. The data do not support such a conclusion.”
Mr Hayes
I am coming to that now. Although stop-and-search has become more targeted, with 17% of police stops leading to an arrest in 2017 compared with 9% in 2010, we cannot ignore the fact that, in 2010, there were 13,833 weapons-related arrests, compared with 7,794 in 2017. Fewer people are being found with weapons, and fewer people are being arrested for having or carrying weapons with intent. It is all very well speaking about a more targeted approach, but in terms of the numbers—
Mr Hayes
I have already said that this debate stretches well beyond party politics. I know that it is always difficult for Liberal Democrats to step outside party politics, but I implore the right hon. Gentleman to raise his game and do so. I do not mean to be unkind; I am simply trying to be helpful.
The important thing is that fewer people are being arrested, and fewer people are therefore being convicted. Because of that, inevitably, more people feel they can get away with carrying a knife or a gun.
Sarah Jones
Ten years ago, only one in 10 stop-and-searches resulted in finding anything, and now it is something like one in three. The way that the police stop and search now is much more effective because it is much more targeted and intelligence-based. Surely that is the right approach, rather than a blanket approach of saying, “We’re going to stop and search anybody who looks a bit dodgy,” which is what was potentially happening in the past. It is much better for it to be completely targeted and based on intelligence, to ensure that those we stop are much more likely to have weapons or drugs.
Mr Hayes
There is of course a series of bases on which people are stopped and searched. The police are missioned to behave proportionately and, as the hon. Lady will know, there is a protocol associated with stop-and-search. Policemen must make it clear who they are and what they are doing and justify why they are doing it. She is right, of course, that it should not be used permissively. I am simply pointing out the fact that more people are carrying knives and guns and fewer are being arrested for doing so. I know that that will be of concern to the Government, and they will want to respond accordingly.
I also want to say a word about sentencing before I conclude. At the moment, as Members will know, there is a maximum four-year sentence for carrying a knife. In practice, as the Ministry of Justice reported recently, the average amount of time that people serve is just over six months. People are serving just over six months for being convicted of carrying a knife, and that is just not long enough. In Scotland, those convicted spend on average a year behind bars, and there is a lower rate of knife crime in Scotland than in England and Wales. Immediate action needs to be taken to address the issue of inadequate sentences.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is a vast number of reasons beyond sentence length for the reduction in knife crime in Scotland? It would be wholly false to give the impression that the reduction in knife crime in Scotland is down to sentencing, because there is a lot more to it, as the shadow Home Secretary said.
Mr Hayes
I have already pointed out that the reasons and causes of knife crime and all violent crimes are complex. It seems to me that, if the Scots believe that people should spend longer in prison once they have been convicted of carrying a knife, there may be some lesson to be learned from that. The lesson we might learn is that, if someone thinks there will be a longer sentence if they are convicted for carrying a knife with intent, they might be less likely to do so.
We need to tackle the alienation that has developed between those who grow up and live in the inner city and the highly privileged who often make the policies that affect them. The liberal consensus that has prevailed and that has failed to recognise the decline in the quality of life for many of the people who are most affected by these problems and who live on the frontline of violence is in part responsible for the failure of Governments to take the necessary action. There is a simple correlation, which is a meaningful one, between opportunity and purpose. Many of the communities worst affected by both the threat and the reality of this kind of violence are disadvantaged—the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington made that point. One of their key disadvantages is the lack of opportunity to gain and keep a job or to acquire the skills necessary to do so.
We have a big opportunity to improve the opportunities people enjoy to acquire a skill and then to get a job in which to use that skill. The first Crossrail project allowed us to do that with the development of the Tunnelling and Underground Construction Academy in east London. If we look at the kind of people who trained and did apprenticeships there, we will see that they were not drawn from the predictable, normal group. There were far more women apprentices and far more people drawn from the communities where the academy is based. As Crossrail 2 develops, it is vital that we reach out still further and give more of the people who might be drawn into lives that lead to crime, violence and drugs the opportunity to gain a skill and a job.
This comes back to the point made earlier about cross-governmental work. We need the Department for Education, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Home Office to work together to develop policies that provide the kind of opportunity that feeds hope. We must make sure that Crossrail 2 emulates and improves on what Crossrail 1 achieved for skills and training.
In conclusion, I repeat that I know the whole House cares about social and civil decline and about the quality of life available to the people most likely to be affected by violence, particularly knife crime and gun crime. I know that the Minister who will wind up the debate will want to respond to the heartfelt concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House, and I know that she does not have a closed mind about what the Government can do or about whether they can do more. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to hold this debate and that, as it has continued, the spirit has been one of collaboration and co-operation. However, this will require a really thorough and robust look at both the causes of crime and its effects and what we do about them. It is no longer enough for us to continue with business as usual. I think the Government and the Minister know that. We must relentlessly address the systemic causes of these problems and be robust in our response with respect to deterrence and punishment. To paraphrase a Labour politician who was once in fashion, we need to be tough on the reasons for violence and tough on its effect.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Although it may appear that we have a lot of time for this debate, many colleagues want to contribute to it, and I urge Members to be considerate of others so that we can get everybody in. With that in mind, if people speak for about 10 minutes, that will be fine, but do be considerate of others, because we cannot have speeches that are longer than those of the Front Benchers.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Before I turn to the subject of this debate, I want to pay tribute to those who are currently in Manchester commemorating the events that happened a year ago today, and I am very proud to say that Scotland’s First Minister is attending those commemorations. On behalf of Scottish National party Members, I offer our condolences to the families of the bereaved and to send our best wishes to the survivors. I pay tribute to the police, the security services, the emergency services, the NHS and other first responders last year, and most of all, I pay tribute to the city of Manchester and its Mayor for their strength and fortitude in the face of such adversity.
There can be no doubt that serious violence is a scourge on societies and communities across the United Kingdom. We have heard already today about the 22% rise in knife crime in England and Wales—the biggest year-on-year rise ever to be recorded, I understand. We have heard that more than 60 people have been murdered in this great city of London alone this year and that almost 40,000 offences involving knives or sharp weapons have been recorded by police in England and Wales—the highest level in seven years, I believe.
It is clear that current UK Government strategies are not working, and that cannot be swept under the carpet. Nor can the fact that cuts in police numbers and budgets do have an impact on the rise of serious crime. That is not my view—or my view alone: it is the view of the most senior police officer in England and Wales, the Met Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick. She has said in terms that cuts to police budgets play a part in these matters. It is a fact that while, between March 2007 and September 2017, police numbers in England and Wales decreased by 14%, in Scotland, by contrast, police numbers have been maintained since the SNP came to power at almost 1,000 more than under the previous Labour-Lib Dem coalition in Scotland.
I want to be positive today and look at the good news story in Scotland. These matters are devolved and police numbers are not the only area in which the Scottish Government have a positive story to tell; I was grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for alluding to that in her speech.
The infliction of death or assault by knife leaves a scar not only on the victim but on families, friends, neighbours and the wider community. We saw that in Scotland all too recently when, at an Aberdeen school in October 2015, a young man called Bailey Gwynne was stabbed to death. That caused a real national sense of shock and profound loss across Scotland. Despite that recent tragedy in Scotland, knife crime there has plummeted over the past decade. Given the recent spate of stabbings in London, it is understandable that police, politicians and healthcare professionals in England and Wales are now looking to Scotland for a clue as to how to solve the problem.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) said earlier, a decade ago, Scotland—Glasgow, in particular—had a serious problem with knife crime. In 2004-05, there were 40 murders in Glasgow, which represented more than a third of the total homicide rate across Scotland. The figure earned for Glasgow the inglorious title of “the murder capital of western Europe”.
At that time, I was serving as Crown Counsel, prosecuting in the high courts across Scotland. I came face to face with the results of knife crime on a daily basis. So I was particularly pleased when the then Strathclyde police—now part of the Scotland-wide police force—launched a new strategy in response to Glasgow’s epidemic of knife crime. It was a holistic approach that saw the formation of the violence reduction unit, which sought to treat violent crime as a public health and social problem. By treating violence as if it were a disease, the violence reduction unit sought to diagnose the problem, analyse the cause, examine what worked and for whom, and develop solutions that could be scaled up to help others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central has already spoken about how, as a councillor in Glasgow, she was taken to the sheriff court there to witness gang members listening to evidence given by the mums and girlfriends of young men who had been killed as a result of knife violence. That had a profound effect on the gang members.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for giving way on this point, which is a critical issue for my city to this day. The success of the violence reduction unit is a great legacy for the Scottish Government, under both Labour and SNP administration.
Critical to gang-related violence in Glasgow is the under-reporting of it in the city. One of the most effective measures that the violence reduction unit introduced was the surveillance of A&E departments, which cast significant light on the true scale of the issue in Glasgow and then enabled the deployment of effective strategies to deal with it. Perhaps that is something that the rest of the UK could learn from the city of Glasgow’s experience.
Joanna Cherry
Yes. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that, because the violence reduction unit works with the health service, schools and social workers to observe what is going on and to create lasting attitudinal change in society rather than just a quick fix.
Some mention has been made today of heavy sentences. Heavy sentences do not work. That is not my view but the result of research. That is why in Scotland we have looked at a more holistic approach, which has worked. Again, that is not my view but the view of the professionals who have examined the evidence. The violence reduction unit started out in Glasgow, but it is now a national unit across Scotland that receives long-term stable funding from the Scottish Government. It has been a huge success.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have listened very carefully to this debate and it has informed me a lot. Does the hon. and learned Lady think that adverts showing how awful the result of carrying knife might be and suggesting that no one should carry a knife would help?
Joanna Cherry
Displaying to those who carry a knife the evidence of the awful results of carrying a knife has worked in Scotland. As I said a moment ago, gang members were brought in to a court setting and they heard evidence from the mothers and girlfriends of young men who had been killed by knives. That kind of education really helps. When I worked as a prosecutor, I became aware that a lot of young men—it is mainly young men—simply have no idea of the potential consequences of wielding a knife. They think they can stab somebody and inflict a minor injury as a warning. So often, however, a stabbing leads to death. It is very important to get that message across. The violence reduction unit has worked in Scotland because it is not just a police initiative but has worked with the health service, schools and social workers to bring in young men who are tempted to carry a knife and to educate them out of the desire to do so.
The approach of the violence reduction unit fits very well with what is called a whole-system approach to crime, which was introduced by Scotland’s first SNP Government back in 2008, after their election in 2007. The whole system approach is designed significantly to change justice policy and focus on prevention rather than punishment. It is also focused on inclusion, making people feel invested and included in the society around them so they will not have the same desire to lash out at it.
The whole-system approach marks a shift away from previous policies that were very much designed to criminalise, label and stigmatise young people. Rather than do that, in Scotland we sought to provide early and effective interventions that kept young people out of formalised justice settings. That does not mean jettisoning a proper approach to criminal justice. If the crimes are committed and they are serious enough, they must be dealt with appropriately, but the whole-system approach focuses on collaboration with schools, social work, the police, the prosecution service and the third sector to stop the offending behaviour from happening at all and to reduce the rates of offending behaviour.
In addition to the violence reduction unit and the whole-system approach, the Scottish Government set up the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice at Strathclyde University. It is dedicated to supporting improvements in youth justice, and works to provide knowledge exchange, practice development for professionals working with young people, and research on youth justice issues. These approaches together have led to a vastly improved situation in Scotland. It is simply not true to say that heavy sentences in Scotland have led to that improved situation. What led to the improved situation in Scotland was the violence reduction unit and the whole-system approach. I recommend those to the House as worthy of study given the current crisis, particularly in London.
The facts speak for themselves. Crime in Scotland is now at its lowest level in 43 years. The crime of handling an offensive weapon decreased by 64% between 2007 and 2017—that is a huge achievement. The number of under-18s in custody has reduced by 77% and there has been an 82% reduction in children referred to a children’s hearing on offence grounds. The children’s hearings system in Scotland is unique; it seeks to cater for children and young people away from the court system.
Joanna Cherry
I will make some progress, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind. We are not complacent in Scotland. The problem has not gone away, so tackling violent crime must remain a key priority. That is why my colleagues in Edinburgh, in the Scottish Government, have invested over £14 million in violence reduction programmes for young people since the SNP came to power in 2007.
I pay tribute to one of the programmes that they have invested in—the No knives, better lives youth engagement programme. It has received more than £3.4 million in funding since 2009 and 24 of Scotland’s 32 local authorities are now involved. This national initiative works with local organisations to provide information and support. I was asked earlier about advertisements highlighting the dangers of carrying a knife. The No knives, better lives strategy goes much further: it aims to raise awareness of the consequences of carrying a knife and provides information and educational materials for use in schools and by other professionals, as well as health advertising campaigns and information on local activities and opportunities for young people to try to get them away from a culture of gangs and casual violence and into participating in and putting something back into their community. Research suggests that this educational work has been particularly effective in making a difference.
Joanna Cherry
I am very conscious of your strictures on not taking too long, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I am going to wind up now, and I will not take any more interventions.
This is one area where Scotland and the Scottish Government really do have a good news story to tell. Until about 10 years ago, Scotland, and Glasgow in particular, were notorious for violent crime. That is now a historical reputation—not a current reputation—not as a result of some heavy-handed law-and-order approach but because a whole-system approach was used. We need to remember that the young men who carry knives need our help. Some of them are only children. Of course, if they go on to commit a serious crime, they must be dealt with appropriately, but prevention is far, far better than cure.
I am very pleased that the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, has recognised this and has visited Glasgow and the violence reduction unit to see what lessons can be learned for London and beyond. I was also absolutely delighted that the Solicitor General recently accepted my invitation to come to Scotland to hear more about the whole-system approach from the perspective of the prosecution service, and to discuss moving away from prosecution and towards our early and effective intervention model. I and my Scottish Government colleagues are very much looking forward to welcoming the Solicitor General to Scotland, and I am sure that the Ministers here today would be very welcome to accompany him.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). I listened intently to her discussing the challenges that they have had in Scotland and the progress that has been made. As she rightly identified, that does not mean that the problem has been completely resolved. There is clearly always more to do.
I welcome the serious violence strategy, which Ministers have put forward in response to a problem that has been bubbling under the surface in this country for some decades and is again manifesting itself with tragic consequences. Tragically, there have been 40 deaths here in London in just the last few months.
Ministers are right to identify four themes in the strategy, but I want to dwell on the misuse of drugs and the illegal drug industry, which has become embedded over the decades, not just in London and the big cities, but in towns across the country. I represent Nuneaton. It is just about the largest town in Warwickshire and is extremely well connected in the middle of the country, just up the road from Coventry and Leicester and not too far from Birmingham. It is on the edge of Warwickshire, where it meets Leicestershire, but is also close to the west midlands in terms of policing.
There is a significant issue with cross-border crime that will not have passed the Minister by. It is not uncommon in my constituency for a tenant, particularly in social accommodation, to be befriended by an individual who then suddenly moves into the property—it is known as “cuckooing”—and very soon there is a satellite drug-dealing den in that property. They then befriend others in the community with inducements—cash and other things—who end up hooked on drugs and beholden to their suppliers. This is a critical issue to some other crimes that my constituents are concerned about.
My constituency has recently seen a spike in burglaries because of the illegal drugs industry and the use of illicit drugs. That extends to further organised crime and the taking of car keys in burglaries—the aggravated burglary where people are challenged in their own homes for their car keys—and all because some of my constituents over the last few years, although not wealthy, have started to do reasonably well. They have worked hard and now have nice cars and nice things, and they feel threatened by people hooked in locally who end up working for highly organised criminal gangs who want to take that new Jaguar or Ranger Rover and ship it abroad for a fraction of its value—still a significant amount of money.
Tied into this is the challenge presented by the tragic loss of life. I mentioned the 40 people killed in London recently. A few months ago we had an altercation in my constituency between two groups where a man lost his life. He had several children, who have now been left bereft as a consequence. Other people who have nothing to do with these challenges can also get mixed up in tragic situations. I will cite the case of a 20-year-old man in my constituency, Morgan Hehir. In 2015, he was on a night out with friends. They were walking between one pub and another and decided to take a shortcut across a park. They were followed by three men who, regrettably, set upon Morgan and his friends. Morgan was tragically stabbed with a steak knife, and died at the scene. It is very regrettable that some of these people know no boundaries. In this instance, the men even went to the extent of stealing Morgan’s phone and his wallet while he lay on the ground, either dying or having already died. That just goes to show the lengths to which some of these people will go, and how low some of them will stoop. As Members can imagine, Morgan’s parents have been devastated, his friends have been devastated, and the community has been left devastated.
The issues that we have talked about involving county lines feed into other massive social challenges that we face in our communities. For some months I have been working on a steering group with an organisation called P3, which was commissioned by Warwickshire County Council to support rough sleepers as an outreach organisation. It has become increasingly obvious to the steering group that the majority of the small but significant group of rough sleepers in my constituency are in that position because they have lost tenancies, generally in the social sector.
A frequent scenario is that people move in with someone who has a social tenancy—not always of that person’s own volition, because vulnerable people often feel threatened and do not feel able to throw out others who come to stay with them—and those people, often in a flat, end up making life hell for the other tenants in the block. At that point, the tenants who are having to live with the antisocial behaviour are likely to contact the local authority or housing association, and the holder of the tenancy often loses it as a result. It is apparent to me that many people have held two or three tenancies from a local authority or other social housing provider and have lost them because of the actions of others, which is clearly leading to a wider social problem.
So far we have all talked about things that are depressing, but I now want to talk about something that I find quite uplifting within the difficult situation that we face. One of the biggest problems is putting across to young people, in an educational way, that dabbling in drugs, getting hooked on drugs and hooking up with people who are involved with drugs is bad news, and they should avoid it at all costs. I have recently been heartened by the work of an organisation in Warwickshire called Street Aware, which was started by Councillor Richard Smith, and whose programme director is a lady called Donna Williamson. The organisation works with and trains young people in the issues surrounding drugs and the problems caused by them.
Those young people—they are unpaid, but they want to make a difference in their communities, and I pay tribute to them—then go out to schools and speak to school assemblies. They are speaking to their peers, so it not like one of us going and speaking to young people in a school where we are seen as just people in authority: what do we know? They speak to their peers on the same level, and make very clear to them the difficulties that they will get themselves into if they become involved in drugs. I commend Street Aware, Councillor Richard Smith, Donna Williamson, and those young people who are doing such a good job for our communities. I was recently delighted to attend a National Crimebeat Awards ceremony at which Street Aware scooped second prize for its work for local communities in Warwickshire.
We need more education: we need more education about drugs, and we need to support organisations such as Street Aware. We also need to be doing the same in respect of knives. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West said, one of the key planks of the success we have seen, particularly in Glasgow, has been making people aware of the problems that will be caused if they carry knives and use them. Quite often these young people will not want to use a knife, but if they are being threatened and told by somebody who they are running drugs for that they must carry a knife, they will feel compelled to do so, and if they get into a situation where they are challenged and they panic, they might well use that knife without thinking, only to realise afterwards that the consequences for the person they have attacked and for themselves are massive. Using a knife is likely to blight their life as well as that of the person it has been used against.
We must also do more to help young people to engage with society. There are people who engage very well, such as those who play football, go to athletics clubs or attend the Scouts, but there are others who do not get involved in any community activity at all, and we need to look more carefully at how we can get them engaged.
I also welcome the measures in the strategy to do with the police. I welcome the extra support my police in Warwickshire have received recently, and I am glad to say that my police and crime commissioner, Philip Seccombe, is employing an additional 50 police officers in Warwickshire. That might seem a small number to Members who represent city communities, but Warwickshire Police is the second smallest police force in the country and 50 officers represent an extremely important resource. We should also look not just at how many police officers we have got, but how we use them. That is important because many of the offences we are talking about are cross-border crimes; they do not recognise administrative barriers. We must ensure, therefore, that our police forces—whether West Midlands, Warwickshire, West Mercia or Leicestershire—are all working together, sharing intelligence and working with the local authorities in their areas, and that in turn the local authorities and other services are passing intelligence between each other.
Sarah Jones
I serve on the Select Committee on Home Affairs and we went to see the National Crime Agency to talk about county lines. The NCA made the point that these crimes are not just cross-border within this country, but are cross-border across Europe and the world. One of the worries about Brexit that the NCA expressed was that at the moment we can arrest people, follow people and collaborate with other countries, and if we do not get that sorted when we leave the EU, we will be in big trouble.
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady is right from the point of view that the world has in recent decades become a very small place, and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) eloquently pointed out—as did my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime—there are places from which people can send things through the post right to somebody else’s door; they no longer need a long distribution chain with items changing hands. The Prime Minister has been clear about this country and its exit from the EU and about wanting to maintain that information-sharing, working with other countries in the EU and beyond. Although we are leaving the EU, we are still very much part of Europe and we want to continue to work with our European partners to ensure that we support and assist each other in reducing the amount of crime.
Mr John Hayes
In the absence of the Security Minister, and speaking as the ex-Security Minister, I can tell my hon. Friend that that co-operation is very much part and parcel of how this Government and all Governments operate. Much of it is international, and it is not limited by the European Union. The Five Eyes community is an example of such co-operation. The chances of that co-operation stopping are very slim indeed, because of the mutual interests that lie at its heart.
Mr Jones
I understand what my right hon. Friend says. He has considerable knowledge in this area of policy, and he is absolutely right to say that the will is there to ensure that, on leaving the EU, this country will continue to be a partner of other countries within the EU in tackling the challenges that we all want to deal with.
I welcome the early intervention youth fund that the Government have announced. Our police and crime commissioners, being embedded in their communities across the country, are ideally placed to use that funding to work with local authorities and other partners, whether in the not-for-profit sector or the private sector, to deliver programmes to engage young people and pull them away from gang culture and from communities where they might be vulnerable. I certainly welcome that.
I also welcome the strategy that has been put forward today. This debate has given me the opportunity to put on record a number of my concerns about keeping my constituents safe, and I hope that, through today’s debate, through the work that the Government will do on the strategy, and through the additional measures that the Home Office is taking, particularly in its work with the Treasury, we will be able to tackle some of the underlying issues that have been bubbling under the surface. As I have said, we really must get under the surface to tackle them.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I want to begin by thanking the Minister for finally providing the time to debate this extremely important issue. It might interest the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) to know that I have been requesting this debate since 22 March, and I am grateful to everyone in the Chamber who also requested such a debate on 19 April. The Government’s strategy was published on 9 April and finally, on 22 May, we have a chance to debate it. Since I first called for this debate, we have lost 20 people to violent murders in London alone.
Before I begin, I want to urge the Minister to listen and genuinely take on board the comments that have been made by Members across the House today. This is not an issue that we can afford to play politics with. We know that the rise in youth violence has not just happened overnight, and we must realise that developing the right solutions will not happen overnight either. We will not fix violence with a few years’ worth of funding in a single parliamentary term. This will require cross-party working on a generational scale. We need a long-term strategy that Government after Government—I hope one of them will be a Labour Government—will continue to implement, no matter who is in power. We owe this to every person who has lost their life to violence, to every family that has lost a loved one and to every community still traumatised by violence.
Many Members will know that I am keen for us genuinely to address this issue, and that that has been driven by what I see locally. Since I was first elected, we have lost seven young lives: Shaquan Fearon, 17; Naseem Galleze, 17; Kabba Kamara, 23; Jamar Walker, 15; Myron Yarde, 17; Rukevwe Tadafe, 21; and Leoandro Osemeke, 16. In one school year, Lewisham Deptford has lost seven young people to violent deaths. Many teenagers in my constituency know someone who has been stabbed or murdered, and this breaks my heart. Those young people were part of our local community. They had families and friends, and those people are now grieving and hurting. Nobody quite understands why those lives were taken so needlessly and so senselessly. If this happened in a football stadium or in a workplace, we would rightly be crying out for a public inquiry.
In London we have had more than 60 murders since the start of this year, so we all know the Government need to act. We all need to act, and we need to do something different. We need to get in there and understand the root causes. What early interventions can we make to ensure that no young person carries a knife, and certainly never uses one? Prevention and early intervention are what it must be about. No young person is born carrying a knife. Something happens that leads them to feel they need to carry one, be it fears about their safety or a desire to fit in. Thankfully, we all now recognise that prevention and early intervention are better than cure.
I compliment the Government on this strategy, which rightly states that the only way truly to tackle violence is with early intervention and prevention. The strategy talks about using teachable moments to engage with young people, but I do not believe that teachable moment is when a kid turns up at A&E having been stabbed—that is not good enough. Why only then do they have a youth worker to work with them? I want us to be far more ambitious.
We need to start far, far earlier, working with families from birth by providing support such as Sure Start, which works with a child and their family from a pre-school age. Let us have that as the teachable moment, or does it not provide a good enough photo opportunity? The media and the Government, when talking about this issue, always seem to glamorise it: the media, with photos of gangsters or knives, make areas out to be the hood; and the Government with photo ops in A&E or with ex-gangsters.
Our young people are cool. They are cool because they are our future lawyers, bankers, nurses, doctors, social workers, footballers, music artists and, indeed, politicians. They can go on and achieve anything, and we have to ensure that we provide them with the opportunities so they can do anything.
To be brutal, the Government have provided an excellent analysis of the problem but, quite frankly, this is not a decent enough strategy. It is tinkering at the edges. At £40 million, the strategy just is not enough, especially when we consider that, at the same time, £387 million has been cut from our youth services.
The cross-party Youth Violence Commission, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna), the hon. Members for Braintree (James Cleverly) and for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), the right hon. Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) and for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and I have been working with our academic partner, Warwick University, has been studying the underlying causes of youth violence for nearly two years.
In February 2018 we conducted a national survey of more than 2,200 young people looking at their experiences of violence. More than 70% of young people tell us they are exposed to serious violence in real life at least once a month, and younger respondents aged eight to 19 experience the most serious violence. More than 16% of young people say they do not feel safe in their own home. Thirty-eight per cent. of young people know at least one person who sells drugs and, shockingly, almost 10% know more than 10 people who do. Forty per cent. of young people agree it is easy to buy illegal drugs where they live. And 33% of young people know at least one person who carries a weapon, and 7% know more than 10 people who do.
Put simply, this shows us that our young people are experiencing adverse childhood experiences far too often. We must do more to address that. I am pleased that the Government’s strategy references ACEs and the need to have a trauma-informed approach to policing, the youth justice system and looked-after children.
I am also pleased that police forces in Wales will be piloting a public health approach. We already know from the work of the violence reduction unit in Scotland that closer integration of services and communities can produce extremely positive results, but with just £7 million allocated to this public health approach, following £58.8 million of cuts to Welsh policing, surely the funding does not even fill the gap. We have seen 59% cuts to the Youth Justice Board, but those have been countered by a 23% increase in what we have to spend on our looked-after children. We therefore have to question whether we are paying for failure, because we have not invested in youth services, children’s services and schools.
We do know that we can get dramatic results by investing in and taking a public health approach to addressing serious violence; listening to communities, not dictating to them; and seeing the evidence of how such an approach works from Scotland, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) mentioned, from Chicago and elsewhere. With Birmingham, Reading and many London boroughs looking to replicate this, surely it is time we seek to do this on a wider scale, empower our communities to do this and look for a public health approach.
We have been listening to people and trying to find solutions that work. As part of the work of the commission, we held a series of evidence sessions where we listened to experts, practitioners and, most importantly, young people on a range of issues, including youth services, trauma and mental health, education and housing. I have visited numerous youth organisations and projects across the country. Our last session took place yesterday, and it covered policing and the criminal justice system. We had an interesting discussion on drugs. Some believed that if we legalised drugs, that would be enough to stop the drugs market. Others rightly identified the disparity between the treatment of, say, a young white kid caught with drugs at university and a young black kid caught with drugs on a street corner. The law is not implemented indiscriminately: black people are twice as likely as white people to be charged with possession of drugs, despite lower rates of drug use.
One thing we agreed on was the importance of educating people on the societal impact of recreational drug use. Many people today are conscious of where they get their clothes, coffee and meat from, but have a blind spot when it comes to the illegal drug market. Many of the people who are so careful to buy only Fairtrade coffee and wear ethically sourced clothes are the same people who do cocaine at the weekends, with no consideration of the wider impact of this habit. Perhaps if there were educational programmes on the real harm caused by the drug market, more people would treat cocaine with the same disdain they do to clothes made in sweatshops or eggs from caged hens.
Vicky Foxcroft
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and I think this is probably one area where we would have a cross-party consensus.
Some other clear themes emerged from the commission’s evidence sessions and the visits that I undertook. The Government’s serious violence strategy has much that aligns with our work, particularly a focus on early intervention, which is crucial. Many young people who are affected by serious crime, either as a victim or a perpetrator, have themselves been subjected to adverse childhood experiences. As a result, they grow up with unaddressed trauma and mental health issues, which can make them extremely vulnerable to negative influences, so support mechanisms are crucial. Young people need to have consistent and safe spaces where they can go for advice and support. Those could be counsellors in school, mentors or role models, community spaces, or grassroots charities and organisations. Right now, too many young people do not have access to any of those. We must do more to provide the training and funding for these types of activities. Prevention is always better than cure, and in this case prevention will undoubtedly save lives.
One thing we have definitely learnt from our work is that there are no quick fixes. The path to change will require long-term investment and an integrated approach, with public services, the police, communities and individuals all working closely together. The commission’s work has produced a lot of questions that we must address and that are beyond the current scope of the serious violence strategy, because the net has not yet been cast this wide. We must ask ourselves whether our school system is fit for purpose. Police officers in Lewisham have told me that the most dangerous time of day for stabbings among young people is after school and before parents come home from work. Should we therefore consider changing the hour that school finishes at to, say, 5 pm or 6 pm?
We must look at whether young children have enough positive male role models in their lives. Should we look into recruiting 50% male primary school teachers? Should we teach sex and relationship education at an earlier age? Perhaps we should teach primary school children what positive and negative relationships look like. Should our teachers be trained to teach in a trauma-informed way? Should we have dedicated police officers in all our schools, including primary schools, to build up trust with our young people so that they know police officers are safe people to speak to? Should we aim to have a policy of zero exclusions in schools?
Should we revisit the school syllabus, so that we can actually give young people the life skills for future employment—for example, by teaching them about budgeting, getting a mortgage or investing? Should we also teach social media classes that not only prepare young people for employment but ensure that they are safe online? Should we change our history syllabus to ensure it is much more culturally diverse and representative of our communities? Are we providing the right level of mental health support for young people in school?
There are also questions about youth service provision. How do we ensure that there is less needless competition between charities, and instead foster more collaboration? Time and again, grassroots charities see the usual suspects —the large charities that are able to afford bidding teams and that know how the system works—get funding for programmes. How do we provide long-term, sustainable funding for programmes that prove that they get results, run by smaller organisations right in the heart of our communities? As politicians, we have a responsibility to our young people and future generations to answer all those questions.
There is so much more that I could say and want to say, but I want to ensure that everybody gets to speak in the debate. Hopefully, Members can see that the youth violence commission’s work has been comprehensive and rigorous. Our initial findings will be published before the summer recess. I am grateful that the Prime Minister has agreed to meet me to discuss our work. As chair of the youth violence commission, I am aware of how many previous reports and strategies successive Governments have published that have been related to youth violence in one way or another. Many of the recommendations from those reports have never been implemented or, when they have been, progress has not been evaluated. I hope the Government’s serious violence strategy does not follow the same path, because young people continue to die on our streets. We owe it to them and to future generations to make sure that we fix this.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). As I listened to his oration, I was struck by the comparison between his constituency—which, incidentally, I have never visited—and my own, and by how many shared experiences we have. It is of course also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). Although I do not agree with everything that she says, she speaks with such passion and is clearly so very dedicated to this most important of issues.
I think I speak for every single Member of this House in saying that there is no question but that we want to tackle and have a passion for tackling the scourge that is knife crime and youth violence. I wish to touch on a couple of specific points in respect of the serious violence strategy. Several Members have already made the case so passionately and compellingly for why it is so important to get this right: because of the impact of knife crime, violent crime and murder on not just families but whole communities. I particularly remember the cases in recent years of two young people, Nahid Almanea and James Attfield, who were stabbed to death in my constituency. They were horrific murders that really shook and affected the entire community.
I am going to focus on young people and children. Why? Because, in too many cases, children and young people are not just the victims of knife crime and youth violence but, tragically, the perpetrators, too. This problem is not unique to London and our major cities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton said. If we went back 10, 15 or 20 years, we could have probably said that. Would we have seen and heard Members of Parliament for Nuneaton and Colchester making a contribution such as this to these debates? Probably not because instances of this nature were a rarity; they were not commonplace. However, one phenomenon that we have seen, particularly in the past three to five years, is the growth of county lines. It is really concerning how this issue is stretching out further and further from our major cities. First, it was just south Essex, then it moved up to mid-Essex, and now it is prevalent in north Essex and beyond; I reference, of course, Colchester, my own constituency.
Up until there were incidents in my own constituency, I had no dealings with or knowledge of county lines. When we see some of the activity that takes place, of course, it all revolves around drugs. Colchester is just one example; there are towns up and down the country that are being affected by county line operations. When we talk about the individuals who operate these county lines, they are not, in effect, the drug dealers; they are the kingpins—they are the people who never touch drugs. It is the people further down the line who are actually peddling the drugs and bringing to our towns, up and down our country, not just their drugs, but their violence and the intimidation that comes with it.
In one particularly striking incident in the town that I represent, there were six knife attacks in one evening. It was not particularly late—I think that it was about 6 pm in the evening in Colchester. Interestingly, all six were committed by, and perpetrated against, individuals who were not from my town; they were all from London and they were rival drug gangs. They came to Colchester, bringing with them that violence and intimidation to sell drugs on what they saw as a fertile patch—a market that was not, and is not, saturated in the way that London and so many other places are.
The other concerning development, which is also related to county line activity, is cuckooing. This was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton. Again, it was not something that I had come across until a constituent raised it with me on a Friday in my constituency office. Without being over-disparaging, I could see that he was clearly a drug user himself. He said that his flat had been taken over by individuals from London whom he had willingly let in. They were threatening him with a firearm, had huge quantities of class A drugs and were using his property as a base from which to deal and to peddle their drugs over the course of a week, and sometimes two. Sadly, we are seeing that pattern of behaviour repeated.
More worrying than that is whom these vicious drug gangs are preying on in terms of their targeting for the cuckooing activity. It tends to be prostitutes, people with mental health issues, those who are in social housing and particularly isolated and existing drug addicts. They know that these individuals are vulnerable and can be targeted.
That is worrying enough in itself, and an issue that we should tackle, but the greatest concern is the use of children in county line operations and cuckooing—whether it is blackmail or bribing them with money. They may initially be bought a pair of trainers, at which point they have been bought. Seemingly the trainers are a gift, but at that point those children are forever indebted to the drug dealer. There may be threats to their family, or intimidation and violence either on their family or on their person. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) said, it may be that the young person wants to reach out and look for somebody who will give them that sense of belonging. It does not really matter; these are young people who are victims.
I want to give the House a hypothetical example—it could easily be real; it is real up and down the country—of a cuckooing activity in which an individual preys on a vulnerable drug user or prostitute. They will pick on social housing, because they know that there are a lot of comings and goings in such blocks of flats and that the dealing of drugs would not be noticed in the way it would in a regular residential property. In that block, there is a young child—perhaps as young as eight, nine or 10—who may have been, as I said, offered trainers or a small amount of money as an inducement to help the individual to sell drugs. The child may have been threatened personally, but more commonly the threat will be against somebody they love, such as their mother, who could be the person in the corner who has just had their hit of heroin. The drug gang targets the one person on whom the young person relies more than anyone else in the world. That threat is enough to force the child to go out and sell drugs, because they are terrified.
We must intervene. What should we do when we get the opportunity? I am not pretending that this is easy, but why are we still treating young people—in many cases, they are children—as criminals? Yes, they have gone out to deal drugs, but what message does it send out when we criminalise a child who has been groomed, threatened, abused and blackmailed with threats against their mother, for example? We need to send out a clear message that children in such situations are not criminals, but victims. Until we treat them as such, things are not going to change.
Of course, that has to be within reason and we need caveats. If a young person or a child has committed a serious offence, particularly one against another person, such as a knife attack, it is right that the police and the criminal justice system take appropriate action. However, it is not hard to identify where these children and young people are clearly victims. It is important that we treat them as such, if no other reason—although there are many—than that the cost of getting things wrong is so great. Not only would the young person or child be set on the wrong path for the rest of their life, but we are labelling them as a criminal. What are their future life chances if they get a criminal conviction at a young age for trafficking or selling drugs? What message does that send out?
We know that drug gangs are increasingly using children as young as eight, nine or 10, as I said, because the gangs know that they are less likely to be stopped and searched and that they tend to be more vulnerable and easier prey for grooming. We know that such things are increasing, and we know that we must break the cycle and intervene. The question is how we intervene.
I welcome the £11 million for an early intervention youth fund, the £3.6 million for a national county lines co-ordination centre, and the cross-party taskforce, which is a good thing, but I encourage close working between police forces up and down the country and the Metropolitan police to break the county lines, which are effectively phone lines up and down the country that are bought and sold like franchises. I also encourage the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is hugely passionate about this issue, to work with the Ministry of Justice so that we ensure that we treat the young people and children whom we identify as victims as victims, not criminals.
Moving quickly on to sentencing, I am sure that none of us wants to throw vast swathes of young people and teenagers into prison for possession of a knife or an offensive weapon. We all know that it is far better to rehabilitate them in our communities, but that has to be meaningful if it is to work. I would like any under-18s who are convicted or cautioned for a first-time knife-related offence to be sent on a mandatory weapons awareness course as part of any caution or sentence.
I am not making a direct comparison, but we already do this when people are caught speeding at a low level. Instead of paying a fine, people can go on a day’s course. I have not done it yet—I wonder how many Members across the House can say that—but those who I know have been on the course have told me that it is quite hard-hitting. Attendees are shown, very graphically, why it is important not to speed. This includes seeing the impact of drivers doing over 30 mph in areas with a 30 mph speed limit if they were to hit a pedestrian, including a child. The point is that the course is a graphic reminder of why we should not speed. Why should we not send under-18s who are convicted—or indeed just cautioned—of knife possession on a mandatory course, so that they have to see at first hand the impact that their actions could have?
Lyn Brown
I get where the hon. Gentleman is coming from—it is wholesome. My young people tell me that they carry a knife because they cannot be found lacking. We do not keep them safe, and they therefore feel that they have to keep themselves safe. Although I can see where he is coming from, I am not sure that we are really getting to the root cause or understanding of the problems that we are facing in the inner city.
Will Quince
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. I entirely understand where she is coming from, but I respectfully disagree. I will come to exactly why I disagree in just one minute. I first want to touch briefly on weapons awareness.
The hon. Lady is right when she says that young people carry a knife because they believe that it keeps them safer and they have to carry a knife because everyone else is carrying one. Yet we know that that is a hugely ignorant position because every single statistic out there tells us that people are more likely to be the victim of the knife crime attack if they are carrying a knife themselves. We have to get that message across to young people through numerous mediums—not just in schools and not just to people who are caught carrying a knife. We have to show them what it looks like to be stabbed with a knife and what it would look like to see their mother crying over their body. People need those hard-hitting lessons. As much as I agree with the hon. Lady, we have to give it a go. I think that the bang for the buck would actually be worth while.
Lyn Brown
That is where I was a few years ago, but time has moved on. My little sister is a solicitor. She used to take people into schools to talk about the unlucky stab—that is, when people did not mean to kill somebody, but they cut an artery and so on. These people would talk to kids about the impact of the unlucky stab on their lives and the lives of others. But I am not sure that that is actually where we are now, because of what the hon. Gentleman is talking about: county lines and organised crime, which have changed the whole gang situation entirely.
Will Quince
The hon. Lady again makes a very valid point. I do not disagree with her. She is almost certainly right when we are talking about mid-teenagers, late-teenagers and people in their early 20s, but we need to reset the dial and start this education in primary and secondary schools now. I am not suggesting that this is a panacea. I am not even suggesting that it is a quick or easy fix, but it has to be part of a solution and a package of measures that will help to eradicate knife crime in the medium to long term.
There is an organisation in my constituency called KnifeCrimes.Org, which is run by a lady called Ann Oakes-Odger. In the neighbouring constituency, a lady called Caroline Shearer runs another organisation called Only Cowards Carry. These inspirational women each lost a child to a knife crime attack—hugely tragic—but they have harnessed that energy and set up charities that are doing such great good around weapons awareness, particularly in schools. I look to the Minister because these organisations need funding in order to survive. In some cases, that comes via the police and crime commissioners, but I want to see more central funding made available for these organisations, which do such good work at a grassroots level.
I have been on one of the courses. I sat in a school and watched one of the presentations, it was really hard-hitting. Everyone leaves thinking, “Wow.” We were shown on a huge projector what numerous knife wounds look like. We learnt about the impact on families. If I had watched one of those presentations as a seven, eight, nine or 10-year-old, or even in the early stages of secondary school, I would have found it quite compelling.
Too many young people are carrying knives, and we need to understand why that is by getting in early. That is why primary schools are so important. We need to show these young people, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), that a knife does not keep them safe; statistically, it makes them far more likely to be the victims of a knife crime attack. We must hammer that message home—not just in schools as part of weapons awareness education, but as part of social media activity and in TV ads like those being run in Scotland. There has to be an overall package of measures to show them how it feels to have a life shattered by a member of their family losing their life through a traumatic weapons attack.
May I gently push the Minister on a couple of things? We need weapons awareness classes in school. We must support the organisations up and down this country that are providing that and support the creation of new ones. I would like to see mandatory weapons awareness sessions as a condition of a conviction for someone caught carrying a knife. It is not acceptable just to give them a caution, a slap on the wrist, and an “Off you go”. We have to do more by sending them on a mandatory course. Yes, there is a cost to that, but I think it would pay dividends in terms of the number of people for whom we could break the cycle. I also encourage the Minister to push for closer working between local police forces and the Metropolitan police to tackle the growing issue of county lines, which we desperately need to resolve.
Finally, probably the most important message that I can impart to the Minister is this: please, please can we treat the children and young people who are caught up and groomed, victimised and intimidated into county lines activity and drug dealing as victims, not as criminals?
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince). The House is indebted to him for a speech that showed great understanding of the problem of county lines and how this new way of distributing drugs is harming individuals, families and communities; and also for the fact that he had some very constructive proposals to put to the Minister. I support him in that. I dare say that he might not like this comment, but it almost sounded like a Liberal speech. He was right to focus on county lines. I think that the strategy is very good on that problem. His point about co-ordination between different police forces is really important.
I will be very interested to see whether the Minister has any comments to make about the drug dealing telecommunications restriction orders that are now being rolled out. In his opening remarks, the Security Minister talked about some initial signs of real success in that they are seriously disrupting county lines. We must hope that they will continue to do so. I hope that Ministers will be able to report to the House about the success of those orders as we go forward in tackling county lines.
I wanted to start my remarks by remembering the victims of the terrorism in Manchester last year, as spokespeople for the other parties have done. I very much agree that those victims should be in our thoughts today, not least as we discuss this particularly important issue. We saw the tragedy of the families who were bereaved—the mothers, fathers, daughters and sons. That must be in our thoughts. The fact that the people of Manchester responded so powerfully together in their unity is something that we should celebrate.
I also want to talk about real people in the rest of my speech. In my constituency we have had people suffering from the effects of knife crime. I have been particularly engaged with a family who lost a son in June last year. Derick Mulondo was in his 30s. He was stabbed by a former partner. He was one of those people who everyone loved. He was a community activist. Young people would see him as a leader. He would go and organise football matches at the local park. After he was taken from us, the young people would go to his mother’s door and say, “Now Derick’s gone, who do we look to?”, so we doubly suffered as a result of that awful murder.
His mother, Sophie Kafeero, is one of the most courageous people I have ever met. She is still suffering, and she goes to her son’s grave very regularly to talk to him. She, in her grief, has had support from Derick’s friends to set up a campaign called “Drop a Knife, Save a Life”. That campaign is in its infancy, and I hope that in due course it will make an application to the Government’s community fund, because it could do a lot of good work with other organisations such as Oxygen in my constituency, which is also tackling the problems of knife crime.
We must learn from these victims and listen to them—listen to their pain and their strength, and listen to what they are saying about what needs to be done. The Government have done some good things to support community initiatives, but I urge them to go further, because I am afraid there are too many mothers like Sophie.
The strategy has many positive aspects. I will come to some criticisms in a minute, but the positive aspects are worth focusing on. Some of the analysis in it, written by good Home Office officials and with lots of evidence, is definitely worth reading and debating, because we need our policies to be evidence-based. I wish more of the Government’s policies were evidence-based. Let us hope that this one will be.
The fact that the strategy puts prevention high up the agenda was welcomed across the House and the country. There are some issues with putting money behind that, but ensuring that prevention is a priority is important. A few Members have touched on the international aspects we are facing, which we need to say more about, and I will come on to that.
Some of the Government’s initiatives deal with new aspects of the debate, including not just county lines but social media and its link to drug distribution, and the glamorisation of drugs; young people are told about the money they can make, but they are not told that they could lose their lives. Social media is having such a big impact. I think the Government are taking that seriously. I may question their judgment and their decisions at times, but I do not question their motives on this at all.
As other Members have said, two big things are missing from the strategy. The first—I am sorry to say this to the Minister, but I have to—is the lack of acknowledgment of the impact of police cuts. If we look at the evidence printed in The Guardian, which was not published and which the former Home Secretary said she had not read, it is absolutely clear that the cuts were likely to have been a contributory factor to the rise in violent crime.
The other key problem, linked to that, is resources. This puts a challenge to the Government. They talk about the need for prevention, but a lot of the activities in local government, the health service, schools and the police that were focused on preventing crime in the first place have been cut, and the Government’s welcome extra funding mentioned in the strategy does not come close to replacing the money that has been lost.
Let me return to some of the policies, which are important. The strategy refers to the
“large potential benefit to preventative intervention”.
It talks eloquently about the need for both universal preventive interventions and targeted interventions, and that is worth focusing on. The strategy talks about looking at young people and families where there is a combination of high-risk factors, and where it is very beneficial for the local authority, Government and police to come together to intervene really early. We hear about early intervention on so many subjects, but here it is about saving lives. The Government should talk more about that and then put the money behind it. Other Members have touched on the importance of helping children who have had chaotic lives, whose health and education have been affected and who are so vulnerable to the drug gangs that prey on them. Unless we intervene to help them, we are setting the whole of society up for failure.
Lyn Brown
I have been working with mums whose children are or have been involved in county lines, and one of the messages they are very keen to get across is that this could happen to anybody, whoever they are. A police officer who spoke to me the other week told me about how the child of one of their colleagues had got involved. I want us to be very aware of the fact that this could genuinely happen to anybody, and we should not stereotype any group of people we think may be involved.
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. She has actually anticipated what I was going to say next. One of the other groups who are very vulnerable and are preyed on are those with mental health issues. As she said, this could happen to anybody or any family. That comes back to the crisis in child and adolescent mental health services. As I am sure is the case in colleagues’ constituencies, CAMHS are absolutely on their knees. If we are talking about prevention, we really must tackle that as quickly as possible.
I want to talk about the positive international aspects of the serious violence strategy. Some of the statistics, particularly those on pages 19 and 20, show that Britain may not be alone in experiencing such a rise in violent crime. I know that the Government are planning an international symposium in the autumn, and that is very important. It may well be that issues such as austerity—the cuts in state spending not just in the UK but in other developed countries—have had an impact. Let us be frank about that. Linked to this are the growth in social media, strengthening organised crime, bumper coca crops in Colombia and the reduction in prices. All these international elements wash up on our shores and affect our communities as well as other countries.
We need to work with other countries; in doing so, let us learn from them—their successes should be shared with the House—and remember the importance of international co-operation. I forget which colleague said that Brexit may undermine such co-operation. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) brushed that aside, but he is totally wrong. I had the privilege of going to Eurojust and Europol in The Hague 10 years ago to see how with them, and tools such as the European arrest warrant and joint initiatives, we could be far more effective in catching criminals and bringing them to justice. Let us remember that the sort of criminals Eurojust and Europol go after, using the European arrest warrant, are the organised criminals who span boundaries. I know that colleagues who think Brexit is a terribly good idea will say, “Don’t worry. It’s in everyone’s interest to work together”. Yes, it is, but we will not be in the room or making the rules for Eurojust and Europol’s use of the European arrest warrant. These are relatively young tools that will be more and more developed in the future, but we will not be in the room.
Anyone who goes to see how Eurojust operates will find that there is just one representative from each member state, and when there is an investigation—such investigations often involve drugs—a representative just calls those of the other member states through which the investigative forces will have to travel to arrange the right warrant and so on. Such co-operation can happen at lightning speed so that we can catch the criminals who try to escape justice by playing people off against each other and going across jurisdictional boundaries. By not being in the room, we will undermine our ability to take on such organised criminals, so although the Government are right to talk about international co-operation, they are not really in a very good place.
My final point about international co-operation concerns the Border Force. We often think about the Border Force in terms of stopping illegal immigration, but it is actually critical in stopping drug trafficking. The Border Force has been devastated, particularly when the current Prime Minister was Home Secretary, which is not a good policy if we are trying to tackle serious violent crime, county lines and the Mr Bigs behind such vulnerable people. We should be most worried about the Mr Bigs, but dealing with them requires an international response.
Before I finish, let me talk a little more about some of the problems in the strategy. I have talked about resources, but I want to come back to that issue. The strategy itself says:
“The recent downward trend in arrests and charges for some crimes lessens the certainty of punishment.”
In other words, because there are fewer police officers, fewer people are being arrested and charged. [Interruption.] I accept that the strategy does not say that, Minister, but I quoted it directly initially. The downward trend in arrests and charges has come only because there are fewer police officers. I say to the Minister that we need more detectives, as serious crime is rising and we need to go after the perpetrators. Not only that, but if we cannot arrest the perpetrators in the first place because there are fewer officers, that will reduce the deterrence against crime because people will think that they will not be caught. That is a real issue.
I lament the fact that the Government have not reacted quickly enough to the uptick in serious crime over the past two years. We have learned how to use police officers more efficiently, particularly with the new technique of hotspotting. The evidence shows that that can be very effective against drug dealers and all sorts of criminals. We know more about getting the best value for money out of the police, and reducing their numbers at this time just does not make sense. The shadow Home Secretary quoted Cressida Dick, and Ministers should be learning from her.
Finally, I know that the strategy includes an inter-ministerial group but, as other colleagues have mentioned, if we are going to take the approach that the Government rightly set out in the strategy, we have to see more cross-departmental work. This will come from the top only if Cabinet Ministers are sitting around the table regularly chasing the issue and making sure that their departmental officials see this as a top priority. I am afraid that I will not be convinced that the Government are treating this as a top priority in the cross-Government way they should until we start hearing the Secretaries of State for Education, for Health and for Housing, Communities and Local Government talking about it. When they talk about it, we will take the Government seriously because they will really have got the message.
Let me end by reminding the Minister—I am sure that she knows this, but I will remind her anyway—about why we need to take the issue seriously. Families out there are grieving and they want to know that we are responding as a Parliament and Government to the crisis; and it is a crisis. People have been taken aback by the rapid rise in violent crime, whether that involves knives, guns or acid. There is a sense that things are slipping out of control.
The serious violence strategy and the Mayor’s measures could not come early enough, but we have to redouble our efforts. When Ministers are sitting around the table with the Chancellor making representations, they really have to see that this must now be the top priority. They will have the support of the whole House if they do that. They will certainly have the support of the British people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We are not doing very well on the target of 10 minutes per speech, which Members were asked to aim at some time ago. Speeches have ranged in length: 15 minutes, 16 minutes, 18 minutes, 19 minutes and 17 minutes—quite a lot more than 10.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am glad that the hon. Lady approves of my arithmetic. I am sure that we can manage this debate without the need for a formal time limit, which limits how the debate works. Will colleagues please try a little harder to stick to around 10 minutes? Then everyone will get in and it will be fair and equal.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I now feel under a significant degree of pressure. I will crack on.
I welcome the strategy. Right from the start, and peppered throughout, the strategy makes the point that the issue cannot be resolved by just arresting people. That is absolutely key. Police intervention must form an important part of the solution, but it is not the only solution. I will come on to my thoughts about police intervention, and, in particular, I will address the points about police resourcing that were raised by the shadow Home Secretary.
In the years immediately preceding my election to the London Assembly, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) being voted in as the Mayor of London, the murder rate in London reached unacceptable levels. Without a shadow of doubt, the previous Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, had not taken the issue as seriously as he should have done. Indeed, he accused the reporting of murders in London of being a media construct, with the particularly vile and inappropriate line
“If it bleeds, it leads”,
implying that the murders were being reported only because they were sensationalist stories.
In 2008, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and I were elected to London government, getting a grip on the unacceptable level of violent crime in London was a priority. It was done in two parts. First, Operation Blunt 2 was immediately initiated. The shadow Home Secretary, I think quite fairly, ran through some of the question marks over Operation Blunt 2. It is always very difficult to measure the exact implication of a policing strategy. She asked what message or signal it sends when politicians do or do not take action. Under Ken Livingstone, the message sent was that City Hall did not take this as seriously as it should have done. We were very clear that the message we wanted to send was that this was absolutely a priority for the incoming Conservative administration in City Hall.
Operation Blunt 2 was a very high profile, visual, police-led operation which made it completely clear that knives were unacceptable and that people carrying knives would be arrested and charged. I do not row back from the importance of such visual policing operations, but we were also very well aware that a policing response on its own could not and should not be the only response to knife crime. That is why, in addition and in parallel to Operation Blunt 2, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire and I worked together to produce the Time for Action youth violence strategy, which addressed a series of potential intervention points in the lives of young people, up to and including rehabilitation of offenders.
There was a programme in Feltham young offenders institution to get young men who had been incarcerated after involvement in knife crime on to rehabilitation programmes, with a gateway to employment with a number of employers directly from the gates of that YOI. While they were on a ROTL—a release on temporary licence—they would be able to start working for their future employers before they had completed their sentence, so they had the incentive to stay on the straight and narrow when they came out of prison. We also considered looked-after children who, unfortunately, still disproportionately find themselves involved in criminality. The sad truth to this day is that looked-after children are still more likely to go to prison than to university. That is an unacceptable truth, but we worked to address that.
We looked at community programmes and diversionary programmes in communities. As the Mayor’s youth ambassador, I visited numerous programmes that were doing fantastic work around London. We also looked at such things as uniformed youth organisations, including the Scouts, the cadets, the Boys’ Brigade and Girl Guides. Why? Because in many parts of London, they became the quasi-parents of children who often led very dysfunctional lives. I had the pleasure of meeting the air cadets squadron not far from this place. They have an amazing mix of young people, from some of the most wealthy and privileged families in the country to children of recent refugees and some impoverished people. They rub shoulders, mix together and work in that military structure, which we know so often develops the kind of life skills that help to keep people out of trouble. Why did we do these things? We did them because we knew that we had to work upstream and had to do them to prevent young people from getting into trouble.
The shadow Home Secretary, who is not in her usual place, although she is in the Chamber, made the point about police resourcing. It is worth remembering that we halved the number of young people who were murdered on the streets of London between 2008 and 2016 against the backdrop not just of tightening budgets, but of having to deliver the policing operation for the Olympic and Paralympic games, which imposed a huge operational burden on the police. Yes, police officers, police numbers and police funding matter, but—
Mr Lammy
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I want to put on record that the 2011 riots happened during that period. Against the backdrop of the riots, many of those young people were put in prison and that reduced the numbers, because the whole subject was about gang violence—he forgets all the media coverage at that time.
James Cleverly
I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The idea that somehow the police response to the 2011 riots swept potential murderers from the streets and locked them up is just statistically wrong. [Interruption.] No, the big drop in teenage murders in London happened in the operational year—
James Cleverly
No. There was a massively significant drop in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 elections—in the 2008-09 year followed by the 2009-10, preceding the 2011 riots. [Interruption.] I am going to try to make some progress, because I promised Madam Deputy Speaker that I would.
The philosophical underpinning that works with the Time for Action strategy and the work that we did in London is exactly the same as the one that works here. That is why I welcome this strategy so much. I am very pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is responsible for driving this through. We have spoken about it previously, and I do not think I am giving away any trade secrets if I say that I know her personal passion for getting this resolved.
As I come to my conclusion, I want to say—this has been mentioned by others—that we have to educate our young people, and I have discussed plans for doing that. However, we also have to educate the people who think that drug use—that occasional line of coke at some middle-class party—is a victimless crime. It is not. There is an absolute causal relationship between that so-called victimless crime at some party or some club and the kid that lies bleeding out in the stairwell of a block of flats in south London. Until we look people in the eye and remind them of that fact, this problem, as much as we try to mitigate it, will not go away. That might be a difficult conversation to have. To have celebrities bragging on social media about their drug use is unacceptable and it needs to be called out.
My final point is not explicit in the serious violence strategy, but it is implicit in what it says about some of the preventive measures that the Government are pursuing. It is that we need to find a way—I do not pretend that it is easy or that a solution would be perfect—of capturing the downstream savings of preventive activity, so that they can be recycled to fund those preventive activities. For example, typically, the layer of government that takes responsibility for diverting young people away from crime tends to be local government, which often funds community projects and so on. If it is successful, the bit of government that reaps the savings—through not incarcerating young people—is the Ministry of Justice, but there is no practical way of recognising the downstream saving, harnessing it and reinvesting it in the diversionary activities often discharged by charities and local government in the first place. If we could do that, I have little doubt that it would only take a small percentage of the downstream saving to put these projects on a much more stable financial footing.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister works incredibly hard—she is famous for it—and I hate loading up her shoulders with extra work, which she will tell me off for later in the Tea Room, but if anyone can come up with a plan, she can. I am more than happy to help. This is my offer and my ask. If we can find that alchemy, that way of capturing the savings and reinvesting them in front-end projects, we could really make a difference. I have little doubt about the Government’s commitment. It saddens me that some Members—unintentionally, I assume—question the Government’s commitment to protecting the lives of young people, and I urge the Opposition spokesperson, when he sums up, to be cautious about accusing anyone in the House of being uncaring on this issue.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The rise in violent crime in recent months should concern us all. Lives have been needlessly lost and the public are rightly concerned. The position we find ourselves in has many factors at play, and I agree with the serious crime strategy’s assessment that tackling serious crime is not a law enforcement issue alone, but I am firmly of the view that the cuts to our police forces up and down the country are key to the recent rise in violent crime.
The Government must surely recognise the severity of the situation when an apolitical figure such as the Commissioner of the Metropolitan police suggests that Government cuts have played a significant part in increasing levels of violent crime. For far too long, the Government’s stock response has been to accuse the Labour party of playing politics. When I raised this issue at Prime Minister’s questions last month, the Prime Minister attempted to dismiss my concerns as hyperbole and even suggested that the shadow police Minister was alone in seeing a correlation between the rise in serious crime and cuts to police numbers.
Cressida Dick’s recent comments have vindicated the sterling work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and showed that these are indeed genuine, well-founded concerns. If the country’s most senior police officer is suggesting that we are in the midst of a funding crisis for our police forces, it is high time the Government took note and reversed the chronic underfunding that has gone on for far too long.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is clearly a link between police cuts and violent crime? I represent a seat in south Yorkshire that has seen a 57% increase in violent crime in the last year—one of the highest in the country.
Ellie Reeves
I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a link between the rise in violent crime and police cuts, and our concerns cannot be dismissed as playing party political games. As a London MP, I am acutely aware of the damage that sustained central Government cuts have had on our police force. The Met has had to make savings of more than £600 million, and more savings are required. Around my constituency, both safer neighbourhood front desks, in Catford and Penge, have closed, and across the capital officer numbers are dangerously close to falling below 30,000.
Some may argue that the Met gets funding from the Mayor of London. They would be correct, but even after the council tax precept increase, which has already been raised to the highest level by the Mayor, the Met will still need to make additional savings of £325 million by 2021. More importantly, the Met relies on central Government for over 70% of its funding, and this shortfall has been caused by successive Conservative Administrations. The reality is that there is nobody for them to pass the buck to when it comes to the issue of police funding.
Yet while we have seen funding continually fall over the past few years, there has been an irrefutable rise in serious crime. In London, knife offences now total over 12,000 each year, which is a 17% increase since 2013, and firearms offences are up 34% to over 2,000 a year. When I spoke about serious crime in London during Prime Minister’s Question Time, the number of murders in the capital this year stood at 57. Now, five weeks on, the number is approaching 70, and 41 of those murders have been stabbings. Since my election last year, I have met a number of constituents who have been directly affected—most tragically, the families of two young men who were stabbed to death.
Only cross-party efforts can help us to fully rectify the horrendous rise in violent crime. Political decisions can change the situation for the better. The Mayor of London has done his part, allocating an extra £110 million to the Metropolitan police through a rise in the precept, but we have a Conservative Government who are still blind to the fact that chronic underfunding of police forces has its consequences. The serious and organised crime strategy choreographed by the former Home Secretary—the present Prime Minister—raised some important points, but they are meaningless if our police forces are unable to carry out their day-to-day duties because of reductions in central funding. It is another case of the Government’s giving with one hand and taking with the other.
The strategy raised several points about youth involvement that are entirely valid, and the aim of spending £40 million on early intervention and prevention is welcome, but it is set against a backdrop of sustained long-term cuts in youth services and schools since 2010. The cuts in services that may have previously helped young people at risk of being involved in serious crime are symptomatic of the “cuts and austerity” culture that the Government have normalised, with utter disregard for the results of their actions. Moreover, the Government can come up with as many strategies for combating serious crime as they like, but unless our police forces are given appropriate levels of funding and resources, they are wasted exercises filled with hollow words.
The Government can do something, and they should do something. They should do something today. The Conservative party has previously positioned itself as a party of law and order. That rhetoric has long ago worn thin, and it is patently obvious to many in the House and beyond that increasing police funding from central Government is crucially important if we are to deal effectively with serious crime in the long run. More funding would see more officers and better resources. Do it today: do it now.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). She made some very good points, and made them passionately—and I know that she is passionate about the security of the community she serves.
For the past year, my community in West Ham has been haunted by violence. Since the start of 2017, nine young people have been killed in my constituency alone, and today I want to remember them. They are Titu Miah, Pietro Sanna, aged 23, Ahmed Deen-Jah, aged 21, Beniamin Pieknyi, aged 21, Taofeek Lamidi, aged 20, Abdul Mayanja, aged 19, Sami Sidhom, aged 18, Lord Promise Nkenda, aged 17, and Corey “CJ” Davis, aged just 14, and shot in a playground.
That is not the final roll-call. There have been so many more children and young people with life-changing injuries caused by the dreadful, almost unrestrained violence over the past 18 months—saved just by luck, or by our amazing national health service. I want to think about all of them today.
Our latest young man to die needlessly and tragically was Sami Sidhom. He was stabbed last month on the street outside his home when returning from a West Ham game. He was a bright, well-loved, quiet young man, studying at Queen Mary’s College in London. He was doing really well, and was not involved in any crime or any gang. His neighbours rushed out of their house to help him. They were talking to him and comforting him when he died from his wounds. I have seen the pain, the anger and the fear of the community in which he lived. His father’s heart broke in my arms.
The whole community are traumatised. Their only outlet so far is talking to each other, because there is absolutely no support for them. There is no aftercare. The young man who told me about how the blood was running through his fingers, how he did not know what to do and he could not save Sami’s life: there is nothing available to him today. There is no one I could pass him to, who could take some of that trauma away. So people in the community are gathering together for comfort and looking for things to do, but I think we can do better than that, which is why I agree with many who have spoken today that this is a joined-up cross-Government issue; we need somebody from the health service to help us out, give us some money and make sure proper counselling is available for those who are traumatised.
We in this place need to face up to some truths, too. All of us of all parties have allowed these circumstances to be created. Those who are dying are so young, and so are many of those who have blood on their hands, but they did not create these circumstances for themselves; effectively, all of us—I am gesturing a huge circle now—helped to create them. We as adults, we as people in authority, we as policy-makers, we as budget-holders, we who did not see what was happening, have allowed our streets to become what they are.
Let us face some facts. Too many of our children now live in fear, convinced that the authorities cannot, or will not, protect them from harm. Too many of our children have no trust whatsoever in the systems we have created so they simply do not engage. Too many of our children believe their potential will not be recognised or nurtured by our society. Quite simply, they have so little hope that they see no future for themselves. That is why they take such massive risks.
These facts make our children far more vulnerable to exploitation by criminals, including those who run county lines. These people have created a cruelly efficient business model to distribute and sell drugs, using our children as expendable cheap labour to enable large profits. It is a cycle of exploitation and grooming that has become an industry. Often the children targeted are bright and charismatic with such promise, and that is why the gang leaders want them so much—because they make such great sales people. We need to find a way to empower our young people so they know how to recognise the power and the tactics of the groomers who are using them to sell the drugs. They need to know how to say no; they need to be given the skills and tools to resist the manipulation of the groomers.
As has been said in the debate, for many of our people who end up selling drugs, or even killing or dying because of a drug gang, the downward spiral starts with something simple like being befriended by a cool older boy—a new best friend who gives them chicken and chips or new trainers. They take the older boy’s gifts and respect, but it does not take long before those gifts become debts and that respect becomes domination. By the time realisation dawns, it is too late. We must find a way of giving our young people the resilience to resist grooming, and that requires peers, teachers, youth workers and role models making them aware of where accepting that gift of chicken and chips may lead. That will take resources; it will require improving training for teachers and social workers so that safeguarding becomes as much about looking for signs of gang grooming as about spotting child sexual exploitation.
In truth, we do not have a handle on the scale of the exploitation and grooming that drug dealers are engaging in. Even if children and social services are aware of the scale of the problems and the tactics deployed by those running the county lines—and some of them, woefully, are not—they are already massively overstretched. We need to expand their role and give them the training, and that, again, is going to require some resources.
Some young people know or suspect who is responsible for some of the terrible crimes I am talking about, and they might well hold evidence or be able to provide eyewitness accounts that would be helpful to us in a court of law. The information is out there that would help us to catch the people responsible, but the young people who have that information live in a really uncertain, dangerous and deeply scary world. They do not trust; we have done nothing to earn any trust.
I say to the Minister that we need to find a safe space where young people can report this information, and I do not think that that safe space is Crimestoppers, however much my local police encourage people to use it. Young people simply do not believe that it will be confidential. They assume that, if they ring, their call can and will be traced and that a police officer will come knocking on their door. They know that if that happens, they and their families will be punished for snitching by the gang members and drug dealers. They do not trust us to keep them safe, and who can blame them? Third-party reporting, run by a trusted organisation, would be a really good step. It would help us to gather information and address some of the unsolved murders in our communities.
We also need to have a genuine, believable and appropriate offer for those young people who do the bravest of things—namely, give evidence in court against gang members and really serious nasty criminals. They need to know that we will look after them and their families and keep them safe afterwards. They need to know that we will help them to make a new life. We do not do that at present. I know a young man whose life was completely destroyed because he did the right thing. He gave evidence, and then he ran. He was terrified, and he ended up in a community that was completely different from home. He was lost and frightened, and then he was attacked one night. He fought back, but he did so disproportionately, according to the court. So despite the fact that it was he who was attacked and the initial victim, he is now serving time in jail, and I understand that he could well be deported to a country that he has never known after he has served his sentence. We should have done better by him. We owed him that much. His story is known in my community, so why should other young people put themselves at risk in order to give us the information that we need? Why should they help, when that would only make their lives and their families’ lives much worse?
Most of the people in this place have grown up knowing that they have choices and that many opportunities will be open to them. Tragically, most childhoods in my community are just not like that. Sixty-five per cent. of the children in Newham grow up in poverty, knowing that their parents are always thinking about how to pay the rent and the bills and how to put food on the table. Children live with that stress. They watch their parents struggle day in and day out, and they see their future as being the same. It chips away at their dreams, because they know that their parents are working every hour and trying so hard but that it is not bringing them prosperity or security. Our children need some hope for the future.
In West Ham, we have had the worst of it. My community is, as I say, traumatised. We need to work together to make real changes so that we can keep our children safer than we have managed to do thus far. But we also need the resources that we currently lack if we are to destroy the criminal base that is blighting our communities and provide the hope and opportunity that our children deserve. I will work with absolutely anybody in order to get that.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I have sat here throughout the afternoon listening to many people, and I look forward to the contributions that are to come. We have heard descriptions of what has happened in our country, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) just now. We have heard about children and young people being murdered on the streets. We have heard of county lines and of the horror they bring. We have heard of the desperation in communities about what can be done about that.
As someone said at the beginning of the debate, why are we debating this only now, perhaps months after we should have been debating it? Why has not the House—all of us, including me—been roaring about this for months? My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is an honourable exception, as are one or two other Members, but why has this House not been at the heart of the nation?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has been speaking up about the black community and about some of these issues for years, but why have we, as a collective, not been roaring about it? A massive 67 people have been murdered in London this year. That is an unbelievable figure. Imagine if the figure were aggregated and spread across the country—astonishing.
Serious violence is rising everywhere. It is not just about policing, but policing is part of it; it is about all of these things. Of course everyone cares, but this is a national emergency. This is a crisis for our country. If this were happening in any other context, there would be emergency statements by the Prime Minister and calls from both sides of the House to do something about it. The county lines are a relatively new phenomenon, and who knows how many children they affect? Children in our country, some as young as 10 or 11, are being exploited by criminal gangs to move drugs. I do not know what law it will take or what should be done, but I do know that that is totally and utterly unacceptable to every single Member of this House of Commons.
I know the Minister wants to do all she can, and I know the Government want to do all they can, but I honestly believe that we all have to wake up. We all have to say this really cannot continue. After this debate, people out there expect to be able to see something being done. Early intervention, schooling and parenting matter, and all of that is right, but what are we going to do now?
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) talked about the long summer evenings. A young person was stabbed to death in Islington at 6.30 pm last night. It was not down some murky alleyway at 1 o’clock in the morning; it was on the streets of Islington in front of people going about their everyday business. This cannot be acceptable, and it cannot be right.
I passionately argue for us not only to debate the issue and not only to show to the people out there who might be watching that we care—I think everybody does care—but to show that we get it and that we understand it. We must tell the mothers, the families and the communities across this country who are crying that we will stand with them and do something about it.
I was a Home Office Minister when we were faced with some of these problems before and it is a sterile argument. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has argued about police numbers. She has not said that that is the only solution—nobody on either side of the House has said it is the only solution. Of course it is also about youth services. The best people to get involved are the reformed gang members. Get the people in who understand what is going on. Get them in to talk about it—once they have been subject to the law, I hasten to add.
I want to make two more points. This is from the Government’s own evidence. We can see this in the documentation that the Government have published in their serious violence strategy. It totally vindicates what my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has said: targeted stop-and-search is absolutely a part of what we should do, but there is no evidence, even from the Government in their serious violence strategy, that blanket stop-and-search makes any difference. It is in the document the Government have published. What is crucial, it says—I know this as a teacher who dealt with fairly minor instances—is that there is certainty of a consequence. The strategy states:
“We also know that the certainty of punishment is likely to have a greater impact than its severity.”
That is the Government’s own evidence. People have to know that they cannot just act with impunity—
Vernon Coaker
Exactly. They have to know they will get caught and be held responsible for what they have done, be it carrying a knife, smashing a window, swearing at somebody or acting in a racist way. If they do not know they will get caught, it is like a kid at school, or your own son or daughter: they will mess you about, but in a much more serious way. So we need certainty of punishment. The Minister has to get hold of the Ministry of Justice, or whoever is responsible, and say, “Get it sorted out. We are the Government.” We are the Parliament. If we cannot sort it out, who is going to sort it out?
We have heard the argument about police numbers. Of course police numbers are not the only reason for this situation, but policing makes a big difference and police numbers make a big difference. It is obvious. Do not accept what my colleagues have been saying; the Government’s own serious violence strategy says exactly that. It says the fall in police numbers is partly a driver—not the only driver, as I totally accept—for the rise in serious violence.
I will finish with this in order to keep to the 10-minute limit. I wish to make one plea to the Minister. This is what I want to happen in the short term. The longer term will sort itself out, but the communities I represent in Nottinghamshire—in Nottingham and around there—and those represented by other Members need something to hold on to now. So I say to the Minister: go to the Treasury and demand, to deal with a national emergency, a pot of money that will allow hotspots to be identified across the country, where police resources can be targeted. That is what works, according to what the Government themselves say: putting money into hotspot areas, so that the police can increase their resources, target those resources and work with youth services and with the community, brings down crime. Crucially, again according to the Government’s own evidence, not only does it bring down crime—it does not result in a displacement of crime from one area to another. Would that not be a price worth paying, Minister? Would that bill not be worth the Government’s picking up? We are talking about a bill of tens of millions of pounds to give to the hotspot areas in London and around the rest of the country where we know the majority of these offences occur. What a statement it would be to those communities to say to them, “We are going to provide some additional resources for the police you need, and to support the youth services in the community alongside them, in order to target what we now accept is a national emergency and a national crisis.”
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On Friday, I will attend the funeral of Tanesha Melbourne-Blake, who was shot dead at the age of 17 in my constituency on Easter bank holiday Monday. It was her death that triggered a national conversation about why 67 young people have lost their lives in our capital city. It is important to say that many of those young people who have lost their lives are black-British in their description. It is also important to say that this debate must, as it already has done, quite properly land on the issue of whether in fact black lives matter in this country. It is sad and depressing to have to say that, but all resources should be brought to bear to deal with this problem, and there is a feeling that had 67 young people lost their lives in a leafy shire, much more attention would have been paid.
It is important to say right from the beginning that if any of my three children picked up a knife and took it to another child, I would be absolutely horrified and, frankly, the response that I would have as a father would be tougher than that of the police or the law. Of course these issues come back to parenting and to neighbourhoods, but it is also the case—we get used to it in this Chamber—that some Members have been to the best public schools, and that experience is not only about education, because one way in which those schools achieve all that they achieve is the fact that there is the most fantastic extra- curricular work at the end of the school day. If someone is lucky enough to go to one of our public schools, for that 30 grand a year, the rugby, cricket, football, drama and swimming are tremendous. It has always surprised me that some of those very same Members—not all, but some of them—do not realise that a black child in my constituency deserves exactly the same after school. If the Government cut local authorities in the way that we have seen, so that there cannot be the sport or youth services, how do we support a parent to raise her child?
It is just like a doctor facing a patient and assessing whether the illness in front of him has got worse. Is it about the same, or is it getting better? When we look at youth violence, which has now been with us for well over two decades—certainly for the two decades that I have been a Member of Parliament—we have to ask ourselves whether it is the same, about stable or getting worse. The answer is that it is getting worse. Why is it getting worse and what will the strategy do to deal with the problem?
The central issue, about which we hear so little and which the strategy does not really deal with in depth—we did not hear enough on it from the Minister when he was at the Dispatch Box, either—is the work of the Home Office and the National Crime Agency on serious organised crime and serious gangsters. According to the EU’s drugs agency, this country is the drugs capital of Europe. The UN has said that the global drugs market is thriving and London is the capital of the cocaine market in Europe. Some 30 tonnes of cocaine come into our country every year. Our illegal drugs market is worth at least £5.3 billion. The National Crime Agency says that drugs trafficking costs our country £11 billion per year.
The Home Office’s own data shows that at least 1 million people in this country have taken cocaine in the past year, so there is a seriously lucrative market. If there is a lucrative market worth billions every year, that is worth fighting, so why are we not hearing more about cutting off these gangs at source and stopping the flow of drugs and firearms into our country? Why has the Border Force been cut by 25%? How is the Border Force to deal with the drugs coming into our country if there are not the personnel to do it? I have been to the National Crime Agency and had briefings from senior officers. They are being asked to do more with less. They are being asked to deal with cyber-crime; they are being asked to deal with terrorism; and they are being asked to deal with child sexual exploitation and many other issues. They are not being told that drugs are a priority. We have not had any statements from this Home Office on drugs policy. Many people think that the war on drugs has failed, but we have had nothing to replace it, and because we have had nothing to replace it, there is a growing market. Foot soldiers in my constituency and others are being recruited to feed the demand that exists across our country.
In the serious violence strategy, there are no new announcements on organised crime. In the summary on the Government’s website, there is no mention of organised crime. In the four themes of the serious violence strategy, there is no mention of organised crime. When we read the strategy, we find out that, apparently, there is “ongoing” work to tackle serious and organised crime, thanks to the 2017 drugs strategy that has promised to “restrict supply” by criminal gangs, “disrupt domestic drugs markets”,
“respond effectively to the threat posed by organised crime groups”
and make our borders “more resilient”. Well, it is not working.
The strategy is linked to ongoing work on serious and organised crime, but there is not just a link; the two issues are the same. Serious organised crime drives violence, so we cannot have a serious violence strategy without a strategy to deal with serious organised crime. It could get worse. The National Crime Agency has been clear that eastern European organised groups are bringing guns into this country. It is worried that they are actually beginning to supply some people with grenades—grenades! You heard it here first in Parliament. When will we get serious about this? When will a grenade go off to protect a county line?
The Government strategy recognises the following fact:
“Serious violence, drugs and profits are closely linked. Violence can be used as a way of maintaining and increasing profits within the drugs markets.”
The Government’s own strategy tells us that the share of homicides that are explicitly linked to drugs stands at 57%, yet, again, there is nothing new here on organised crime.
I have been passed a document by the Metropolitan police showing that half of the homicides that we saw in the capital last year were linked directly to gang activities and turf wars, but we are hearing very little about breaking that cycle—that cycle of protect and serve to sell drugs—and the myriad organisations that sit well above the youth crime on the ground.
Let me put this bluntly. Very, very sadly, because of poverty and a lot of the issues in many of our constituencies, recruiting young people is much easier than it should be. We have to cut off the demand for the drugs that they are selling and the violence that it is driving in communities such as mine.
This document is not a strategy; it is a wish list full of jargon. It is not sufficient—not even close. Let us look at the key actions and commitments. They include to undertake “nationwide awareness-raising communication activity” and provide £175,000 to deliver support to children at risk in schools and pupil referral units. The Home Office is apparently to provide £1 million to help communities tackle knife crime and provide £500,000 for a new round of heroin and crack action areas. Am I really supposed to believe that if 50 or 60 white middle-class young people were killed in Surrey or Kent in space of five months, we would just have an “awareness-raising communication activity”?
If innocent children were being gunned down on the streets of Richmond or Guildford, would we have a £175,000 fund to deliver support to at-risk children? A person cannot buy a house in London for £175,000, and that is what we are spending on at-risk children. Really? It is not good enough. Of course Ministers have been quick to celebrate the £11 million early intervention youth fund, but what will that fund deliver when in my borough alone—the London borough of Haringey—the local authority has had to cut £160 million since 2010, when funding has fallen by almost 50%, and when there has been a 45% cut in staff? Unison has calculated that youth services have been cut by almost half. Will that £11 million meet the gap? Really? The Mayor is putting in a fund of £40 million, but that will not meet the gap and, going back to what I said originally, it gets us nowhere near the extra-curricular activities that some young people in our country who go to certain schools get, when the poorest young people who need as much, if not more, are getting less.
It takes a village to raise a child. No parents or single mother can do it on their own. My wife and I certainly do not do it on our own, but we have the resources to pay for help and to bus our kids all over London to activities. Why should people on the poorest housing estates in London not have the same thing? The response is not good enough when all that the Government and the Met Commissioner want to talk about is stop-and- search or YouTube. Those two things are important, but they are not the only issues.
Mr Lammy
Given the time, I will not give way.
When asked why crime had risen, the Met Commissioner said, “We think that stop-and-search has had some bearing on this.” Let us not have another argument about the merits of stop-and-search when we reached cross-party consensus on it under the current Prime Minister. We should of course bring in intelligence-led stop-and-search where there has been a spike in crime, but that will not deal with huge amounts of cocaine or stop the death of Tanesha, who was shot in the chest. This is not about stop-and-search. Yes, we must challenge YouTube, and we have to get the drill music videos down, but if the unemployment rate in a constituency such as mine is between 40% and 50% for some young black men—they have no work—it is unsurprising that they rely on putting drill music videos online to get a little money. Why are we surprised? We should get the videos down, but they are almost a distraction, because the real issue is organised crime. I want to hear about “McMafia”, eastern European gangs, Albania and transhipment routes. I want to know why we are cutting the Border Force by 25%.
It is not just gang members getting caught up in all this. There are two other types of young people I care a lot about, because I was them once. A second group of young people are picking up knives on our estates. Why? They are picking them up because they are shit-scared. I was once one of those young people, and I am so lucky that I had things to distract me, but they are scared. We in this House have failed and the Met has failed as a police force if those young people are scared on their estates. That is why they are picking up knives. It is not because they are gang members. They are hiding knives in bushes on the way to school and then finding them on Saturdays and Sundays because they are scared. We will have failed and the Minister will have failed if we do not make them feel safe.
The third kind of young person are those who are dyslexic or have ADHD. They are not going to get access to medication, and there will be no access to CAMHS in the constituencies that we are talking about—it is not going to happen for months—so those young people are seduced into following the crowd. They get seduced by the videos, end up in a group, get arrested on joint enterprise and then go to prison. What are we going to do about that growing number?
Those two groups need a proper strategy—a much better strategy than this. I look forward to working with the Government on their serious violence strategy, because if we do not solve this problem, the figure will be over 100 by the autumn. You heard it here first. Over 100 young people—more than New York—will have died in this country. Do black lives matter or not? That is the question for the Minister.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow two deeply moving and powerful contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). They are absolutely right to be angry.
Last weekend, a 16-year-old boy from my constituency, Ozell Pemberton, bled to death on the streets of Sutton Coldfield after he was stabbed. His mother is absolutely distraught. He is the latest casualty of the rise in violent crime, which has doubled since 2013, with knife crime up by 36%.
In my constituency and in many parts of Birmingham, fear stalks the streets. It has been said many times in this debate that this not just about police numbers—I will come to that later—but I say in all earnestness to the Minister that she cannot cut 21,000 police officers nationwide, including 2,100 in the west midlands, and expect there to be no consequences. Cressida Dick was absolutely right when she made the link between reduced police numbers and rising crime. To be absolutely frank, the Government are in denial. There is a simple, blunt reality: more people will die who might otherwise have lived if we do not reverse this deeply damaging policy of the biggest cuts to any police service in western Europe.
What is happening on our streets is truly frightening, affecting young people but not only young people. We recently had a public meeting in my constituency, following a litany of stabbings and shootings in the preceding three months: two men stabbed in Tyburn Road; guns going off in Gravelly Lane; a robbery in the Greggs store on Kingsbury road involving a two-foot-long machete; shootings in Dovedale Road; two men stabbed on Edgware Road; and a gang of 30 men with machetes attacking a local shop on Witton Lodge Road. Only last month, three sixth-formers from St Edmund Campion School were standing at the bus stop outside their school, when they were attacked by two men with machetes. One boy had his armed chopped from his shoulder down to his wrist.
It is not just about the young people who are directly affected. Fear is being generated by growing gang crime and gangs on the streets. A 60-year-old woman in Slade Road said, “I’ve lived here for 55 years, but I’m now afraid to leave my home.” A woman who has lived on the Perry Common estate for 48 years said, “I don’t go out after dark.” Young men are saying to me, “We are afraid to go outside of our estates.” One young man is even afraid to go to school unless he is escorted, because of the risk of becoming a victim of gang crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and other speakers have catalogued why this is happening. It is despair; there is often no hope of getting a decent job. It is deprivation. It is mental ill health; my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham was absolutely right about access to CAMHS for those struggling with forms of mental ill health. It is family breakdown and, sometimes, housing problems. It is also the pernicious influence of the internet providers, which in my view are literally getting away with murder. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham was absolutely right that it is the fear that can drive young people into gangs so that they feel protected against gang violence. Of course, there is also the rapid growth in drug crime and the pernicious county lines strategies of drug dealers. All those issues need to be tackled, and not just by way of additional police numbers.
Let me give an example of what is happening in the west midlands. The police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson, has established a commission on gangs and violence, injecting £2 million into a very welcome initiative that includes: a team of expert negotiators set up to difuse violence between gangs and to help individuals escape gangs; a mentoring scheme to help young people at risk of offending; a package of support measures to rehabilitate ex-offenders; and a set of programmes designed to provide alternatives activities for young people at risk of school exclusion and offending. That is all deeply welcome. We need an integrated, public health approach, as several hon. Members in today’s debate have mentioned. But, crucially, such an approach will be limited in its impact without the necessary resources. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling and my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) were absolutely right that it is crucial to provide adequate resources at the next stages.
Police numbers matter, particularly in the role of neighbourhood policing—the building of relationships with communities. I can give an example of that from my own constituency. Sergeant Simon Hensley set up a canoeing club on Brookvale Park lake, and 200 young people joined it. He helped some of them by way of signposting the various forms of assistance they needed in their lives. When there was an outbreak of burglaries in Stockland Green, young people with whom relationships had been formed came forward and said, “Simon, we think we know who the burglars are.” Some might say, “What are the police doing setting up a canoeing club?”, but it was an excellent way of reaching out to and involving local young people. Sadly, though, such initiatives are becoming ever more difficult because neighbourhood policing has been hollowed out as the numbers of police officers have fallen.
On resources, the Government talk in their strategy about the role of council youth services, family support, mental health services, and schools. In Birmingham, the problem with that is that the council’s budget has been cut in half. We have seen the biggest cuts in local government history—£700 million. Youth services have been decimated, family support has been cut back and mental health facilities likewise, and schools are struggling with their budgets. All those things are absolutely vital to underpin a policing response, and the social fabric of the city is increasingly under strain. All the services that are vital in terms of effective early intervention are under pressure.
Of course there are some welcome steps identified in the strategy, but I ask the Minister to listen to the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, who said that they are wholly inadequate to rise to the challenge of what is confronting us now in this country, and the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, who said that this is a national emergency. These are young people—the best of our country who are being cut down in their prime. It is fundamentally wrong, and the Government have to rise to that challenge.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who speaks with great knowledge on this subject. I have been pleased to work with him in the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime.
I speak as the chair of the all-party group but also as the Member of Parliament for Croydon Central, where we have had a significant issue with knife crime, as have many other places across London and across the country. I want to respond, although he is not in his seat, to the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), who questioned the conversation we were having in this debate about whether we care or not. I do not think it is an issue of whether we care but of whether we care enough. I do not doubt the Government’s compassion on this issue, but I do doubt the choices they have made about what we care about more. It is the Government’s role to prioritise, and this issue is not prioritised enough.
Most of the debate so far has been very good, and we have recognised most of the issues at play. We know that this is partly about policing and partly about prevention. Those issues have been rehearsed and I do not need to go over them again. I just want to make one small point to add to the overall picture: it is not just the individuals involved who are suffering deeply as a result of this violence, but the families and communities. I have in my constituency the family of a boy who was murdered. The boy’s brother, following the murder of his brother, got into trouble at school. There started to be issues, and the school was looking at whether it should perhaps expel him. He then got access to some mental health treatment. It transpired that this boy had very severe post-traumatic stress disorder and needed counselling. We then had to go on the CAMHS waiting list for the treatment that he needed. It took months for him to get that treatment, and who knows what damage will have been done in the interim? It is not just about the individuals, but their families, communities and schools that are also suffering.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) on her repeated requests for a debate on this subject, not least in asking the Leader of the House every Thursday morning for many, many weeks. She has done well to get a debate. As many others have said, it is a great shame that it has been so long in coming. We should have had a proper debate, with the Home Secretary, as soon as the strategy was published, and that has not happened.
Before the publication of the strategy, I, along with 12 other chairs of cross-party groups from both sides of the House, wrote to the then Home Secretary to call for a clear and ambitious target to halve the number of deaths from youth violence over the next 10 years. We were disappointed that the Government chose to ignore that call and not to set themselves any kind of goal, but given the resources they have put in place, that is not surprising, because the resources are simply not enough to achieve a target. The Government talk of a different approach, focusing on early intervention, but those are frankly just words; we need more action.
I want to make one main point that will hopefully add to the debate. I think we all agree that this is a very serious issue that we need to do something about. Everybody is talking about how the public health response can help. I want to mention my friend and former boss, Tessa Jowell, whom we lost recently to brain cancer. I want to pay tribute to her trailblazing work in this area, as the first Minister for Public Health. Almost 20 years before public health became part of our discourse around this agenda, Tessa was putting in place a strategy that was called by one commentator “the success story of our time”, and there are strong lessons to learn from it.
The teenage pregnancy strategy is an example of the sort of long-term, integrated public health approach that we so desperately need now to tackle knife crime and violent crime. It was an evidence-based programme. It had a 10-year goal, it had funding and it had leadership. The strategy did not simply attempt to crack down on teenage pregnancy but sought to understand and prevent its underlying causes. There were tough national targets, but there were local strategies. There was a central team in Government—that was key—who co-ordinated the response across Government. The Prime Minister took a keen interest in the strategy and was regularly given reports on progress, and it was taken seriously. It was not just about telling girls not to have sex; it was about the underlying issues of aspiration, jobs, training and support.
That strategy succeeded. It halved teenage pregnancy rates and is now used as a blueprint by the World Health Organisation. Speaking in this place 20 years ago, Tessa Jowell criticised
“the rather pathetic hand wringing about moral decay that characterised so much of the debate about teenage pregnancy in the past.”—[Official Report, 23 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 1127.]
Sadly, the debate about knife crime remains full of hand wringing about moral decay, with not enough focus on the social conditions that underpin it. Of course offenders must be caught and punished, and the police without any doubt need more resources to do their job, but every single police officer will tell you that we cannot arrest our way out of this problem.
We know what a lot of the answers are. We just need to have the will. At the moment, the Government are not showing that they have the will. I think everybody on both sides of the House would work with them, if only they would publish a proper strategy, with proper resources, focused on prevention.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Twenty-two years ago, I was up in the Gallery watching proceedings on the Family Law Act 1996. It was the first time I had ever been in this place, and I watched Members on both sides of the House debate fiercely, furiously and passionately, just as we have this afternoon. I also watched Members find common ground where they could. I watched a Government who moved when they realised that the arguments had been well put by Opposition Members, and I watched an Act come into being that helped save thousands, if not millions, of lives through reforming the law on domestic violence.
Although domestic violence is not the subject of the serious violence strategy, I want to mention it. The strategy quite rightly says that it does not address topics where other strategies are already in existence, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) reminds us every International Women’s Day, two women a week are still being killed by a violent partner, and there are lessons to learn for this strategy from the way we tackle domestic violence.
I am not going to repeat what others have said. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) for working so hard on securing this important debate and for what she is doing on the Youth Violence Commission, which could be transformational and could well reflect what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) said about a long-term strategy that looks at underlying causes and does not just go for quick fixes.
While we are talking about long-term strategies and not just going for quick fixes, one of my main asks of Ministers—both of them are now in their places—is that we look at the benefits that could accrue from implementing, early and well, compulsory personal, social and health and economic education, with sex and relationships education, for all children, whatever their background and wherever they are at school. This is not me as a Labour MP asking for more money, although I have that on my list as well, but me asking for something that could have a transformational effect.
We have learned from work on perpetrator programmes in the domestic violence sector. I know that the Minister is very interested in this, because she and I have conversed about it many times, and I value her support. We have learned from work on domestic violence perpetrator programmes what can be done if we invest long term in helping to change people’s underlying belief systems. She will have heard me say this before, but I will say it again. In my time, I worked with many very violent men before I entered this place, and if only there had been some form of early intervention for them 20 or 30 years previously, perhaps they would never have been forced to end up in prison and subsequently in a room with 16 other men while I and my co-facilitator told them what they needed to do differently. I really wish that we did not need domestic violence perpetrator programmes after people have already committed violence, but if we have investment in high-quality PSHE at an early stage, we can do so much to tackle the things so many hon. Members have mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said that young people think someone is their friend when they offer them chicken and chips. I have to say that a high-quality sex and relationships education and PSHE curriculum can help young people differentiate between someone who is a friend and someone who is trying to buy their favour.
The question of gender has not been mentioned, but I want to raise it. It is often controversial, but it is deeply relevant. Member after Member has mentioned people who have been killed, but behind those stories lie the people who have killed, and they are often—they are usually—male. Let us be honest about this: if we look at the statistics for murder and serious violence, it is often, although not always, men who commit those crimes. It is not just an accident that they are men; they are doing it in a culture of patriarchy and with attitudes towards gender roles that support them in thinking that they can get away with something, or that they are entitled to or should do something because they are a man. This is something else that could be challenged for the benefit of all men, as well as for women. It is for the benefit of all men to know that being violent does not define them as a man, and that trying to control someone else or to use a knife or a gun does not make them a better man. Again, I ask the Minister, in her summing up, to give us an update about where we are with PSHE, because we could explore that and make it available to all young people as part of the long-term strategy mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central.
My friends in the Avon and Somerset police force are doing amazing work, but I have to bring in the question of police cuts before I finish. Since 2010—not just since 2015, but since 2010—the Avon and Somerset area has had £65 million of police cuts, and we have lost 655 officers. They were good, specialist officers, and we have lost specialist services that knew how to tackle specific issues. We have lost them, and some of them will never come back. When I went on a ride-along recently with PC Ben Spence and Sergeant Richard Jones—thank you to them both—they showed me the impact of the cuts by introducing me to people who are being cuckooed. They are very vulnerable people, some of whom have criminal records but some of whom do not, and both categories deserve our help. The impact of cuckooing is that other people are being hurt and other people’s lives are being made a misery.
I wish to leave the Minister with a final picture. This affects ordinary people in my constituency, and I am sure in hers as well. I know her constituency well, having visited it many times. I do not think there are the tower blocks in Louth and Horncastle that we have in Bristol West—she we will correct me if I am wrong—but there will be similar issues and commonalities. The people who live in the tower blocks right outside my office tell me of the misery of knowing that someone in their block is being cuckooed: being terrified at someone ringing on the doorbell late at night, being old and feeling frightened of the drug dealer at their door, seeing someone inject heroin into their groin on the stairwell, or not being able to send their children out to play in the park right outside. It is so heartbreaking.
I am sure that the Minister would not want that for anybody’s constituents. I believe that she is honourable, and she, like me, will want all those young people to have a better life. I offer her this opportunity: I will work with her and contribute my experience of domestic violence work and work with violent men. I will help anybody interested in learning from that experience. But I ask the Minister to commit tonight to making sure that PSHE comes forward at the earliest opportunity. Also, will she please at least talk to her Treasury colleagues about funding for our specialist police officers?
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire). I want to participate in this debate principally to talk about some of the shockingly violent crimes that Great Grimsby and North East Lincolnshire have experienced in recent months, and to explore a bit more broadly the situation there to try to get to the bottom of what seems to be a spike. In Humberside, violent and sexual crime has increased by 20%. Arguments have been made that police numbers are not the only story, but there is an issue about referrals as well: while sexual crime seems to be going up, referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service across the country are going down.
I want to focus on violence and drugs. I have previously mentioned in the House the gang of hooligans who went marauding through my lovely seaside town, frightening the life out of many of my constituents. A poor man was killed by a single punch. Another man, Anthony Richardson, who was homeless, was killed in a daylight attack. Bins have been set on fire against vulnerable people’s homes, resulting in their deaths. This week, a knife was pulled on a child at a BMX track by another child.
These incidents may not be as regular or serious as those that some Members have discussed this afternoon, but they are serious and they have a lasting impact on my community. The incidents are separated by time, and I certainly do not want to paint my town as being riddled with violent crime. But this is certainly becoming an issue. In a small town and small borough such as North East Lincolnshire, the impact on the impression people have of the area can be lasting. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) talked about fear and the perception of crime, and that issue is incredibly important to many of my constituents.
In March this year, 626 violent crimes were recorded in my area. The figure has never been that high; I have looked at the figures back to 2011. The statistic does not distinguish between domestic violence and other violent crime, but I do not think that matters a great deal. I feel that the violent crime is linked to drugs. The Government’s strategy refers to crack cocaine as an issue, but the biggest issue on the streets of North East Lincolnshire seems to be Spice. Its effects are so varied and users do not really know where they are or what they are doing. The local outreach service Harbour Place notes that it is the most destructive drug it has seen on the streets of Great Grimsby.
It is interesting that the drug crime does not seem to have risen as the violent crime has. Is there an issue with drugs not being tackled early enough, so that serious violence increases? If more action were taken to deal with the drugs element, perhaps violent crime would not be happening as it is.
I do not know whether these are reported issues of drug use, incidents or charges, and perhaps some of the detail is hidden, but I am left concerned that violent drug criminals are not being apprehended despite the determination of Humberside police through Operation Impact, which has tried to deal with the issue. Grimsby is known to be at the receiving end of county lines action taking place at the moment. That police involvement seems to have been solely around engaging in that county lines operation to try to stem the flow of drugs. Colleagues this afternoon have mentioned trying to stop the big dealers from spreading drugs around the country by orchestrating efforts towards smaller local areas.
Constituents say to me that it is all well and good looking at the big picture and stopping the big fish in their tracks, but the impact that has at the local level means that the police do not have the resources to intervene on drug taking at the local street level. That has an impact on neighbourhoods. A comment was made about people injecting heroin in a stairwell. They are lucky in Bristol West to have the privacy of a stairwell. I have witnessed it happening openly in the middle of the street in my constituency and it puts people in fear. It makes them feel like the police are not intervening to stop that action from taking place. It makes them feel that there is nobody who has the power or the responsibility to stop it happening right in front of our noses. If I am seeing it and my constituents are seeing it, they wonder why nobody in authority is seeing it and stepping in to stop it from happening.
This issue does not just affect the difficult estates and other areas with greater social deprivation. Recently, I received reports of drugs being dealt from nice middle- class homes in quiet areas where the police usually have little cause to go. The criminals consider those areas to be police blind spots. As I said, the attention given to tackling the source of the drugs has had a real impact on the local community. People feel very frightened in their neighbourhoods.
In Humberside, there are 800 fewer police and police staff than in 2010. There has been excellent work by Labour’s police and crime commissioner, who recognises these issues. The chief constable has also heard my concerns about the need for a dual strategy, tackling the issue at the level of criminal gangs and dealing with the impact on people’s streets and homes. The Humberside PCC Keith Hunter recognises those issues and rather than sitting on millions of pounds in reserves, as his predecessor did, he has decided to plough them back into shoring up staffing numbers, including the recent recruitment of 200 new officers. I applaud him for that, but we have to remember that reserves can only be spent once. We need to ensure sustainability in that programme. I ask the Minister to take the opportunity to have a look at that sustainability.
I should take a moment to thank Humberside police for a genuine determination in wanting to tackle the root cause of extreme violence linked to drugs. They have, at every request I have put to them to help be a part of community solutions, given up their resources to help. Their help is not always just dealing with crime directly. Recently, a police community support officer in the Freshney ward found an elderly gentleman who had been hit by his own garage door and left unconscious on the floor. I do not know how long he had been there, but the fact that we have PCSOs who are grounded in the community and walking the beat meant that they were able to see that man and help to get him to hospital. That shows the importance of neighbourhood policing more broadly. Boots on the ground give local communities the confidence that their police are aware of the issues, however innocent and minor or serious they might be.
The police have to tackle crime gangs who are ever more inventive at operating through young people, and not just the young people I expected. In a meeting with the police last week, I was talking about vulnerable children being exploited. I was thinking about disadvantaged, marginalised and look-after children, but I was told that the young people now being targeted by gangs are those who are well dressed and look respectable. They are completely unassuming and the police would never think to stop them or suspect that they were involved in criminal activity. The police need the opportunity to provide resource into the intelligence-led work that other colleagues have talked about.
I finish on the point that activity with young people, and access to youth clubs and to youth activity, are so important. In North East Lincolnshire, all but one youth club has shut in the last eight years, and that youth club, the Shalom centre, which is run by Canon John Ellis, has been under threat of closure. It has had to turn to crowdfunding to try to source an essential £40,000 to stay open. The centre is in one of the most deprived wards. It has managed to raise £15,000 so far, which is absolutely fantastic, and I congratulate and commend him on his efforts. Another community group, Grimsby Boxing Academy, led by Andy Cox, is reopening the Trin youth club in Cleethorpes, thanks to North East Lincolnshire Council allowing it to take that property on for a peppercorn rent. I also mention the CatZero and CPO—Creating Positive Opportunity—Full Families programme, which I know the Minister is aware of, and which works to stay in touch with families who need assistance, help and support more broadly.
The picture clearly differs across the country, but all those communities are experiencing difficulties, fear, hurt and concern. The Minister has to be absolutely sure that her strategy is the right one for tackling that whole variety of different issues.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I begin my remarks by marking the first anniversary of the terrible events in Manchester on 22 May 2017. We remember all those who lost their lives and those who were injured. We think of their friends and families and pay tribute to the emergency services and first responders for the work that they did that night. I also pay tribute to the great city of Manchester for the way in which it came together in the aftermath of that awful tragedy.
We are here today to debate the serious violence strategy. There is agreement across the House on its broad themes—tackling county lines, early intervention and prevention, supporting communities and effective law enforcement and criminal justice response. The 14 speeches from Back Benchers covered a range of issues. I draw attention, in particular, to the speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who has called tirelessly for this debate and spoke movingly about the young lives lost in her constituency and the importance of engaging with young people. After all, they are our country’s future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) was absolutely right to draw attention to the comments of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who said clearly that it would be “naive” to say that the reductions in police finances, whether in London or beyond, have not had an impact. I say to Ministers that her words really should be heeded in terms of how they take matters forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke very movingly about those lost in her constituency and paid tribute, entirely appropriately, to the work by our national health service, whenever there are violent crimes, in seeking to save and treat people. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) spoke with great passion about the need for action. In a sense, he summed up that urgency in seven words—“what are we going to do now?” My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) also spoke with great passion. Like him, I have visited the National Crime Agency, and he is entirely right to draw attention not only to the key issue of tackling serious and organised crime in drugs and firearms, but to the cuts to Border Force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) was entirely to right to say that 21,000 police officers cannot be cut with no consequences. The Government should not be in denial about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) spoke very movingly and appropriately about the work of the late Baroness Jowell in public health. She is absolutely right that we should bring that into the debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work as the chair of all-party group on knife crime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) was entirely right to bring domestic violence into this debate—a key issue on which she spoke with great authority—and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) spoke well about the shocking rise in violent crime in her area. She also raised the key issue of why there had been a reduction in the number of referrals for sexual offences from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. That is something that needs to be considered across Government.
The issue of resources has been raised across the Chamber. Let me say at the outset: I am not saying that adequate resourcing is sufficient on its own to tackle these multifaceted issues, but it is necessary if we are to take all the action needed. It cannot be said that police numbers are irrelevant. If there is any doubt about that, I should remind the House of the leaked Home Office document that appeared last month, which my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary spoke of. Let us be clear—this is what the Home Office is saying to Ministers:
“Since 2012-13, weighted crime demand on the police has risen, largely due to growth in recorded sex offences. At the same time officers’ numbers have fallen by 5% since 2014. So resources dedicated to serious violence have come under pressure and charge rates have dropped. This may have encouraged offenders.”
Home Office Ministers should be heeding the advice they are being given.
We have spoken a great deal in the House today about the 21,000 fewer police officers, but we must not forget either that more than 18,000 police support staff have been cut, in addition to more than 6,000 police community support officers. The statistics really are damning. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson), who served with such great distinction in the Home Office, highlighted the figures on violent offending for the year ending December 2017. As he pointed out, there were just under 1.35 million violent offences that year compared with 700,000 in 2009—a near doubling. The Government’s own serious violence strategy also contains some very sobering but pretty clear statistics: the homicide rate rose from 553 in 2011-12 to 628 in 2016-17; knife crime offences were up, from just over 28,000 in 2011-12 to more than 32,000 in 2016-17; firearms offences increased over the same period from just over 6,000 to 6,375 and increased by 31% between 2013-14 and 2016-17. These figures only reinforce my hon. Friends’ points about the urgent need to tackle this and save lives.
I go back to what the Prime Minister said when she became Home Secretary in 2010:
“Nobody should accept a situation where at least 26,000 people fall victim to crime every day.”
I have looked at the crime survey for England and Wales. In the year ending September 2017, there were more than 10.5 million recorded criminal incidents, which works out at over 29,000 per day—3,000 more per day than in 2010. If the Prime Minister tells us that that was unacceptable in 2010, why on earth should we accept it in 2018?
Those statistics really should make the Government think, but this is about far more than mere statistics. Every statistic I have quoted is about young lives being spoilt or endangered, young lives crying out for intervention.
I say to Ministers, “Do not dismiss the impact of police numbers.” The Metropolitan Police Commissioner makes the link with finances; the leaked Home Office document makes the link; common sense makes the link. Let me say to all Conservative Members who have spoken today that nowhere in the serious violence strategy document is there any sustained analysis of the link between police numbers and levels of crime, and indeed violent crime; it is simply not there. If there were such confidence, the analysis could have been put in that document and placed before the House, but it is not there because we all know that there is a link.
I say to the Government, “Listen to what has been said in the debate today, and act, so that we can save more young lives.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Let me begin by saying that Manchester is a city that is very close to my heart. I grew up in Lancashire, and it was the big city that we used to visit on a Saturday to do our shopping, go to the cinema and go to concerts. I know that, across the House, we share the sorrow of the people of Manchester. We are in awe of their strength, and we give thanks for the extraordinary bravery of the emergency services and all the members of the public who ran towards danger on that terrible night to help others. Manchester is a magnificent city with great people, and their response on that night is a mark of how great its community is.
Let me now turn to the very serious debate that we have had today. I am pleased that it was called for by Members across the House, and, as a Minister, I am pleased that the Government provided time for it, because the topic is so serious. We have heard from colleagues on both sides of the House about the way in which it has affected their constituents personally. I will begin my response by identifying a couple of points on which I hope we can all agree.
One point on which I hope we can all agree is that we all want this to stop. Another is that we owe it to our constituents, to the victims of serious violence and to the families who are grieving, to put aside party politics and work together to stop it. That point was made forcefully and powerfully by the hon. Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for West Ham (Lyn Brown), and also by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). His speech showed that—contrary to suggestions made by one or two Members—even colleagues with constituents in rural counties a million miles from the urban hotspots can feel powerfully about this issue, and care about it.
I am very pleased that the Mayor of London and Members on both sides of the House—including the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna)—as well as police and crime commissioners, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, the director general of the National Crime Agency, people who head charities, local government representatives and Ministers across the Government are joining those in the serious violence taskforce to implement the more than 60 commitments in the serious violence strategy. At the first meeting of the taskforce last month, the firm intention of everyone was to act. It is not a talking shop but a place for action, and it is gratifying that—I sense—such an approach has the support of the House today.
The most important part of my role as the Minister responsible for crime, safeguarding and vulnerability is meeting and listening to the victims of crime and grieving families. I am constantly amazed at the strength and dignity of people who are in the most trying of circumstances. It does not matter whether the incident happened a few months ago or years ago; the impact on those families is still painful to behold. I know that Members in all parts of the House have seen it for themselves in their constituencies.
It is a privilege to sit and listen to the families’ stories, to hear about their loved ones and to reflect on their views as to what more can, and must, be done. Indeed, some are somehow able to find the wherewithal to use their experiences to help others. I am thinking in particular of Ben Kinsella’s family. The pain the parents have felt over the years since Ben’s death is palpable, yet the family have put that emotional energy into setting up the Ben Kinsella Trust centre in Finsbury, which I cannot recommend highly enough to Members to visit. It is particularly effective at addressing themes that have been raised today, such as reaching out to young people from primary school age through to late teens in an age-appropriate manner. I will not give away the impact of a visit, but the most powerful part is where the horrendous impact of such murders on family members and the friends of those lost is made very clear. That is a theme that has been raised by colleagues across the House today; the effect of these murders is not restricted to the family unit but is also felt by friends and communities.
I thank every Member who has spoken today, particularly those who spoke so movingly of the experience in their constituencies. I am bound to mention the contribution made by the hon. Member for West Ham, whose constituency, sadly, features too often in our conversations in this regard. When talking about one victim, she used a phrase that struck me: “His father’s heart broke in my arms.” That sums up the feeling hon. Members have brought into the Chamber this afternoon and points to the much wider impact this has had nationally.
It is vital that we listen to the young people themselves. I agree completely with colleagues across the House who have said that, and it is why I and other Ministers visit charities across the country to listen to young people and the people who work with them; I am sure not every teenager wishes to spend their afternoon off school receiving a visit from a Home Office Minister, but certainly their youth workers do appreciate the chance to talk to us.
I visited Safer London in east London and I was so inspired by a video it showed me of one of the young people it had worked with, Reuben, that I invited him, other former gang members and members of the charity into the House of Commons. I hope colleagues will recall that I invited everyone across the House to come a couple of months ago to the event we held on the Terrace. It is important that young people are not only listened to but feel they are being listened to. It is important to hear from young people such as Reuben, who might live just a few miles down the river; I asked him if he or his friends had ever been to this part of town or to the House of Commons, knowing what the answer was likely to be, and he said that it felt like a different country and it was inconceivable that they would make that journey. This is the first of what I hope will be regular events where colleagues across the House can listen to young people here, to understand for themselves what we should be doing and what more they expect of us.
This reaching out and listening is exactly what Home Office officials did when commissioned by the then Home Secretary a year ago to draw together a strategy to deal with serious violence, because they could see the way the statistics were going. Home Office officials have reached out to the police, local authorities, charities, youth workers, teachers and healthcare providers to ask for their ideas and thoughts on what can be done to stem this flow of violence.
The serious violence strategy that has been published, which hon. Members have been kind enough to review and give their thoughts on today, has four pillars. We are looking not just at law enforcement, important though that is, but at the causes of serious violence and what can be done to tackle it. That is why we are committing £40 million to be invested to support initiatives to tackle serious violence. This will focus on early intervention and prevention and on the root causes of the violence. It will look to help young people before they go down the wrong path, encouraging them to make positive choices and to live productive lives away from violence. It will tackle head on some of the theories about why these crimes occur, and explore the reasons behind the violence, including the links to drugs and gangs.
Melanie Onn
I thank the Minister for giving way, because I forgot to mention something in my speech. Two years ago, I asked a question about Grimsby being included in a list of local authority areas that would benefit from the strategy discussed in the “Ending gang violence and exploitation” paper. Can she tell us what has happened to that paper and that strategy?
Victoria Atkins
I can certainly help the hon. Lady with the “Ending gang violence and exploitation” strategy. It is one of the strategies on which the serious violence strategy has been built. I do not pretend that we are inventing the wheel for the first time here; we are building on work that has been done over the years, and “Ending gang violence and exploitation” is one of those strands of work. We have an inter-ministerial group, and I am delighted to see my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, sitting here next to me tonight, because he is one of the Ministers in that group, which I chair. It brings all the relevant Ministers into the room and challenges them to deliver for their Departments in terms of tackling these types of crime. We are now refocusing the group to deal with serious violence, because county lines and other factors have developed. I am hoping that I might get a little assistance specifically about Grimsby, but if I do not, I will write to the hon. Lady about that. I am afraid that I cannot flick through my file and find the answer in time now.
I am delighted—“delighted” is the wrong word; I am pleased—that Members across the House have understood the terrible impact that county lines is having on criminal statistics and on people living day to day in our constituencies. I hope that those who attended the debate on county lines in Westminster Hall several months ago will forgive me for repeating this powerful line from a police officer who has done a lot of work on county lines gangs. She said:
“They are stealing our children.”
That sums it up for me.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham, who I look forward to working with on the serious violence strategy, spoke powerfully about the role of serious organised crime, and I agree with him. I used to prosecute serious organised crime, and I am very alert to it. We would say that county lines is serious organised crime. That is our mindset. It is at the heart of the serious violence document. He made a point about wider serious organised crime groups, and various nationalities have been mentioned today. The National Crime Agency leads on those crime groups and on county lines investigations, because county lines is a national crime. We will also be producing the serious organised crime strategy in due course, in which—believe you me—this will be looked at. Please do not think for a moment that we have ignored serious organised crime; we have not. We have put it at the heart of the strategy, because we consider it to be part of it.
Jack Dromey
There is common ground in the House that this is not just an issue of police numbers, but does the Minister agree with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, that there is a link between falling numbers of police officers and rising violent crime?
Victoria Atkins
I am constantly asked that question, as the hon. Gentleman will imagine, and I challenge my officials to tell me the answer, because I want to get to the truth and I want to ensure that we are tackling this as effectively as possible.
During the previous spikes in knife crime in the late 2000s and mid-1990s, there were many, many more officers on the street. In addition, there does not appear to be a relationship between the numbers of police officers and the national rise in serious violence. I absolutely understand why hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised this issue.
Mr John Hayes
My hon. Friend makes a compelling point about the collaboration taking place across Government, and her own work on this is well understood and widely admired. Will she also look at the allocation of police resources and what I described earlier as the police culture? We need policemen who are involved in their communities and who are familiar to and respected by those communities. Such work will build the strength and social solidarity that is essential to tackling the problem.
Victoria Atkins
One of the first challenges that the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, put to the police was to use warranted officers on the frontline rather than in back-office roles. I am delighted that we have seen police forces rise to the challenge and ensure that more warranted officers are used, as they should be, in frontline policing.
Victoria Atkins
If I may, I will make some progress.
I will quickly address funding, which Opposition Members have raised. I do not want to refer back to history but, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security and Economic Crime said, we did not introduce these cuts because we wanted to introduce them. The economy was not at all good in 2010 and we had to make some very difficult decisions.
The police and others bore the burden of those restrictions, but since 2015 we have protected police funding. Indeed, this year we are seeing a further £460 million invested in policing, and it will be for police and crime commissioners to spend that money. I am delighted that some police and crime commissioners are looking to increase the number of officers in their forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) implored police forces to work more closely together, and we agree, which is why we are providing specific funding of £3.6 million over the next two years to establish a new national county lines co-ordination centre. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who brings his housing expertise to the House, dealt at length with cuckooing, which is an issue that horrifies everyone who has come across it.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) has done so much work with her Youth Violence Commission. She argues that having the teachable moment at A&E is too late, and I agree. I also agree with the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) that we need early relationship education, and I am very sympathetic to her calls on that. Indeed, the Department for Education is looking into it with great care. Interestingly, of course, domestic abuse is a theme than runs through members of gangs, which is one reason why I hope we can tie domestic abuse legislation into this important area.
Many colleagues have raised the point about youth services. We understand that, which is why the Government, in partnership with the Big Lottery Fund, have invested £80 million—£40 million in the #iwillFund and £40 million in the youth investment fund. We are also supporting the National Citizen Service and the troubled families programme, and we are setting up the early intervention youth fund. We have the trusted relationships fund and the anti-knife crime community fund. Colleagues on both sides of the House have said that we need funding for small charities, not for the big ones. The anti-knife crime community fund is doing exactly that, and bids are about to open, so please get charities to apply.
I shall turn to the subject of drugs, although I am conscious of the time. Many colleagues have talked about how the journey of cocaine and heroin into this country is plagued with exploitation, violence and death. When someone buys a wrap of cocaine, they have no idea how many children and young people have been involved. We as a House need to unite around precisely that so that when the Government introduce legislation such as the offensive weapons Bill, we will give it full support.
Business without Debate
Fuel Laundering
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I want to draw the House’s attention to a serious problem on a serious scale. It is a problem run by organised crime gangs across our country, yet it appears to many that the Government are lackadaisical or so distracted by other matters that they are not that concerned by it. I want to address the issue of Government concern—they ought to be concerned—as this crime is costing the Treasury hundreds of millions of pounds, so much so that, by a modest calculation, every 10 years the sums the Government could recover would make the Conservative and Democratic Unionist party confidence and supply agreement moneys cost neutral. The Government should consider that when dealing with this issue.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I wish to raise an area of major concern, which is the position of road hauliers, particularly those in Northern Ireland, who are missing out because they are having to compete against those who are dealing in smuggled fuel and are, thus, unable to compete on a level playing field. Most of the moneys being derived from this are going into the pockets of paramilitaries.
Ian Paisley
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Government’s very conservative estimate of what this crime amounts to is largely down to the lack of resources being directed at tackling it, as measured by the small amount of arrests and convictions, and to the fact that the current Government strategy of markers has failed because the markers do not work as well as the Government pretend. As it is Northern Ireland’s problem, it is often regarded as a problem that is out of sight and out of mind. However, the facts available to me indicate that it is fast becoming a UK mainland problem.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that a zero-tolerance approach must be taken to fuel laundering, not simply because of the cost to the Exchequer of some £100 million per annum in Northern Ireland, but because those carrying out these crimes are very often inextricably linked with paramilitarism? We must cut off the money-making arm of paramilitary groups throughout Northern Ireland. Do away with the money and we stop the paramilitary groups being active.
Ian Paisley
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We hear much debate about Brexit and the hard border, and how it must be frictionless and customs must be harmonised. Every gangster who is engaged in this operation in Northern Ireland and this level of crime, many of whom are senior Sinn Féin supporters and other senior paramilitaries, believes in a hard border on this one, because they love the fact that there is a customs differential and they want to ensure their ability to transfer vast amounts of laundered fuel in a frictionless manner.
Let us examine the scale of the crime. In March, Baroness Neville-Rolfe stated in an answer to questions in the other place that the estimated level of illicit fuel sales amounts to “£50 million” in lost revenue for the last year for which figures were available. I believe that is a glossed over view and that, even though it is a staggering amount, it conceals a far greater level of fraud. However, if that was the height of it, that is half a billion in resources lost to the Government over the term of a normal Parliament. The most recent official report of the Organised Crime Task Force—I must declare an interest, as I served as a member of it before I joined this House—details that the tax gap between Government known legitimate sales of oils and fuels, and illicit fuel trading is about £100 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) identified. That has reduced from about £160 million nine years ago, but it is still a staggering amount.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the substantial amounts of money that the Treasury is losing, an issue that is sometimes not highlighted is the danger of the damage done to vehicles? Some of these illicit fuels are poisoned and treated very badly so that these people can maximise profits.
Ian Paisley
If we start to go down that line, the costs are in many ways incalculable. We need to bear that in mind.
The Organised Crime Task Force recounts a case study of an organised crime gang that evaded duty of more than £3 million. It had laundering plants in 13 locations, at one of which the police seized approaching £300,000 in cash. They also seized 72,000 litres of illicit fuel that was being sold to unsuspecting motorists, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said. Nine people were convicted, and two custodial sentences were handed down amounting to—listen to this—just 16 months in prison. Seriously? A multimillion-pound crime gang and they get 16 months in prison. What sort of disincentive to criminality is that?
The Government will no doubt point to their new fuel marker, which they introduced in conjunction with the revenue and customs people in the Republic. They claim that it is particularly special and
“significantly more resistant to laundering”
than old markers. Given that old markers could be laundered through a sieve, that is not actually a good recommendation. They also boast that there has been a
“reduction in laundering plants discovered”.
That boast is hollow, as it means that the authorities cannot find the laundering plants.
I will tell the House why that is so. Previously, removal of the marker left an environmentally hazardous sludge that ultimately gave away the launderers’ locations and caused a multimillion-pound hazard that the local authorities had to pay hundreds of thousands pounds to clear up. The new so-called more effective marker can be removed via the process of distillation, leaving no environmental waste at all—it simply evaporates—hence the carefully crafted words of the report. If the laundering plants do not leave any trace, they will be much harder to find, so fewer plants will be discovered. On the fact that the new marker can be distilled off the fuel, I leave this thought with the House: many people in Northern Ireland know a lot about distillation. They have been distilling a produce in Northern Ireland for very many years, so it is now so much easier to commit this crime than it was previously.
Let me turn to the substance of my argument; I hope that the Minister will respond to these points. This is not a uniquely Irish problem. Because a blind eye has been turned to stamping it out, organised crime gangs are exporting this crime across the Irish sea. A case study produced by the Government’s Organised Crime Task Force recounts how the
“fuels may move across the EU borders without supervision”.
If ever we were going to get a warning that we need more friction on our border in respect of this issue, this must be it.
In 2016, there were 80 movements of ISO tanks—tank containers built to the standard of the International Organisation for Standardisation—containing 26,000 litres each. The Government estimate that millions of litres of this oil were smuggled before it was identified. The crime amounted to millions of pounds in lost revenue for Her Majesty’s Exchequer—and this is just one operator. Such crimes have a devastating impact on our haulage industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) said earlier.
At the weekend, three Secretaries of State visited Northern Ireland and heard at first hand from the haulage industry. The industry took the opportunity to spell out the following, saying that organised crime gangs
“are now exporting laundered diesel to GB on an industrial scale using bulk containers contained inside curtain slide trailers. This is of huge concern to Roll on Roll off operators on the Irish sea as it is hazardous cargo, is not manifested or transported safely”.
A potential disaster looms that would make the Zeebrugge disaster look insignificant. This operation is being used to supply illicit vehicle operations across England. The Government promise that legitimate trade must not be interfered with or delayed, as a result of Brexit, between our islands and on our island. I agree wholeheartedly with that position, but to have confidence, illicit trade must be stamped out. The Government must not sacrifice their principles on ensuring that we have open trade. They must not allow criminals to get away with it. We must deal with the criminal elements, because they are rubbing their hands in glee, looking at the opportunities that Brexit will open up for them.
There are 5,730 licensed commercial vehicle operators and 22,000 licensed goods vehicles in Northern Ireland. Some 27% of Northern Ireland licences are international hire and reward work compared with an average of 10% here on GB mainland. Therefore, this is big business in Northern Ireland. Some 27,000 people are currently employed in the transport and storage industries in Northern Ireland, and fuel represents about 32% of the operating costs of those industries. It is obvious from those figures that illicit traders can destroy a legitimate business by focusing on the sale of illicit fuel, and put a legitimate operator out of work overnight.
Our duty on fuel is, of course, the highest in Europe and it is unlikely to fall, so the pressure on legitimate trade and the opportunity for the criminal grows. Last month, I met people from the Petrol Retailers Association. They are appalled at how easy laundering has become. They have identified a number of sites across Northern Ireland that are openly run by criminals, and yet nothing has been done about it. I was going to use privilege this evening to read out the names of 12 illicit trade operators across the United Kingdom that have been given to me by the Petrol Retailers Association. I would get a very easy headline, but I will not do that, because I am not here to embarrass the Government. I am not here to try to pull that one on them, but I do make a plea to the Minister that if we know who these people are, and if their names are easily circulated between the police, the association and the operators, surely something must now be done to stamp them out. I hope that the Minister will push that matter back to the authorities and tell them that we want these criminals dealt with, and that we want to see examples set.
I have three pleas to make to the Minister this evening, and I hope that he can respond to them. The first is in the words of the Petrol Retailers Association. Let me quote again from the letter:
“I firmly support you and your colleagues in demanding from Government a fresh look at the real impact of this HMRC marker initiative and a renewed commitment to tackle the heinous problem of illicit fuel which has spread to the mainland.”
Secondly, I want the Government to review the sentencing policy and practice of those caught engaging in this heinous crime. Finally, as Brexit approaches, let us use this as an opportunity to make the United Kingdom have the gold standard fuel marker and to put in place a proper and effective British marker that works and stops this illicit trade. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to these matters and offer me the opportunity to meet senior officials to address them.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for raising an important issue, which I know that he, his constituents, and the effective quartet of Members from Northern Ireland who are here this evening—[Interruption.] Quintet, I do apologise. Who could forget? I know that this is an issue that many people feel strongly about. I know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be delighted to hear that the Democratic Unionist party now wants to be cost neutral, and I will make sure that that is taken into consideration in future conversations.
Fuel duty makes an important contribution to the public finances. In 2016-17, it generated £28 billion, or nearly 5% of total tax revenue. It is the fifth largest source of tax revenue to the Exchequer, behind only income tax, national insurance contributions, VAT and corporation tax, so, as my hon. Friend rightly suggested, this matters. Fuel fraud is not a victimless crime. It deprives the Exchequer of funds that pay for public services, and fuel laundering—the removal of chemical dyes and covert markers from rebated fuel to give the appearance of legitimate road fuel—poses a range of further risks to the public. Criminals experimenting with the process to defeat the new marker can create, as we have seen, a high risk of explosion, fire and potential risk to life. Laundering plants also produce toxic waste, which causes environmental damage. Finally, as we have also seen, illicit fuel is often transported in vehicles that are unfit for purpose and unsafe. As with any form of fraud, fuel fraud is a serious concern, and we recognise that it can be linked to organised crime, serious organised crime and, as my hon. Friend argued, the financing of paramilitary activity. That is a concern across the United Kingdom and, quite obviously, a particular concern in Northern Ireland.
For all those reasons and those set out by my hon. Friend, the Government are and must be committed to tackling the issue and to giving it the due consideration that it deserves. HMRC’s strategy to tackle fuel duty fraud has seen the UK’s tax gap for fuels in general fall from £1.5 billion in 2002 to less than £100 million in 2015-16, but £100 million remains a significant sum of money, as we have heard. In Northern Ireland, where the issue is a particular problem, the illicit market share has, according to HMRC, fallen from 26% to 8% over the same period. None the less, there is no room for complacency. Indeed, there has been a modest increase in laundering plant detections over the past year, which should give us all cause for concern. The new fuel marker that was brought in together with the Republic of Ireland in April 2015 to tackle the problem of fuel laundering is part of the significant investment made by HMRC to ensure that all businesses and individuals contribute to the tax revenues that are required to fund our public services. I appreciate that my hon. Friend has in the past raised objections to Accutrace, but I will return to those shortly.
As outlined in HMRC’s evaluation of Accutrace, the new marker has led to a reduction in the number and size of fuel laundering plans discovered by HMRC, although there has been a modest uptick over the past year. That apparent success reflects our commitment to tackle fuel fraud, as evidenced by the reinvestment of over £1 billion in HMRC’s fight against evasion and fraud over the spending review period. To continue that work, the Government announced the expansion of road fuel testing unit capacity in Northern Ireland in particular, but also in mainland Great Britain, in addition to the extra resource for fuel fraud work within HMRC’s criminal investigation directorate that was announced in the autumn statement 2013. That should complement HMRC’s fleet of road fuel testing vehicles, all of which are equipped with gas analysers that all officers have been fully trained to use. In 2016-17 alone, HMRC took 45,000 samples in the UK, so the problem is being addressed seriously at quite a scale across the UK.
Multi-agency, cross-border co-operation is clearly essential, and HMRC chairs a quarterly multi-agency cross-border fuel fraud group to share intelligence and information on operational activity, as well as co-ordinating joint operations. I have reiterated the importance of that with the Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime in advance of this debate. HMRC’s testing capability can now identify markers down to parts per million, including the new Accutrace marker that has been introduced on both sides of the border. HMRC investigates all attempts to remove Accutrace. To date, HMRC advises that there is nothing to suggest that rebated fuel can successfully be laundered to remove the marker in a way that is not detectable to HMRC. Although all markers have theoretical vulnerabilities and there is no perfect marker on the market, this new marker cannot be removed profitably at any scale. It remains HMRC’s view that the marker has been, and continues to be, effective in driving down fuel fraud. Clearly, I am interested in hearing further evidence from my hon. Friend if he wishes to engage with this. Where HMRC has detected laundering plants, these have not been capable of successfully laundering the new marker.
My hon. Friend raised the question of custodial sentences. Custodial sentences for fuel laundering were handed down in 2016 following a successful HMRC investigation into a £2.6 million fuel laundering scheme. However, the scarcity of custodial sentences for what is clearly a serious crime is noticeable and disappointing. My hon. Friend was right to raise that matter today. Right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland know that justice and policing are devolved matters, but I will give further consideration to this issue and I am happy to engage with them on how we might move forward. I am informed that sentences for this crime in Northern Ireland are, taken together, more lenient than those in England and Wales. We should all give that further consideration.
My hon. Friend mentioned points raised by the Road Haulage Association. I am happy to meet him to discuss these issues at a later date. We have increased our capacity in road fuel testing units, and have provided extra resource for fuel fraud investigations across the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland. I would be happy to supply further information from HMRC regarding the quantity and where the units are being deployed. I have asked HMRC officials to supply us with better data on the numbers and on the locations at which roadside testing is happening in Northern Ireland. Tests are completed throughout the supply chain. The number of tests at suppliers’ premises in Northern Ireland has increased over the course of the last two financial years.
Ian Paisley
I really appreciate the level of engagement that the Minister is offering—both with himself and officials. Will he arrange for the Chancellor also to be engaged in the discussions, so that we can ensure that he appreciates how seriously we want this matter to be addressed?
Robert Jenrick
I raised this matter with the Chancellor in advance of this debate, and he would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and his colleagues if they wish to join. I suggest that I arrange a meeting with him and others who wish to participate as soon as possible so that we can take this matter forward. In advance of that meeting I will review some of the other issues that he has raised and the points made by the Road Haulage Association so that we can have the most productive conversation possible. The Chancellor is very aware of the importance of this issue in Northern Ireland and of the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend has pursued it over many years—going back at least five years—by raising it with the Government and in Parliament, so we would be happy to take this matter forward.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. We have had a productive debate. I listened closely to the comments that he made and hope that I have been able to answer some of them. The Government are committed to tackling avoidance, evasion and fraud throughout the tax system. For all the reasons that we have heard this evening, this is an important issue that deserves our attention and deserves to be elevated in the level of importance to which HMRC and law enforcement authorities in the whole United Kingdom, but particularly in Northern Ireland, attach to it. I will do everything that I can from my position in the Treasury to ensure that that happens. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and his colleagues to take this matter forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Offshore Combustion Installations (Pollution Prevention And Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Offshore Combustion Installations (Pollution Prevention and Control) (Amendment) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. It is nice to see so many familiar faces on both sides of the Committee as we return once again to the superb regulatory structure that gives us one of the safest offshore drilling regimes in the world. These regulations, which I shall refer to as the 2018 regulations, will provide our Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—OPRED—with powers to impose emissions monitoring and reporting controls on specific atmospheric pollutants from certain types of combustion plant on offshore installations. We touched on this subject in a debate last week, and I again place on the record my thanks to and admiration for the team at OPRED, who carry out a superb job and often in very difficult circumstances.
The 2018 regulations are needed to control and reduce emissions of air pollutants that are harmful to the environment and human health, and to implement two EU directives. Without the powers to control and monitor those air pollutants at individual plant level, it is difficult to quantify the pollutants that arise from individual large and medium-sized combustion plant and to ensure compliance.
The existing regulations, which date from 2013 and implement the provisions of chapters I, II and VII of the industrial emissions directive, are enforced through a permit. The permit conditions place controls on specified atmospheric emissions from combustion plant, such as gas turbines and engines, on offshore facilities that alone or when aggregated together have a thermal rated input equal to or greater than 50 MW. At the time when that directive was being implemented, there were no offshore facilities with qualifying large combustion plant and none was foreseen, so the obligations relating to that size of plant in chapter III were not transposed. However, there are now two offshore facilities that would fall within scope, and these regulations—this is why we are all gathered here on such a sunny day—will transpose those requirements in order to ensure that that large plant is captured.
The obligations under the medium combustion plant directive—it gets better—mean that we also need to extend our regime to medium-sized combustion plant, such as boilers, heaters and dual-fuel engines. I point out, because I know that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will ask me, that 12 offshore installations will be captured by the new requirements.
Therefore, to transpose both directives, there will be new requirements to control, monitor and annually report data on the specified emissions from large boilers, heaters and diesel engines and from medium-sized boilers, heaters and dual-fuel engines. Carbon monoxide emissions will also have to be monitored, but not controlled.
Existing permits issued under the 2013 regulations will be revised and, where necessary, new ones will be issued. The 2018 regulations will also extend the provisions in the 2013 regulations on OPRED’s inspection plans and ensure that inspection reports are made publicly available. That will mean affected operators’ permits being amended to encompass the new requirements, and that of course will avoid the issuing and holding of multiple permits that fulfil similar obligations under both directives.
The broadening of the regulations does not—to be clear—remove any existing requirements. It brings into scope plant that was out of scope under the previous regulations, given its size. As always, we conducted a four-week public consultation last year. There were eight responses seeking clarifications of concerns. The Government’s response addressed these comments and we agreed to publish an updated guidance note to support operators’ compliance with these new regulations.
There was, however, one substantive issue regarding provisions in regulation 15, which allows emissions limit values to be placed within a permit to control the level of pollutants emitted into the atmosphere. There was a concern that by restricting the level of pollutants emanating from this plant, there may be an impact on hydrocarbon exploitation and production. In some cases, the pollutants may not be fully controllable because of limitations on space—plants were designed a long time ago—and space on offshore facilities is at a premium and is intrinsically linked to safe production.
We took account of those industry concerns by making it clear that we will work with operators to implement these regulations in line with the specifications. This may result in some periods of non-compliance for qualifying plants, where those plants are determined to be safety and environmentally critical elements. This is intended to avoid those offshore installations entering early cessation of production, making sure we maintain the security of our energy supplies and maximise the economic opportunity for the recovery of hydrocarbons.
In summary, the objective of the 2018 PPC regulations is to control atmospheric emissions from offshore combustion plant—which we would all like—which are both harmful to the environment and human health, in line with the EU directive requirements, effectively capturing as in scope those plants that were outside scope when the original directive was laid. This will be achieved through permits for qualifying combustion plant, conducting offshore inspections and investigation of breaches, and the use of enforcement notices to instruct operators to take action to address those breaches within specified timescales. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Sharma. I thank the Minister not only for her explanation of the regulations, but for her valiant attempts to make them sound interesting.
Dr Whitehead
It really did sound quite interesting as a result. I say that because these are particularly dense regulations—dense in the sense of close-packed. Essentially, as the Minister has said, they are the process of transposing European directives into UK legislation, which I notice that we were supposed to have done under the directives by 19 December 2017. We are a little behind time and, should we get an extension of our leaving point of Brexit, issues could arise from that.
Claire Perry
I am always amazed by the hon. Gentleman’s ability to get Brexit into every conversation and I take the chastisement. Of course, we would not want to detain the Committee any further by delaying these regulations today.
Dr Whitehead
That is absolutely right. Let me make it clear that it is right and proper that we transpose the directives in the way the Minister has described, particularly in terms of the newer circumstances now in place offshore, which were not the case in 2013 when the original regulations came into place.
We have no issues with the process being undertaken. It seems to be a thoroughly sensible and well worked-out process. I am glad it now covers the installations operating in the North sea in the way the Minister has described. Indeed, she mentioned the two larger offshore plants—over 50 MW—and the existing 13 smaller offshore plants that will be covered by the transposition of the medium combustion plant directive.
I would like some brief clarification on a few points relating to those plants and how the regulations apply to them. First, the regulations include a phased implementation for both the IED and MCPD requirements on the point at which plants will not be deemed to be compliant and could be chased for enforcement on not being compliant. The regulations state that existing plants with a thermal input of greater than 5 MW will require a permit from 1 January 2024 and those with a thermal input of greater than 1 MW but equal to or less than 5 MW will require a permit from 1 January 2029.
I have two observations about that transposition. In fact, that grace period—as it were—before compliance is deemed to be necessary is not a transposition but a choice we have made in UK legislation. Strictly speaking, it does not relate to those two directives, and the ranges for the permits are different from those covered by the directives. The IED covers plants of over 50 MW and the MCPD covers plants of 1 MW to 50 MW. We therefore now have a different compliance regime here from that in the two directives. The question is, therefore, which side of our compliance line do the plants that we have mentioned—the 13 covered by the MCPD and the two by the IED—fall? For example, are all the plants listed as being covered by the MCPD under 5 MW? If so, they will have a long period before they require a permit. If they are mostly above 5 MW, the period for them is the same as for those covered by the IED.
The date of 1 January 2029 sounds like a very long way away and a long grace period as far as compliance is concerned. Can the Minister give further elucidation on why that period was chosen? If the smaller plants are all more than 5 MW, it may be that it does not cover anything; in which case, it is an academic exercise. That may well not be the case, but we have not had elucidation on that, which would be useful.
Secondly, are all the smaller plants external or internal? They are all present on rigs in one way or another, and clearly the larger plants will all be external, but the smaller plants could be partly or completely internal to the rigs. If that is the case, further safeguards may need to be considered for their operation. The Minister mentioned, for example, that there is no limit on carbon monoxide emissions, which could be relevant should those plants be internal.
Thirdly, to what extent do the draft regulations sit alongside or in any way supersede or otherwise replace the regulations that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made under the IED concerning concentrations of emissions from diesel plant generally? I assume that it is mostly diesel plant on the offshore rigs, and that might well be covered by the DEFRA regulations as well. I am not clear from what we have before us whether there will be any dual or cumulative effect from passing both sets of regulations.
My final question is on penalties. I assume that the penalty regime that we discussed last week is the one that will apply as far as the plants are concerned, but how does it relate to the penalty regime that was in the 2013 regulations? That 2013 penalty regime has been left virtually unamended by the draft regulations before us. If hon. Members refer to the 2013 regulations, they will find little to enlighten them, in as much as the penalty regime relates simply to the maximum penalty provided for in statute, and that appears in principle to have been superseded by the penalties in the regulations that we discussed last week. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case? Have the regulations from last week in effect produced another layer on the draft regulations before us through assumption of that penalty regime? If not, is there any necessity to look further at what the penalty regime in the 2013 regulations refers to, so that it is fully compliant with what has been put forward in the new regulations before us?
I hope that my bowling this afternoon will have been regarded as fairly easy. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what she has to say about those particular points, with a view to making the draft regulations as good as we can get them.
Claire Perry
Anyone who thinks that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is not earning his keep only needs to come to one of our many meetings to see an incredible level of scrutiny and questioning. I genuinely welcome that. Once again, he asked very pertinent questions, which certainly keep my officials on their toes. All the questions asked were relevant and important.
I may have to write to the hon. Gentleman with one or two answers, but what I have been able to glean so far is that the DEFRA regulatory regime applies onshore and we are discussing the offshore regime, so there is no transposition of the DEFRA regulations. He made a very good point about the fact that there could be internal plant, which of course might be generating carbon monoxide, and that could be a concern for the health and safety of workers. I believe that both new and existing plant could potentially be inside. Carbon monoxide is monitored, but no limit is set. In effect, I suppose, just as in our homes we would have carbon monoxide alarms to alert us to any sign of danger.
The hon. Gentleman wondered whether all the plants were diesel ones. Certainly some of the larger plants have gas turbines as well—again, a different form of emissions.
The hon. Gentleman asked careful questions about the timings of the introductions. I am assured that the phased timings align with article 5 of the medium combustion plant directive, but I shall ensure that the questions he asked about grace periods are properly answered after the debate. As I said at the start of the Committee, there was a realisation that some safety-critical equipment might be non-compliant for a time and be given a grace period to adjust. I shall take the grace period questions away and ensure that we write to him properly.
As always, I appreciate the scrutiny, as I think we all do. We make better legislation through doing it together, and the draft regulations are sensible. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the penalty regime. I wonder why we did not debate the statutory instruments together, which is a lesson for me to take to the parliamentary unit, because although they might be separate pieces of legislation they are in effect part of the OPRED arsenal of regulations. We might have saved right hon. and hon. Members some time.
I believe that the draft regulations are subject to the penalty regime that we referenced in last week’s regulations—the regime that already exists for emissions permits. The regime we debated last week related in essence to spills of oil and chemicals. Any significant breaches of the draft regulations would fall under the existing penalty regime, which is therefore another part of the arsenal.
On that basis, if the hon. Gentleman is content, I hope that the Committee will agree that we have considered the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhain McDonagh
The Minister is aware that I am a supporter of Labour’s academisation scheme, whereby failing schools that cannot be fixed by the council became academies. The problem for my constituency and many others is that the number of good or adequate sponsors is now running out and schools are being forced to become academies, which is not always in the best interests of pupils.
Nick Gibb
I share the hon. Lady’s support for Labour’s academisation programme, which is why we expanded it from 200 academies to over 6,000. She is fortunate to have in her constituency the Harris Federation, which is one of the most successful multi-academy trusts and school sponsors in the country. She should also want to acknowledge that funding for schools in Mitcham and Morden will rise by 7.3% under the national funding formula, and that Merton will receive an extra £6.3 million by 2019-20—a 5.4% increase in funding.
[Official Report, 25 April 2018, Vol. 639, c. 929.]
Letter of correction from Mr Gibb:
An error has been identified in the answer given to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on 25 April 2018.
The correct response should have been:
Nick Gibb
I share the hon. Lady’s support for Labour’s academisation programme, which is why we expanded it from 200 academies to over 6,000. She is fortunate to have in her constituency the Harris Federation, which is one of the most successful multi-academy trusts and school sponsors in the country. She should also want to acknowledge that funding for schools in Mitcham and Morden will rise by 7.3% under the national funding formula, and that Merton will receive an extra £6.3 million when the national funding formula is implemented in full—a 5.4% increase in funding.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 22nd May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 View all Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2018 - (22 May 2018)
The Chair
Hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish; it is very hot. Will everyone ensure that their electronic devices are turned off or at least switched to silent mode? Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Committee Room. We will consider first the programme motion on the amendment paper and then a motion to enable reporting of written evidence for publication. In view of the limited time available, I hope that we can deal with those matters without too much debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25am on Tuesday 22 May) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 May;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 May;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 5 June;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 22; the Schedule; Clauses 23 to 26; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 5 June.—(Jesse Norman.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Jesse Norman.)
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room. The selection list for today’s sitting is also available in the room. Unusually, I have selected for debate some starred amendments in the name of Rachael Maskell. As those are proposed amendments to new clause 1, which was tabled only on Thursday, there was not time to table them before today’s sitting with the usual amount of notice. It is not normally my practice to select starred amendments, but the circumstances in this case have led me to do so. It is for the convenience of the Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Davies. Could the Minister comment on why this measure is going through at such a pace? That has led to a lot of compromises, with the Opposition Front Benchers having to table at very late notice, and this is such an important issue. Why is the measure being presented so fast before the Committee?
The Chair
That is a legitimate question, but I think that it will come up in the course of debate, and it is for the Minister, not for me as Chair, to respond. Because the measure has come up quickly, I have allowed amendments to go forward without notice, but the point has been made and I am sure that it will be addressed in the course of debate. I thank the hon. Lady for making that point.
Clause 1
International road transport permits
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report outlining the nature of the regulations proposed to be made under this section and an assessment of the impact of those regulations on the road haulage industry.
(3B) The Secretary of State shall make no regulation under this section during a period of no less than six months from the date of his laying before Parliament the report required in subsection (3A).’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report outlining the nature of the proposed regulations and assess its impact on the road haulage industry, at least six months before the regulations are made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3— Report on negotiations for a relevant international agreement—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on progress made on any negotiations to secure a relevant international agreement.
(2) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, and within the period of each six months thereafter.
(3) In this section “relevant international agreement” has the same meaning as in section 1(4).’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to outline the progress made in the negotiations to secure a relevant international agreement.
Alan Brown
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will not be too long; I just want to make some brief comments. Amendment 12 and new clause 3 both call for the Government to submit reports. When the Bill was going through the House of Lords, the Government did, surprisingly, agree to report on accidents, and I thought that as the Government had now shown a willingness to do reporting, I would try their patience and see whether we could put additional reporting requirements into the Bill.
Overall, this is enabling legislation, which will allow the Government to bring forward regulations—secondary legislation—so we still do not know what the end outcome will be with regard to the Bill and subsequent regulations. On Second Reading, I concluded that the Government were saying, “We don’t know whether part 1 of the Bill will be required. We don’t know, if it is required, what the secondary legislation will look like. We don’t know what the fees will be. We don’t know what the application process will be and whether there will be limits on the permits available.”
Amendment 12 is therefore designed to firm up on that. We want the Government, as they develop the regulations, to submit a report outlining what the impact of the regulations will be, how they will apply to the haulage industry and what they mean for it. That is very important. The haulage industry as a whole is looking for continuity of the arrangements that are in place now—the community licence system—but if for some reason the Government cannot get a suitable agreement with their European counterparts, that might lead to a number of bilateral arrangements; it might lead to a whole scenario of additional requirements for permits. That could have an impact in terms of cost and time. We want to know what it means for the haulage industry, so we want the Government to set out clearly, once they know what the regulations look like, what the impact will be on the haulage industry. I think that is a fair ask of the Minister.
I am sure that the Government will not entertain new clause 3 because it asks for updates on the international negotiation process. We know that the Government like to play their cards close to their chest. We keep hearing how no one enters negotiations saying clearly what they want, and that they should play it close to their chest and keep negotiating effectively in a closed room. But that is not good enough. We want transparency. I think it is fair to ask the Government to come back and report on how the negotiations are progressing and what that means.
The other day, the Secretary of State for Transport commented that trade unions never state what their asks are before entering into negotiations, but I would argue differently: trade unions often do set out exactly what they are looking for. There is nothing wrong in stating what is being sought in negotiations and then advising and updating Parliament on how the negotiations are going, so I am interested in what the Minister has to say about the additional reporting requirements.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
Labour Members believe that the Bill is important legislation, because it signifies many important aspects of the final agreement that is reached with the EU and the wider international community. Without it, and should negotiations result in no deal being struck, haulage movements and therefore our economy would seriously be damaged. Haulage is a servant of our economy, and getting this right is vital for its future. That is why we support the Bill and want to participate in the debate to improve it, should it ever be required. In fact, we argue that on some aspects of the Bill, regulations should be laid before the House come what may, as the Bill makes provision for improving and monitoring trailer safety. I thank the Minister for his part in this and, not least, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South.
I first turn my attention to new clause 3, which is immensely sensible in so far as it is right to highlight the intrinsic link between the Bill and the continuing international trade negotiations with both the EU and the wider international community. Smooth passage over our borders is essential for the haulage industry’s survival, and more so for the business that haulage serves.
Labour Members believe that we should remain in the community licence scheme. The scheme currently enables goods to move frictionlessly over national borders with the EU, and I would find it incredibly helpful if the Minister could state whether it is his ambition to remain within it. I appreciate that that is subject to a negotiation process but, as the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun, has said, an indication of intention would not only help us to progress through the Committee sitting today, but inform those to whom the Bill would apply.
Understanding the intent of, and the progress being made in, this area of the deal could also assist in the planning of regulations associated with the Bill, which will need to be laid before the House before the UK leaves the EU, in the light of the timescales before us. Clearly there needs to be transparency, which is something the new clause brings about. We need to understand what happens after a community licence arrangement, or its equivalent, depending on where negotiations end up.
The Bill is a framework Bill and is subject to further regulations, and we appreciate that there could well be reciprocal arrangements, for instance with the EU as a partner on the continent. That, too, could assist, or have consequences for, the UK’s import and export markets.
The second part of the new clause focuses on the time by which reports must be laid in association with the Bill. Time is not on our side, and in the light of the fact that regulations need to be drafted after the Bill has completed its parliamentary process, it is right that we seek the shortest possible timeline for the preparation of the report to be presented. That will then inform any necessary regulations.
Labour is therefore fully supportive of new clause 3, and we trust that it will help with the process of smooth transition to an agreement that will assist the haulage industry.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. I rise to speak briefly in favour of the new clause.
The Government are on a high wire here. The process of negotiating ongoing community licence membership on its own would be a difficult piece of work. Similarly, designing our own system on its own would be a difficult piece of work. To do those things at the same time is exceptionally difficult, so what we are considering today is very important. We saw on Second Reading, and I expect we will see over the forthcoming days, a great deal of consensus, support and understanding about the difficulty of the task. Relatively recently, I was involved in a similar Bill Committee about nuclear safeguards; that was very much the spirit in which we had those conversations.
This is enabling legislation—my hon. Friend the Member for York Central characterised it as a framework Bill. That is right and proper given the circumstances. We know that the Government need to have that latitude, given the fluid nature of the negotiations, and whatever arrangements may need to be filled in over time. However, we, as the legislature, need to secure some support and some structure to ensure that we insulate from Executive overreach. We understand that the Government need flexibility but, over time, as things develop, and as the Government know more and conversations start to have more detail, we ought to know a little more about what the nature of the scheme is likely to be, about the regulations on permits, and about what developments occur. I do not think that that is much to ask. The irony is that I dare say the vast majority of us on the Committee do not want the legislation to pass; that is a strange situation. It is important for us to have confidence in the process, so I hope that the new clause might be accepted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am delighted to rise to speak on the amendment and the new clause. I will start by making a few outline comments about the nature of the Bill, and then I will come to the points that have been raised, including the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham.
Let me start by explaining clause 1 in slightly more detail. The clause does not make it an automatic requirement to carry a permit. Regulations made using the clause will only require permits where our international agreements mandate it, and they will exempt specific types of journey as covered in international agreements. Regulations made under this part of the Bill will set up a framework, as has been acknowledged by Opposition Members, for a permit scheme that will then apply to any permanent agreements we reach with the EU, as well as to our existing and future agreements with non-EU countries and the European Conference of Ministers of Transport permit scheme. The effect of that is that regulations will be made under clauses 1 to 3 irrespective of what arrangements we make with the EU; the difference will be in the scope of those regulations.
We stated during proceedings on the Bill in the other place that we intend to have a permit system in place and up and running by the end of the year. That will deliver our existing permit arrangements and give businesses the certainty that we can deliver on whatever arrangements are put in place for haulage after we have left the EU. Any delay in putting that system in place will cause more uncertainty and therefore additional cost to the industry.
We will introduce regulations shortly after Royal Assent so that the system can be up and running. A requirement to lay a report and wait a further six months before laying regulations before the House would prevent us from putting in place our planned systems to support hauliers in preparing for Brexit. Hon. Members will be aware that the consultation on the Bill was launched just last week, on 16 May. That consultation is part of the UK’s preparation for its future relationship with the EU.
Our overall aim in negotiations is to maintain and develop the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage. The hon. Member for York Central asked whether it was my ambition to stay in the licensing scheme, to which the response is that our ambition is to maintain and develop the existing liberalised access for commercial haulage, as we have said.
The future deal with the EU could, however, require a form of permitting system. The Bill will allow the Government to deliver an administrative system as part of the final deal. We are consulting on how permits will be allocated and what information the hauliers will be able to provide. We want to the system to be as practical and user-friendly for hauliers as possible and we will use the consultation responses to make sure that it is.
Should there be a limit on the number of permits available for haulage travel to EU member states, we want to make sure that the permit system does not adversely affect small operators, and we are confident that our proposed system will not do so. We hope that large and small operators will respond to the consultation so that we have a good understanding of the effect of the permit scheme on different sizes of business.
Alan Brown
The Minister stated that he aims to move quite quickly to introduce the regulations that form the secondary part of the Bill. Can he outline how quickly these regulations will be brought forward and how they will compare with the consultation that is ongoing at the moment? We still have the negotiations to come, so it is not clear how quickly regulations can be introduced and what they will look like, because they really will have to cover myriad options.
Jesse Norman
As I have said, the purpose of the Bill is to put in place a framework of permits, which will continue irrespective of any specific outcome with the EU. We aim to put it in place by the end of the year. We are moving with a certain amount of speed, but in no sense hastily. We have already had widespread consultation with the industry and other stakeholders. There has been quite a high degree of cross-party support, and I was pleased that the Labour Party and the SNP did not oppose the Bill on Second Reading. We have been happy to take late-tabled Opposition amendments to respect the desire to get everything in place.
That goes to the point raised by the hon. Member for Rotherham: there is no sense of undue haste, but we seek to put the framework in place. That means that regulations will need to be laid later this year, following the consultation that is in progress. This is a careful process of putting in place regulations that we will be able to use for the longer term.
The consultation includes draft regulations so that respondents can see what we propose. In addition, we have provided policy scoping documents that outline how we intend to operate a permit scheme, and they are available in the House Library. Those documents and the response to the consultation will set out the details of what the regulations laid before the House will achieve, and what their impact will be. A further report on what future regulations will cover would provide no further benefit to Members.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will welcome the fact that in the other place, the Government added clause 9 to the Bill to honour an undertaking given by my noble colleague, Baroness Sugg. The clause will provide Parliament with a report for any relevant year on the impacts of a limited permit arrangement with the EU, should that be the outcome.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for the spirit in which he is approaching the Bill. I am grateful for the new clauses that have been introduced—he is clearly listening. However, I find it odd that we are doing all this before the consultation is closed. If the responses to the consultation show that there is real opposition to some of the things that we are now putting in the Bill, what provisions has he made to deal with that? What opportunity do we have to get the best regulations and legislation?
Jesse Norman
This is a framework Bill, and the consultation is on detailed aspects of the regulations—in particular, the criteria for granting permits. The consultation will inform the structuring and shaping of the regulations as they are introduced. We do not anticipate that any aspect of the consultation will remove the desire, which is widely shared across the industry, for more clarity and certainty and for a unified framework, which is what the Bill is intended to generate.
The first set of regulations under part 1 of the Bill will set up a framework for a permit scheme. Parliament will be able to debate that, following the amendment we made to clause 23 in the other place. The Government recognise that we are still developing a policy, and it is only right that those regulations should be the subject of debate in both Houses.
I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun. It would be neither practical nor desirable to ensure that no regulations were made until six months from the date on which such a report was laid before Parliament. I note the comment from the hon. Member for York Central that the Bill should be put on to the statute book in the shortest possible time. She is right about that; it should be done without haste, with cross-party agreement and in a measured way. Therefore, we should not be delayed by a further six months, which would be the implication of that change.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the new clause fails to recognise the very nature of negotiations? There is often a logjam, and then agreement comes about at some point. A report produced within that timescale may not be of much use to people who want to follow the commentary about what is going on.
Jesse Norman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, this legislation is designed to survive, as it were, whatever the outcome, which may be one of many different kinds. We confidently expect a liberalised access arrangement, as he knows, but it is wise to be prepared. For that reason, this is a belt-and-braces piece of legislation, but we cannot delay it further if we want to get it on to the statute book. Both parties recognise the importance of doing so.
If we secured a liberal agreement between the UK and the EU as part of a future relationship, as we expect to do, we would not be able to put the regulations in place until we had reported on the impacts, which would be minimal in this case. We would then have to wait a further six months until we could make the regulations, subject to parliamentary timescales. As a consequence of this requirement, a huge cost would be imposed on hauliers and they would not be able to take account of a deal that gave them the required access. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun intends to impose those costs on UK hauliers, including on Scottish hauliers.
Delaying the making of the regulations would delay the implementation of the agreements, and that would have a huge detrimental impact on hauliers and on our freight trade. Any delay in implementing agreements might mean that hauliers could not access and use the correct permit for their journey, which would affect their ability to take on contracts. The Bill and subsequent powers will also cover our existing non-EU-based agreements, and the amendment would encompass those agreements. If we were to strike new agreements with non-EU countries, the amendment would require us to report on them and postpone the issuing of any of those permits for six months after the report.
I hope that explanation provides the hon. Gentleman with clarity about how we propose to ensure that the regulations made under the Bill are subject to appropriate scrutiny. We will report on the effects on the UK haulage industry of any EU-related permit scheme, should there be one, where there is a limit on the number of permits available for hauliers travelling to EU member states. In that spirit, I hope he feels that he can withdraw the amendment.
New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to report every six months, beginning three months after the Bill comes into force, on progress in negotiations to secure international agreements on the transport of goods by road to, in or through other countries. The requirement is extremely broad; it covers any relevant agreement with any other country or organisation, at any stage in the negotiations. It would catch the smallest technical amendment to an existing agreement, and it could introduce a requirement to report on negotiations when they are at a particularly delicate point and when we are unable to report the substance of our negotiating position—along the lines hinted at by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby.
The danger is that reports made under the new clause could be a mixture of the bland and the trivial. The approach of regularly setting out in public the detail of our negotiating lines, tactics and prospects of success appears to be an almost certain way to undermine our negotiation and the prospect of securing a good deal for road transport users—something that we very much believe is in prospect.
I hope that I have been clear about the Government’s objective throughout. We want and actively expect to maintain the existing liberalised access for UK hauliers. A mutually beneficial road freight agreement with the EU will support the objective of frictionless trade. We are confident that our future relationship with the EU on road freight, as part of a wider continuing relationship on trade, will be in both sides’ mutual interest. While we are negotiating with the EU, however, it is not helpful to provide Parliament with speculation about the prospects for success in the negotiations.
The reporting requirement is also perverse in its effects. It would cover any agreement that includes permits—that is the effect of tying the definition of “relevant international agreements” to that in clause 1(4)—but not liberal agreements that do not involve permits, such as our current agreements with Albania and Turkey. Reports under the proposed new clause would not provide Parliament with a useful overall picture of the state of the Government’s work to help the UK haulage industry operate internationally.
The Government have been clear throughout proceedings on the Bill that it is not intended in any way to pre-empt the nature of the agreement between the UK and the EU and the future relationship, and it is not a suitable vehicle for such amendments. When the Bill was in the other place, noble Lords tabled amendments that would have required the Government to report on how the permits regime would affect the efficiency of haulage and their expectations for future arrangements between the EU and the UK. In response to those amendments the Government introduced clause 9, which focuses on the scheme’s actual impact on the haulage industry. By contrast, new clause 3 would require reports on the progress of negotiations on prospective agreements.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun noted on Second Reading:
“when I try to get amendments through in Committee that require the Government to report on future implementation, they always vote them down”.—[Official Report, 14 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 70.]
I am sorry to disappoint him today, but I do not believe that his amendment will provide Parliament with useful information. For that reason, I hope he will withdraw it.
Alan Brown
I have listened to the Minster’s arguments on amendment 12, which he thinks would be burdensome. I understand some of the logic. Equally, I still think there is merit in getting the Government to report on what the regulations would look like and their impact. However, I have listened to the Minister and I am happy to withdraw the amendment, although I am still concerned about how the regulations will align with the end agreement, and how Parliament understands that. New clause 3 reflects the importance of parliamentarians and industry understanding how the negotiations are going. The Minister said that the report would pick up bland things and small technical issues, but there is nothing wrong with reporting small technical issues. That would result in a very small report that would not need too much debate or scrutiny in Parliament.
We heard the classic excuse that the negotiations might be sensitive. If they are too sensitive, that can be reported, but it would still be good for Parliament to be kept updated on the negotiations. Given that the Government are willing to incorporate clause 9—on the future impact of the regulations—it seems logical that there is merit in reporting on how negotiations are going, because that will have the biggest impact on what the permit system looks like and the outcome for the road haulage network.
Having said that, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
It might be helpful if I mention at the outset that the Committee may debate the provisions of each clause during a stand part debate, even if no amendments have been tabled to that clause. As we proceed it will be helpful if Members who wish to debate any clause in any stand part debate could indicate that clearly to the Chair, either privately in advance or when we reach the relevant clause.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate being called to speak to clause 1, Mr Davies. I seek clarity on how the Minister thinks the haulage permit system will work.
Haulage is part of the EU community licensing scheme, as we have already heard. I am disappointed that the Minister’s ambition is not to remain within the scheme, because we know not only that it is incredibly successful, but that it means there is smooth, frictionless movement of goods over our borders. The EU recognition of the licences means that lorries, for example, can pass smoothly from one nation to the next. Without permits being issued, lorries will not be able to cross borders after we leave the EU.
I want to express my concerns by talking through various scenarios, and I trust the Minister will be able to answer. I want to take the example of a lorry that originates in Spain and travels to the Republic of Ireland. It would not be required to have a specific permit, as it is still within the EU. If, however, the lorry then heads north and travels to Northern Ireland, it will have passed from the EU jurisdiction to that of the UK. Here the lorry would fall under this Bill and would need to carry permit documentation to prove that it was eligible to be in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister clarify whether there will be permit checks at this border or in Northern Ireland? Would the lorry even need a separate permit to be in Northern Ireland? Given that the Government have said there will be no hard border within the island of Ireland, that suggests that no permit is required. Or is it? I am seeking clarity from the Minister.
Mr Goodwill
Is it not the case that that truck would already have to pay the HGV levy to travel on the roads of Northern Ireland? Therefore the UK authorities would already have be notified, namely through that charge of £10 a day.
Rachael Maskell
The right hon. Gentleman raises the important point that we are talking about the permit and the ability to move north and south across Ireland, which will be different if we are not within the community licensing scheme. Will the Minister clarify what the position would be if another vehicle is travelling from its origin in the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland—would permits be required for that too? If permits are needed in either of those examples, that would create a border within the island of Ireland.
Let me carry on with my first example. If the lorry from Spain were to cross from Northern Ireland into England, Scotland or Wales, or within the UK, could it do that without a permit? My reading is that it would not. Secondly, if a lorry were to begin its journey in the Republic of Ireland and take the same route north, then across the Irish sea, would it require a permit? I seek clarity on both scenarios.
Will the Minister provide further clarity? My lorry begins its journey in Spain. If it skips Northern Ireland and goes straight to the Republic of Ireland, it would not need a permit; but if it were to travel east, without going to Northern Ireland, would it need a permit, and if so, would that not create a border across the Irish sea? That might sound quite detailed, but it is fundamental to the understanding of the Bill and, for example, the number of permits to be issued, and is therefore informative to today’s discussion.
We need to understand how permits will be issued according to each jurisdiction. With something as important as this, the Minister needs to understand that the industry is already very nervous. The lack of detail on these important issues, which also of course carry a cost implication, is already forcing business decisions that are not in the best interests of the wider economy. Clarity would bring confidence. I hope that this morning the Minister will end the confusion about how these permits will work across these borders.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments. She raises several issues, which I am happy to address. The first relates to the different scenarios that hauliers would be operating under and the second to the nature of documentation and, potentially, electronic documentation or its equivalent. There is some lack of clarity that it is important to dispel here—I am not sure whether it exists in the industry. Let us be clear: this is a Bill that applies to UK hauliers. A foreign haulier with a vehicle coming into the UK will be bound by other legislation linked to foreign hauliers, but they will not be affected by the Bill. The effect of that is that in the first scenario the hon. Lady describes, a UK haulier with a load that starts in Spain and goes into the Republic of Ireland and then into Northern Ireland would require a permit if there were an agreement between the two sides—Ireland and the UK. However, there is no such agreement.
The clause provides an enabling power because current and future international agreements are all different and we need flexibility to require permits only when international agreements so require. It allows for different exceptions. In the case of the island of Ireland, permits would be required for journeys only if there were an agreement between the UK and Irish Governments to have them. It has already been made clear that no permit regime or hard border on the island of Ireland will be created by this Bill. The issue will, therefore, not arise. If they are coming into the UK under a permit scheme from a foreign haulier, that will not apply in the same way.
Rachael Maskell
Is the Minister saying that hauliers in the Republic of Ireland who will then be bringing their load to England, Scotland and Wales will need to carry a permit?
Jesse Norman
If there were a permit scheme in place between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, then a permit would need to be carried. If not, then it would not. There is no such permit scheme in place.
Rachael Maskell
I appreciate the Minister’s response, which clearly shows that there could be a creation of borders that are built. Would he therefore explain how permits will be inspected? That seems to be fundamental for haulage flow and traffic flow.
Jesse Norman
I am not quite sure why there is a lack of clarity. Borders are not the same thing as permits. At the moment we have frictionless trade with the EU, and we have mechanisms for inspecting lorries through the DVSA which are nowhere near the border, and have no impact at all on the flow of traffic or freight across borders. There should be no reason in principle why this should be different.
Rachael Maskell
I will ask again: will the Minister say how that inspection is different? This is about having a right to move haulage across the borders, and therefore it is about understanding how that inspection will take place. It is a different form of inspection to the one referred to by the Minister.
Jesse Norman
It really is not. The hon. Lady might not be clear, so let me say this again. At the moment there will be no transport checks at borders, and we have been perfectly clear about that. This does not change that at all; on the contrary. I could not be clearer. There are going to be no transport checks at borders. Under current arrangements, the community licence is a paper document that hauliers are required to carry in their vehicles and to show to inspectors on request. If we were to move to a paper copy permits arrangement as described, nothing would fundamentally change in that process. There are benefits to digital documents, and we do not disagree with that. The Bill allows scope for a shift to digital documentation in the future. Clause 1 states that the
“permit can be in any form the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
but the system put in place is a pragmatic solution that fully follows the current lines of the community licence regime, and should raise no further questions in people’s minds.
Karin Smyth
Just to be clear in my mind about what is being said, is it that the current arrangements across the UK and Republic of Ireland remain intact under the assumption that the Republic of Ireland Government will make no changes, and that that is permissible under the agreement with the EU. That is the assumption on which the Government are resting. The issue becomes pertinent if, in the negotiations, the EU makes a different agreement with the Republic of Ireland for the transportation of goods across the island of Ireland. Is that correct?
Jesse Norman
We have no permit schemes in place because we have liberalised transport with the Republic of Ireland. If a permanent scheme were to be put in place as a result of further negotiations or discussions with the EU, we would expect it to be of a liberalised, frictionless kind. Were it not to be of a frictionless kind—and even if it were—there would then be a requirement for some form of permit in paper form carried within a truck with a load from a UK haulier doing business to and from the Republic of Ireland. This would not affect the border arrangements in any way, in the same way that the inspection of current and community documentation does not affect border arrangements at present.
Alan Brown
The Minister stated clearly that there would be no transport checks affecting how things are operating at the moment. If there are no transport checks, how will the UK Government get back control of the border in terms of people and goods, which is supposedly the whole advantage of leaving the EU?
Jesse Norman
What we have said that there will be no transport checks at borders. We do check transport. I have been out on patrol with the DVSA, and a very effective job it does too of pulling over truckers and checking whether their documentation is in order on a whole variety of different grounds, including compliance with the community licence. That is the difference, and that is the distinction we wish to draw and that it is important to make.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Number and allocation of permits etc
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “criteria”, insert
“, including compliance with emissions standards,”.
This amendment would explicitly include compliance with emissions standards as a criterion the Secretary of State may use in determining whether to grant an application for a permit.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 38, leave out from “or” to the end of line 40.
This amendment would remove reference to first come first serve or an element of random selection as methods for granting an application for a permit.
Government amendment 1.
Rachael Maskell
The amendments stand in my name. I shall first speak to amendment 7 and then to the amendment about emissions.
This part of the Bill highlights a number of different ways in which the permits will be allocated. How the permit is allocated will impact on our economy. The wording of the clause suggests a restricted number of permits, but it is unclear how such a restriction will be devised. How will the Minister and his Department determine the number of permits needed?
Journey numbers can be assessed and trends extrapolated post-Brexit, but the norms of yesterday may differ very much from the new reality in which we shall be living. Will there be a set number of permits, or will the numbers fluctuate in response to demand, such as by removing a cap on the number of permits? Clarity would be most helpful. If only a fixed number of permits are allocated, we need to understand how they will be scheduled throughout the year, so that that there is no feast and famine to the initiative. Surely a flexible approach would be the most sensible way to manage it so as to ensure that the UK economy is unrestricted in the number of journeys required by logistics companies.
We are deeply concerned by the suggestion that permits will be issued on a first come, first served basis, or randomly, because that suggests that there are no strategic objectives or any prioritisation of imports and exports. To drive forward the UK’s economy in a planned and measured way, there must be a planned and measured approach to how permits are allocated to build synergy with economic priorities. For example, if the car industry were unclear about whether it would receive the permits it required for its goods to cross the channel a number of times, such uncertainty would result in companies being more likely to disinvest in the UK.
The Labour party does not believe that we should restrict the number of permits as suggested in the Bill. That would be against the interests of the UK economy. We therefore believe that it would be helpful to remove the existing wording in brackets in clause 2(1)(c) in order to remove the suggestion that the process is random or conducted on a first come, first served basis. Just because people are there early, at the front of the queue, does not mean that they should have the most important place in our economic planning.
Turning to emissions, Labour believes that the way in which permits are issued could result in social engineering. There is no greater example than that of fuel emissions from vehicles. The UK has an air quality crisis that is causing the premature death of 50,000 people in our nation every single year. By tightening up on the environmental issues, the Bill gives us the opportunity to bring real environmental change through how permits are issued in future by using levers to force change in behaviour. On Euro 5 and Euro 6 emissions standards, the way in which permits are issued could help with focusing on behavioural change, which would be a far more welcome approach than that suggested by the Bill. Should the amendment be agreed, the Minister’s focus would be on improving, in a meaningful way, the UK’s abysmal record on air quality, which would bring real health benefits to our nation.
Mr Goodwill
I shall speak against the amendment because it seems to me that it would have the opposite effect to that described by the hon. Lady. If she is saying that UK trucks do not comply with emissions standards, I have to tell her that despite everything we have read about some diesel cars not complying, trucks have a very good record of complying, not least because the analytical equipment that exposed Volkswagen has for a long time been able to be carried on the back of a truck. Most trucks therefore comply with 90% or more of the actual emissions standards they are meant to meet.
Rachael Maskell
Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the UK will not be subject to those EU jurisdictions on leaving the EU? The mechanism will be negotiated and it will relate to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, wherever that gets to. Perhaps those standards will not apply in the UK.
Mr Goodwill
The Minister has made it clear that leaving the European Union will not be an excuse to undermine the tough environmental standards that are in place. Indeed, the majority of trucks used on British roads are produced to European standards. There is no suggestion whatever that the Volvos, Scanias and MANs of this world will produce a down and dirty truck just for the UK market. UK trucks have a good record. Indeed, unlike cars, truck engines operate at optimum temperatures and optimum loads and therefore are likely to perform particularly well. I pay tribute to the engineers who have delivered those fantastic systems introduced in Euro 6 and in Euro 5 before that.
The point I am making is about the hon. Lady’s wish to impose a tougher standard on a truck allocated a permit. Reading between the lines, I got the impression she would say, “We will only give a permit to Euro 6 trucks”, but that would result in a similar situation to that in which London taxis found themselves, whereby a higher emissions standard was forced on taxi operators in London and the older taxis went to operate on the streets of Manchester. If she is saying that only newer Euro 6 trucks would qualify for a permit, we would find the better performing trucks being used on continental runs, leaving the dirtier, older trucks operating on British roads. By allocating permits to cleaner trucks, she would have the opposite effect to that which she hopes to achieve.
Rachael Maskell
I am certainly not saying that; what I am saying is that this is a real opportunity. Given that we do not have certainty over future environmental protections—as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested—because that legislation is not enshrined in UK law, there is a real risk of dirty lorries on our roads. Obviously, we want to prevent such a scenario. Given the complete failure on measures to improve air quality in our country, it is important that we consider every opportunity to do so.
Mr Goodwill
I am afraid to say that that is yet another Brexit scare story. No one has suggested that leaving the European Union will be an excuse to lower this country’s standards. Indeed, we will have the freedom to impose tougher standards if we need to. We have seen trucks being replaced. Indeed, the best thing for clean air in this country is to have a strong, successful economy so that haulage companies can invest in new equipment that produces much cleaner emissions.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a superb point. It is about the unintended consequences the amendments would have. Does he agree that the best way to deal with this issue effectively is to get clean diesel on the road as fast as possible—it is much better performing than petrol in environmental terms—and to stop the scare stories about diesel?
Mr Goodwill
Certainly, motor manufacturers need to answer questions about how their vehicles have been complying. It is not just Volkswagen that has been caught out over non-compliance with the rules. Other mechanisms have been used to ensure that cars can comply on the test cycle but perhaps not so much otherwise. Some motor manufacturers use a temperature get-out, but we are talking about trucks.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, trucks do comply. They have not been getting away with the sorts of tricks that some motor manufacturers have been caught out over. The hon. Lady’s amendment would result in the law of unintended consequences. She suggests that to get a permit a truck has to be Euro 6 or better, but that would result in such trucks being used on cross-channel routes, with the dirty trucks back in the UK. Although I can understand everybody’s wish to have cleaner air and better vehicles operating on our roads, I believe the amendment would have the exact opposite effect.
Jesse Norman
Let me start by responding to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which proposes that the criteria to be considered in allocating permits may include compliance with emission standards.
As the hon. Lady will know, we have launched a consultation on what the criteria should be. One criterion we have suggested is precisely the emissions class of the lorries being used. That is beneficial for European Conference of Ministers of Transport permits because it has the effect of maximising the number of ECMT permits we will have, and we can also consider applying that criterion for future permit arrangements with the EU.
Vehicles are already required to comply with emissions standards under UK law, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby has made perfectly clear. It is important to note that there can be no doubt about the Government’s commitments to a cleaner environment, on the day on which the clean air strategy has been published. That document and the intention to legislate go far beyond anything under any previous UK Government.
Alan Brown
Will the Minister confirm whether the consultation and proposed secondary regulations take transport emissions into consideration?
Jesse Norman
The consultation was published last week, so the hon. Gentleman is perfectly able to consult it if he wishes. It says that the emissions class of the lorries being used could be one of the criteria employed. We are consulting on that. That is the point of a consultation; we do not go in saying it will be a criterion. We consulted on it because it is important to get a balance.
Alan Brown
I want to clarify that the law of unintended consequences, which has been used as an argument against amendment 8, actually falls if the Government are already consulting on the inclusion of transport emissions.
Jesse Norman
The consultation is on the class of the lorries being used. If the consultation comes out in favour of an issue having some weight, the Government will look harder at what weight it should have, and will do precisely what has been contemplated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, namely balance it against potential unintended consequences. My right hon. Friend was pointing out that to legislate at this point would be to invite those unintended consequences, because it would lack the further scrutiny and balancing that a consultation is designed to give.
The Bill already gives the power to use a range of criteria, including compliance with emissions standards. It does not need to be included in the Bill for us to use that criterion. It is important that primary powers give flexibility to the criteria and allow for them to be amended in future. We intend to include those criteria in regulations, which will, of course, themselves be debated by Parliament and be subject to approval in both Houses.
We also wish—as no doubt future Governments will wish—to be able to change the criteria to make improvements to the scheme or as there are evolutionary changes in the industry. It is reasonable to include such detail in secondary legislation, which would allow those changes to be made more easily. I absolutely support the intention behind the amendment, in so far as it is to ensure that our haulage sector minimises emissions and complies with high environmental standards, but the amendment is not required to achieve that and I hope the hon. Lady will not press it.
Amendment 7, also tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, proposes removing the reference to
“first come, first served or an element of random selection”.
She asked how that would operate. It is important that those references remain in the Bill, not only because they deal with the more difficult situation, where there is a limited number of permits, but because they allow us to allocate permits in the “normal” manner, where there is no limit on permit numbers.
Let me look at the idea of first come, first served, in response to the hon. Lady. Our existing permits schemes are undersubscribed—it is very important to be aware of that—so applicants have always received what they have applied for. In 2017, for example, we issued 66 permits for Ukraine from a quota of 400. For Georgia, we issued six permits from a quota of 100. Permits are issued on demand, and in those cases it makes sense to issue permits as applications are received—that is to say, on a first come, first served basis.
In the future, where more permits may be available than are applied for, permits can be issued to all available applicants. The current drafting, with the reference to first come, first served, ensures that the Secretary of State clearly has the power to provide in regulations that permits may be allocated on that basis, and that no other factors are required to be taken into consideration.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the surplus number of permits, but if we faced a scenario where there was increased demand on the number of permits—of course, we are entering a new scenario here—why would a cap be put on the number of permits available?
Jesse Norman
It entirely depends on whatever permit regime may be in place. It may well be an entirely liberalised one, with an enormous number of permits available, that therefore does not apply a cap—or it may not, as agreed.
Rachael Maskell
Following through on that logic, why even stipulate that it needs to be on a first come, first served basis? If applicants reach the set criteria to warrant having a permit, surely that should be the basis on which a permit is awarded.
Jesse Norman
I am struggling to make myself clear. I have just gone through a case where there are more permits available than the numbers demanded. Under those circumstances, it makes every sense for the Secretary of State to have a clear power to allocate on a first come, first served basis.
Jesse Norman
I will come on to other circumstances later, if I am able to proceed, but there is no doubt that that clarity is of value, and that is the clarity that the Bill affords.
This is clearly a more simple process, both for Government and for hauliers. It would mean that hauliers would not be asked for as much information, and that additional criteria would not need to be applied. It would therefore keep the process as simple as possible. I will give detail on other cases later.
Moving on to random selection, the Bill enables regulations to be made that provide for how the Secretary of State is to decide whether a permit should be granted. Such provision may include specifying criteria or other selection methods, including an element of random selection. If the demand for permits exceeds their supply, we will look to allocate them in a way that maximises benefits to the UK economy, and that is fair and equitable to hauliers. We have made that perfectly clear, and it was repeated on Second Reading. We will set out criteria in regulations, and the Secretary of State will provide guidance relating to the information that applicants must provide in their applications.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for talking through how he sees the system operating. I still question what happens on a first come, first served basis to people at the end of the queue, in the worst-case scenario. Would they still warrant a permit? Also, the Minister used the word “random”. It seems a rather unplanned way of looking at the aspirations for our economy. Does the Minister agree that that is perhaps not the right word for the Bill?
Jesse Norman
The word “random” is a technical way of describing a mode of allocation. I do not think that it is not the right word; I think it may well be the correct word. The hon. Lady may take it in some folk sense of the word “random”, but that is not what is intended in the Bill. Let me proceed, and I will address the question that has been raised as we continue.
We are consulting on the criteria and methods to be used for allocating permits. Those criteria and methods will be included in regulations, and could include relevant factors such as the need for an applicant to hold a valid operator’s licence, the environmental standard of the vehicle organised to be used, as I have described, or the sector in which an applicant operates.
There may be cases, however, in which the application of such criteria does not enable the Secretary of State to allocate all the permits. It is therefore necessary for other methods of selection to be available. It is important to remind the Committee that we have said that we will look to allocate the permits in a way that maximises the benefits to the UK economy, and that is fair and equitable to hauliers. Those are the governing principles behind the assessment of the criteria.
Rachael Maskell
Could the Minister explain why the words that he has just used about the importance of our economy are not in the Bill, as opposed to the phrase “random selection”? Surely that is what the permits system is all about.
Jesse Norman
The Bill contains a framework by which permits are to be allocated. Maximising the benefits to the UK economy and making that framework fair and equitable to hauliers are overriding principles behind the legislation, as I pointed out on Second Reading. The Government have been quite clear about that. We have listened to the concerns raised in the other place that all permits might be allocated randomly and that getting a permit would be purely a matter of chance. That is not the case. Where random selection is used, it will not be used on its own without any other criteria being applied.
Although we expect some of the provisions in the Bill not to be necessary, we are under a duty to ensure that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that allow a range of outcomes to be realised. We have made explicit mention of “first come, first served” and “random selection” in the Bill in order to make it clear that the Secretary of State has the power to make regulations that include such provision. Given that there may be circumstances in which “first come, first served” or an element of “random selection” are required, it is appropriate for the Secretary of State’s powers to be spelled out clearly in the Bill, which will ensure that there is no doubt that those powers are available to him or her and provide transparency about what may be included in the regulations.
We have aimed to be open about the potential use of those methods and I have sought to set out the circumstances in which we envisage they may be used. To limit the powers would limit the ability to operate a permit scheme that works to the benefit of hauliers. We will consider all the responses to the consultation before bringing regulations forward, so that the criteria and methods we are using are suitable, and the regulations will be subject to debate and approval by both Houses, but we want to ensure that the Bill enables regulations to be made that address scenarios in which the application of criteria needs to be supplemented by other methods of selection. I hope that the detail I have set out allays fears about how they may be used and that the hon. Member for York Central feels content not to press her amendment.
Government amendment 1 will ensure that the Bill allows flexibility for whatever permit scheme we may have in future. It will allow the Secretary of State to issue permits in cases where the criteria prescribed in regulations may not be suitable. On Second Reading, hon. Members raised the issue of music tours and their hauliers not being able to travel internationally. That is a good example of an industry where a one-size-fits-all permit scheme may have some unintended consequences. Applying a single set of criteria to everyone might mean that some who are providing a highly valuable service with wider economic benefits are particularly disadvantaged. Amendment 1 will allow specific steps to be taken to mitigate that effect.
The Bill currently allows a number of permits to be available for a class of applicants, although the variety of situations in which those permits could be used is varied and often unforeseen. It might help the Committee if I give some examples. Let us take, for example, the case of an emergency where hauliers could not have foreseen the need to obtain a permit. In such a case, amendment 1 will allow permits to be issued to deal with those emergencies. That could be, for example, where there is a need to move fuel for energy supply, or to move medicines. There are also circumstances in which a haulier might be looking to move goods that are particularly important to the economy, perhaps with one-off, unusual loads, such as aeroplane parts, large turbines or the like. We want businesses to be able to move their goods, especially where there is a much wider economic benefit from that haulage.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister explain to the Committee why he is seeking temporary exemptions from the permit scheme, as opposed to emergency permits being issued to address the scenarios he has outlined?
Jesse Norman
We have taken the view that exemptions are the simplest and cleanest way to handle the cases we are talking about. Of course, some cases will be emergencies, but there might be circumstances that are not emergencies at all. I have described some examples, such as the movement of aeroplane parts, that would fall into that category. There are other cases that are worth touching on, where the type of haulage that a business does is unlikely to receive a permit due to the pattern of haulage movements, despite high economic benefits. That would be precisely the kind of case we have seen of music tours where a single journey from the UK might involve numerous stops across Europe. The amendment allows us to cater for those eventualities as well.
To be clear, the number of permits for such purposes will be small. We believe that we should apply a standard set of criteria to all applicants wherever possible. The amendment will allow us to smooth off some of the rough edges that come from having a permit scheme for, for example, matters of key national security or wider economic interests.
Alex Norris
I know that the Minister cannot give exhaustive lists of what is an emergency or special need, but can he be clear that circumvention of industrial action would not fall into that action?
Jesse Norman
I have not considered that. I certainly think that there are cases of industrial action that might constitute a national emergency. We have seen that in fuel haulage, for example. I am not sure that I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, but I understand the spirit in which he intervenes.
The power before us is relevant only where the number of permits is limited. As I have said, we expect to reach an agreement where there is no limit on the number of permits, which would avoid the need to use subsection (2) of clause 2. I remind the Committee that we are consulting on the detail of a permit scheme, including how permits are allocated, which will inform the regulations that are made under the clause.
The policy scoping documents published in March set out that we intend the Secretary of State to have powers to allocate permits directly. These will be used for areas of economic importance or for security. Amendment 1 does not change the policy on the methods for allocating permits; it simply ensures that a small number of permits can be kept aside to deal with those cases, even when they are not a clear “class of applicants”, as the previous drafting would have required. That allows us to be clear with Parliament about how we envisage a permit scheme operating and how the powers in the Bill would be used.
Rachael Maskell
I really appreciate the Minister giving way. Could he outline how exemptions would not be abused by hauliers?
Jesse Norman
Of course, attempts to seek exemptions would be examined carefully and soberly. I have already said that we do not expect this to be anything other than a small number of exemptions. We are not expecting abuse of this provision. The point is to try to be clear and to allow for unusual circumstances, and to do so in a limited and constrained way. The haulage industry already rightly expects us to offer that level of flexibility to allow its own businesses to operate as flexibly as they do now. These simple and sensible amendments will allow us to work for the haulage industry in any future permit scheme, and I hope that the Committee will support them.
Rachael Maskell
Clearly we are handling the Bill in a most unusual way, because a consultation process is currently live on whether we should be using environmental measures to determine how permits are to be issued, so I will withhold my judgment on that. We will be able to address the issue at the next stage when we consider the regulations. I am happy not to press amendment 8.
On amendment 7, the Minister’s descriptions of “random” and “first come, first served” still do not satisfy the real requirements of driving our economy forward and ensuring that it is secure and that lorry movements will be able to support that. However, I also recognise that the Minister has said that the Government are consulting on those elements. Again, we will be able to address the issue of how the permit system will operate at the next stage of drafting the regulations.
I must say that the Minister was confused in the way he presented his rationale for the inclusion of these terms in the Bill. It is completely superfluous to suggest a “first come, first served” or “random” selection if the consultation is going on currently. I do not understand why they are included in the Bill.
Jesse Norman
The effect of not including them in the Bill would be that it was less clear to Parliament that these possible means of selection were available to the Secretary of State. Surely the hon. Lady agrees that more transparency is better than less.
Rachael Maskell
The drafting could have been greatly improved if it make the points that the Minister is trying to make. I still believe that the wording is somewhat clumsy but, given that this issue will be superseded by regulation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Committee for those comments on the amendments, and I am grateful for the support that hon. Members have given us on the question of flexibility. In response to the question about abuse, which was perfectly proper, I should say that we will certainly expect hauliers to demonstrate why they required a permit under those unusual circumstances, and what goods they plan to move. It is important to give that clarity. As I said, we do not expect it to be more than a small number. I thank colleagues for their contributions. Amendment 1 is a simple amendment, and I beg to move—
The Chair
You should have done that earlier, while the group of amendments was being discussed. I am sorry about that.
Amendment made: 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 40, at end insert—
“(d) for a number of permits determined by the Secretary of State to be available for grant in cases in which the Secretary of State considers it inappropriate for provision made under paragraph (c) to be applied, for example because of an emergency or other special need.”—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment would allow regulations to provide for the Secretary of State to reserve a certain number of permits for grant in cases in which it is inappropriate to apply the normal permit allocation procedure set out in regulations, for example because of an emergency or special need.
Jesse Norman
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 2, leave out from “permit,” to end of line 3 and insert
“including provision specifying—
(i) when an application is to be made, or that the time when an application is to be made is to be determined by the Secretary of State;”
This amendment would ensure that regulations can provide for the time when a permit application is to be made to be determined by the Secretary of State.
The amendment relates to times when permit applications must be made. The Bill currently outlines that regulations may specify when an application may be made, and our intention was to include that in regulations, but the effect of that may be inadvertently to limit the flexibility to issue permits. For example, where we expect the demand for permits to exceed supply, we will ask hauliers to submit applications during a specified period that would allow permits to be allocated consistently, in accordance with the criteria included in the regulations.
However, because of the various possible permit types and different permit agreements that we have with different countries, we want to be able to accept applications at different times, in some cases where we have more permits than we require, and for permits to be issued in special cases, as we discussed earlier. We want to accept permit applications at any time, but by setting out in regulations where applications can be made we would be limiting that.
The haulage industry will, as I said, expect us to offer as much flexibility as we can. The amendment makes simple, sensible changes that, again, allow us to work for the haulage industry. I hope that the Committee will support its inclusion.
Rachael Maskell
The Minister’s explanation seems perfectly reasonable. He says that he believes that there will be a limited number of circumstances, so it will be interesting to see that in reality. I will reserve my other comments for discussion of clause 3.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Temporary exemptions
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 3, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the number and period of temporary exemptions made under this section.
(5) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force and annually thereafter.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on temporary exemptions from a prohibition imposed in regulations.
We have already touched on the issue of temporary exemptions to the permits regime. The Minister has said that he believes that there will be very few exemptions. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North highlighted an example where we could see a number of exemptions given. That is of deep concern to Opposition Members, in that it is trying to circumvent industrial action.
I have also raised the question of whether the exemptions could be abused, and how strict the regime will be. We have already heard about a number of examples where temporary exemptions could be made, but I still question whether permits could be applied for in those circumstances. We would like to have a better understanding of that.
Jesse Norman
As the hon. Lady said, the clause allows the Secretary of State to make a temporary relaxation of permit requirements, which is limited to dealing with an emergency or some other special need. By “special need”, we mean a situation in which it is essential to move particular kinds of goods—for example, as I have touched on, where there is a shortage of petrol or other fuel because of disruption in supply chains. We could also include moving medical supplies or radioactive materials.
Permit requirements will come from international agreements, so the UK cannot unilaterally decide to make an exemption. The other country will need to accept UK vehicles without a permit. The effect is that the power is as much about UK vehicles being able to take goods to other countries as about bringing goods into the UK. We intend that exemptions will be targeted at those who need to travel without a permit. That could be a particular kind of vehicle—a fuel tanker or a vehicle carrying specific goods, such as vaccines. The exemptions are made by publishing a notice or writing to a specific operator being exempted, similar to exemptions made in other regimes, for example with drivers’ hours. The circumstances in which this power is used are expected to be rare, and therefore we do not expect it to be used with any great frequency. It is important that it is included in the Bill in the event that exception is needed. That is why we have asked the Committee to agree that clause 3 should stand part of the Bill.
The hon. Lady’s amendment raises an interesting point. I think it is appropriate for the officials and me to consider what information about this should be published, but I do not believe that it needs to be a provision in the Bill. The circumstances in which temporary exemptions are to be granted are expected to be sufficiently rare that, although we can consider what information is published on them, I do not think there is great value in laying this issue before Parliament.
Rachael Maskell
Could the Minister therefore explain how he will make that information available so that Parliament can scrutinise whether the regime proposed for permit exemptions is operating well, and how he plans to gather that data and make it available more widely?
Jesse Norman
It is in the nature of these things that they are unpredictable. It is also the case that, where that information is published, as opposed to simply being notified, it will not be absolutely clear how many will be availing themselves of the exemption. We certainly do not wish to create onerous requirements. I am happy to have a further conversation outside the Committee, if the hon. Lady has ideas or suggestions about how information should be taken into account in any future work that we do.
Rachael Maskell
I listened carefully to the Minister, on how he is willing to engage on the amendment, given the lack of clarity. I am just considering again the regulations that will have to accompany the Bill, should it proceed to enactment. In the light of that, clearly there will be regulations on how the exemption scheme will operate. If he is willing to look at how the number and type of temporary exemptions are provided for through the regulatory process, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. Will he consider that?
Rachael Maskell
I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Production of permits and inspection of vehicles
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to clause 6. As discussed before, there needs to be greater clarity around the inspection regime of permits. I have not been satisfied by the Minister’s response about the inspection regime. It seems strange to have a permit system but no systematic way of examining the permits to ensure that they are compliant with the vehicles they are attributed to, so we need to look at this serious issue. It seems that a slightly random process is applied to hauliers and whether they are hauled off the road and have their permits and documentation examined. If, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun said, we are to take control of our borders, it is incumbent on us to have a systematic way of ensuring that vehicles’ documentation is in order. We therefore need greater clarity on how the inspectorate system will work and on whether there will be more resources put into the inspectorate, given that more documentation will have to be manually examined in the absence of digital opportunities. We need to ensure that there is full compliance with the regime.
There is a further concern. The Minister has set out for us today how there will be exemptions to the scheme and how vehicles, drivers and operators could fall through the gaps between exemptions and the lack of a systematic way of examining permits. Will the Minister give more attention to ensuring that our borders are secure and that trade will still be able to flow? People across the country will be surprised if hauliers do not have the correct paperwork on board, and people who voted to leave the European Union will be most disappointed that our borders will not be more secure.
Perhaps the Minister will set out how he anticipates ensuring a comprehensive inspectorate around his permit proposals, and how he will ensure we do not see the holding up of haulage, but at the same time have strong compliance.
Jesse Norman
I am slightly struggling with what the hon. Lady wants: on the one hand, she wants a comprehensive system where it seems that everyone gets checked at borders; on the other hand, she wants frictionless trade. Those two things are incompatible.
Rachael Maskell
May I help the Minister? I assure him that I want us to be part of the EU community licensing scheme, which would remove all those challenges.
Jesse Norman
That, of course, does not go to the circumstances contemplated by much of the Bill. The Bill is precisely designed to address issues where we may need a permitting regime. Therefore, what the hon. Lady said does not go the point, I am afraid.
Let us be perfectly clear: the Bill does not contain new powers. Examiners from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency already have powers to stop vehicles in other enforcement legislation. Community licensing is already enforced in roadside vehicle checks. At the same time, many other regulations are checked, including drivers’ hours regulations and vehicle roadworthiness. We intend to enforce permits in the same way as community licences. We have not created any new powers to stop vehicles. Vehicles are stopped at present; in that sense, our borders remain secure. Our hauliers are subject, as the hon. Lady knows, to a set of enforcement powers that ensure that regulations on moving goods are properly complied with. All this clause does is give similar powers for a future permit scheme, to ensure that it is properly used and enforced.
Rachael Maskell
Does the Minister not recognise that we are moving into a completely new scenario? Most of our haulage traffic crosses between the European Union and the UK, which will be a different jurisdiction after 29 March next year. Therefore, we are talking about a very different set of scenarios from the one we currently operate in, which will make more demands on the system. Currently, as part of that same community, we do not have to carry out those checks because there is recognition across those borders.
Jesse Norman
I think the hon. Lady misunderstands; there is a community licence scheme in place. When hauliers are pulled over at present, their community compliance is checked in the same way that their drivers’ hours regulations are checked. If she does not understand that, she may just not understand how our system actually works.
Rachael Maskell
I do understand how the system works, but we are talking about a different set of scenarios because we will have a border, whatever its nature may be. That is why we are dealing with a different set of circumstances. If we are outside the community licensing scheme, clearly, the way that the permit will operate, hence the necessity for this Bill, will mean that we will not be part of that wider community that currently exists. It is not just about making sure there is compliance; there is more need and demand to ensure that there is compliance with a new permit scheme.
Jesse Norman
The current scheme operates in the way I have described. What is contemplated under the Bill as regards the powers to enforce will track the current scheme. That is to say, the Bill does not contain new powers. In that sense, there will be a high degree of carry-over, quite independent of the arrangement that we strike with the European Union, which, as the hon. Lady knows, we expect to be one of liberalised trade. The point is that community licensing is already enforced and it will continue to be under the new regime in the same way it is already enforced. There are no new powers.
All we ask of the Committee is to recognise that these powers are required to implement the purpose of the Bill, the principles of which were agreed on Second Reading, and that they are properly fit for the task and reflect what we are doing in relation to the community licence. They are thoroughly sensible powers for proper enforcement of a permits regime.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Report on effects of EU-related provisions
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 9, page 5, line 30, after “Kingdom” insert
“and setting out the number of permits requested, granted and refused”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the number of permits requested, granted and refused.
The Committee will be pleased to know that this is the last amendment I have tabled to this part of the Bill.
The amendment looks at the way the permit system is operating, how it is working—or perhaps not working—and providing the data necessary for Parliament to carry out its scrutiny function. It is a simple amendment that asks Ministers to set out
“the number of permits requested, granted and refused”,
so that there can be real understanding of why permits are refused, and of the level of refusal, should that situation occur. It would also be useful for the industry to get a detailed understanding of processes that the Government operate over their permit arrangements, hopefully leading to a reduction in the number of permits refused in the future. This is not only an informative amendment, but again, one that deals with gathering simple data. I am sure we are looking at only a small number of permits that will be refused, but I believe that this is a sensible amendment, which will help with the scrutiny function over how well the Bill operates in the future.
Jesse Norman
I can be brief and supportive on this. The Government brought forward an amendment in the other place to add clause 9 to the Bill, honouring an undertaking that my noble colleague Baroness Sugg gave
“to consider how best to review the impacts of any permit scheme, should one be required.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 April 2018; Vol. 790, c. 1100.]
We have been clear that we are seeking continued liberalised access to the EU. However, I recognise that there is some concern about the impact of any limited scheme on the haulage industry. If a report is required under clause 9, the Government would naturally plan for this to include the number of permits requested, granted or refused, and I can give the hon. Lady that assurance. Accordingly, I do not believe that the amendment requires the Secretary of State to do anything that he would not expect to do in any case. For that reason, the amendment is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing it.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister reflect on how he communicates how the refusal system is working? While I take on board what he has said, clearly there is concern that if there are refusals, greater understanding is needed around that, and whether that is due to the limitation on the number of permits provided—a concern I raised earlier—or to applicants not complying with the permit scheme’s requirements.
Jesse Norman
We are talking about circumstances in which a report is required. If so—and that may not be the case—the Government would plan for this to include the number of permits requested, granted or refused. Inevitably, that then becomes a matter for official discussion, scrutiny and further consideration. Of course, it is also a matter that can be raised and debated in Parliament. The hon. Lady should feel some reassurance on that front.
Rachael Maskell
In the light of the Minister’s response and of the fact that Parliament will have the opportunity to ask questions and have debates on the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 10, 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Trailer Registration
Alan Brown
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 13, page 9, line 1, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing proposals for a trailer registration scheme. This report must make provision for whether—
(a) the proposed registration scheme would be compulsory or voluntary;
(b) non-commercial trailers will be included in such a registration scheme; and
(c) it would be appropriate for the operation of such a registration scheme to be run by a third-party authorised by the Secretary of State.
(2B) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament outlining their proposals for a trailer registration scheme within six months of the passing of this Act.
In many ways this is similar to amendment 12. This, again, is about trying to get further clarity from the Government about what the permit scheme might look like. The Government previously acknowledged that they did not want to put too many exemptions on the face of the Bill. There has been a whole discussion of whether the Bill might apply to non-commercial trailers, and this is about trying to tease that out. The Government should clarify the issue, because there is still talk of whether it is a compulsory or voluntary registration scheme.
We are just trying to look for clarification that the Government have to do a report that confirms whether the registration scheme will be compulsory or voluntary, whether non-commercial trailers are included, and also whether it would be appropriate for a registration scheme to be operated by a third party. The third-party issue is included because the National Caravan Council already operates its own voluntary registration scheme, and it is suggested that there is merit in duplicating this scheme. All that will depend on what the Government bring forward in terms of whether the scheme will be voluntary or compulsory, and also how matters evolve in other parts of the legislation that consider safety, and whether there should be further measures looking at road safety measures in terms of registration too. There seems a lack of clarity at the moment in what the endgame will look like. The amendment just tries to tease out whether the Government will provide that clarity and a report. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
Rachael Maskell
Labour supports this amendment. Clarity is needed on the eligibility of the compulsory and voluntary schemes, and the amendment would be helpful in making it clear where obligations sit in this regard. Labour wants to extend the application of the legislation to non-commercial trailers, since incidents occur as a result of poor tow bar instalment and failed safety features on domestic trailers. It is therefore important to incorporate domestic-use trailers into the scheme. The significance of a voluntary registration scheme is unclear if there are no other levers on this issue, such as liability if incidents occur. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the use of the voluntary scheme to the Committee.
However, Labour does not believe that a third-party operator should run the scheme and wants to see this kept in-house, especially as it is a critical road safety issue. We believe that this function should be exercised through an arm’s length body. We support the call not to delay producing the report mentioned in clause 13, thus ensuring that it can be used to influence the drafting of regulations to accompany this Bill.
Jesse Norman
We turn now to the second half of the Bill and trailer registration. I will respond to the points made and talk about the wider thrust of the legislation. Hon. Members will be aware that the consultation launched on 16 May covered the extent of the proposals in the Bill across both haulage permits and trailer registration. We are consulting with the industry to help us get the details of any permit scheme and the trailer registration scheme right. The consultation on the proposals, as they currently stand, seeks views on a number of issues relating to trailer registration. Our proposals require the registration purely of those trailers undertaking international travel to a foreign country that has ratified the 1968 Vienna convention. This goes to the point about voluntary registration. That would apply to commercial trailers weighing over 750 kg and non-commercial trailers weighing over 3.5 tonnes. Ministers and officials in the Department have been engaged with industry throughout the development of these proposals. In spring this year, we held workshops to discuss them with hauliers and relevant trade associations, among a range of other stakeholders.
In addition to the public consultation, we have published a number of documents to assist and inform discussion of the Bill. Policy papers have been issued on the Bill and on the 1968 Vienna convention, which the trailer registration scheme is being introduced to support. Policy scoping notes are available to Members in the House of Commons Library.
The Government’s outline policy makes clear which types of trailer will be subject to additional obligations if used abroad, upon the coming into force of the 1968 convention. Trailer registration is commonplace throughout continental Europe. As such, if we did not place any obligations on users taking trailers abroad that would be likely to attract targeted enforcement action from foreign enforcement authorities. That point was well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby on Second Reading. That enforcement action would cause disruption on a significant scale, even to those trailers that are correctly registered, and would have an adverse effect beyond hauliers, causing disruption to UK businesses and the international supply chains within which they operate.
Alan Brown
The Minister talks about disruption that might be caused by enforcement action. Does that not suggest that the registration scheme would need to be compulsory? If it were voluntary, it could still have the same net effect of enforcement action. Compulsion would make that easier to process.
Jesse Norman
We are concerned with enforcement action by foreign authorities, against which trailer registration would be a defence. That provides a reason for supporting trailer registration, as we have described it.
Alan Brown
If it is only voluntary, perhaps foreign enforcement agencies will not have any confidence in signing up for the scheme. If it were compulsory, one would assume they would be less likely to take enforcement because they would understand that there is already a compulsory scheme in place in the UK.
Jesse Norman
I think that language is not helping deliberation on this matter. We require registration for the classes of trailer that I have described, which undertake international travel to a foreign country. It is not voluntary for those trailers that fall within those categories. It is mandatory and therefore meets the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I will go on to discuss it in slightly more detail.
The Government’s outline policy makes clear which types of trailer will be subject to additional obligations if used abroad, upon the coming into force of the 1968 convention. As I have said, trailer registration is commonplace. The measure is designed to mitigate the effects of enforcement action undertaken abroad.
On the basis of engagement with industry and previously reported enforcement to UK authorities, we have drawn a distinction between commercial and non-commercial trailers, which is the basis for the higher weight limit of 3.5 tonnes for non-commercial trailers. Engagement with non-commercial stakeholders has indicated a negligible number of such trailers.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister explain to the Committee whether, when an incident occurs, it makes any difference if it is a commercial or non-commercial trailer?
Jesse Norman
Our experience is that there has been very little enforcement against non-commercial trailers abroad. There has, however, been some enforcement against commercial trailers, for which this would be a defence. That is a reason for recommending the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
With respect to the Minister, that did not answer the question I asked. I asked why there would be any differentiation in the weight of the trailer, if it was owned commercially or non-commercially, should an incident occur.
Jesse Norman
Three and a half tonnes is a standard weight in international haulage. There are virtually no non-commercial trailers above that level. Since there is enforcement against commercial trailers, it makes sense to exempt a smaller number of commercial trailers, and that is what the Bill does.
The risk of enforcement action against non-commercial trailers is minimal. While the convention allows for enforcement action against all trailers that weigh more than 750 kg, all previous reported enforcement action has been directed towards large commercial trailers. We have no evidence of countries taking enforcement action against unregistered foreign caravans and horse trailers. The small risk of enforcement action against common non-commercial trailers does not justify mandatory registration, but the keepers of such trailers may register them voluntarily if they wish.
Sarah Champion
I apologise, but I think the lack of clarity is catching. [Interruption.] I know—it is spreading like wildfire. I understand that the Minister is seeking to ensure we have parity with international colleagues to reduce the risk of British trailers that go abroad being in violation and vice versa, but I thought the Bill was also about making our roads safer. He is talking about parity with the EU in trailer registration, with us not running risks overseas, but I do not understand where his consideration is on safety on our roads. Will he speak to that?
I also do not understand why “commercial” relates only to weight. We could define the commercial use of a trailer. For example, I think of someone doing roadworks towing a little trailer with a big, heavy road roller on it, and if that were to come loose we would be in real trouble—it would take out a family, not just a small building. Why is the Minister focusing only on weight in the definition of commercial? Will he confirm that the regulations are also about making our roads safer?
Jesse Norman
The regulations are focused in particular on the movement of trailers overseas. If there are collateral effects in improving our road safety, that is all to the good. Thanks to interventions and amendments that have already been made, we have strengthened aspects of the measure, but the Bill’s central focus is to address the registration of trailers going overseas.
Mr Goodwill
I hope to reassure the hon. Member for Rotherham. I am one of those rare people who has a non-commercial trailer over 3.5 tonnes, which is indeed used for transporting a traction engine. Although a private HGV, that trailer already has to pass its annual MOT test. Indeed, such trailers have to pass a test every year—there is no three-year exemption. Those are therefore not unsafe trailers, so I hope that she does not labour under the misapprehension that large numbers of trailers are running around the country on non-commercial heavy goods vehicles that are not tested every year by the Department.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comment. Of course, he is right.
Sarah Champion
May I come back on that intervention? I do not know the protocol.
Jesse Norman
Why not let me speak to the point, then the hon. Lady can come back to me?
The Chair
Order. Members are free to intervene as long as the speaking Member takes the intervention. In this context, if a Member does not have a request to intervene accepted, they are free to rise and speak simply to make their point. People can get up and give speeches—it is almost a free-for-all. If you have a long intervention, it might be worth saving it instead of saying a few words.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful, Mr Davies. The hon. Member for Rotherham may wish to make a forensic dissection of the Government’s position or that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby when she comes to speak. However, let me address the points that she made.
The first question is: what is a commercial trailer? Of course, it is not defined by weight. There are criteria as to what constitutes a commercial trailer, and the legal definition we are using is the idea of a trailer used for transport of goods or passengers’ belongings for commercial purposes, such as transport for hire or reward, or own-account transport, or for other professional purposes. That is closely aligned with the definition of a commercial vehicle in EU law.
The hon. Lady raised earlier the question of why one would have a weight threshold. I repeat that 3.5 tonnes is a common weight threshold for additional scrutiny obligations of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby pointed to in UK law, both in EU law and in the Vienna convention. We have no evidence of countries enforcing against unregistered foreign caravans and horse trailers. The smallest enforcement action against common non-commercial trailers, such as the one described by my right hon. Friend, does not justify mandatory registration, but the keepers of such trailers will be able to register them voluntarily if they wish, and of course they are subject to other regulatory constraints.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun raised the matter of whether it would be suitable for an authorised third party to run a registration scheme. He raised the question of the status of the National Caravan Council and its CRiS—central registration and identification—scheme on Second Reading. As I said in that debate, I have previously met the NCC to discuss the proposals before us today in relation to CRiS and the scheme that it operates, for which I have a great deal of regard.
The Department’s legal team have considered that issue and the question of whether the registration standard specified in the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic allows for a private organisation to operate the service. In order to fulfil the standards of the convention, it is clear that the trailer must be registered by a ratifying country or an administrative division of the nation. In this case, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will operate the scheme, which will ensure that registration fully meets the standards outlined in the convention.
The NCC offers a valuable service to its members and to the industry more widely. The scheme is not intended to duplicate or replace the NCC’s scheme. The registration standards of the convention simply necessitate that registration is not undertaken by a third party, and we are under an obligation to obey those standards. Guidance will be issued to explain how the registration scheme applies to users. It will clarify which users do and do not need to register under the scheme before using a trailer in a 1968 convention country. The guidance will make it clear that registration is not necessary for leisure-use trailers weighing under 3.5 tonnes. As such, we do not envisage that that will replicate the work of the NCC, but the Department will continue to work with it to avert any such risk.
I appreciate the intent behind the amendment, but I hope that Members will concur that it is not necessary in the light of the significant volume of material that the Department has published regarding our proposals and the ongoing consultation. We have worked extensively to involve stakeholders in the development of the proposals, and the consultation is directly seeking views on a number of issues relating to trailer registration. That will inform the ultimate detail of the first set of regulations to enact the scheme, which Members will note will be made by the affirmative procedure, allowing for their further consideration.
Alan Brown
I listened to what the Minister said, and I appreciate the clarification on the third-party issue. I am not particularly precious about that, and his explanation made sense. There is sense in the DVLA overseeing the entire scheme anyway.
The Minister mentioned the unhelpful language of “voluntary or compulsory”. Truth be told, I am still a bit confused about that because clause 13 (1) says:
“Regulations may provide for the compulsory or voluntary registration of trailers kept or used on roads”.
It seems to me that it is still a bit unclear, and it would be good to get further clarity. The amendment is really about getting that clarity for all parties, so they understand what will be compulsory and what might be voluntary. That said, particularly given the discussion on paragraph (c) of proposed new subsection (2A), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered,
That the programme order (this day) be amended as follows—
In paragraph (1)(a), leave out ‘2.00 pm’ and insert ‘2.30 pm’. —(Jesse Norman.)
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Jo Churchill.)
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 22nd May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 View all Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 May 2018 - (22 May 2018)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 13, page 9, line 2, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
This amendment removes provision which is replaced by NC1 and NC2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 1—Trailer safety: report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the number and causes of road traffic accidents occurring in England, Wales or Scotland during the reporting period which—
(a) involved trailers, and
(b) caused injury or death to any person.
(2) The report must contain an assessment of whether—
(a) regulations under section 13 should provide for the compulsory registration of relevant trailers;
(b) regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) should be made.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) In this section—
“relevant trailers” means trailers which are kept or used on roads and—
(a) if constructed or adapted to carry a load, weigh more than 750 kilograms when laden with the heaviest such load;
(b) otherwise, weigh more than 750 kilograms;
“reporting period” means a period determined by the Secretary of State, which must be a continuous period of at least 12 months ending no earlier than 18 months before the day on which this section comes into force.”
This new clause requires a report on road traffic accidents involving trailers to be laid before Parliament, including a recommendation as to whether compulsory registration or periodic testing of trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms should be introduced. This amendment would amend NC1(a) to ensure that the report contains an assessment of compliance of existing provisions relating to the installation of tow bars.
Amendment (b), to Government new clause 1, in subsection (1)(a), after “involved” insert “commercial or non-commercial”.
This amendment would ensure that the reporting requirements apply to both commercial and non-commercial trailers.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 1, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The report must contain an assessment of levels of compliance with existing provisions relating to the construction, condition or safety of all trailers.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess and report on the construction, condition and safety of all trailers.
Amendment (aa) to amendment (a) to Government new clause 1, at end insert
“and the installation of tow bars”.
This amendment would amend NC1(a) to ensure that the report contains an assessment of compliance of existing provisions relating to the installation of tow bars.
Amendment (c) to Government new clause 1, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where reporting on a road traffic accident under subsection (1) which involves a tow bar attachment, the Secretary of State must include an assessment of whether the tow bar attachment contributed to the accident.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include information on tow bar attachments when reporting on road traffic accidents involving trailers.
Amendment (d) to Government new clause 1, in subsection (3), at end insert “, and each year thereafter”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report on trailer-related accidents before Parliament annually.
Amendment (e) to Government new clause 1, in subsection (4), at end insert—
““tow bar attachment” means any device used to connect a motor vehicle and trailer for the purpose of towing the trailer.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment (c).
Jesse Norman
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. As colleagues across the Committee will be aware, trailer safety has rightly been discussed in some depth, both throughout debate in the other place and on Second Reading in this place. It is an issue with which I have personally been engaged throughout my time as a Minister. It has been a great pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Bristol South, and I am delighted to see her here today. Many members of the Committee will be familiar with her work on trailer safety.
Before we consider the amendments, it is worth outlining the facts that brought the hon. Lady to the subject. In January 2014, young Freddie Hussey was killed by a runaway trailer as he and his mother, Donna Hussey, walked to their home in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and since her election to Parliament she has worked indefatigably with the family in their campaign to improve trailer safety. In April, I attended the latest in a series of trailer safety summits arranged by the hon. Lady. The event brought together a range of stakeholders in the trailer and towing sector to discuss how safety can be improved. Freddie’s parents, Donna and Scott Hussey, also spoke of their own experience and their subsequent campaign to improve trailer safety, and it was a great honour for me to have a chance to discuss these issues directly with them.
As the Committee will be aware, the Department and its agencies have undertaken significant work as part of our continuing commitment to improve towing safety standards since the tragedy. Highways England leads the national towing working group, which brings together a range of towing stakeholders to address the issue. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency reviewed and published further guidance on safe towing practices alongside launching the “Tow Safe for Freddie” campaign. A large number of existing measures deal with the safety and roadworthiness of trailers, and we continue to review them. Like motor vehicles, almost all trailers must now be approved before they may enter service. That may be undertaken at the level of manufacturer and model, or on an individual basis for bespoke or custom-build units.
There is an annual roadworthiness examination that applies to larger trailers with a gross weight of more than 3.5 tonnes and trailers in a number of other categories. Under that regime, about 250,000 trailers are tested every year. I am pleased to say that the units exhibit high standards with a pass rate at first test of almost 90%, but—it is important to say “but”—as has been noted, the regime applies overwhelmingly to commercial trailers, with a minimal number of non-commercial trailers falling within its scope. As the hon. Member for Bristol South noted, about 1.4 million trailers fall outside the current testing regime despite weighing more than the vehicles they are towed by, which do require an MOT.
On Second Reading, the hon. Lady asked how our report will be undertaken, and I would like to provide some clarity today. The report will draw on existing data, but we are looking at what else may be included to inform a full and proper consideration. Members will understand that when producing such reports, it is crucial that we are able to speak with authority and make recommendations that are informed by data. The Department for Transport has a worldwide reputation for the quality and comprehensive nature of its work in data collection and use. I would like to reassure Members about an issue raised on Second Reading by saying that the data used in the current reporting systems is comprehensive and world-leading. It informs the Department’s work on road safety and is reviewed regularly.
The reporting form used to capture information on accidents contains many different data categories, allowing us to understand and identify trends in road traffic collisions. It provides details about the roads, vehicles and persons involved, as well as any injuries that occurred. Reporting systems continue to be refined to improve the depth of the data that informs departmental assessments. I am happy to share the contents of the reporting form with Members, if they would find it useful.
The hon. Lady is right to point to the under-reporting of accidents. Levels of under-reporting appear to be fairly consistent, which is a challenge to overcome, as I hope Members understand. The wholesale development of new reporting systems to collate new data would require several years’ work and is not achievable in the timeline of this legislation. It is crucial that the reports are based on validated and verified data to assess the issue, so the STATS19 accident data will inevitably form an integral component of the report we undertake. The report will, however, provide the starting point from which we can consider whether significant changes are necessary to how we report on trailer safety. Due attention will be paid to the challenge of under-reporting of accidents and we will consider what other types of data we may be able to obtain to inform our recommendations beyond that contained within STATS19. Working with stakeholders in the sector may well comprise an element of this undertaking.
The debate on these issues has been valuable and I thank both Members and peers for their thoughtful and considered contributions. As Members will be aware, on Report in the Lords, Baroness Sugg confirmed my intention to undertake a report on trailer safety, and the continuing discussion, both in the House and with stakeholders at the trailer safety summit, reaffirmed this commitment.
The Government amendments before the Committee today are intended to ensure that we can deliver fully the intent of the amendments made in the other place. That will be achieved in a manner that reflects the extent of our devolution arrangements. Should the safety report recommend that periodic testing is extended to cover all trailers weighing over 750 kg, that may be achieved through an extension of the existing safety regime. The proposed amendments replace the amendments tabled on Report in the Lords and comprise two additional clauses within part 2 of the Bill. Both amendments include in full the recommendations peers sought on the issues of trailer registration and trailer testing.
The provisions in new clause 1 on trailer safety will replace those proposed in the Lords. The new clause details the report to be undertaken and states that it must be published within one year of the legislation coming into force. The report will cover the number and causes of road accidents that involved trailers and caused injury or death to any person involved. The data contained in the report is not restricted to those points, but will contain that as a key thrust of the considerations. The report will cover recommendations sought by peers on whether regulations should provide for an extension of compulsory registration and testing requirements to apply to all trailers weighing over 750 kg.
The reporting period will cover a continuous period of at least 12 months and end no earlier than 18 months before the provision comes into force. That will allow the Department for Transport time to validate and fully consider the substantial body of data that will underpin the recommendations in the report. “Reported Road Casualties GB” is published each autumn, and we anticipate that the proposed timeline will allow us to draw on, at a minimum, the release later this year.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am listening with interest to the Minister. Does he plan to capture data about trailers weighing more than 750 kg? There is potential in the legislation to make registration of trailers weighing more than 750 kg compulsory, if that is substantiated by the data.
Jesse Norman
As I said, the report will make recommendations on whether regulations should provide for an extension of compulsory registration and for testing requirements to apply to all trailers weighing more than 750 kg.
Amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol South, further proposes that the report will consider the
“levels of compliance with existing provisions relating to the construction, condition or safety of all trailers.”
A great deal of data is already recorded for those trailers that are subject to an annual test and checked at the roadside by the DVSA. The information may well prove valuable in the assessment of the safety of trailers generally, although hon. Members will be aware that it will not cover data for the great number of trailers to which the hon. Lady refers, which are not currently subject to the regular testing requirements. Nevertheless, a consideration of the compliance with those provisions will contribute to the report.
With a trailer population outside the annual test regime in excess of 1.4 million, each weighing between 750 kg and 3.5 tonnes, it is difficult to gather a robust data sample for those trailers to inform the consideration in the report. While the Department will consider which data sources we may draw on to inform any judgments on the standards of roadworthiness of light trailers generally, there is a need to be proportionate in how we gather data in the context of a wider enforcement strategy.
Larger trailers are the focus of existing enforcement, because they have long been recognised to pose the biggest risk. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol South will appreciate that our position at the moment is that the amendment should not be made. The Department is keen that the report should be beneficial and will examine which additional sources of data we may draw on to inform a full consideration of trailer safety and compliance with both existing provisions and any new provisions that may arise from the report.
Regarding amendments (aa), (b) and (c) to new clause 1, tow bar safety was raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and it is certainly an important issue when considering trailer safety. She spoke in particular of vehicles to which a tow bar has been subsequently been fitted, but which carry safety concerns. It is worth focusing here on the definitional question whether “tow bar” covers only the attachments merely to cars or the towing vehicle, or whether it also captures the attachment part of the trailer and where it attaches. That raises questions about definitions that make her amendment hard to carry through, but I will speak to both halves of the question.
Car and vehicle tow bars are subject to examination at annual tests. Cars and heavy vehicles with tow bars fitted are subject to checks both on the mechanical condition and on the relevant electric fittings. The rates of failure of tow bars of this kind at annual tests are extraordinarily low. The figures are published, and in 2016-17 the number of tow bar defects accounted for 0.001% of total defects for cars and light vans—an absurdly low figure. In the case of heavy goods vehicles, the rates of failure are also very low. Nevertheless, Members are right to raise concerns about the consequences of a tow bar failing. At the trailer safety summit, I saw evidence of the state of some tow bars that had been allowed to deteriorate.
Sarah Champion
I took the opportunity of the extended lunch break to call my garage, RH Motors, which does MOT testing, and asked about trailers and specific tow hitches. Staff there had recently been on the training, and they said that the threshold for notifying a problem with a tow hitch as a fault is very high; it tends to be due to acute corrosion. With the new regulations having literally just come in, they were not sure whether more guidance had been issued for MOT stations. Will the Minister consider that for future guidance?
Jesse Norman
That is an interesting question and I will certainly consider it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning it. At the trailer safety summit, we saw evidence from the police force in Somerset of the condition to which some tow bars had been allowed to deteriorate. It is a source of genuine concern. However, it is worth pointing out that the scope of the amendment goes rather further than our discussion on Second Reading. In the proposed form, the report would require an assessment of all accidents involving a trailer to determine whether the tow bar may have contributed. While the contributing factors are recorded, which may allow us to discern such a link, the amendment would oblige us to assess retrospectively accidents for which the data has not already been recorded, which would be very difficult.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will address this point later, but as the police gather data around the causation of accidents, is it not right that they should also record whether or not causation is related to the towing equipment of a vehicle?
Jesse Norman
It is certainly true that police gather information on factors that may bear on causation—of course, causation itself is a judgment rather than a fact. The case for recording such data is under active consideration, but we are concerned about the balance between the amount of potential infraction and the good that it would do by creating an additional burden in an already very full assessment process. That is precisely one of the things that would come out of the wider assessment we are doing now, and is therefore of a piece with the direction of travel of the Government. We recognise that this is an important issue: I have asked officials to consider in the safety report what data may inform further investigation, and this may cover exactly the points raised by the hon. Lady.
The vehicle defect contributory factor is a useful starting point, which is already in the report. Relevant case studies may allow us to explore within that category the question of tow bar safety. Tow bars are clearly integral elements when taking a full picture of the trailer safety situation, and it is correct that they are considered in the report, although I hope, for the reasons outlined, that the hon. Member for Bristol South will not press her amendment.
The hon. Member for York Central has tabled amendment (b) to new clause 1 to outline with greater clarity that the report will cover both commercial and non-commercial trailers. To assuage any concerns that hon. Members may have about the scope of the report, it is important to say that the current drafting covers all accidents involving trailers in Great Britain, without distinction between commercial and non-commercial usage. Those terms are not actually defined in the Bill and may be shaped by the consultation, so it would be premature to insert that requirement. There is no trailer weight category excluded from the trailer safety report, so making the amendment would not change any of the requirements on the Secretary of State set out in new clause 1. I hope the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.
Under amendment (d) to new clause 1, the Secretary of State would be required, for each year following the first report, to lay subsequent annual reports on trailer safety, compulsory registration and periodic testing. The first report will provide a valuable opportunity to consider trailer safety in depth and, as I have said, will draw on recent data recorded under existing recording systems. We also wish to consider how else we can bring in additional data or contributions from industry stakeholders, to ensure that we consider the full breadth of issues relevant to trailer safety, but at this stage I do not deem it appropriate to make a commitment to further reports without knowing the outcome of the first report. Either way, the effect of this amendment would be to place a costly requirement on the Government, which is not necessarily warranted unless the first report turns out as feared. None the less, I am happy to consider the need for further reports based on an initial assessment of the overall waterfront, which the first report is designed to do. If the report recommends further registration and testing of trailers, that will take considerable time to implement, and it is important to be aware of that. Equally, if an extension of registration and testing is not recommended, an immediate further report may well offer no additional value.
The parliamentary debate has been valuable and considered. As my noble Friend Baroness Sugg said, we have considered extensively trailer safety and what more Government can and should be doing. That underlined my commitment to undertake a report on trailer safety. The process will allow us to consider how to take this matter forward, but I hope the hon. Member for York Central will be minded to await the initial report before making further commitments as to how this issue is best addressed.
I have gone through this quite thoroughly, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for the way he outlined new clause 1 and responded to the many amendments before us on trailer safety. I would like to speak to many of those amendments, and indeed an amendment to an amendment.
First of all, may I welcome the progress made in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Tunnicliffe? His contribution particularly focused on trailer safety, and it is right that we acknowledge that, as well as the contribution made by Baroness Sugg to the progress leading us to new clause 1. It is clear that we will be supportive of the new clause, because we believe it is an improvement on the substantive Bill.
In making such provision for the inclusion of more trailers, should the evidence point to more trailers needing registering to keep the public safe, regulation should be brought forward. It has been welcome to hear that the Minister will be making those considerations once the report has been put together, but in response to his speech, I want to question how he envisages building up a more robust database. He refers to, in the time period allowed, not going to the depths of all the sources that could be available for formulating such a report, so it would be good to know how he plans to proceed. My amendment (aa), which seeks to have further reporting, could be a source of addressing a more in-depth study.
We could not have been more moved by the speech made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Of course, we all know of her tireless and tenacious campaigning to improve trailer safety following the tragic death of young Freddie Hussey. Just three years old, his life was taken by a trailer that was out of control—a trailer that was only 2 tonnes in weight, that lost connection and then moved forward to failure, due to the position of the handbrake on the trailer. That demonstrates how important it is that we look at the detail of trailer safety and design fault, as well as operator poor use and malfunction. I trust that in the report, we will be able to look at those fine details, because that will be informative for the Minister in determining the best mechanisms to reduce risk on our roads. Ultimately, this is what I believe new clause 1 is trying to achieve: a real understanding of the risks that are presented and the nature of the faults, and therefore what measures can be taken to improve public safety.
Other safety features could also be included—for instance, tyre safety. We certainly know that incidents—some of them tragic—have occurred as a result of the ageing of tyres, and the Minister may want to consider bringing that under regulation and going further than just trailers. We also need to make sure that the work is comprehensive, so looking at weight limits could be an important consideration. I appreciate that we are looking at commercial and non-commercial trailers; I made the point earlier that the ownership of a trailer should not make a difference to the risk. We need to ensure that that is comprehensive. It may be that the data and the evidence show that 750 kg is not the right weight limitation. We need to keep an open mind and trust the reporting of incidents when considering that.
I will ask what I believe is quite a simple question on the changing jurisdiction. The Bill sets out that reporting will be for the UK, but the new clause talks about England, Wales and Scotland. What has happened to Northern Ireland? Will the Minister consider separate data for Northern Ireland, which I appreciate will probably be under a different jurisdiction? Will he take that into account, or was the new clause a tidying-up measure to remove Northern Ireland from the data sources?
My amendment (aa) is to amendment (a) to new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South and is incredibly important. It would provide for monitoring incidents and ensuring that we create a culture of the highest standards. While many trailers are privately constructed, it is important that they are built to the highest safety standards and subject to inspection. The Minister’s comment on the scale of this and how we can bring in inspection regimes was interesting. The offer of free tow bar checks from the leadership of the National Trailer and Towing Association, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham set out on Second Reading, is certainly a progressive step that could well address the question that the Minister posed in his opening remarks.
We need to ensure that trailers, whether for heavy duty or occasional use, are up to standard, and therefore a one-off test may not address the issue. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham gave evidence of that when talking about the corrosion of trailers. We need to understand more about the lifecycle of trailers to ensure that safety is adhered to. Amendment (a) seeks to ensure that the report considers the construction, condition and safety of all trailers.
My amendment (b) to new clause 1 considers a point that the Minister addressed in his remarks on commercial and non-commercial trailers. As I have said, the risk seems to occur across the board, but we should look at recording the distinction between commercial and non-commercial trailers, because there may be a higher propensity in the non-commercial field, for example, of the attachment of trailers to create a higher risk, because the full operation of locking down that attachment may not be as efficient as when done by people who do it every day as part of their work. We therefore need to look at the distinction across the board to identify where risk sits in the system, and gathering data on that would be invaluable.
My amendment (c) to new clause 1 looks at the reporting of road traffic accidents, which the Minister referred to earlier. I believe that the police gather comprehensive data on accidents, and directly correlating or associating those with a trailer incident will be invaluable in understanding the risks created by trailers. The amendment would be an important inclusion in the Bill. We are not asking for additional work to be done, just for inclusion in the Minister’s report. I hope that he will consider that further.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
On the point about compliance, which is part of the purpose of my amendment, it is also distressing for the people carrying out those checks, in garages and such places, to tell people that they are not compliant and would fail a test, and, because they have no real ability to make that person do something about it, then see that trailer go onto the road. We need to find some way of supporting the next stage of those checks.
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend, who has so much expertise in this field: I think we are all in awe of her knowledge. She is right. We debate things in this House because we care about public safety. We want to know the detail because that is important in order to make informed and correct decisions. If there is risk—and clearly there is; we have heard the evidence—we need to respond to it. It is on our watch, and we fail the public if we do not; and, tragically, we could fail the public severely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about how we should take this issue forward. It is incumbent on the Minister to look into these matters and give assurances that he will bring forward proposals about how we address the whole issue of the safety of trailers, attachments, tow bars and operators’ use of them. We can then inform the industry that we have heard them and take these issues seriously; that, ultimately, should legislation be required, we will not be afraid to enact it; or, should stronger advice and support from the Department for Transport be needed to educate and support the industry and users of trailers, that we will take that forward as well. I trust that the Minister will consider that and I look forward to hearing his remarks.
Karin Smyth
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson. My purpose in trying to amend the Bill, working with the noble Lords, on Second Reading and here in Cttee, has always been safety, following the representation made by my constituents, Donna and Scott Hussey, about their tragic loss. I am grateful to the Minister and Baroness Sugg for their support through the Bill and for the wider campaign on the family’s behalf.
My main issue with the Minister’s amendment was the loss of “comprehensive”, without specifying any new consideration. That led me to be concerned about the Government making a further report based on the existing data, which would not take us any further forward than we were before the Lords debated it. I therefore tabled the amendment to push the Government to make an assessment of roadworthiness and, as we have just said, of compliance, which would inform that report.
I am assured by the Minister’s comments. He has said that they will look at the existing data and what else needs to be included. Although he reiterated that the data is considered comprehensive, those statements acknowledge the need to look further and wider.
On the STATS19 form, the Department has admitted that it is difficult for a police officer who attends the scene after an accident to identify the factors that contributed to that accident. For those who have not read it—I can send it round—the STATS19 form is hugely complicated and difficult. Hon. Members can imagine filling it in on a quiet road of a dimly lit evening and deciding what it is necessary to report in it. It is the basis of the evidence collated. There are 78 factors to choose from. It is a subjective issue for the police, who I have been working with to inform the system from the bottom up. That is my concern—that we look more widely at doing that. The Minister has heard that loud and clear on a few occasions, and I look forward to working with the civil servants to try to address it.
My work in the last three years has convinced me that the wider issue is weight and its distribution. Driver awareness is really important, and I am grateful to the DVSA for its campaign, which will continue. On driver behaviour, we want to make driving with an unsafe trailer as socially unacceptable as drink-driving or driving with a mobile phone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, tow bars and their attachments are also very important. Those issues apply in the commercial and non-commercial sectors, which is a point that has been made well today, including by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.
I, too, have met the National Caravan Council, which is concerned about the issue. It has been running a scheme for several years, as have others. We need to learn from best practice across the industry. No one wants to have unsafe trailers on the road, and I look forward to working with all those organisations to continually get the best data, share good practice and inform the report.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems with caravans is that they are often parked up all winter, and therefore the brakes are likely to be seized or the tyres to have deteriorated? When the DVSA carries out checks on the A64 to Scarborough, it finds lots of defects on caravans. I wonder whether the National Caravan Council advises people on how to give their caravans not only a spring clean but vital maintenance.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have similar issues on the route down the M5. I have worked with Avon and Somerset police, and they feel that issue acutely. They would like more resources to be able to do more stop-and-checks on the motorway, and throughout Somerset and Devon. Highways England’s work in the towing safety group is largely determined by the prevention of accidents to stop the back-up along the M5, but we want to look much more at safety. Vehicles are being kept over winter—in some cases, several winters—in large farm areas or other areas that are not checked. Perhaps people do not realise the danger that can be posed by things that they have not seen eroding over that period. That is why driver behaviour and education are so important, but ultimately, mandation may be the only way forward.
Working with the police, I have seen some shocking examples of agricultural and leisure vehicles, such as horse boxes and boat trailers, and photographs thereof, that show that it is a major issue. I understand the issue of proportionality and the risks associated with establishing a new bureaucracy, but—as my hon. Friend for York Central said—the key point is that we do not know the scale of the problem, and we do not know how it impacts on both the commercial and non-commercial sector. That is the point we have to get to. It does not matter whether the accident is caused by a commercial or non-commercial vehicle, it is still an accident and, potentially, a death. I will continue to work with the Government and all parties on this, but I emphasise again that this is why better data connection and the sharing of knowledge and information are key.
I am happy not to press my amendment, given the assurances that the Minister has given. I have a question for the Minister. We have kind of piggy-backed on the Bill, which is an enabling Bill that may not be enacted, as I understand it. Will the Minister comment on what happens, if the Bill is not enacted, to the work done to highlight trailer safety, the report, and the provisions and assurances that have been made? If the Bill is not required, how will the provisions that we have agreed and discussed be taken forward?
Sarah Champion
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the approach taken by the Minister. It is heartening to hear how he is genuinely open to discussion, debate and new evidence coming forward, and I am optimistic that the consultation is genuine—rare in this day and age—and that it will actually influence this Bill so that we get the strongest and safest legislation.
I welcome the Government’s amendment 3, new clause 1 and the associated amendments already taken from the other place, but I also want to speak in support of the new clauses tabled by Labour Front Benchers and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South.
I want to talk about tow bars. I am referring to the retrofitted tow bar or tow hitch to a motorised vehicle, and I particularly support amendments (a), (c) and (e) to new clause 1.
I start from the position that anything on the road that involves a motorised vehicle has to be roadworthy, hence the need for cars and light commercial vehicles to have an MOT, likewise the associated checks for heavy goods transport vehicles and the attachments that they tow. From my position—I think it is common sense—it cannot be right that, currently, trailers under 3.5 tonnes can be without such scrutiny. As the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has said, some of them sit in a field or garage for a long time and are then taken straight out onto a highway or motorway without any due regard for their fitness or safety, and indeed without any legal responsibility to have any due regard for this.
Looking specifically at tow bars, I have to admit that the Minister has done a vast amount of research on this and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South has immersed herself in the topic. I came to it two weeks ago by accident, in that I was invited by my constituency business—Rotherham Towing Centre—to come and see their work. They are proud to be only the second facility in the UK to be accredited by Horizon Global, one of the world’s largest towing equipment suppliers. As an accredited centre, customers can be sure that the tow bar fitted to their vehicles is safe and secure, but the reality is that anybody can fit tow hitches and tow bars to their vehicles. The consequences of tow bar failures can be catastrophic, and many of us are aware of horrific incidents—not least the case of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Unsafe towing can result in serious injury, damage or indeed death. Yet currently there are no legal requirements for tow bars to be fitted by qualified professionals, or indeed for there to be specific standards with which the tow hitches and their fitting need to be aligned. The Minister has an opportunity to change that. There is nothing to prevent an unsafe badly fitted tow bar from being used. As I have already said, at the MOT stage, tow bars have to be seriously unsafe for them to be considered a failure.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on this, but hope he is able to give serious consideration to including the amendments, particularly amendment (a) to new clause 1 as the Bill moves forward.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I will be brief. I want to put on record a tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Bristol South. When somebody gets elected and spends a lot of time in this place, they want to be able to say that they have made a difference. After three years of campaigning, the hon. Lady has been able to include in this Bill clauses that could make the difference, and obviously in the future they might lead to further regulations and a further enhancement of road safety, which would be for the benefit of us all. I thank her for her work, and commend the Minister and Government for an unusual approach—they actually worked with the hon. Lady to get to this point and to further improve the legislation.
My one “but” would be about the tow bar amendments. We have heard some fantastic examples of the risk and the potential weak point in the system—how tow bars are fitted and the subsequent maintenance work required. Hopefully the Minister will reflect on what he has heard, particularly the statistic that there is a 91% inspection fail rate, which should cause alarm bells to ring.
I congratulate both the hon. Lady and the Minister, but the Government must still consider those other aspects.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to all colleagues for the very thoughtful and intelligent contributions they have made. I will pick up on each of the issues they have raised.
Perhaps I can start with the hon. Member for Bristol South who, in many ways, is the mother of these amendments. Her point about the importance of affecting driver behaviour and driver education has also been made separately and forcibly to me by the hon. Members for Rotherham and for York Central—it is very important and well understood. In due course, there may well be a case for extending our road safety communications more widely. As the hon. Member for Bristol South will know, we are effective in many ways on road safety education, but it is important that we cover all aspects, so I am grateful to her for that comment.
The hon. Lady asked whether the trailer safety report will fall away. The answer is that it will not. That is because I hope and suspect that the Bill will be enacted—with the support of the Opposition, it certainly will be—and even if it is not enacted, the Government have made a commitment to produce a report according to the standards we have outlined.
Let me pick up on a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. Of course, it is an offence to use a trailer on the road that is not roadworthy or that is in an unfit condition. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight, as several Members have, the 91% figure found on the assessment. Without getting too philosophical—the House will know my background in this area—there is a difference between data and evidence, and small numbers of data. We need a more comprehensive view. When we have one, we can legislate if we need to with certainty. If we need to regulate, we can do so with all the comfort and assurance that we would need.
Sarah Champion
I completely agree with the Minister, but capturing illegal, un-roadworthy vehicles tends to happen when things go wrong. The likelihood of the police stopping someone unless one of their trailer lights are out is incredibly slender. It is more about prevention and having a register. Regular checks would enable us in most cases—something could go wrong the day after the test—to guarantee more likelihood of compliance.
Jesse Norman
One great benefit of the Bill is that it has brought into the foreground a set of issues. It is the beginning of a conversation and a process of reflection that the Government need to have, and it will go well beyond the Bill itself. One can imagine what the different elements of that would be. The first might be education and public awareness, the next stage might be specific intervention, and so on all the way up the tree. I would not rule any of that out—it is just a matter of understanding the basis on which we operate.
In a way, it is a cautionary tale. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned tyre safety, which is another serious issue. She will know that Frances Molloy has campaigned in a very admirable way, having had a bereavement that was just as devastating in its own way as that of Donna and Scott Hussey. The view she has taken is that all tyres over 10 years old should be banned. In fact, in answer to her original campaign, the Department set out in guidance that no tyre aged over 10 years old should be fitted to the front steering axle of a bus. The effect has been remarkable and transformative in that we have seen very little infringement. We have tried on two previous occasions to commission what we considered to be an evidentially robust means of investigation. I am pleased to say that, after several years of trying and failing, we now have a process in mind. That is an example of how one can do an awful lot in advance as part of the process of evidence-gathering—that is what we are trying to do in the context of the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
I concur with the Minister on the need for good inspection regimes, whether that is applied to tyre safety, tow bars or trailers. Will he therefore look at what the tow bar industry is doing with regard to the free inspections it is offering the public? Perhaps the Government should support that while looking at the wider issue of trailer safety.
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that. At the trailer summit, I had a chance to talk to the people running the programme, but there is no doubt that we can do more.
The hon. Lady rightly mentioned a range of issues that might have a bearing on this—design fault, operator misuse or the safety of the equipment. All those factors need to be included in the comprehensive consideration I have described. I have said that we expect that to include more data and sources. The vehicle defect category may offer more scope for enlargement if we want to gather more data. She has rightly stressed having an open mind, which is very much what I bring.
We want to involve an expert consideration with stakeholders as part of our reflection. I have found that enormously helpful in other aspects of my portfolio—walking, cycling or road safety—but it is an integral part of the discussion. When we are trying to bring an amorphous body of data under control, it is important to include case studies, which we can do. I hope therefore that what we achieve will be genuinely rich and satisfying, and provide the basis for proper further consideration and, if necessary, action.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
The Chair
For the sake of clarity, although we have just debated new clause 1 and the various amendments tabled to that new clause, we have not yet reached a decision on those matters. That point will come when all the Bill’s clauses have been discussed, shortly before we conclude our consideration of the whole Bill. Either my co-chairman or I will call that matter for decision at that point.
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Inspections and information
Jesse Norman
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 14, page 9, line 31, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
This amendment removes provision which is replaced by NC1 and NC2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 5 and 6.
Government new clause 2—Trailer safety: testing regulations.
Jesse Norman
Under amendment 4, the provisions related to testing of trailers, should that be recommended within the report, will be withdrawn to be replaced in full through an alternative approach. As with earlier amendments, amendment 4 will ensure that the intention of the amendments made in the other place may be fully delivered. New clause 2 creates powers for extending the testing of trailers. If the report so recommends, that would be achieved by amending part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to extend existing regimes to apply to all trailers weighing over 750 kg.
It is important to be clear that the original Lords amendment had the defect that it would have created a free-standing testing regime alongside existing powers in the Road Traffic Act that apply to other vehicles. That is why we adopted this approach. Under our amendments, regulations may not be made before the report on trailer safety has been laid before Parliament, so that there can be full consideration.
Rachael Maskell
The Opposition welcome new clause 2 and believe that good progress is being made in addressing vital safety issues. New clause 1 addresses reporting and understanding the evidence, and new clause 2 concerns the application of what happens next, so in some ways it is the most significant part of the Bill. As I have indicated, we want to ensure that significant steps are taken to improve trailer safety and that a solid inspection regime is put in place.
Clearly, we will want to see an initial report on the evidence gathered as a result of new clause 1 to know how best to proceed, and I believe that new clause 2 will enable that to happen. However, we will need to ensure that there is then proportionate follow-up action that provides public safety first and foremost. We want an opportunity for regular inspection, but that action should feed into trailer design to ensure that products on the market are safe and of the highest standard, that trailers are used safely, and that we learn from evidence.
Let me raise one further point. We have talked about British trailers, but obviously people from other countries use our roads. I wonder how an inspection regime will impact them and ensure that the highest standards are achieved across our roads and that safety is upheld at all times.
Sarah Champion
I have a series of questions for the Minister, rather than a speech. Could he give clarity on who is responsible for the periodic testing of trailers and the resources? Will he consider including tow bars or tow hitches in new clause 2, subsection (1), which states:
“Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers”?
I have to apologise—I thought consideration of the Bill would last for four more sittings. Otherwise, I would have tabled amendments to that effect. It would be gracious of the Minister to comment on that.
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful to colleagues. If a testing regime is to be introduced, the Department will decide what the best way of doing that is. I anticipate that it would be done through an extension of work that has already been commissioned by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and other relevant authorities.
Foreign trailers on our roads will be expected to obey the laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the same way that any other trailer would. They will be subject to the applicable law. I want to be sure that I have caught the question that the hon. Member for York Central raised.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Minister. We are looking not just at the trailers we produce ourselves, but at the use of trailers no matter where they come from. Depending on which jurisdiction they enter our roads from, they could carry risk. If tow bars are not fitted correctly, if the attachment is not locked down, or if the driver is driving carelessly, they pose a risk to the British public. How will the Minister respond to that?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying the point. The answer is, of course, that laws will apply to those trailers just as they would to domestic trailers. However, she rightly raises a wider point. Whether there is a difference in the assessment of trailers brought in from other countries—they may be subject to different regulatory rules—could well be considered in the wider trailer safety report. The report could also consider whether EU standards, or those of other countries, are doing the job we expect them to do. Hopefully that covers all the questions.
Sarah Champion
Would the Minister consider adding inspection of tow bars and tow hitches as the Bill progresses?
Jesse Norman
I cannot take that as a formal amendment, but I will certainly give the matter consideration.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 15 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 23
Regulations
Amendment made: 5, in clause 23, page 13, line 35, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) A statutory instrument containing any of the following (with or without other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—
(a) the first regulations under section 1;
(b) the first regulations under section 2;
(c) the first regulations under section 13;
(d) the first regulations under section 18;
(e) the first regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations);
(f) other regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) which amend an Act.”—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment requires the first regulations for periodic testing of trailers (see NC2), and any later regulations which amend an Act, to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Extent
Amendment made: 6, in clause 24, page 14, line 8, leave out “Section 11 extends” and insert—
“Sections 11, (Trailer safety: report) and (Trailer safety: testing regulations) extend”.—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment provides that the new clauses about trailer safety (see NC1 and NC2) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Commencement and transitional provision
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 25, page 14, line 16, at end insert—
“(1) Where as an outcome of the negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom remains in the European Union’s Community Licence regime, sections 1, 2 and 3 will cease to have effect.”.
This amendment would mean that the powers set out in section 1, 2 or 3 would not be available to the Secretary of State where the UK remains in the European Union’s Community Licence Regime.
We have made excellent progress on the Bill this afternoon. In tabling this amendment, Labour was seeking assurances about what we do should we find that the legislation is not necessary. We believe that inserting a sunset clause would be a helpful way of tidying up that element of business. As we have learned from today’s debate, there are still a huge number of uncertainties about the future management of the Bill in the light of the negotiations taking place about the future, not least in relation to the community licensing scheme, which we trust that the Government will seek to be a part of as we move forward. In the light of our discussions and the greater clarity from the Minister today, we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Short title
The Chair
We now come to Government amendment 14 to clause 26. The amendment is starred on the amendment paper as it was not tabled with the usual notice to be called today. I have, however, selected it for the convenience of the Committee.
Amendment made: 14, in clause 26, page 14, line 25, leave out subsection (2).—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment removes the “privilege amendment” inserted by the Lords.
Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Trailer safety: report
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the number and causes of road traffic accidents occurring in England, Wales or Scotland during the reporting period which—
(a) involved trailers, and
(b) caused injury or death to any person.
(2) The report must contain an assessment of whether— The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(a) regulations under section13 should provide for the compulsory registration of relevant trailers;
(b) regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) should be made.
(3) In this section—
“relevant trailers” means trailers which are kept or used on roads and—
(a) if constructed or adapted to carry a load, weigh more than 750 kilograms when laden with the heaviest such load;
(b) otherwise, weigh more than 750 kilograms;
“reporting period” means a period determined by the Secretary of State, which must be a continuous period of at least 12 months ending no earlier than 18 months before the day on which this section comes into force.”.—(Jesse Norman.)
This new clause requires a report on road traffic accidents involving trailers to be laid before Parliament, including a recommendation as to whether compulsory registration or periodic testing of trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms should be introduced. This amendment would amend NC1(a) to ensure that the report contains an assessment of compliance of existing provisions relating to the installation of tow bars.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Trailer safety: testing regulations
“(1) Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers.
(2) The regulations may amend provision made by or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(3) The regulations may, in making consequential or other provision as mentioned in section 23(1)(a), amend any Act (whenever passed or made).
(4) No regulations under this section may be made before the report is laid before Parliament under section (Trailer safety: report).
(5) In this section, “relevant trailers” has the meaning given by section (Trailer safety: report)(4).”—(Jesse Norman.)
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to introduce a system of periodic testing for trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 13, page 9, line 2, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
This amendment removes provision which is replaced by NC1 and NC2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 1—Trailer safety: report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the number and causes of road traffic accidents occurring in England, Wales or Scotland during the reporting period which—
(a) involved trailers, and
(b) caused injury or death to any person.
(2) The report must contain an assessment of whether—
(a) regulations under section 13 should provide for the compulsory registration of relevant trailers;
(b) regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) should be made.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(4) In this section—
“relevant trailers” means trailers which are kept or used on roads and—
(a) if constructed or adapted to carry a load, weigh more than 750 kilograms when laden with the heaviest such load;
(b) otherwise, weigh more than 750 kilograms;
“reporting period” means a period determined by the Secretary of State, which must be a continuous period of at least 12 months ending no earlier than 18 months before the day on which this section comes into force.”
This new clause requires a report on road traffic accidents involving trailers to be laid before Parliament, including a recommendation as to whether compulsory registration or periodic testing of trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms should be introduced. This amendment would amend NC1(a) to ensure that the report contains an assessment of compliance of existing provisions relating to the installation of tow bars.
Amendment (b), to Government new clause 1, in subsection (1)(a), after “involved” insert “commercial or non-commercial”.
This amendment would ensure that the reporting requirements apply to both commercial and non-commercial trailers.
Amendment (a) to Government new clause 1, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The report must contain an assessment of levels of compliance with existing provisions relating to the construction, condition or safety of all trailers.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to assess and report on the construction, condition and safety of all trailers.
Amendment (aa) to amendment (a) to Government new clause 1, at end insert
“and the installation of tow bars”.
This amendment would amend NC1(a) to ensure that the report contains an assessment of compliance of existing provisions relating to the installation of tow bars.
Amendment (c) to Government new clause 1, after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where reporting on a road traffic accident under subsection (1) which involves a tow bar attachment, the Secretary of State must include an assessment of whether the tow bar attachment contributed to the accident.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to include information on tow bar attachments when reporting on road traffic accidents involving trailers.
Amendment (d) to Government new clause 1, in subsection (3), at end insert “, and each year thereafter”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a report on trailer-related accidents before Parliament annually.
Amendment (e) to Government new clause 1, in subsection (4), at end insert—
““tow bar attachment” means any device used to connect a motor vehicle and trailer for the purpose of towing the trailer.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment (c).
Jesse Norman
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Robertson. As colleagues across the Committee will be aware, trailer safety has rightly been discussed in some depth, both throughout debate in the other place and on Second Reading in this place. It is an issue with which I have personally been engaged throughout my time as a Minister. It has been a great pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Bristol South, and I am delighted to see her here today. Many members of the Committee will be familiar with her work on trailer safety.
Before we consider the amendments, it is worth outlining the facts that brought the hon. Lady to the subject. In January 2014, young Freddie Hussey was killed by a runaway trailer as he and his mother, Donna Hussey, walked to their home in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and since her election to Parliament she has worked indefatigably with the family in their campaign to improve trailer safety. In April, I attended the latest in a series of trailer safety summits arranged by the hon. Lady. The event brought together a range of stakeholders in the trailer and towing sector to discuss how safety can be improved. Freddie’s parents, Donna and Scott Hussey, also spoke of their own experience and their subsequent campaign to improve trailer safety, and it was a great honour for me to have a chance to discuss these issues directly with them.
As the Committee will be aware, the Department and its agencies have undertaken significant work as part of our continuing commitment to improve towing safety standards since the tragedy. Highways England leads the national towing working group, which brings together a range of towing stakeholders to address the issue. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency reviewed and published further guidance on safe towing practices alongside launching the “Tow Safe for Freddie” campaign. A large number of existing measures deal with the safety and roadworthiness of trailers, and we continue to review them. Like motor vehicles, almost all trailers must now be approved before they may enter service. That may be undertaken at the level of manufacturer and model, or on an individual basis for bespoke or custom-build units.
There is an annual roadworthiness examination that applies to larger trailers with a gross weight of more than 3.5 tonnes and trailers in a number of other categories. Under that regime, about 250,000 trailers are tested every year. I am pleased to say that the units exhibit high standards with a pass rate at first test of almost 90%, but—it is important to say “but”—as has been noted, the regime applies overwhelmingly to commercial trailers, with a minimal number of non-commercial trailers falling within its scope. As the hon. Member for Bristol South noted, about 1.4 million trailers fall outside the current testing regime despite weighing more than the vehicles they are towed by, which do require an MOT.
On Second Reading, the hon. Lady asked how our report will be undertaken, and I would like to provide some clarity today. The report will draw on existing data, but we are looking at what else may be included to inform a full and proper consideration. Members will understand that when producing such reports, it is crucial that we are able to speak with authority and make recommendations that are informed by data. The Department for Transport has a worldwide reputation for the quality and comprehensive nature of its work in data collection and use. I would like to reassure Members about an issue raised on Second Reading by saying that the data used in the current reporting systems is comprehensive and world-leading. It informs the Department’s work on road safety and is reviewed regularly.
The reporting form used to capture information on accidents contains many different data categories, allowing us to understand and identify trends in road traffic collisions. It provides details about the roads, vehicles and persons involved, as well as any injuries that occurred. Reporting systems continue to be refined to improve the depth of the data that informs departmental assessments. I am happy to share the contents of the reporting form with Members, if they would find it useful.
The hon. Lady is right to point to the under-reporting of accidents. Levels of under-reporting appear to be fairly consistent, which is a challenge to overcome, as I hope Members understand. The wholesale development of new reporting systems to collate new data would require several years’ work and is not achievable in the timeline of this legislation. It is crucial that the reports are based on validated and verified data to assess the issue, so the STATS19 accident data will inevitably form an integral component of the report we undertake. The report will, however, provide the starting point from which we can consider whether significant changes are necessary to how we report on trailer safety. Due attention will be paid to the challenge of under-reporting of accidents and we will consider what other types of data we may be able to obtain to inform our recommendations beyond that contained within STATS19. Working with stakeholders in the sector may well comprise an element of this undertaking.
The debate on these issues has been valuable and I thank both Members and peers for their thoughtful and considered contributions. As Members will be aware, on Report in the Lords, Baroness Sugg confirmed my intention to undertake a report on trailer safety, and the continuing discussion, both in the House and with stakeholders at the trailer safety summit, reaffirmed this commitment.
The Government amendments before the Committee today are intended to ensure that we can deliver fully the intent of the amendments made in the other place. That will be achieved in a manner that reflects the extent of our devolution arrangements. Should the safety report recommend that periodic testing is extended to cover all trailers weighing over 750 kg, that may be achieved through an extension of the existing safety regime. The proposed amendments replace the amendments tabled on Report in the Lords and comprise two additional clauses within part 2 of the Bill. Both amendments include in full the recommendations peers sought on the issues of trailer registration and trailer testing.
The provisions in new clause 1 on trailer safety will replace those proposed in the Lords. The new clause details the report to be undertaken and states that it must be published within one year of the legislation coming into force. The report will cover the number and causes of road accidents that involved trailers and caused injury or death to any person involved. The data contained in the report is not restricted to those points, but will contain that as a key thrust of the considerations. The report will cover recommendations sought by peers on whether regulations should provide for an extension of compulsory registration and testing requirements to apply to all trailers weighing over 750 kg.
The reporting period will cover a continuous period of at least 12 months and end no earlier than 18 months before the provision comes into force. That will allow the Department for Transport time to validate and fully consider the substantial body of data that will underpin the recommendations in the report. “Reported Road Casualties GB” is published each autumn, and we anticipate that the proposed timeline will allow us to draw on, at a minimum, the release later this year.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am listening with interest to the Minister. Does he plan to capture data about trailers weighing more than 750 kg? There is potential in the legislation to make registration of trailers weighing more than 750 kg compulsory, if that is substantiated by the data.
Jesse Norman
As I said, the report will make recommendations on whether regulations should provide for an extension of compulsory registration and for testing requirements to apply to all trailers weighing more than 750 kg.
Amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol South, further proposes that the report will consider the
“levels of compliance with existing provisions relating to the construction, condition or safety of all trailers.”
A great deal of data is already recorded for those trailers that are subject to an annual test and checked at the roadside by the DVSA. The information may well prove valuable in the assessment of the safety of trailers generally, although hon. Members will be aware that it will not cover data for the great number of trailers to which the hon. Lady refers, which are not currently subject to the regular testing requirements. Nevertheless, a consideration of the compliance with those provisions will contribute to the report.
With a trailer population outside the annual test regime in excess of 1.4 million, each weighing between 750 kg and 3.5 tonnes, it is difficult to gather a robust data sample for those trailers to inform the consideration in the report. While the Department will consider which data sources we may draw on to inform any judgments on the standards of roadworthiness of light trailers generally, there is a need to be proportionate in how we gather data in the context of a wider enforcement strategy.
Larger trailers are the focus of existing enforcement, because they have long been recognised to pose the biggest risk. I hope that the hon. Member for Bristol South will appreciate that our position at the moment is that the amendment should not be made. The Department is keen that the report should be beneficial and will examine which additional sources of data we may draw on to inform a full consideration of trailer safety and compliance with both existing provisions and any new provisions that may arise from the report.
Regarding amendments (aa), (b) and (c) to new clause 1, tow bar safety was raised on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and it is certainly an important issue when considering trailer safety. She spoke in particular of vehicles to which a tow bar has been subsequently been fitted, but which carry safety concerns. It is worth focusing here on the definitional question whether “tow bar” covers only the attachments merely to cars or the towing vehicle, or whether it also captures the attachment part of the trailer and where it attaches. That raises questions about definitions that make her amendment hard to carry through, but I will speak to both halves of the question.
Car and vehicle tow bars are subject to examination at annual tests. Cars and heavy vehicles with tow bars fitted are subject to checks both on the mechanical condition and on the relevant electric fittings. The rates of failure of tow bars of this kind at annual tests are extraordinarily low. The figures are published, and in 2016-17 the number of tow bar defects accounted for 0.001% of total defects for cars and light vans—an absurdly low figure. In the case of heavy goods vehicles, the rates of failure are also very low. Nevertheless, Members are right to raise concerns about the consequences of a tow bar failing. At the trailer safety summit, I saw evidence of the state of some tow bars that had been allowed to deteriorate.
Sarah Champion
I took the opportunity of the extended lunch break to call my garage, RH Motors, which does MOT testing, and asked about trailers and specific tow hitches. Staff there had recently been on the training, and they said that the threshold for notifying a problem with a tow hitch as a fault is very high; it tends to be due to acute corrosion. With the new regulations having literally just come in, they were not sure whether more guidance had been issued for MOT stations. Will the Minister consider that for future guidance?
Jesse Norman
That is an interesting question and I will certainly consider it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning it. At the trailer safety summit, we saw evidence from the police force in Somerset of the condition to which some tow bars had been allowed to deteriorate. It is a source of genuine concern. However, it is worth pointing out that the scope of the amendment goes rather further than our discussion on Second Reading. In the proposed form, the report would require an assessment of all accidents involving a trailer to determine whether the tow bar may have contributed. While the contributing factors are recorded, which may allow us to discern such a link, the amendment would oblige us to assess retrospectively accidents for which the data has not already been recorded, which would be very difficult.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will address this point later, but as the police gather data around the causation of accidents, is it not right that they should also record whether or not causation is related to the towing equipment of a vehicle?
Jesse Norman
It is certainly true that police gather information on factors that may bear on causation—of course, causation itself is a judgment rather than a fact. The case for recording such data is under active consideration, but we are concerned about the balance between the amount of potential infraction and the good that it would do by creating an additional burden in an already very full assessment process. That is precisely one of the things that would come out of the wider assessment we are doing now, and is therefore of a piece with the direction of travel of the Government. We recognise that this is an important issue: I have asked officials to consider in the safety report what data may inform further investigation, and this may cover exactly the points raised by the hon. Lady.
The vehicle defect contributory factor is a useful starting point, which is already in the report. Relevant case studies may allow us to explore within that category the question of tow bar safety. Tow bars are clearly integral elements when taking a full picture of the trailer safety situation, and it is correct that they are considered in the report, although I hope, for the reasons outlined, that the hon. Member for Bristol South will not press her amendment.
The hon. Member for York Central has tabled amendment (b) to new clause 1 to outline with greater clarity that the report will cover both commercial and non-commercial trailers. To assuage any concerns that hon. Members may have about the scope of the report, it is important to say that the current drafting covers all accidents involving trailers in Great Britain, without distinction between commercial and non-commercial usage. Those terms are not actually defined in the Bill and may be shaped by the consultation, so it would be premature to insert that requirement. There is no trailer weight category excluded from the trailer safety report, so making the amendment would not change any of the requirements on the Secretary of State set out in new clause 1. I hope the hon. Lady will not press her amendment.
Under amendment (d) to new clause 1, the Secretary of State would be required, for each year following the first report, to lay subsequent annual reports on trailer safety, compulsory registration and periodic testing. The first report will provide a valuable opportunity to consider trailer safety in depth and, as I have said, will draw on recent data recorded under existing recording systems. We also wish to consider how else we can bring in additional data or contributions from industry stakeholders, to ensure that we consider the full breadth of issues relevant to trailer safety, but at this stage I do not deem it appropriate to make a commitment to further reports without knowing the outcome of the first report. Either way, the effect of this amendment would be to place a costly requirement on the Government, which is not necessarily warranted unless the first report turns out as feared. None the less, I am happy to consider the need for further reports based on an initial assessment of the overall waterfront, which the first report is designed to do. If the report recommends further registration and testing of trailers, that will take considerable time to implement, and it is important to be aware of that. Equally, if an extension of registration and testing is not recommended, an immediate further report may well offer no additional value.
The parliamentary debate has been valuable and considered. As my noble Friend Baroness Sugg said, we have considered extensively trailer safety and what more Government can and should be doing. That underlined my commitment to undertake a report on trailer safety. The process will allow us to consider how to take this matter forward, but I hope the hon. Member for York Central will be minded to await the initial report before making further commitments as to how this issue is best addressed.
I have gone through this quite thoroughly, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for the way he outlined new clause 1 and responded to the many amendments before us on trailer safety. I would like to speak to many of those amendments, and indeed an amendment to an amendment.
First of all, may I welcome the progress made in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Tunnicliffe? His contribution particularly focused on trailer safety, and it is right that we acknowledge that, as well as the contribution made by Baroness Sugg to the progress leading us to new clause 1. It is clear that we will be supportive of the new clause, because we believe it is an improvement on the substantive Bill.
In making such provision for the inclusion of more trailers, should the evidence point to more trailers needing registering to keep the public safe, regulation should be brought forward. It has been welcome to hear that the Minister will be making those considerations once the report has been put together, but in response to his speech, I want to question how he envisages building up a more robust database. He refers to, in the time period allowed, not going to the depths of all the sources that could be available for formulating such a report, so it would be good to know how he plans to proceed. My amendment (aa), which seeks to have further reporting, could be a source of addressing a more in-depth study.
We could not have been more moved by the speech made on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Of course, we all know of her tireless and tenacious campaigning to improve trailer safety following the tragic death of young Freddie Hussey. Just three years old, his life was taken by a trailer that was out of control—a trailer that was only 2 tonnes in weight, that lost connection and then moved forward to failure, due to the position of the handbrake on the trailer. That demonstrates how important it is that we look at the detail of trailer safety and design fault, as well as operator poor use and malfunction. I trust that in the report, we will be able to look at those fine details, because that will be informative for the Minister in determining the best mechanisms to reduce risk on our roads. Ultimately, this is what I believe new clause 1 is trying to achieve: a real understanding of the risks that are presented and the nature of the faults, and therefore what measures can be taken to improve public safety.
Other safety features could also be included—for instance, tyre safety. We certainly know that incidents—some of them tragic—have occurred as a result of the ageing of tyres, and the Minister may want to consider bringing that under regulation and going further than just trailers. We also need to make sure that the work is comprehensive, so looking at weight limits could be an important consideration. I appreciate that we are looking at commercial and non-commercial trailers; I made the point earlier that the ownership of a trailer should not make a difference to the risk. We need to ensure that that is comprehensive. It may be that the data and the evidence show that 750 kg is not the right weight limitation. We need to keep an open mind and trust the reporting of incidents when considering that.
I will ask what I believe is quite a simple question on the changing jurisdiction. The Bill sets out that reporting will be for the UK, but the new clause talks about England, Wales and Scotland. What has happened to Northern Ireland? Will the Minister consider separate data for Northern Ireland, which I appreciate will probably be under a different jurisdiction? Will he take that into account, or was the new clause a tidying-up measure to remove Northern Ireland from the data sources?
My amendment (aa) is to amendment (a) to new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South and is incredibly important. It would provide for monitoring incidents and ensuring that we create a culture of the highest standards. While many trailers are privately constructed, it is important that they are built to the highest safety standards and subject to inspection. The Minister’s comment on the scale of this and how we can bring in inspection regimes was interesting. The offer of free tow bar checks from the leadership of the National Trailer and Towing Association, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham set out on Second Reading, is certainly a progressive step that could well address the question that the Minister posed in his opening remarks.
We need to ensure that trailers, whether for heavy duty or occasional use, are up to standard, and therefore a one-off test may not address the issue. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham gave evidence of that when talking about the corrosion of trailers. We need to understand more about the lifecycle of trailers to ensure that safety is adhered to. Amendment (a) seeks to ensure that the report considers the construction, condition and safety of all trailers.
My amendment (b) to new clause 1 considers a point that the Minister addressed in his remarks on commercial and non-commercial trailers. As I have said, the risk seems to occur across the board, but we should look at recording the distinction between commercial and non-commercial trailers, because there may be a higher propensity in the non-commercial field, for example, of the attachment of trailers to create a higher risk, because the full operation of locking down that attachment may not be as efficient as when done by people who do it every day as part of their work. We therefore need to look at the distinction across the board to identify where risk sits in the system, and gathering data on that would be invaluable.
My amendment (c) to new clause 1 looks at the reporting of road traffic accidents, which the Minister referred to earlier. I believe that the police gather comprehensive data on accidents, and directly correlating or associating those with a trailer incident will be invaluable in understanding the risks created by trailers. The amendment would be an important inclusion in the Bill. We are not asking for additional work to be done, just for inclusion in the Minister’s report. I hope that he will consider that further.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
On the point about compliance, which is part of the purpose of my amendment, it is also distressing for the people carrying out those checks, in garages and such places, to tell people that they are not compliant and would fail a test, and, because they have no real ability to make that person do something about it, then see that trailer go onto the road. We need to find some way of supporting the next stage of those checks.
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend, who has so much expertise in this field: I think we are all in awe of her knowledge. She is right. We debate things in this House because we care about public safety. We want to know the detail because that is important in order to make informed and correct decisions. If there is risk—and clearly there is; we have heard the evidence—we need to respond to it. It is on our watch, and we fail the public if we do not; and, tragically, we could fail the public severely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about how we should take this issue forward. It is incumbent on the Minister to look into these matters and give assurances that he will bring forward proposals about how we address the whole issue of the safety of trailers, attachments, tow bars and operators’ use of them. We can then inform the industry that we have heard them and take these issues seriously; that, ultimately, should legislation be required, we will not be afraid to enact it; or, should stronger advice and support from the Department for Transport be needed to educate and support the industry and users of trailers, that we will take that forward as well. I trust that the Minister will consider that and I look forward to hearing his remarks.
Karin Smyth
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson. My purpose in trying to amend the Bill, working with the noble Lords, on Second Reading and here in Cttee, has always been safety, following the representation made by my constituents, Donna and Scott Hussey, about their tragic loss. I am grateful to the Minister and Baroness Sugg for their support through the Bill and for the wider campaign on the family’s behalf.
My main issue with the Minister’s amendment was the loss of “comprehensive”, without specifying any new consideration. That led me to be concerned about the Government making a further report based on the existing data, which would not take us any further forward than we were before the Lords debated it. I therefore tabled the amendment to push the Government to make an assessment of roadworthiness and, as we have just said, of compliance, which would inform that report.
I am assured by the Minister’s comments. He has said that they will look at the existing data and what else needs to be included. Although he reiterated that the data is considered comprehensive, those statements acknowledge the need to look further and wider.
On the STATS19 form, the Department has admitted that it is difficult for a police officer who attends the scene after an accident to identify the factors that contributed to that accident. For those who have not read it—I can send it round—the STATS19 form is hugely complicated and difficult. Hon. Members can imagine filling it in on a quiet road of a dimly lit evening and deciding what it is necessary to report in it. It is the basis of the evidence collated. There are 78 factors to choose from. It is a subjective issue for the police, who I have been working with to inform the system from the bottom up. That is my concern—that we look more widely at doing that. The Minister has heard that loud and clear on a few occasions, and I look forward to working with the civil servants to try to address it.
My work in the last three years has convinced me that the wider issue is weight and its distribution. Driver awareness is really important, and I am grateful to the DVSA for its campaign, which will continue. On driver behaviour, we want to make driving with an unsafe trailer as socially unacceptable as drink-driving or driving with a mobile phone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, tow bars and their attachments are also very important. Those issues apply in the commercial and non-commercial sectors, which is a point that has been made well today, including by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central.
I, too, have met the National Caravan Council, which is concerned about the issue. It has been running a scheme for several years, as have others. We need to learn from best practice across the industry. No one wants to have unsafe trailers on the road, and I look forward to working with all those organisations to continually get the best data, share good practice and inform the report.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the problems with caravans is that they are often parked up all winter, and therefore the brakes are likely to be seized or the tyres to have deteriorated? When the DVSA carries out checks on the A64 to Scarborough, it finds lots of defects on caravans. I wonder whether the National Caravan Council advises people on how to give their caravans not only a spring clean but vital maintenance.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have similar issues on the route down the M5. I have worked with Avon and Somerset police, and they feel that issue acutely. They would like more resources to be able to do more stop-and-checks on the motorway, and throughout Somerset and Devon. Highways England’s work in the towing safety group is largely determined by the prevention of accidents to stop the back-up along the M5, but we want to look much more at safety. Vehicles are being kept over winter—in some cases, several winters—in large farm areas or other areas that are not checked. Perhaps people do not realise the danger that can be posed by things that they have not seen eroding over that period. That is why driver behaviour and education are so important, but ultimately, mandation may be the only way forward.
Working with the police, I have seen some shocking examples of agricultural and leisure vehicles, such as horse boxes and boat trailers, and photographs thereof, that show that it is a major issue. I understand the issue of proportionality and the risks associated with establishing a new bureaucracy, but—as my hon. Friend for York Central said—the key point is that we do not know the scale of the problem, and we do not know how it impacts on both the commercial and non-commercial sector. That is the point we have to get to. It does not matter whether the accident is caused by a commercial or non-commercial vehicle, it is still an accident and, potentially, a death. I will continue to work with the Government and all parties on this, but I emphasise again that this is why better data connection and the sharing of knowledge and information are key.
I am happy not to press my amendment, given the assurances that the Minister has given. I have a question for the Minister. We have kind of piggy-backed on the Bill, which is an enabling Bill that may not be enacted, as I understand it. Will the Minister comment on what happens, if the Bill is not enacted, to the work done to highlight trailer safety, the report, and the provisions and assurances that have been made? If the Bill is not required, how will the provisions that we have agreed and discussed be taken forward?
Sarah Champion
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the approach taken by the Minister. It is heartening to hear how he is genuinely open to discussion, debate and new evidence coming forward, and I am optimistic that the consultation is genuine—rare in this day and age—and that it will actually influence this Bill so that we get the strongest and safest legislation.
I welcome the Government’s amendment 3, new clause 1 and the associated amendments already taken from the other place, but I also want to speak in support of the new clauses tabled by Labour Front Benchers and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South.
I want to talk about tow bars. I am referring to the retrofitted tow bar or tow hitch to a motorised vehicle, and I particularly support amendments (a), (c) and (e) to new clause 1.
I start from the position that anything on the road that involves a motorised vehicle has to be roadworthy, hence the need for cars and light commercial vehicles to have an MOT, likewise the associated checks for heavy goods transport vehicles and the attachments that they tow. From my position—I think it is common sense—it cannot be right that, currently, trailers under 3.5 tonnes can be without such scrutiny. As the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has said, some of them sit in a field or garage for a long time and are then taken straight out onto a highway or motorway without any due regard for their fitness or safety, and indeed without any legal responsibility to have any due regard for this.
Looking specifically at tow bars, I have to admit that the Minister has done a vast amount of research on this and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South has immersed herself in the topic. I came to it two weeks ago by accident, in that I was invited by my constituency business—Rotherham Towing Centre—to come and see their work. They are proud to be only the second facility in the UK to be accredited by Horizon Global, one of the world’s largest towing equipment suppliers. As an accredited centre, customers can be sure that the tow bar fitted to their vehicles is safe and secure, but the reality is that anybody can fit tow hitches and tow bars to their vehicles. The consequences of tow bar failures can be catastrophic, and many of us are aware of horrific incidents—not least the case of the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South. Unsafe towing can result in serious injury, damage or indeed death. Yet currently there are no legal requirements for tow bars to be fitted by qualified professionals, or indeed for there to be specific standards with which the tow hitches and their fitting need to be aligned. The Minister has an opportunity to change that. There is nothing to prevent an unsafe badly fitted tow bar from being used. As I have already said, at the MOT stage, tow bars have to be seriously unsafe for them to be considered a failure.
I welcome the Minister’s comments on this, but hope he is able to give serious consideration to including the amendments, particularly amendment (a) to new clause 1 as the Bill moves forward.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I will be brief. I want to put on record a tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Bristol South. When somebody gets elected and spends a lot of time in this place, they want to be able to say that they have made a difference. After three years of campaigning, the hon. Lady has been able to include in this Bill clauses that could make the difference, and obviously in the future they might lead to further regulations and a further enhancement of road safety, which would be for the benefit of us all. I thank her for her work, and commend the Minister and Government for an unusual approach—they actually worked with the hon. Lady to get to this point and to further improve the legislation.
My one “but” would be about the tow bar amendments. We have heard some fantastic examples of the risk and the potential weak point in the system—how tow bars are fitted and the subsequent maintenance work required. Hopefully the Minister will reflect on what he has heard, particularly the statistic that there is a 91% inspection fail rate, which should cause alarm bells to ring.
I congratulate both the hon. Lady and the Minister, but the Government must still consider those other aspects.
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to all colleagues for the very thoughtful and intelligent contributions they have made. I will pick up on each of the issues they have raised.
Perhaps I can start with the hon. Member for Bristol South who, in many ways, is the mother of these amendments. Her point about the importance of affecting driver behaviour and driver education has also been made separately and forcibly to me by the hon. Members for Rotherham and for York Central—it is very important and well understood. In due course, there may well be a case for extending our road safety communications more widely. As the hon. Member for Bristol South will know, we are effective in many ways on road safety education, but it is important that we cover all aspects, so I am grateful to her for that comment.
The hon. Lady asked whether the trailer safety report will fall away. The answer is that it will not. That is because I hope and suspect that the Bill will be enacted—with the support of the Opposition, it certainly will be—and even if it is not enacted, the Government have made a commitment to produce a report according to the standards we have outlined.
Let me pick up on a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. Of course, it is an offence to use a trailer on the road that is not roadworthy or that is in an unfit condition. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight, as several Members have, the 91% figure found on the assessment. Without getting too philosophical—the House will know my background in this area—there is a difference between data and evidence, and small numbers of data. We need a more comprehensive view. When we have one, we can legislate if we need to with certainty. If we need to regulate, we can do so with all the comfort and assurance that we would need.
Sarah Champion
I completely agree with the Minister, but capturing illegal, un-roadworthy vehicles tends to happen when things go wrong. The likelihood of the police stopping someone unless one of their trailer lights are out is incredibly slender. It is more about prevention and having a register. Regular checks would enable us in most cases—something could go wrong the day after the test—to guarantee more likelihood of compliance.
Jesse Norman
One great benefit of the Bill is that it has brought into the foreground a set of issues. It is the beginning of a conversation and a process of reflection that the Government need to have, and it will go well beyond the Bill itself. One can imagine what the different elements of that would be. The first might be education and public awareness, the next stage might be specific intervention, and so on all the way up the tree. I would not rule any of that out—it is just a matter of understanding the basis on which we operate.
In a way, it is a cautionary tale. The hon. Member for York Central mentioned tyre safety, which is another serious issue. She will know that Frances Molloy has campaigned in a very admirable way, having had a bereavement that was just as devastating in its own way as that of Donna and Scott Hussey. The view she has taken is that all tyres over 10 years old should be banned. In fact, in answer to her original campaign, the Department set out in guidance that no tyre aged over 10 years old should be fitted to the front steering axle of a bus. The effect has been remarkable and transformative in that we have seen very little infringement. We have tried on two previous occasions to commission what we considered to be an evidentially robust means of investigation. I am pleased to say that, after several years of trying and failing, we now have a process in mind. That is an example of how one can do an awful lot in advance as part of the process of evidence-gathering—that is what we are trying to do in the context of the Bill.
Rachael Maskell
I concur with the Minister on the need for good inspection regimes, whether that is applied to tyre safety, tow bars or trailers. Will he therefore look at what the tow bar industry is doing with regard to the free inspections it is offering the public? Perhaps the Government should support that while looking at the wider issue of trailer safety.
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that. At the trailer summit, I had a chance to talk to the people running the programme, but there is no doubt that we can do more.
The hon. Lady rightly mentioned a range of issues that might have a bearing on this—design fault, operator misuse or the safety of the equipment. All those factors need to be included in the comprehensive consideration I have described. I have said that we expect that to include more data and sources. The vehicle defect category may offer more scope for enlargement if we want to gather more data. She has rightly stressed having an open mind, which is very much what I bring.
We want to involve an expert consideration with stakeholders as part of our reflection. I have found that enormously helpful in other aspects of my portfolio—walking, cycling or road safety—but it is an integral part of the discussion. When we are trying to bring an amorphous body of data under control, it is important to include case studies, which we can do. I hope therefore that what we achieve will be genuinely rich and satisfying, and provide the basis for proper further consideration and, if necessary, action.
Amendment 3 agreed to.
The Chair
For the sake of clarity, although we have just debated new clause 1 and the various amendments tabled to that new clause, we have not yet reached a decision on those matters. That point will come when all the Bill’s clauses have been discussed, shortly before we conclude our consideration of the whole Bill. Either my co-chairman or I will call that matter for decision at that point.
Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Inspections and information
Jesse Norman
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 14, page 9, line 31, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
This amendment removes provision which is replaced by NC1 and NC2.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 5 and 6.
Government new clause 2—Trailer safety: testing regulations.
Jesse Norman
Under amendment 4, the provisions related to testing of trailers, should that be recommended within the report, will be withdrawn to be replaced in full through an alternative approach. As with earlier amendments, amendment 4 will ensure that the intention of the amendments made in the other place may be fully delivered. New clause 2 creates powers for extending the testing of trailers. If the report so recommends, that would be achieved by amending part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to extend existing regimes to apply to all trailers weighing over 750 kg.
It is important to be clear that the original Lords amendment had the defect that it would have created a free-standing testing regime alongside existing powers in the Road Traffic Act that apply to other vehicles. That is why we adopted this approach. Under our amendments, regulations may not be made before the report on trailer safety has been laid before Parliament, so that there can be full consideration.
Rachael Maskell
The Opposition welcome new clause 2 and believe that good progress is being made in addressing vital safety issues. New clause 1 addresses reporting and understanding the evidence, and new clause 2 concerns the application of what happens next, so in some ways it is the most significant part of the Bill. As I have indicated, we want to ensure that significant steps are taken to improve trailer safety and that a solid inspection regime is put in place.
Clearly, we will want to see an initial report on the evidence gathered as a result of new clause 1 to know how best to proceed, and I believe that new clause 2 will enable that to happen. However, we will need to ensure that there is then proportionate follow-up action that provides public safety first and foremost. We want an opportunity for regular inspection, but that action should feed into trailer design to ensure that products on the market are safe and of the highest standard, that trailers are used safely, and that we learn from evidence.
Let me raise one further point. We have talked about British trailers, but obviously people from other countries use our roads. I wonder how an inspection regime will impact them and ensure that the highest standards are achieved across our roads and that safety is upheld at all times.
Sarah Champion
I have a series of questions for the Minister, rather than a speech. Could he give clarity on who is responsible for the periodic testing of trailers and the resources? Will he consider including tow bars or tow hitches in new clause 2, subsection (1), which states:
“Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers”?
I have to apologise—I thought consideration of the Bill would last for four more sittings. Otherwise, I would have tabled amendments to that effect. It would be gracious of the Minister to comment on that.
Jesse Norman
I am very grateful to colleagues. If a testing regime is to be introduced, the Department will decide what the best way of doing that is. I anticipate that it would be done through an extension of work that has already been commissioned by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and other relevant authorities.
Foreign trailers on our roads will be expected to obey the laws of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the same way that any other trailer would. They will be subject to the applicable law. I want to be sure that I have caught the question that the hon. Member for York Central raised.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the Minister. We are looking not just at the trailers we produce ourselves, but at the use of trailers no matter where they come from. Depending on which jurisdiction they enter our roads from, they could carry risk. If tow bars are not fitted correctly, if the attachment is not locked down, or if the driver is driving carelessly, they pose a risk to the British public. How will the Minister respond to that?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying the point. The answer is, of course, that laws will apply to those trailers just as they would to domestic trailers. However, she rightly raises a wider point. Whether there is a difference in the assessment of trailers brought in from other countries—they may be subject to different regulatory rules—could well be considered in the wider trailer safety report. The report could also consider whether EU standards, or those of other countries, are doing the job we expect them to do. Hopefully that covers all the questions.
Sarah Champion
Would the Minister consider adding inspection of tow bars and tow hitches as the Bill progresses?
Jesse Norman
I cannot take that as a formal amendment, but I will certainly give the matter consideration.
Amendment 4 agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 15 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 23
Regulations
Amendment made: 5, in clause 23, page 13, line 35, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) A statutory instrument containing any of the following (with or without other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—
(a) the first regulations under section 1;
(b) the first regulations under section 2;
(c) the first regulations under section 13;
(d) the first regulations under section 18;
(e) the first regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations);
(f) other regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) which amend an Act.”—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment requires the first regulations for periodic testing of trailers (see NC2), and any later regulations which amend an Act, to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Clause 23, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Extent
Amendment made: 6, in clause 24, page 14, line 8, leave out “Section 11 extends” and insert—
“Sections 11, (Trailer safety: report) and (Trailer safety: testing regulations) extend”.—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment provides that the new clauses about trailer safety (see NC1 and NC2) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Commencement and transitional provision
Rachael Maskell
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 25, page 14, line 16, at end insert—
“(1) Where as an outcome of the negotiations relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, the United Kingdom remains in the European Union’s Community Licence regime, sections 1, 2 and 3 will cease to have effect.”.
This amendment would mean that the powers set out in section 1, 2 or 3 would not be available to the Secretary of State where the UK remains in the European Union’s Community Licence Regime.
We have made excellent progress on the Bill this afternoon. In tabling this amendment, Labour was seeking assurances about what we do should we find that the legislation is not necessary. We believe that inserting a sunset clause would be a helpful way of tidying up that element of business. As we have learned from today’s debate, there are still a huge number of uncertainties about the future management of the Bill in the light of the negotiations taking place about the future, not least in relation to the community licensing scheme, which we trust that the Government will seek to be a part of as we move forward. In the light of our discussions and the greater clarity from the Minister today, we will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Short title
The Chair
We now come to Government amendment 14 to clause 26. The amendment is starred on the amendment paper as it was not tabled with the usual notice to be called today. I have, however, selected it for the convenience of the Committee.
Amendment made: 14, in clause 26, page 14, line 25, leave out subsection (2).—(Jesse Norman.)
This amendment removes the “privilege amendment” inserted by the Lords.
Clause 26, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Trailer safety: report
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the number and causes of road traffic accidents occurring in England, Wales or Scotland during the reporting period which—
(a) involved trailers, and
(b) caused injury or death to any person.
(2) The report must contain an assessment of whether— The report must be laid before Parliament within the period of one year beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.
(a) regulations under section13 should provide for the compulsory registration of relevant trailers;
(b) regulations under section (Trailer safety: testing regulations) should be made.
(3) In this section—
“relevant trailers” means trailers which are kept or used on roads and—
(a) if constructed or adapted to carry a load, weigh more than 750 kilograms when laden with the heaviest such load;
(b) otherwise, weigh more than 750 kilograms;
“reporting period” means a period determined by the Secretary of State, which must be a continuous period of at least 12 months ending no earlier than 18 months before the day on which this section comes into force.”.—(Jesse Norman.)
This new clause requires a report on road traffic accidents involving trailers to be laid before Parliament, including a recommendation as to whether compulsory registration or periodic testing of trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms should be introduced. This amendment would amend NC1(a) to ensure that the report contains an assessment of compliance of existing provisions relating to the installation of tow bars.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 2
Trailer safety: testing regulations
“(1) Regulations may provide for periodic testing of the construction, condition or safety of relevant trailers.
(2) The regulations may amend provision made by or under Part 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(3) The regulations may, in making consequential or other provision as mentioned in section 23(1)(a), amend any Act (whenever passed or made).
(4) No regulations under this section may be made before the report is laid before Parliament under section (Trailer safety: report).
(5) In this section, “relevant trailers” has the meaning given by section (Trailer safety: report)(4).”—(Jesse Norman.)
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to introduce a system of periodic testing for trailers weighing more than 750 kilograms.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
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
UK Automotive Industry: Job Losses
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Before I call Matt Western to move the motion, it might help Members to know that, at 11.30 today, the Division bells will ring and there will be a minute’s silence.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered job losses in the UK automotive industry.
I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate. I also thank you in advance for your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
“Precipitous” is not a word used very often; when it is said by the chief executive of a major global automotive manufacturer, it is time to listen. Why? Because such utterances from major industrialists are rare; such people prefer to keep out of the headlines and to get on with the day-to-day of running multibillion-pound organisations that employ hundreds of thousands of people.
In the UK, the automotive industry has been one of the great success stories since the financial crash of 2007-08. In the two decades before that crisis, the industry’s economic output was broadly flat, before it dropped sharply in 2009. Since then, we have been fortunate to witness a renaissance in this major industry, which was seriously damaged by the crash, but which managed to sustain itself, with some Government intervention, through that difficult period. In 2017, in real terms, the motor manufacturing industry was worth 25% more than in 2007, although growth appears to have levelled off in the last year. In 2007 motor vehicle manufacturing accounted for 5.4% of total UK manufacturing, but in 2017 it accounted for 8.1%—a 50% increase in its overall importance. That was the result of significant inward investment from all resident vehicle manufacturers and component suppliers. The industry has contributed to almost 10 consecutive years of steady growth. Just as importantly, that has translated into a 29% increase in direct manufacturing employment in the sector.
The headwinds are strong and many. As the industry meets the challenges of transitioning to cleaner fuels and to a super-low-carbon future, it has been disrupted by the uncertainty of Brexit and a Government policy that penalises the cleaner diesel-powered vehicles. It is one of the great paradoxes in business that, in seeking to improve air quality, the Government have managed the reverse the progress achieved over many years to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
In my maiden speech last year, I stated that there were rising pressures on the industry and that action was needed to maintain its recent success. I warned of the slowdown, with falling sales, and that the industry represented an economic bellwether. It has become increasingly clear that, from trucks to cars, sales are falling as people decide not to replace their vehicles.
I have repeated those calls in many subsequent debates, and there have been many in recent months, including those held by my hon. Friends the Members for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). Both of their debates reflected the rising concern about the real, clear and present danger to the sector, and sought the attention of the Government so that they would act.
That danger has become very real since the autumn, with the announcement of job losses all over the UK. To date, 2,000 jobs have been lost among car manufacturers, and planned increases in staff recruitment have been put on hold. More widely, when the component suppliers and related sectors are taken into account, it is estimated that between 8,000 and 12,000 jobs at least have been lost in just eight months.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting this crucial debate. Given the numbers that he mentions, does he think we ought to return to the subject of the last debate we had here—business rates? The car industry needs a shot in the arm; is it not time that the Government gave it one?
Matt Western
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The business rates situation handicaps the industry in this country and puts it at a significant disadvantage to competitors on the continent. Added to that are the energy costs that it faces: on average, there is a 74% premium on the energy costs on the continent.
Major manufacturers have told me that their greatest concern is that there seems to be little concern from the Government. It is disheartening that this apparent lack of interest flies in the face of the industry’s importance to our overall economy. The financial services sector is held up as the great driver of UK national wealth, but it is worth remembering the increasingly important contribution of the UK motor vehicle manufacturing industry. According to the Library, it generated £15.2 billion of value to the economy in 2017, which is 0.8% of total output. More relevantly, it represents 8% of manufacturing output. Likewise, it employed 162,000 people across the UK in 2016, equating to 1% of all UK employees.
In UK manufacturing, the automotive industry is the second most investment-intensive sector for total investment as a proportion of gross value added, although it is top in value terms, investing £3.6 billion in 2015. The west midlands has the largest number of people employed in the manufacture of vehicles in any UK region or country—perhaps that is why this subject is so close to my heart. The 54,000 employees in our region represent around a third of all motor industry employees in the UK.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this timely debate. Not only are there direct employees, but for every direct employee there are probably two or three indirect employees—we are talking about the supply chain. There could be a massive effect if the problem is not handled properly. We need a transitional period, with electrification on the one hand and diesel on the other hand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and I met the trade unions about this issue some months ago, and there is a lot of concern that it could affect jobs. With business rates, the Government are shifting expenditure away from proper funding through the taxpayer to local government. That creates a major problem for local government and for the efficiency of these industries.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. He is quite right about the multiplier effect on supplier industries—component manufacturers and so on. I totally agree with him about the importance of establishing a very clear pathway for the transition between where we are and where we have set ourselves to be in future. I will speak about that at some length.
The employment statistics are significant by anyone’s measure. The concern voiced by the industry is that direction is needed from policymakers, in particular with regard to Brexit and the UK’s future trading relationships, as well as to support for the transition to clean fuels. Without that clarity, it is inevitable that investment decisions will be placed on hold.
People will cite recent announcements at Luton and elsewhere as great news about the future of the industry, but many of us will understand that those sorts of decisions are taken many years in advance—those were taken way before the EU referendum. Without clarity, there will be a recruitment freeze or job losses, as we have seen. One example of the recruitment freeze is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham, where Dagenham has recently announced that it will have to put on hold 150 planned jobs.
Just over a year ago, in March 2017, Lloyds bank conducted a survey of the UK automotive manufacturing sector. It summarised that the vast majority—some 87%—of automotive manufacturers planned to create new jobs in the next two years. It estimated that, if those plans were replicated across all the UK’s automotive firms, a further 85,000 new jobs would be created. What a difference a year makes.
In the context of Brexit, there are concerns that there may be job losses in the industry in the long term. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee conducted an inquiry into the impact of Brexit on the industry and stated that, should the UK leave the customs union and single market, hundreds of thousands of jobs could be lost. It reported that
“it is difficult to see how it would make economic sense for multinational volume manufacturers—the bulk of the UK automotive sector—to base production in the UK in a no deal or WTO tariff scenario. The shift of manufacturing to countries within the customs union and single market would be inevitable; the cost in UK jobs could be in the hundreds of thousands, and inward investment in the hundreds of millions. For the automotive sector, no deal would undoubtedly be hugely damaging. The Government should not seriously contemplate this outcome.”
Carlos Tavares, the chief executive of the PSA Group, which manufacturers Peugeot and Citroën vehicles, said:
“We cannot invest in a world of uncertainty. No one is going to make huge investments without knowing what will be the final competitiveness of the Brexit outcome.”
That sentiment was echoed by others, including the chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover, Dr Ralf Speth, who said:
“Uncertainty is really challenging us very much and not only us, it’s for the complete industry. You hardly see inward investment any more.”
Perhaps that should come as no surprise. Some have explained that job losses in manufacturing are an inevitability, and that we should embrace the loss of manufacturing in the post-Brexit era. One such voice is that of Professor Minford of Cardiff Business School, who has advocated “running down” the UK auto industry. In evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee in 2012, he said:
“It is perfectly true that if you remove protection of the sort that has been given particularly to the car industry and other manufacturing industries inside the protective wall, you will have a change in the situation facing that industry, and you are going to have to run it down. It will be in your interests to do it, just as in the same way we ran down the coal and steel industries. These things happen as evolution takes place in your economy.”
He echoed that statement in The Sun ahead of the EU referendum, writing:
“Over time, if we left the EU, it seems likely that we would mostly eliminate manufacturing, leaving mainly industries such as design, marketing and hi-tech. But this shouldn’t scare us.”
Well, I am afraid it scares me, and I think it scares many of us—for good reason.
A while back, the BEIS Committee stated that
“it is difficult to see how it would make economic sense for multinational volume manufacturers—the bulk of the UK automotive sector—to base production in the UK…The shift of manufacturing to countries within the customs union and single market would be inevitable”,
and it would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, as I said. The Committee concluded:
“Overall, no-one has argued there are advantages to be gained from Brexit for the automotive industry for the foreseeable future. We urge the Government to acknowledge this and to pursue an exercise in damage limitation in the negotiations. This involves retaining as close as possible a relationship with the existing EU regulatory and trading framework in order to give volume car manufacturing a realistic chance of surviving in this country.”
The Committee is not alone in voicing its fears. The automotive industry’s trade body, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, stated:
“There is no escaping the fact that being out of the customs union and single market will inevitably add barriers to trade, increase red tape and cost. Settling for ‘good’ access to each other’s markets is not enough as it will only damage the UK’s competitiveness and reduce our ability to attract investment and the high quality jobs that go with it.”
It is worth noting that in 2017, 86% of the UK’s imports came from the EU, while only 41% of the UK’s exports went to the EU.
Many say that the UK runs a widening trade surplus in motor vehicles with non-EU countries and a widening trade deficit with EU countries, and that leaving the EU and the customs union is therefore a positive thing. That is true, but the industry has responded by using its strength through the renaissance that I mentioned to reduce that deficit considerably. Importantly, the industry shows a determination to grow in other markets—it seeks to retain its strong position in Europe, but want to build elsewhere too. Other countries’ domestic manufacturers are doing that, and we can do so too. It is not a choice between one and the other—they are complementary.
Our remaining in a customs union is critical to the sector’s future. We must avoid at all costs losing tariff-free access to the EU. In the worst-case scenario, under World Trade Organisation rules, a 10% tariff on finished vehicles and a 2.5% to 4.5% tariff on components would be introduced. Those tariff rates would cost the automotive sector at least £2.7 billion on imports and £1.8 billion on exports. Just imagine what would happen to the sticker price of vehicles in this country.
Ford has stated that rules of origin would “add a significant cost” to its business if UK-manufactured products were no longer considered to have originated in the EU. Similarly, Vauxhall has stated that any rules of origin changes
“will have a drastic impact on UK trade with any countries outside the EU”.
It is critical that a future UK-EU trade deal includes provision for full bilateral cumulation, which would ensure that components produced in the EU were considered local UK content for the purpose of rules of origin, and that the automotive sector was able to benefit from preferential trading relationships established with not only the EU but third countries.
It is worth noting that the majority of Ford’s Bridgend output goes to the EU. Without a comprehensive UK-EU free trade agreement, engines sent to European assembly plants would attract a 4.5% tariff, increasing the cost to the consumer. In an industry where margins are wafer-thin, that sort of tariff may cause significant damage to the sector. The SMMT’s position is clear. It has stated:
“Should the UK and the EU no longer have a customs union arrangement, UK businesses exporting to EU27 countries would need to submit information about the origin of the product, the destination country, relevant commodity codes, Customs Procedure Codes, product value, a unique consignment number, as well as relevant safety and security information. This would represent a significant increase in bureaucracy, and undermine the competitiveness of British business. Compliance with these new requirements would be particularly challenging for SMEs that make over 90% of the automotive supply chain.”
The components industry and the highly integrated supply chain are crucial to this debate. Currently, an estimated 1,100 trucks from the European Union deliver components worth £35 million to UK car engine plants every day. The movement of those vehicles and the timeliness of their departure and arrival is crucial—every minute counts. However, about 78,000 people are employed in the supply chain here in the UK, supplying not just the UK but Europe. The sector is highly integrated with the rest of Europe in the case of both finished cars and component parts. For instance, the UK imported just under £14 billion of vehicle engines and other components in 2017, 79% of which came from the EU. Some may ask, “Why can’t we transfer more of that back to the UK?” The complication is in scale, the strength of businesses and where they need to be located, and the geography of supply.
The manufacturers’ trade body, and the automotive trade body, the SMMT, have both called on the Government to protect that close integration. The financial reality of the chain’s fragility is underlined by the fact that some manufacturers face costs of up to £1 million an hour if production is stopped due to a delay in the supply of components to the assembly line. The SMMT estimates that a 15-minute delay to parts delivered just in time can cost manufacturers just under £1 million a year.
Let me give two examples. The manufacture of a single Delphi fuel injector takes more than 35 components, requiring 100 processes, and the elements for that come from 15 countries. The injector goes through 39 UK-EU border crossings and five UK-customs union border crossings. Another example is the Mini crankshaft, which crosses the channel three times in a 2,000 mile journey before a finished car rolls off the production line. The casting is made in France before being transferred to Hams Hall back in the midlands, where it is crafted into shape. Those pieces are then sent to Munich and inserted into an engine, which is then sent to Mini’s plant in Oxford, where it is installed in a car.
Related to all of that is the importance of type approvals, a much overlooked area that can add significant cost. One engine supplier—I will not mention its name—has estimated that, if we do not have harmonisation with Europe, it will cost between £300,000 and £500,000 per vehicle certification. In fact, the CBI noted that the two areas where convergence with the EU is of the greatest importance are the rules that determine how and by whom vehicles can be approved as safe for the road, and the Vehicle Certification Agency maintaining its ability to approve vehicles for the European market. It also mentioned maintaining pan-European rules on carbon dioxide and other air pollutants to ensure that international targets on clean air and climate change are met.
That brings me to diesel. In the early 2000s, the drive to achieve climate change goals led to the rapid uptake of diesel: from 17% of the total car market, it grew to 50% in just eight years. The manufacturers responded. Ford set up its Dagenham diesel centre, which I think employs 3,000 staff and provides for 50% of all of its global diesel production. Then came the Volkswagen dieselgate scandal and subsequently the demonisation of diesel, which has led to a 33% drop in diesel sales so far this year. Once more, manufacturers have sought to respond where they have seen a lack of leadership, in this case perhaps from policy makers. Ford introduced a diesel scrappage scheme, as certain other manufacturers have done, and since September it has taken 21,000 vehicles off the road. The programme has been so successful that it was extended beyond December, when it was due to close, and is still running.
A tax on diesel was announced in the November 2017 Budget, with an increase in vehicle excise duty by one band and on benefit in kind by an additional 1% for all diesel vehicles. Some would say that that is kicking an industry when it is already struggling. The taxing of vehicles based on such a legislative standard has yet to be finalised or introduced by the EU; it is unprecedented and unrealistic. I suggest that the measure is counter- productive and merely makes worse the problem it seeks to solve. People are holding off buying new diesel vehicles and keeping on using older, polluting vehicles. Of course, the reduction in—or lack of—support for the diesel industry does not take into account the many hundreds of millions of pounds that it has already invested in manufacture, responding to the Government’s policy direction of five to 10 years ago.
Today’s diesels are the cleanest yet, having the same nitrous oxide and particulate emissions as petrol and 20% lower CO2 emissions. To put it into context, it would take at least six of today’s new diesel cars to emit the same nitrous oxides as one vehicle put on the road just two years ago. The focus should therefore be on getting older vehicles off the road, not on penalising customers who wish to buy newer, cleaner diesels. Of course, the swing to petrol means a collective failure to meet our carbon dioxide targets. Hon. Members will know that we are now seeing an uptick in carbon dioxide emissions for the first time in 15 years.
We see challenging issues in our deliberations over Brexit and the trading arrangements we face. That is best exemplified by the profound challenges faced by the automotive industry, one of our most successful industries. The industry has seen a renaissance, which was seriously damaged by the global financial crash, but it managed to sustain itself, and since then we have seen huge inward investment by various manufacturers, which has contributed to a 50% increase in manufacturing share, almost 10 years of steady growth and a consequent almost 30% increase in direct manufacturing employment in the sector, notwithstanding the growth in component suppliers.
The industry also faces the challenge of transitioning to cleaner fuels and a super-low-carbon future, and that is being disrupted by the uncertainty of Brexit and Government policy that seeks to penalise cleaner diesel-powered vehicles. It is currently one of the great paradoxes that, in seeking to improve air quality, the Government have managed to reverse the progress achieved over many years in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. As Mike Hawes, the chief executive of the SMMT, put it:
“The industry shares Government’s vision of a low-carbon future and is investing to get us there, but we can’t do it overnight; nor can we do it alone. The anti-diesel agenda has set back progress on climate change, while electric vehicle demand remains disappointingly low amid consumer concerns around charging infrastructure availability and affordability.
To accelerate fleet renewal, motorists must have the confidence to invest in the cleanest cars for their needs, however they are powered. A consistent approach to incentives and tax and greater investment in charging infrastructure will be critical. Now more than ever, we need a strategy that allows manufacturers time to invest, innovate and sell competitively, and which gives consumers every incentive to adapt.”
That is all the industry seeks: a controlled, orderly, managed transition from one system to the other. Regarding Brexit, it simply wants both clarity and certainty urgently.
Many are calling on the Government to act now to reduce the effects of diesel taxation on the newest, cleanest diesel vehicles and amend the carbon dioxide bands to reduce the impact of new emissions standards on consumer vehicle excise duty. Failure to do so will threaten the future success and sustainability of businesses and the significant contribution that the sector makes to jobs and the UK economy. The orderly, managed transition I described is essential to enable the manufacturers to use their revenues today to invest in our tomorrow. Without that support, the sector could be seriously damaged in its need to compete with the likes of China who have the scale and state backing to invest in newer technologies.
We have grown used to having a successful industry that contributes greatly not just to our international trade but to our global manufacturing prestige. We would be fools not to support it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. The winding-up speeches must start at 10.30 am, and 10 Back Benchers are trying to catch my eye. It is easy to work out: roughly three minutes each, please.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for securing this important debate.
Job losses in the automotive industry are of great concern to everybody, particularly to those of us with car manufacturers in our constituencies. My constituency, Chichester, is home to Rolls-Royce, which is the single largest employer and employs more than 1,700 people in highly skilled, well-paid jobs. Nationally, the automotive industry provides 814,000 jobs, with an annual turnover of £77.5 billion—more than 8% of the UK’s manufacturing output. The car manufacturing industry is of great importance not just to Chichester, but to the whole country.
I began my working life in a car factory in Liverpool where I worked for seven years. When I first started work, the industry was introducing a supply chain mechanism called just-in-time. First developed in Japan, just-in-time manufacturing would revolutionise the industry and make UK car manufacturing competitive and able to compete effectively with the rest of the world. However, just-in-time manufacturing is logistically complex: components arrive from suppliers based all over the world on the same day that they are to be assembled into a car or a sub-assembly, thereby avoiding the need to store large quantities of inventory that add to overhead costs.
Over decades the automotive industry has created a highly integrated and fast-paced supply chain, and that has been facilitated in Europe through the free movement of goods within the customs union. A car comprised of parts from throughout Europe will be assembled in around 20 days from start to finish, but not a screw will have been made before those 20 days. A network of suppliers based all over the world will be involved, and parts will sometimes cross borders several times before becoming a sub-assembly that is ready for final production. To put that in context, a crankshaft in a car manufactured in the UK will cross the English channel four times before being assembled into the final car.
The success of the supply chain network depends on many parts moving in a frictionless fashion. Imagine the effect that even a small delay at customs will have. I am probably one of the few Members of Parliament who have spent days sitting in customs, desperately waiting for parts to be released, to dash them back to a car factory where a line of workers are sitting eagerly waiting for work. Stopping a line in the manufacturing business is a disaster—it means all the cost, none of the production, and a knock-on delay for other plant production in future. To say it is a costly experience is an understatement.
Such delays make car manufacturing uncompetitive and would certainly lead to job losses. Car manufacturers will not risk that happening, and instead they will have to build warehouses to house stock. That will effectively set the industry back years, sending it back to the 1980s. What effect will that have on our roads? Lorries currently pass through customs in under two minutes, but if that time is doubled, it will have a huge impact on our ports and the surrounding roads. We must be innovative when we implement new customs arrangements and utilise technology to ensure there are no hold-ups at crossing points. I am pleased that the Government are aiming to ensure that crossing points are as frictionless as possible, but we must ensure we get it right.
The size of the UK’s car manufacturing industry is impressive, but we cannot take it for granted. Every new model is highly competitive, because a number of car plants located around the world will have similar capabilities but different labour rates and market conditions. As we leave the EU, the UK must remain competitive because increasing pull factors to other locations will seek to draw investment away from our shores. Thus far the industry has shown its support by investing further in the UK, and since 2010, jobs in car companies have increased by nearly 30%. If we continue to prioritise friction-free customs arrangements and continued close co-operation with the EU on rules of origin, harmonised standards and type approvals, I am optimistic that the automotive industry will continue to thrive and grow.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this debate. I fully support his goal of highlighting the need to support the car manufacturing industry, since it props up so many local economies in many ways.
The manufacturing base across the entire United Kingdom is important, but it is particularly important in Northern Ireland because of Bombardier, which employs some 4,000 people in the manufacture of aeroplanes. Bombardier is an essential primary and secondary employer in my constituency, as well as in neighbouring constituencies. It represents about 10% of our total exports and 40% of direct manufacturing jobs in Belfast, and its impact on wider manufacturing and the supply chain is felt across Northern Ireland. Investment in Bombardier is an investment not simply in job security but in local spending power. The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech, and we understand it only too well.
County Antrim, which borders my constituency, is home to Wrightbus, which is a world-class bus manufacturer. It is increasingly recognised as one of Europe’s leading providers of passenger transport solutions, having established a reputation built on a foundation of high-quality design and world-class engineering. Many of the buses in London today come from Wrightbus in North Antrim, and people can enjoy their very good finish. The company offers the largest portfolio of vehicles in the UK, covering midi, maxi, full-size, double-deck, articulated and hybrid-electric categories—no one would have thought there were so many kinds of buses, but there are. The widest range of chassis has elevated Wrightbus to being the largest independent manufacturer in the United Kingdom. I have done my duty to my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) by highlighting that tremendous manufacturer in his constituency and the jobs that it creates, not only in North Antrim but across Northern Ireland because people travel to take advantage of those jobs.
The importance of such industries to the Northern Ireland economy cannot be overstated. Indeed, the manufacturing industry—with special reference to the motor manufacturing industry—was worth 25% more in 2017 than it was in 2007, although growth appears to have levelled off in the past year. According to Library papers, the UK motor vehicle manufacturing industry contributed £15.2 billion to the economy in 2017. That was 0.8% of total output, and 8.1% of manufacturing output—those are very important figures—and it employed 162,000 people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I am conscious of the time, Mr Bone, and I want to ensure that other Members get to speak. In conclusion, therefore, there is capacity for more growth, but we have to speculate to accumulate. The industry needs support to thrive and—much like our industry at home—the dividend to the local economy is incredibly valuable. It is not enough to wait until the industry is on its knees; we must invest and support, and ensure that skills are taught for long-term survival. Most importantly, we must ensure in the post-Brexit era that we facilitate the industry to thrive globally. That can be done only by working in partnership and by doing all we can to help the industry foresee and meet the needs of a growing global market.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for securing this worthy debate on an issue that I know is important to his constituents. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group for fair fuel for UK motorists and UK hauliers.
The British automotive industry has been the cornerstone of our economy and engineering sector for decades, yet it has known hardship in previous years. In 2000, the amount added to the economy by the motoring industry stood at £9.2 billion, but following the global economic recession, production slowed to £5.9 billion. Despite that, I am delighted to note that last year £15.2 billion was added to the economy by car manufacturing, and the number of those employed in that sector has also seen sustained growth.
Since 2010, employment has risen by nearly 30%, from 126,000 to 162,000 jobs. To put that in perspective, those involved in automotive construction account for approximately 8.1% of all manufacturing jobs in the UK, and according to recent research by Lloyds bank, there is potential for that figure to rise even further. The UK Government are keen to see similar progress on the environment and engagement with alternative fuels, which is one of the most pressing topics facing car manufacturers. As set out in our manifesto, we want a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040, with the majority of cars and vans on the road in 2050 producing zero emissions. Although that is a considerable step, that commitment does not mean that we are turning our back on existing firms or on what has been achieved in the past. Instead, we wish to work with those organisations and guide them towards new and emerging technological avenues. I am sure all Members will agree on the vital need for such a change for the sake of the environment, but it would be wrong to present it as instantaneous.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy made the point recently:
“There’s a place for diesel vehicles and will be for some time to come.”
I hope the Minister will clarify that that means we can do more to improve environmental standards with respect to diesel and electric cars and that we will produce new systems that will have a starkly different impact on the environment but will still be familiar and accommodate the specific wishes of the user. The need for clarity on the issue is paramount. We have already seen the detrimental impact of the demonisation of certain sectors in favour of others. What follows is a loss of confidence, a decline in production and the loss of jobs. As we move forward, it must be clear that different fuels are supported equally in the UK. Only by promoting a nuanced manufacturing industry that prioritises development over exclusion will it be possible to encourage further foreign investment and allow the industry to thrive.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this debate on a sector that is so important to the city that I represent and the wider region. The automotive industry is at the heart of my home town of Coventry. The British motor industry was born there—the names originating there include Jaguar, Rover, Triumph and Armstrong Siddeley. The first ever British car was built in Coventry more than 120 years ago. The industry gave Coventry people much needed prosperity, and my city thrived because of that.
Coventry now boasts two world-class universities specialising in automation: Coventry University and the University of Warwick, with its Warwick Manufacturing Group. Coventry University is home to the National Transport Design Centre. The National Automotive Innovation Centre, a partnership between Jaguar Land Rover, Tata Motors European Technical Centre, WMG and the University of Warwick, is set to open this summer. It will be the largest automotive R&D facility in Europe and shows a commitment by the university and industry giants to continue Coventry’s history as the UK’s motor city. Jaguar Land Rover is now firmly entrenched in the makeup of the city, with the firm’s headquarters at Whitley. Recently JLR even declared its intention to make Coventry the heart of its large-scale battery and electric vehicle production plans. JLR brings jobs and security to my city, as it does for the wider west midlands. Its success and Coventry’s fortunes are inextricably tied.
With those things in mind, I share my hon. Friend’s desire to protect the UK automotive industry at all costs. The UK’s departure from the EU presents new challenges to the sector, which Jaguar Land Rover has openly stated may be detrimental to business. Uncertainty is bad for business. It is vital to offer safeguards to companies such as JLR and universities such as Coventry and Warwick to maintain the UK’s place in the industry. Yet protecting Coventry’s automotive status is vital not just for companies and universities but for employees. There have already been job losses in the west midlands, and people need guarantees, too.
I am thrilled to represent a city with a record as impressive as the one I have set out. I cannot wait to see the future developments in which Coventry will lead. I hope that the Minister will tell us the Government’s plans to help to protect the automotive industry and the jobs that it supports and to ensure that the sector thrives, in Coventry and more widely in the UK.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing the debate. As we have heard from him and other hon. Members, the car industry is of strategic national importance. I am sure the Minister has heard that message loud and clear, so I will take the opportunity to focus on the issues facing the Vauxhall car plant in my constituency, which has lost nearly half its workforce in the past 12 months.
There is virtually no one in Ellesmere Port who does not have some connection with the plant. At its height, it employed about 12,000 people, but sadly, with recent job losses it employs only around a tenth of that number now. It is still a substantial number, however, and it does not take account of the many people employed in the supply chain and associated industries—or of the potential for much greater numbers if we were to increase from single-shift production again. The plant remains a big part of the local economy. Recent job losses there have meant our going against the national trend, with unemployment in the constituency shooting up in the past few months. Every job lost is of course an individual tragedy, but my job now, and the Government’s job, is to make sure that those jobs that remain are protected and built on, because they are exactly the sort of jobs I want to see as a central component of our future: highly skilled permanent jobs in the manufacture of something that is a source of national and local pride.
Whatever our feelings about history and the pride that the plant generates, we cannot expect sentimentality from the new owner, the PSA Group, which has consistently said that each plant will be judged on its efficiency. If there is truly a level playing field, I welcome that. As we have heard, there are many things that we can do with respect to business rates and energy costs, for example, that can help. I know that the Minister has had a quite long list of the things that we would like to happen. However, one factor may make the competition unfair altogether and render all the other good work that is done academic—and that is Brexit. We have a clear message that the current uncertainty is delaying investment decisions by the parent company. Some might say that that is a ready-made excuse not to invest; but I do not want us to be in the business of providing people with excuses. I want us to be in the business of providing people with jobs. It is important to recognise that the automotive sector is one of our most vulnerable sectors, and we need to do everything possible now, as a priority, to safeguard jobs and investment. A bespoke trade deal for the automotive sector should be considered. After all, if it has been looked at for other areas, why not this one?
Vauxhall Motors has enjoyed half a century of production in Ellesmere Port. If that is taken away, a huge chunk of our identity will go with it, but it does not have to be that way. As hon. Members have said, the Government have a big challenge ahead, but I believe there are solutions, and we have heard some of them. On behalf of everyone in the constituency, I express a sincere wish that between us we can all rise to that challenge.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for securing this important debate.
As many of my colleagues will know, Nissan has a large plant in my constituency, which employs about 7,000 people directly and 28,000 in the UK supply chain. It contributes significantly to the local and national economy. Nissan recently announced job losses at the plant, which was of course hugely disappointing news. Many people will have been concerned about the announcement, but I understand from speaking to Nissan at the time that, although it was unfortunate, the decision was due to anticipated drops in demand for vehicles currently under production. Based on business projections, it is expected that making the changes will allow for increased production of newer models in the future that will therefore provide more jobs in the long term.
With the uncertainty around the diesel industry because of Brexit, the move towards electric vehicles and drops in consumer confidence after the emissions scandal, it is easy to see how any loss of jobs can be seen as part of a wider concern. The motor vehicle manufacturing industry provided 7% of all UK manufacturing jobs in 2016, and it is only right to follow any changes closely and act to prevent further losses. With those points in mind, I want to talk about the Government’s target to ban all sales of new petrol and diesel cars by 2040.
The UK is in the grip of an air pollution crisis—the Environment Secretary was talking about it this morning—with pollutants responsible for 40,000 premature deaths a year in the UK. I see two problems with the target, however. First, it is not ambitious enough to deal with the environmental issue with sufficient urgency or to ensure that the UK maintains its leadership on electric vehicles. Research shows that bringing the target forward by 10 years could nearly halve UK oil imports, support a larger number of jobs overall in the automotive sector and reduce total cumulative carbon dioxide emissions in a shorter period. Is the Minister’s Department currently considering bringing the target forward?
Secondly, I do not see how consumers are being assisted in the industry-wide move away from more polluting cars and, ultimately, towards electric vehicles. Reaching any target will require a seismic change in consumer behaviour. In 2009, the Labour Government introduced a vehicle scrappage scheme designed to help the motor industry through the recession following the global financial crisis. It was co-funded by the Government and the car industry, and 400,000 claims were submitted. If we are now to expect consumers to move away from older and more polluting diesel and petrol vehicles, often at some expense, is it not right that the Government should assist them to do so, particularly when we consider that, historically, many consumers were encouraged to purchase diesel vehicles?
I had a lot more to say, but I shall leave my remarks there, to give other Members their moment in the sun.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I start by declaring an interest; I chair the all-party parliamentary motor group, which receives support from the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Motorsport Industry Association and the RAC Foundation. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on his comprehensive tour of the challenges facing the UK’s automotive industry and his explanation of how this industry literally drives economic growth in this country.
In the short time I have available, I will focus on two areas, both of which my hon. Friend covered: first, the challenges of Brexit, and secondly the transition away from petrol and diesel production. As he said, when we have over 1,000 trucks coming in across the channel every day, delivering £35 million worth of parts to build 6,600 cars and 9,800 engines every single day, most of which then go back to the European Union by similar means, achieving frictionless trade post Brexit is vital to this industry. I simply do not see a way of doing that except by continued membership of a customs union.
My hon. Friend also mentioned regulatory alignment. Keeping the Vehicle Certification Agency’s ability to certify cars as safe for sale throughout the EU is key to the industry in this country. I ask the Minister what negotiations are going on to ensure that that is the case, and how he feels that could be achieved except through as close as possible a relationship with the single market.
On skills, a key part of the integration of the industry internationally, particularly across Europe, is the ability to transfer skills from one country to another. Frankly, the UK’s visa requirements all too often get in the way of that, but the integration is at its closest with our European partners. I ask the Minister what negotiations are going on to ensure that, post Brexit, it will still be possible to transfer those skills between the UK automotive industry and partners on the other side of the channel.
Very briefly, in relation to the transition away from petrol and diesel, there are three challenges: anxiety over the range of electric vehicles, price and infrastructure. I hope that the Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill will help to improve infrastructure, but I must say to the Minister that more needs to be done to ensure and to mandate interoperability of charge points. It makes no more sense to have differences on that than to have different domestic plugs depending on whether someone has a Dyson or a Hoover vacuum cleaner. What is being done to ensure that we can achieve on-street charging? In particular, what negotiations and what work are being undertaken to try to enable wireless charging? What are the Government doing to ensure that there is infrastructure in place not just for conventional electric vehicles, but for hydrogen-powered vehicles in the future?
My last point is on the transition. As my hon. Friend said, there is something wrong when the cleanest diesels are being hit the hardest. Of course, the UK’s air quality crisis means there must be a trend away from petrol and diesel in the future, but the real challenge is to get the oldest and most polluting diesels off our roads, and we will not do that by hitting the cleanest ones. What are the Government’s ideas for getting those older, more polluting diesels off the road? At the moment, the signals being sent out by Government are confused.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
This is a very personal debate for me, because my Ford engine plant employs over 1,760 people and has 12,000 jobs associated with it. The plant covers the equivalent of 17 rugby pitches—we view size in that way in Wales. It produces one of five different engines every 30 seconds, and those go into seven different Ford models. Leaving the customs union means that the engines sent to European assembly plants will attract a 4.5% tariff, and it will inevitably lead to increased cost to consumers and loss of sales, leading to further loss of jobs.
Those of us who watch the automotive industry are concerned about the impact of Brexit and the confusion of Government policy on clean diesel. Changing diesel sales have not translated into petrol sales, and consumers are holding on to older products—cars and vans—for longer, slowing down air improvements. The Bridgend engine plant is a great example of the complex and integrated automotive supply chain across the EU.
There are a number of things we must be absolutely clear about. The Bridgend engine plant can be counted under originated content under the EU’s rules of origin. Components flow from the EU into Bridgend, and engines flow back. That must continue unimpeded. A frictionless customs regime is essential for us. Mass producers such as the car industry, as we have already heard, need the just-in-time delivery principle. A 15-minute delay to parts delivered just in time can cost over £850,000 a year. Storage of stock just increases customer costs, as the cost knock-on to the car manufacturer is passed on to the consumer. We need zero-tariff trade; that is a minimum requirement and should form the basis of any trade deal for the future.
We have already heard reference to minimum customs costs and delay in moving goods. Regulatory alignment—a prerequisite for minimising customs delays—is crucial in preventing cumulative cost and restricted customer choice as a result of trying to meet different standards. Ford would be especially impacted by a change of type approval if the VCA certification was no longer approved in the EU, and by CO2 targets if the UK was not included post 2020 in EU-wide calculations. Preferential trade with third countries, including Ford’s trade flow with Turkey, facilitated by the EU-Turkey customs union, and with South Africa through the EU-South Africa free trade agreement, is important to the European business.
I will end by saying that Bridgend has seen the loss of jobs in steel manufacturing. Bridgend has seen the loss of jobs in coal. We do not wish to see further devastation to the constituency from the loss of jobs in the automotive trade.
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
As has been mentioned, this sector has been one of Britain’s greatest manufacturing success stories, providing thousands of jobs and a major contribution to our country’s economic growth. The story of my own constituency’s past cannot be told without an understanding of the sector, dominated by Ford’s Dagenham plant, which at its height employed some 40,000 workers. Today, Dagenham’s two engine plants produce 1 million diesel engines annually—50% of Ford’s global diesel requirement —and provide over 3,000 jobs. Some 89% of those engines are exported. The total turnover stands at £1.75 billion.
However, investment in Britain’s car industry has halved during the past two years. Brexit concerns and the demonization of diesel appear to be the two biggest challenges. The crisis of confidence in diesel vehicles and diesel technology was triggered by Volkswagen’s emissions scandal, but the upshot has been damage to not just VW but the whole sector. I am not seeking to defend older diesel engines, which, in truth, are more polluting than their petrol counterparts. However, we must bring some nuance back into the debate. All diesel technology is being tarred with the same brush, despite the fact that state-of-the-art diesel technology is a vast improvement over its predecessors.
As has been mentioned, those dirtier engines will, ironically, be kept on the road longer if consumers are misinformed about the difference between diesel technologies. It is clean-diesel technology that is being invested in in Dagenham. Ford invested £490 million in developing clean, cutting-edge diesel technology in Dagenham in 2014. This new generation of clean engines meets the Euro 6 emissions standards and satisfies Transport for London’s ultra-low emission zone. Modern Euro 6 diesel cars are the cleanest in history; they capture 99% of particulates and emit 84% fewer oxides of nitrogen than in 2000—a point worth making on the day the Government publish their new clean air strategy.
To help the Dagenham plant to transition to future technologies, we need to provide stability today and in the near future. That can be done only by supporting modern diesel technology and production, yet diesel sales have fallen 37% since last year. Unfair criticism and a misunderstanding of the technology are threatening thousands of high-quality jobs in my constituency; plans in Dagenham for 150 new jobs in 2017-18 were shelved due to falling demand. The overall lack of clarity around modern diesel compared with older diesel is also hurting the environment. In 2017, carbon tailpipe emissions rose for the first time in two decades.
My overall point is simple: the Government have a role in restoring consumer confidence in new diesel technology. They have to begin to make the case for modern diesel and for British jobs. That can and needs to be done, regardless of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I first pay tribute to the excellent presentation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western). I will speak about the human consequences of what will happen if the Government get this wrong.
Erdington is rich in talent, but is one of the poorest constituencies in the country. However, we are blessed with having the Jaguar plant in our midst. The industry has now become the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing. It has been transformed, but it is characterised by its troubled history and by tragedies. I remember working night and day back in 2005 with Tony Woodley to try to prevent the collapse of Rover, and I remember that awful Friday when the factory finally collapsed and 5,000 workers were made redundant. However, in 2009 we saw the establishment of the Automotive Council—the first great industrial strategy—and the scrappage scheme to save the industry from collapse. The basis was laid for a future to be built on.
In 2010, Tata Motors took over Jaguar Land Rover from Ford. It brought in two gifted German industrial managers, one of whom—chief executive Dr Ralf Speth—is still there to this day. We worked night and day with them to turn around a factory that was doomed to close and where there was a funereal atmosphere on the part of the workers. I will never forget that wonderful day in October 2010 when we stood outside the main gate and said that the factory that had built the Spitfire during the war and two generations of Jaguars after the war was safe for the next generation.
That transformed the lives of thousands of local workers. I will never forget Warren, who is a big bear of a man. I first met him at a jobs fair that we organised. Four years later, he was moving into a house in Edwards Road, just down from my constituency office. He called me over and told me about how he was buying this little Edwardian terraced house. He said how he had been in and out of work for 10 years before getting that apprenticeship, and was now in a job that he described as secure, well-paid work that he loved. He then turned to his partner and said, “I’m moving into the house of my dreams with the woman of my dreams.” He said that could never have happened had it not been for the success of Jaguar Land Rover.
Lives were transformed and progress was built on. I actually pay tribute to some of the things that the Government did by way of continuity of policy, such as with the Automotive Council; the focus on the industrial sector and the engine plant; the skills initiative; and investment in research and development. All of that was welcome. As a consequence, we saw the number of staff at the factory double from 1,400 when it faced closure in 2010 to 3,000, while GKN—the parts plant just up the road—increased its staff from 500 to 800. Thousands of local people were given the opportunities that Warren had.
However, we now face deep and growing difficulties. Some 1,000 workers are being laid off at the Solihull plant, while 240 workers have been transferred from the Jaguar plant to Solihull. Why? Because of the combination of utter confusion over diesel on the one hand—forgive me if I say this, but the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has grossly mishandled this situation and has sent the wrong message, having a serious impact on consumer confidence—and Brexit on the other.
I have only a short time remaining, so I will conclude. I wholeheartedly agree with the points made earlier. Hope emerges from despair. I once again see workers on production lines despairing and fearing for the future. Our fortunes are inextricably linked with those of the European Union—crucially, through the single market and the customs union. If we get it wrong over Brexit, this country will pay a very heavy price, and the people who will pay that price above all will be the workers in the automotive industry.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Before I call the spokesman for the Scottish National party, I am advised that the minute’s silence has been moved from 11.30 am to 2.30 pm.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
It is good, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing the debate. Critically, he highlighted the supply chain, which goes beyond the idea of the automotive industry and reaches every part of the industrial complex across the UK.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in their place, mentioned the issues for Northern Ireland. In Scotland in 2016, there were 4,000 employees in the industry, representing 2% of manufacturing employees in Scotland and 2.5% of all motor vehicle manufacturing employees across the UK. It continues to be an important industry, for not only employment but the economy. The industry has seen a steady increase in output since 2010. In real terms, the motor manufacturing industry was worth 25% more in 2017 than in 2007, although growth appears to have levelled off in the last year.
However, as other Members have highlighted, we need to recognise that the sector is highly integrated with the rest of Europe, in both finished cars and component parts. For instance, the UK imported £13.95 billion-worth of vehicle engines and parts in 2017, 79% of which came from the European Union. From my perspective, if the UK Government continue with their desire to leave the customs union and single market, it will have a detrimental impact on the industry and will cost jobs.
That is why the industry has called for the UK Government to change their approach to Brexit and opt to remain in the single market and customs union, to facilitate trade and investment. I hope that the UK Government listen to those calls and take action to protect the sector’s close integration with the rest of Europe as they negotiate our leaving the European Union.
As the Scottish National party spokesperson for industries of the future, I welcome the Government’s announcement of the automotive sector deal as part of the industrial strategy, as that should boost investment in emerging technology and establish leadership in meeting future mobility and clean growth challenges. However, with countries such as Estonia and Singapore at an advanced stage of preparation, and with investment in infrastructure that will allow them to take advantage of industries of the future, there is a danger that the automotive industry, and many other industries across the UK, are unprepared for the inevitable advancement that will be made.
As the Member for West Dunbartonshire, I know only too well the impact of industrial policy that fails to meet the challenges of the modern age—the complete and utter collapse of the industrial complex. I would not wish that on any other Member. From my perspective, the UK Government must therefore step up and lead on the issues that put thousands of jobs at risk, which would have an immediate impact on local economies and feed into the larger economy.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate. He said that “the headwinds are strong and many” for the automotive sector. He went on to point out 16 issues, including business rates; energy costs; the move from older energies to renewables; the UK’s future trading relationship following our withdrawal from the EU; a freeze on recruitment in the industry; our leaving the customs union; huge uncertainty for businesses owing to a lack of certainty on the Government’s position on a future customs union; the potential shift of manufacturing to EU countries; the kind of regulatory framework that will exist following our withdrawal from the EU; added barriers to trade; the potential loss of tariff-free access; what will happen if we return to World Trade Organisation tariffs; and changes to rules of origin rules.
Other hon. Members then set out many more concerns, including about the impact on SMEs, which makes up 90% of the supply chain, and the complex EU-wide production web and the multiple border crossings needed for the production of a single car. They also spoke of dieselgate and the punitive measures currently levied on some of the cleanest diesel cars, and—crucially—of the lack of confidence for the car industry and its uncertainty over the Government’s position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington also talked of how the automotive industry represents an economic bellwether and how crucial it is for the west midlands and his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) talked about the automotive industry’s transformative effect on Coventry, including her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about the loss of almost half the jobs at the Vauxhall plant at Ellesmere Port. He repeatedly speaks up for his constituency. It was poignant to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) explain so eloquently how a job for Warren was about so much more than work. We know that, in every industry, it is about so much more; it is the lifeblood of a community.
It has been said many times that the automotive industry is one of the UK’s most successful sectors. It provides employment to more than 150,000 people across the UK and last year contributed £15.2 billion to the economy. There is no doubt that the continued success of the automotive sector is vital for workers and families across the UK and for the success of our economy as a whole, but worryingly it has been going through a challenging time.
Although there was an uplift in April, car sales plummeted in March by 15.7% compared with last year, and almost 2,000 job losses have been announced during the past six months. In January, despite all the assurances from the Government when PSA Group took over, Vauxhall announced 250 job losses, on top of the 400 lost last year, at its plant in Ellesmere Port, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston described. I pay tribute to him and to Unite the union for all the work that they did with PSA Group to protect as many jobs as possible for the future. In April, it was announced that Nissan would be cutting jobs in Sunderland, and last month Jaguar, the UK’s biggest car manufacturer—it employs 40,000 people—announced that it would be shedding 1,000 temporary contract workers in the west midlands.
Three reasons were listed for those cuts: low demand, with sales at Jaguar down by 26%; changes to tax on diesel cars; and the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Those three factors are all either wholly or partly within the Government’s control. They have complete control over the uncertainty on Brexit, or at least they would if they could sort out the Cabinet and it was not in so much chaos. They also have control over the confusion about taxation policy on diesel, but in recent months they have actually exacerbated it. Weak demand in the economy could be mitigated by Government policy through, for example, encouraging wage growth and Government spending to increase national income.
As has been said, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has highlighted just how important trade with the EU is to the automotive sector. It says that 1,100 trucks from the EU deliver components worth £35 million to UK car and engine plants every single day. The complex cross-border supply chains depend, crucially, on the free and frictionless movement of goods. Manufacturers are very concerned about that freedom and those frictionless borders being disrupted.
Mrs Hodgson
It has been one year, 10 months and 30 days since the UK voted to leave the European Union. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have therefore had more than enough time to sort out their negotiating position on the customs union, considering how important it is?
Laura Pidcock
That is right. I have outlined previously that perhaps some of the confusion and slowness in the process is due to the fact that an initial set of negotiations has to be carried out with two or three Cabinet members before negotiations with the EU can take place.
The SMMT says that
“neither option currently being considered by government...would provide the frictionless movement of goods that UK automotive needs to maintain its competitiveness and productivity.”
It is right that the Labour party has called for the Government to negotiate a new comprehensive EU-UK customs union covering all goods. That is the best way to ensure that there are no tariffs or customs checks within Europe, to support jobs, particularly the 2.1 million UK manufacturing jobs, and to help to avoid, crucially, the need for a hard border in Northern Ireland. It would be very helpful if the Minister could use his closing remarks to set out how the Government will ensure the future security of the automotive industry and those employed in it, going beyond the bespoke assurances to the likes of Nissan and Peugeot. Those were important, but we need more than that.
The automotive industry in the UK is a great success story. We have heard a tour de force in defence of the industry from all hon. Members in the Chamber, but it is currently under huge pressure, and sadly that shows through in the increasingly frequent announcements about job losses and in sales figures. It is incumbent on the Government to work with businesses, industry bodies and trade unions and listen to them when they express very clearly that the Government should prioritise a customs arrangement that removes the risk of tariffs being imposed. We must, as an imperative, seek to protect workers’ jobs and secure the future success of the industry as a whole, and I would be grateful if the Minister could now set out how he intends to do that.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I am very grateful to the 10 Back-Bench Members who have spoken and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for keeping their comments short—I know how difficult that is—to give the Minister the chance to reply fully to this excellent debate. I would just like to remind the Minister to leave a little time for the proposer of the debate to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
Thank you, Mr Bone, for the iron discipline that you have exerted on the Members of Parliament here today. It has worked, because I have the time that you originally said I would.
I commend the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) not just for bringing about the debate—he has always very eloquently represented his constituents who work in the automotive industry—but for his speech. I think that it was described by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), as a tour de force, and it was. I agreed with a lot of the things that he said; I agreed with contributions from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. A lot of the views expressed are based on severe concern about the automotive industry. We all know how critical it is to our economy—specifically to the constituencies of hon. Members who have spoken today, but also to the economy generally.
I would like to put it on the record that the only comment that I could really object to—I do not take offence, because it is part of the political system to say these things—is that the Government do not really care about the industry or are not involved with it. I can say from personal experience that that is not true. The automotive industry is at the top of our list. As was well published in most of the press, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State uses the automotive industry in the Cabinet as an example of the complexity of business within the European Union. There are well known examples of what happens to different parts. I saw one part in a car factory that had been in and out of the country seven times. Hon. Members, in their contributions today, gave similar examples.
In relation to communication with and listening to the industry, hon. Members should know that I meet, as does the Secretary of State, every Wednesday morning with the business representative organisations. The particularly relevant one here is the Engineering Employers Federation, which represents thousands of businesses up and down the country; many of them are involved with the automotive industry. Stephen Phipson, the director of EEF, may be known to hon. Members. He had worked in industry for most of his life and more recently had worked for the civil service in relation to trade. He has written a letter to one of the newspapers, explaining his recent visit to the Canadian-American border. He saw how complex, after many years, billions of dollars of expenditure and good will on both sides, movements across borders are even with electronic trading. A very important part of what we do in government is listening to people about that kind of thing.
I have made visits since I took on this portfolio, and I should say that I asked for the automotive industry to be part of my portfolio. I have not had constituency experience of it, but in terms of manufacturing and this kind of manufacturing investment, I realise, as does the Secretary of State, how important it is to the economy. I think that it is fair to say that I have met executives from nearly all the major manufacturers in this country. I have met senior Japanese executives from Toyota, for example. That was with the Secretary of State, who made very clear the critical importance of frictionless trade between this country and the countries in the European Union. I agree with the comment made today that this country is not a big enough market on its own to sustain a healthy automotive industry.
The population is 60 million. The demand for new cars in a good year could be between 1 million and 2 million, along with all the components. This is big business. These are very complex parts. It is not as it was when the car industry started. We have to be part of a larger market. In whatever way it is worked out, it has to enable companies to do business as they are now. That includes regulatory matters, the frictionless—or near frictionless—movement of goods and the ability to recruit necessary labour. On a recent visit to BMW’s Mini plant in Oxford, I saw—I may be wrong by 1% or 2%—that 21% or 22% of labour there was from the European Union. Fortunately for our economy, there is not a large number of unemployed people in the Oxford area and it is clear that that labour will have to come in, to work in a good career, in a fantastic company and in a fantastic factory.
I mention all that because the engagement aspect has not been communicated enough to hon. Members, but is a very important part of what we do. I believe that the interests of the automotive industry have been reflected in the negotiations. The shadow Minister made an eloquent speech, but she said that one of the delays has been a disagreement among the Cabinet on how this should be approached. That, however, is part of democracy. There are different views within the two major political parties. That is a legitimate part of democracy. I wish everyone agreed with me. They do not always, but I believe we will prevail. I had better make some progress. I spoke a lot on engagement with other companies and I have completely ignored the notes I made earlier, but I did feel that I should react to that.
There has been speculation today in the press that the decline in the diesel market has been caused by uncertain messaging. I think that it was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) who suggested that comments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had been prejudicial to the diesel industry. It is important to note, however, what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said about this last week:
“Diesel cars have played an important part in reducing CO2 emissions from UK road transport. They can still play a valuable role in further reducing CO2 emissions during the transition to zero emission vehicles.”
We have stated that we will end the sale of new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. That is a general European-wide policy. But we will shortly publish the Government’s “Road to Zero” strategy, which will set out the gradual steps that we will take over the coming years to deliver our mission. The mission is for every car and van in the UK to be effectively zero emission by 2040. I think that will prove to be significantly beneficial to the UK car manufacturing industry.
Richard Burden
Consumer incentives will have to be part of the package that we hope will incentivise the shift towards zero emissions. The Government have scaled back both the plug-in car grant and the grant available for the home charging of electric vehicles. Does that not send out a confused signal, if we are trying to encourage people to make that shift?
Richard Harrington
One of the issues is not reducing the amount of grants, but where the grants should go, which I am happy to discuss separately with the hon. Gentleman, as I need to make progress due to lack of time. There are questions: for example, should hybrid cars receive the same grant as all electric cars? I would be delighted to meet him to talk this through, formally or informally.
I want to stress the importance that the automotive industry has to us with regard to the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), while stressing frictionless trade, mentioned Rolls-Royce in her constituency and how it might appear as a small blob on a map compared to vast production, but it is critically important to the country and the local economy. I would be happy to accept her kind invitation to visit with her.
Investment generally in the UK auto industry is important to us. The industrial strategy and landmark automotive sector deal show how the Government can work with industry at the forefront of new technologies, to ensure that we remain the destination of choice for future investment decisions. There was good news, which hon. Members have mentioned, about the Luton plant with the Vivaro vans. Toyota announced that it will build the next generation Auris in Derbyshire. Those decisions are not to be sneered at, but are important. While I accept that decisions are made over a long period, I think that 10-year decisions for any significant investments are also important, but they can be pulled. Like any decisions, a company can decide to do that at the last minute for whatever reason it wants—for example, if it is short of money or if there is uncertainty in the market or points are raised about Brexit. Although they are long-term decisions, they are not decisions until they are finally made. BMW’s investment in the electric Mini and Nissan’s investment in Sunderland mean that since 2016, this country has won every single competitive model allocation decision by major car manufacturers. That does not mean we can take it for granted.
I would like to speak for an hour on the EU exit issue. I cannot, however, due to your quite rightly ruthless chairing, Mr Bone. The Government have reached an agreement on the terms of the implementation period, but we have to plan for all scenarios. I have a lot of confidence that we will leave with a deal and that a no-deal scenario in March 2019, which I think would be disastrous for the automotive industry—I am happy for that to be on record and will defend it to anybody—is significantly less likely. I hope that it is totally unlikely. I hope that it does not happen and I believe that it will not happen. There needs to be a competitive market as part of a European-wide industry. It has been a huge success. It was Mrs Thatcher who persuaded many of the Japanese firms to invest here, because of the market that they would be involved in. Whatever hon. Members’ different views about Mrs Thatcher are, I think that they will all agree that that has been a good thing for the country.
Our vision for the UK is clear. We are seeking a comprehensive solution, which includes most of the things that the industry wants, such as vehicle standards, one series of approvals and simple, frictionless movement for parts and labour, where it is required in the industry. We are pleased that the Government are producing a White Paper, which will set out in detail the UK’s position on a future relationship. I think that it will be significant and show the exact terms of the relationship we are seeking with the EU and our preferred option for the future customs relationship, providing detail on precisely these issues, such as tariffs, rules of origin and mutual recognition, which are important to the industry.
I am happy to take up this discussion afterwards. I am meeting the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and others later today, and I am happy to meet any hon. Member to talk in more detail about this complex issue. In conclusion, hon. Members should know how strong the automotive sector is for us. We are a strong manufacturing nation. I believe that we will be a lot stronger. I thank everyone for their attention today.
Matt Western
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this wide, but clear and focused debate on such an important industry. This industry has been a phenomenal success for the UK and we should all be proud of it, but it is being handicapped. We have heard from around the Chamber how the industry faces great challenges, such as clarity and direction over Brexit and the transformation to cleaner energy. On both challenges, it is within the Government’s gift to set a policy to assist the industry—not necessarily to advantage the industry, but certainly not to disadvantage it as at present.
The industry has been extremely competitive, but it is being made uncompetitive as a result of contradictory policies from the Government, particularly the decisions of the Chancellor to further penalise a product that is critical to an orderly transition to a zero-carbon future, while achieving the international climate change obligations and reducing CO2. I simply urge the Minister to revisit both those areas urgently. Whether it is diesel or the transition, we are hampering and damaging the most crucial manufacturing industry in this country.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Child Sexual Exploitation and Consent to Sexual Intercourse
(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
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of child sexual exploitation and consent to sexual intercourse.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am delighted to see that the Solicitor General is here to respond to the debate. I put on record, however, that I am disappointed that no one from the Home Office is here to discuss the issue. It was intended that the Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), would be here, but she is not. However unintentional that may be, I find it suggestive of a lack of interest in this topic—it is not the first time that I have had difficulty in engaging the Home Office on the issue.
Recent press coverage of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs in Telford has enabled many victims to come forward. Some speak about historical crimes that they have not previously reported; others speak of the enormous challenges that they have faced in getting justice. I will focus on the latter point.
Anyone listening to the debate will be astonished, as I was, to learn that a child as young as 13 can be targeted and groomed for sex with multiple men, and that those men can say to police, by way of defence, “I had no reason to believe that she did not consent. I had no reason to believe that she was under 16.” In such circumstances, unless the victim can show otherwise, the police may not have the perpetrator charged with any offence at all. All the perpetrators have to do is say, “The victim willingly met for sex and did not tell me her age.”
It is worth pointing out that, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, under-age sex is an offence and consent should not be a factor, but in practice, the police can take a different approach. That suggests that they may not fully understand grooming and the power that a perpetrator can exert over a victim who has been groomed. A child who is groomed into acquiescence is not willingly and voluntarily consenting to sex, but they may not get justice unless they can show that they made the perpetrators aware of their age and that they were unwilling.
Grooming is coercion, and it brings about a sense of control over the victim. It can be subtle or indirect, or it may be direct, by way of a threat to shame a child by exposing their sexual activity to their parent, school or friends. Either way, it is a process of psychological manipulation to force a vulnerable child to do something that they do not want to do and would not otherwise have done. That cannot be equated with consent. Just because physical force is not present, that cannot be grounds for the police to infer that a groomed child is consenting.
How can the authorities assume that a child as young as 13 would willingly consent to sex with multiple men? Let us be honest: in the cases I am talking about, the men are not in the child’s social network—they are not young teenagers from the child’s school, or known to the child’s parents or older siblings. They are groups of adult men targeting young girls through street grooming or in takeaways and restaurants. How can the police possibly assume with good reason that the targeted child consents simply because she did not refuse sexual intercourse? Consent must be freely given without duress or coercion. Consent is a voluntary act.
A young girl in Telford was groomed for sex with a group of men. The grooming began while she was celebrating her 13th birthday in a local restaurant. While she was still 13, she became pregnant by one of those men, and her parents realised what was going on and went to the police. The identity of the perpetrators was not an issue and arrests were quickly made. Two things went wrong, however: the police failed to identify that the men were connected to each other, or that the child had been groomed. The police treated the men as if each one was in a separate relationship with the child. She was treated as willingly engaging in sexual activity with men she had voluntarily chosen to have a relationship with.
The offences the police were to consider in the case were rape and engaging in sexual activity with a child under 16. The police accepted that the perpetrators could not have known from the victim’s actions that she did not consent and, further, that the perpetrators reasonably believed that she was over 16, as she had not disclosed her true age to them until after she became pregnant.
It is clear in this case that the child could not articulate in the testimony that she gave to the police the psychological impact of grooming and coercion. When it was put to her by the police, she accepted that she had not told the perpetrators her age and that she had not refused sexual intercourse. Despite not wanting to have sex with any of the men, she accepted that they would not have known that she did not want to have sex, so the police did not ask the Crown Prosecution Service to bring charges. The grooming was ignored: she had not said no, she had not been physically forced and she was over 12, so it could not be rape, and as she had not revealed her true age, the perpetrators had a reasonable belief that she was over 16, so it could not be sex with a minor.
The destruction and damage to the girl’s life and to her family is impossible to communicate. The family exhausted every avenue in their battle to get justice. One perpetrator, who had sex with the child again while on bail, received three and a half years for sex with a minor, but all the agencies upheld the police’s position when complaints were brought. The family were told that it was right that no charges had been brought against the other perpetrators in the case. How do the parents explain that to their daughter? What message does it send to perpetrators if no charges are brought in such a case?
I want to believe that that is a one-off, isolated case, because under the law consent should not come into it at all. However, the family wrote to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the CPS, the professional standards board, the Home Office and the Prime Minister, and all the parties that responded took the view that the police’s course of action was correct.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an important local and national issue, and on attracting to the debate the Solicitor General, who is probably the most qualified person in Parliament to respond. The police can always learn lessons, but charging decisions are often a joint exercise with the Crown Prosecution Service. Some of the cases she refers to are of vulnerable young adults who are known to the local authority. Telford and Wrekin Council, which is a key stakeholder in the issue, needs to get on with conducting the independent inquiry, appointing an independent chairman, restoring public confidence in the local council and ensuring that victims get the justice they deserve.
Lucy Allan
I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the Solicitor General is an eminent and learned colleague. I also agree with his point about Telford and Wrekin Council. Now that it has decided that it will have an investigation into child sexual exploitation in Telford, it is imperative that it gets on and appoints a chairman. We have already waited two months, and I cannot see that anything has happened yet. I hope it will take the opportunity to delay no longer on that. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.
To return to the case that I was raising, the family wrote to all those different parties and the answer was that the case had been correctly handled. The CPS sent a letter to the family about the perpetrator who was responsible for the victim’s pregnancy, which said:
“It was right that no charges have been brought in this case.”
It explained why it came to that conclusion by saying that
“the prosecution must prove that a victim was not consenting to the sexual intercourse and...that the person accused did not reasonably believe that the victim was consenting.”
It went on to say that the victim
“was clear that although she may not have wanted sexual intercourse…the suspect would not have been aware from her actions at the time that she did not want to have sexual intercourse…As such a charge of rape is not appropriate and indeed the police did not seek a charging decision from the CPS for an offence of rape.”
It then addressed the possibility of bringing a charge of sexual activity with a child under 16, and said:
“The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the suspect did not reasonably believe the victim was over 16. We could not prove this to the required standard. The victim agreed that she had not told the suspect her age until after she discovered that she was pregnant. I believe a jury may have doubts as to whether the suspect is guilty. For these reasons, it was right that no charges were brought against this suspect.”
I repeat that it was judged
“right that no charges were brought against this suspect”.
The authorities were telling the father of a child victim of abuse that there was no good reason to prosecute the men responsible.
Anyone else looking at the facts of this case would see grotesque and traumatic abuse and exploitation of a child by multiple perpetrators; anyone else would understand the lifelong impact that this horrendous crime would have on this child and her family. But the police did not see that. When I discussed this case with them, it was almost as if they thought that it had been the child seeking out the perpetrators and not the other way round. They did not value the account given by the victim. They did not see an abused child; they saw a young woman who had failed to reveal her true age willingly engaging in sexual activity with multiple men.
Social services became involved in the case after the event and held multi-agency meetings; in fact, they held a number of them. At every one of those meetings, what was discussed was a behavioural contract for the child—a code of conduct for the victim. It was the victim who was placed on a curfew and not allowed out after school. I am sure that everyone in the extensive cast list at those multi-agency meetings meant well and wanted to protect the child from further harm, but why was it her behaviour that was in question and not the behaviour of the men who had committed the crime?
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a very powerful speech, and what I am hearing is really concerning. The thought occurs to me that when an older man seeks to have sex—consensual sex, as he may think it is—with an obviously young girl, surely it is up to him to find out the girl’s age, so that he can be confident that she is old enough to engage in sexual activity, rather than his just being blithely able to say, “I thought she was old enough”. I assume that the girl in this case looked young; surely the onus is on the adult to ensure that she is of the age of consent.
Lucy Allan
Indeed—the hon. Lady makes an excellent point. She and I would both have reached that conclusion and many members of the public would, too, which is why I am glad that it has now been placed on the record.
It is difficult for me to understand why it was the victim’s behaviour that was in question and not the behaviour of the men. It is almost as if it is an accepted norm that predatory grooming and exploitation of young girls will happen, and that it is the victim who must be controlled and not the perpetrators. That is not a world that any of us want a young person to grow up in. We all to want to see vulnerable young people being protected, but does that really mean that young girls should be prevented from going out after school? In this case, the known perpetrators were released without charge and without any monitoring of their behaviour. That is more than just victim-blaming; it is a failure even to see that there is a victim.
That suggests that something is very wrong, because how is it that the police could fail to see an abused child when an ordinary member of the public would see one? The police acted as if this was a young woman freely entering into multiple relationships with multiple older men, each of whom—the police thought—did not realise they were doing anything wrong, as they thought she was over 16. In fact, one of the men suggested that he thought this 13-year-old was 18.
Are the police undervaluing or not even accepting the testimony of victims while accepting the testimony of the perpetrators, or is it just that they do not understand what grooming is and the impact that it can have on the way a child behaves? What is apparent is that there is no requirement to consider the impact of grooming and coercion, or the power that a perpetrator can have over a child victim, when the decision is made about whether to ask the Crown Prosecution Service to press charges.
Under sections 9 to 11 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, sex with a child under 16 is an offence irrespective of consent, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm that. Given that law, therefore, most of us would assume that in a case such as this, there is no need for the victim to prove that she did not consent or that the perpetrators knew her true age. In reality and in practice, however, when a child is 13 or over, certain defences can be used, and indeed are used, that are readily accepted by the police without the defendant having to do anything more than simply tell the police their account of events. It must be wrong that individual police officers can, in effect, act as judge and jury and decide not to ask the CPS to charge, particularly in a case such as this one where some very serious offences have been committed.
Grooming is the means by which someone is forced to do something against their will. How could anyone believe that a child who is being groomed has free will to decide whether to have sex with their abusers? That is why we need to have an investigation in Telford and why I am delighted that there will now be such an investigation. Otherwise, how are we going to work out what needs to be done, so that the police and the authorities in general can respond differently in the future? I am glad that the local council has finally agreed to commission such an investigation, although it is due to the work of journalists, who brought some of these issues to light, that the investigation is now happening. I am very pleased that the press has the freedom to report on these issues and bring them out into the open.
I was going to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle, to review the specific case that I have referred to today. I took details of the case to the Home Secretary in March, delivering them in person to the Home Office. I have not yet had a response, and I should be most grateful to receive one, if not from the Solicitor General then from the Home Office in due course. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is also Minister for Women, will take the time to read the details of the case, which I have given to the Home Office, and indeed the report today’s debate.
In a case where it is clear that a child is the victim of multiple acts of abuse by multiple perpetrators, there should be no reason for that child to show that the abusers knew she was 13 years old. Why should she have to show them that she did not consent to sexual activity, and why, in this particular case, was no evidence of grooming given to the CPS? I know that it is for the prosecution to prove guilt, but in a case such as this the prosecution is not even being given the opportunity to prove guilt, because no charges were brought. The victim and her family were dismissed by the authorities, more or less on the say-so of the male perpetrators.
In light of what we now know about grooming and child sexual exploitation, I ask the Solicitor General to consider whether it is time to update both the guidance to the police and perhaps the Sexual Offences Act 2003, particularly when it comes to the definition of consent. As I have said, consent cannot be implied by the absence of a refusal or the absence of physical force. Coercion and force can and do take many non-physical forms.
As more such cases come to light and we find out more about what is happening—the case that I have referred to is a recent case, not a historic one—it is essential that the police actively look for evidence of grooming that can they can then pass on to the CPS, which has to make the decision about charging. However, if the CPS does not have the evidence of grooming, then it cannot take it into consideration.
Most children in such circumstances will be unlikely to know that what has happened to them is grooming or coercion, and they certainly cannot be expected to volunteer that information if all they are asked is, “Did you make it clear to the suspect that you did not want to have sex?”
We have come a long way in our response to this crime, but we must now consider whether the law is protecting children and young people from grooming and exploitation. As each case comes to light, we cannot just go on wringing our hands and saying how horrific it is that different cases are emerging up and down the country. If the law does not protect our children from being groomed and targeted for sex, we must update it.
I thank the Solicitor General for listening to what I have had to say today. It is only by listening to the experiences of MPs in their constituencies that the voices of victims are properly heard, and that is why I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department is not here today. The full picture can emerge only by our listening to the voices of the victims, and we need to understand how the law operates in practice, not just how it is written on the statute book. Only by understanding that can we take the necessary action to prevent this abuse happening to more victims. I would be most grateful if the Solicitor General could set out what action can be taken in cases such as the one I have described.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I had been expecting, as Chairman, that a Home Office Minister would be here, but we have an excellent substitute: the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
May I put on the record the reason for my presence at this debate, bearing in mind my ministerial responsibility as superintendent of the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales? As this debate has been quite rightly focused by my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) upon questions of law and the prosecution of these offences, it is entirely appropriate that I am appearing in Westminster Hall today.
May I assure my hon. Friend that I have already had an important conversation with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is the Home Office Minister with responsibility for safeguarding? Indeed, Home Office officials are here today with me.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford on securing this debate. I know how much she has campaigned for the victims of child sexual exploitation in her constituency and how she has been a tireless champion of securing an independent inquiry into systematic issues that have resulted in a whole cohort of young people in her local area being failed by the authorities after having to suffer appalling abuse.
I speak not only as a Minister; I have many years’ experience in prosecuting just this type of offence. Having taken what is now the Serious Crime Act 2015 through Parliament as a Minister, I am proud that in that Act we updated the law to remove old-fashioned references to child prostitution in acknowledgement of the fact that when it comes to consent we are dealing with children. These are children who deserve the protection of the law, and to apply to them the standards that can be applied to fully mature adults is a betrayal of their vulnerability and a failure to safeguard them. Over and above everything, the issue must be one of safeguarding. Underlying some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised is perhaps a failure, at times, by the respective agencies and their representatives to understand that safeguarding must come first and therefore that the point of view of the child—the victim—is paramount, rather than considerations of another kind. If people understand that, we will make even further progress.
I have been part of a number of inter-ministerial groups on child sexual exploitation, from my time as a member of the coalition Government right through to this year, and I have been impressed by the sense of purpose the Government have shown in seeking to co-ordinate and improve the work that needs to be done to safeguard children. We have had new legislation on safeguarding and a robust response to the appalling incidents in Rotherham, Rochdale and other local areas that shone a light on the problem often encountered by young people in getting their story regarding child sexual exploitation heard and believed.
My hon. Friend raised a specific case, of which I am aware, and I know that she has written to colleagues in the Home Office. She will get a response; I will undertake to ensure that by writing to her. It would perhaps be invidious for me to make detailed comment on the merits of the case, as a further inquiry investigation is under way, but I take on board her points. She drew the important distinction between consent and knowledge of age, both of which issues I will deal with now, in general terms.
When a case meets the threshold, the police should refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service for a charging decision. That decision is then made by an independent prosecutor in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors and CPS legal guidelines. On consent, it is important to draw a distinction between consent in fact and consent in law. In fact, the threshold for absence of consent in law is somewhat more rigorous. A child under the age of 16 cannot in law consent to a sexual act. Therefore, a person is guilty of a child sexual offence such as sexual activity with a child contrary to the 2003 Act if sexual activity takes place and the child is either under 13 or is under 16 and the perpetrator does not reasonably believe them to be 16 or over.
My hon. Friend referred to the question of reasonable belief and I assure her that the test is rigorous and takes into account all the evidence in the case. Proof of the age of a child is of course a simple, straightforward matter—date of birth can easily be proved. The question of reasonable belief often depends on the circumstances, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the old chestnut of, “I didn’t know her age. She didn’t tell me,” does not mean that the police and the prosecution are suddenly discharged of any responsibility to bring the case. Wider circumstances need to be considered and assessed. Each case must stand or fall on its facts, and the perception that somehow at all times the burden should be on the child to prove their position is not correct. It is important that we as Ministers and parliamentarians get that message out there, so that young people know that if they come forward they will be taken seriously and treated properly.
The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) knows well from experience—we have worked together on such issues and I am grateful for her presence and her intervention today—that it is vital that young people know that we have moved on from the appalling response we saw in Rotherham and other local authorities and that that approach is no longer acceptable. The courts themselves, in sentencing, now readily acknowledge that. The idea that somehow a child can consent in any way to sexual activity, where consent is not an element of the offence, is no longer relevant in sentencing. Indeed, the courts no longer give defendants any mitigation or concession for so-called implied consent on the part of a victim who is a child. That has been an important development as well.
In the context of offences of rape, other than the rape of a child under 13 for which consent is not necessary, the absence of consent must be proved regardless of age. The definition of consent is that a person agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to do so—and there comes the issue. Again, it is important that we send the message out clearly that the age and circumstances of the complainant—the victim—must be taken into account in understanding age and capacity.
Acquiescence is not consent, and that message is vital, particularly in the context of some of the child sexual abuse of which we are all aware. The fact that a vulnerable or young person has been groomed starkly raises the reality that he or she may have been placed in a position in which they have merely acceded to sexual activity, rather than having given real, meaningful consent. The despicable actions of those who prey upon such young people should, and have, come under scrutiny when considering the issue of genuine consent. Even in the absence of clear evidence of grooming, a victim under the age of 16 is likely to be considered vulnerable, regardless of whether the defendant believes them to be older. Evidence that a victim has been drugged or is so intoxicated that they no longer have capacity to consent may also support the absence of consent per se.
Mrs Hodgson
I am not privy to all the facts of the case, but in the light of what the Solicitor General said about the age of consent being 16, I really struggle to understand why the men are at large and not behind bars. I am curious about that.
The Solicitor General
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to reiterate the point that has been made. I cannot comment on the specific case, but it is clear to me that we have moved a million light years from perpetrators being able to get away with such things with impunity.
Lucy Allan
Did my hon. and learned Friend say that there will be a review into the case I have put before the Home Office?
The Solicitor General
There is indeed a further investigation as a result of my hon. Friend’s letter and I have committed to writing to her about the outcome.
The tools that the prosecution now has are considerable. We even have tools relating to sending sexual communications to a child ahead of any grooming, which came into force last year, and for young people between the ages of 16 and 18 we also have preventive measures, such as sexual risk prevention orders. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I undertake to respond to her more fully in relation to the specific offence and I reassure her that this Government, and this Solicitor General, take child sexual abuse extremely seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
National Funding Formula: Social Mobility
(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
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the national funding formula on social mobility.
My thoughts are with all those affected by the terrible atrocity last year in Manchester. We lived in Manchester for many years, and our children went to the arena many times. It could have been them.
A few weeks ago, I joined headteachers from Bath who had given up their Saturday to march through the city because schools are in the depths of a funding crisis that the Government are refusing to acknowledge. We are at a point where teachers are quite literally shouting in the streets, trying to get the Government to listen to them. Today, I am calling on the Government to listen—to listen to the people who are tasked with preparing the next generation for their lives to come, and to listen to them when they say they do not have enough money to do so.
The issue should not be a political football. Teachers simply do not have the resources to do their jobs properly. In 2015, schools were promised they would be funded in line with inflation. Later they were promised that
“each school will see at least a small cash increase.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 536.]
That has not happened. Schools are facing higher costs from increased pupil numbers, pensions, national insurance contributions, pay awards, inflation and the apprenticeship levy, while facing a reduction in the education services grant. By 2020, £8.6 billion will have been taken out of the system.
School budgets are at breaking point, with 55% of academies reporting deficit budgets and 75% of secondary schools saying they are spending more than their income. Some 23 local authority areas will see cuts of at least 5% by 2019-20. Some 91% of schools face real-terms cuts by 2019-20 as compared with 2015-16. As cuts continue, teachers as well as support staff are lost, because staffing forms around 85% to 90% of school budgets. In the last two years, 15,000 posts have been deleted in secondary schools.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Out of curiosity, I want to pick up on the point the hon. Lady is making and on funds being moved from one part of the country to another. Does she accept there are circumstances where some schools have historically received more funds but have perhaps had demographic changes, while other areas have also had demographic changes but need more funds? There has to be a point where a reallocation is necessary. We need that reallocation in West Sussex, for a start.
Wera Hobhouse
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but if he will allow me, I will point out how things look for my local authority of Bath and North East Somerset, where school funding per pupil is falling in 58 schools and increasing in only 17. I would like to see local authorities where that balance is different.
In my local authority, three out of four schools are losing funding. For example, under the new funding system, one school in my constituency—Twerton Infant School and Nursery—will see a 0.5% increase next year. However, in September, it will be paying its teachers 2% more. It will also be paying its support staff between 2% and 5% more. If we add inflation on top—it is currently 2.5%—the financial outlook starts to look incredibly bleak. The school is facing a funding black hole of at least £50,000.
During Education questions last week, I asked the Minister whether school funding was rising in line with inflation. He dodged the question and suggested that the Government were helping schools by giving them advice for managing their energy bills. That very same day, the headteacher at Twerton Infants, George Samios, had been sitting with his business manager trying to find £50,000 in savings. Needless to say, £50,000 is significantly more than the school’s energy bill.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that, while raising teachers’ pay on the main scale is very welcome, it is pointless if it is not new money coming to schools? Otherwise, that money is being taken away from the frontline—the children.
Wera Hobhouse
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. My school is facing a funding black hole of £50,000. I assume that the situation in her schools will be exactly the same.
Responses like that of the Minister show how far detached the Government are from schools and teachers in Bath and across the country, as well as from the impact of their decisions on our young people. Twerton Infants has already had to cut the one-to-one support it used to have for children who had experienced early adversity and trauma.
That situation is not unique to Twerton. Headteachers from schools across Bath tell me regularly about the difficult decisions they are having to make. Parents will come to the school and ask, “Where is the extra support for my child with special educational needs?” The school will answer, “We are sorry, we do not have the funds to provide that anymore.” If a school wants to put on extra support for a child with autism, that is not going to happen. If a school wants an extra member of staff to look after classes at lunchtime or to help children who are finding it difficult to transition, that is not going to happen. As one Bath headteacher put it:
“By starving our schools of funding, we are accepting that our children can get by on a cut-price education. Morally, let alone economically, this is indefensible.”
Where is the understanding from Government of how our young people learn and progress? Where is the commitment to our children’s futures? The Government say there is more money in the system than ever before, but there are more pupils in the system. The Government hide behind deliberately complex figures and funding streams and obfuscate the real picture.
I have recently become a trustee of a multi-academy trust in Bath. The trust’s main concern is that it no longer has the funds to employ support staff, because its budgets are becoming tighter every year and it has no more reserves. The local authority in Bath, which used to support schools, is making staff redundant, especially those in welfare roles. The Government expect trusts to take over those functions, but the trusts do not have the money to do so.
What further increases the pressure and creates a vicious cycle is that good and experienced teachers are leaving the profession in growing numbers. Teaching is already a difficult job, but it is becoming so hard that many teachers find it impossible to cope. My academy trust in Bath finds it increasingly difficult to recruit qualified teachers, and it is worried about the de-professionalisation of teachers. Trusts, although not my particular trust, are employing teachers without qualified teacher status. That cannot be right.
I know the teaching profession very well. I taught secondary school children modern languages. An already difficult job became even harder when the resources were not there and class sizes were heading towards 30. It is our young people who suffer. Good classroom practitioners know that during a lesson they cannot just engage with the five pupils at the front or the five at the back. With large class sizes, it is the 20 pupils in the middle who are the most difficult to reach. What happens if teachers do not reach those young people? Those young people lose out, and an awful lot of them are losing out. If children do not receive the right support, they do not reach their full potential.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing what I would call a timely debate. In Coventry, I have visited 12 to 15 schools out of probably just over 100. Each of those schools is losing £275 a year per pupil. Nationally, probably about 3,000 youth clubs have been closed, which needs to be taken into consideration. The Government say that they have put more money in, but we should not forget that they cut £4.5 billion over the last couple of years, and put in £1.5 billion. Is it any wonder that schools are in the state they are? Certainly in Coventry there is very serious concern about rising numbers in classrooms. Does the hon. Lady agree?
Wera Hobhouse
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is not just about what happens in our classrooms; it is about what happens outside them. He makes a very powerful point. It is about the importance we place on our young people and their future. It is not only about schools, but about youth services, support and, as we are discussing today, social mobility and how we help people from disadvantaged backgrounds to thrive fully.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I would not normally intervene at this stage in a debate, but I wanted to point out to the hon. Lady that when the national funding formula is fully implemented, funding for schools in Bath and North East Somerset will rise by 8.8%. That is one of the largest rises of any local authority. In her own constituency, it will rise by 7.1%, and the funding for the school she mentioned—Twerton Infant School—will rise to £5,457 per pupil, compared with the national average of £4,189.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the Minister for that intervention, but it is very clear that talking in percentages hides the real picture and does not tell us the per pupil funding. My headteacher in Twerton is absolutely clear that per pupil funding is going down, year on year, and the pupils who are particularly suffering are those who need extra support.
Wera Hobhouse
I am listening to my headteacher, who has given me the numbers. If he gets a 0.5% increase, but has to pick up increases in teachers’ pay and in support staff, his overall funding is going down. If the Minister is happy to meet with me and that headteacher, we can probably discuss it at an individual level.
If children do not receive the right support, they do not reach their full potential, which is a national tragedy, because we lose out as a country. We lose out on the nurses and teachers of the future, the software engineers and the hospitality professionals—the list is endless. We deprive Britain of the people who will continue building its prosperity. The worst thing is that the loss of opportunity particularly affects children and families from poorer areas.
In my maiden speech, I said that whenever I mention that I am the MP for Bath, people go, “Ooh, Bath, how beautiful!” It is, but like almost every other place in the country, Bath suffers from serious inequality. One fact illustrates that perfectly, and it is well known in Bath, but perhaps not outside it. Twerton Infant School, which I mentioned, lies on the number 20A bus route. Three stops on from Twerton, life expectancy increases by seven years. Let that sink in for a second—seven years’ difference over a five-minute bus journey. The so-called “fair funding” formula eradicates the extra funding that used to go to schools in catchment areas with high levels of deprivation.
Jeremy Quin
We all agree that funds must be there to support those most in need. Personally, I welcomed the national funding formula’s emphasis on ensuring that children who come from deprived backgrounds, or who have English as a second language and need extra support, get that targeted support. That is in addition to the pupil premium, which was a great triumph of the coalition. I think the hon. Lady is being a little unfair on the national funding formula.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I go by what I see on the ground. I have just explained that I am a trustee of a multi-academy trust. We are facing a problem with the loss of local authority staff, particularly in welfare and support roles. Trusts are meant to pick up those roles. They cannot, because they do not have the money, so staff who are helping young people with difficulties are not supported. That is the tragedy.
The important point is that the schools that most need the support are losing the most money. However, as we know from an announcement last week, the Government have found some extra money—£50 million for grammar schools. To me, that clearly demonstrates that the Government are committed to inequality. Inequality has no place in our society. Every child has the right to achieve their full potential, and should receive the support and education to do so. That costs money, and the state has a duty to provide it.
Schools are in a funding crisis. I very much appreciate the Minister’s being here today. I urge him to listen not just to me, but to teachers and headteachers across the country.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing the debate. It was very short-notice but, as she flagged up, this is an important issue.
This is one of those fascinating debates where it is a bit like the old cliché of apples and pears, in the sense that one side says one thing, and the other side tweaks it a wee bit, says, “It’s an apple, not a pear,” and stands the argument on its head. Rather than going round in circles, which we can do, frankly, for hours, I will mention one point in particular that strikes home to me.
I have been involved in politics for nigh on 20 years, and previously I spent many years in business. In all the years that I have been in politics, I have discovered that senior public sector people very rarely put their head above the parapet—for obvious reasons, as doing so can put their career in jeopardy. Whether that is right or wrong is irrelevant to the argument. The main thing is that colleagues will remember that, last year, 5,000 headteachers across the country not only wrote to their Members of Parliament and to the Government but went on a march, because they were so anxious about what they said were real-terms cuts to our schools budget. Before I get on to those cuts, I reiterate that I have never seen, in all my years in politics, so many senior people within schools say, “We can’t be doing with this any more. We’re going on a march. We need the money, otherwise our schools are in trouble.” That was so significant to me.
Clearly I know a lot of my local schools, and I met a lot of the heads both when I was first an MP and during the time after I was briefly defenestrated before coming back as the Member of Parliament. I have known some of those people for a long time. I can even remember, in the halcyon days of the coalition, trying to get them to go public on particular issues. There was no way that they would put their head above the parapet, because they did not need the grief. On this issue, however, heads across the country—in Labour, Conservative and Liberal areas across England—were so angry that they rose up and said, “Our schools are facing a crisis.”
To be fair, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), listened and came up with an additional £1.3 billion. I am quite sure that there were sound political reasons for that as well, because of the snap election, but I will give her due credit because I think she deserves it. Despite our being on different sides politically, I thought that she was a good Secretary of State.
Layla Moran
Does my hon. Friend agree that it was slightly concerning that that £1.3 billion was not new money? When the Public Accounts Committee, on which I sit, questioned representatives from the Department on where that money would come from, they said that the vast majority of it was coming from so-called efficiency savings. At the time, they were unable to tell us exactly where the money was coming from. Does my hon. Friend share my worry about that?
Stephen Lloyd
I entirely agree. A lot of it was apparently not new money, and anyway, even with the best will in the world, it just held everything in place for 12 months—it did not solve the problem. As my hon. Friend has emphasised, as we began to pick into and drill down into those figures, what did we discover? We discovered that quite a lot of it was not the new money it was initially alleged to be.
Having said that, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Putney. I believe that her heart was in the right place and that she was fighting the schools’ corner as strongly as she could. I certainly think she was probably more on our side of the divide when it came to grammar schools, which is possibly why she is now the ex-Secretary of State—but who am I to make such an allegation?
I come back to the important fact that the headteachers—the people who know—say that funding is going down; there are not net increases, and it has been going on for years and causing real problems. Teachers have not had a decent wage increase in many years, and again, there is a real cross-party push on that. We are hearing soundings from within Government that there is an appreciation that teachers’ wages need to be increased more in line with inflation, similar to the situation in the NHS. However, it is terribly important, to pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), that that is done with new money. If we finally do get that salary increase for teachers, and there is the same story of efficiencies—after seven years they are really beginning to cut into the lean muscle, with the fat having gone from the whole sector—that will be very disappointing. If the Government sign off a good pay increase on the one hand but then on the other hand say that it has to come from school budgets, we will go even further backwards.
I have known the Minister a long time; I hold him in genuine respect, even with our disagreements in the past. I urge him to make a statement today about the scale of the salary rise and a commitment that it will funded by new money and not taken from school budgets, which would just make a bad situation chronic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and I have tabled an early-day motion today, specifically urging that the Government find new money to pay teachers a decent increase after their many years of getting static salary increases. I urge hon. Members to sign the early-day motion; I am sure it is very much a cross-party aim that many of us would support.
As I said, it comes down to apples and pears. The National Audit Office—as we all know, it is a highly reputable, respected body—says that in 2018-19, schools will experience additional cost pressures of 1.6%. That may not sound an awful lot, but after a few years of consistent 1%, 2% and 2.5% rises, and a failure to get net funding increases, it adds up considerably. The additional cost pressure comes on top of several years of static Government funding and increases in pupil numbers, salary increments, employer national insurance contributions, employer pension contributions and inflation, meaning that real school budgets have seen a decline of—wait for it—about 15%.
I was in business for years before I went into politics. I know how to trim and how to make efficiency savings. When times are tough, we have to go through efficiency savings. I wholly signed up to those necessary efficiency savings in coalition, but there comes a time when a line needs to be drawn. If someone is looking at a 15% real-terms cut in their business, school or hospital, they are heading for a car crash. That is why I, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, who is the Liberal Democrat lead in this area, and the Labour party urge the Government to make a longer-term, significant increase to contributions to the schools budget, as well as a separate increase to teachers’ wages.
Layla Moran
Does my hon. Friend recognise from meetings he has had with headteachers, as I have had, that the reason why this is significant is that roughly 75% of a school’s budget goes on its teaching and support staff? The reduction in budget can only come from what is left. Schools have now got to the point where they can cut no more without affecting frontline staff, and that will lead to a drop in the quality of service that we can give children and parents across the country.
Stephen Lloyd
My hon. Friend is so right. We know that is true. Hon. Members will have spoken to their local headteachers and visited their schools. The number of teaching assistants has been slashed, and support for disabled children is under tremendous pressure. The schools are creaking—there are no two ways about it. I know that the budget is huge and there are thousands and thousands of schools across the country, but having proper funding is such a crucial part of our nation’s future.
I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath about grammar school investment. I thought that, after the catastrophic consequence of the snap election in 2017 for the governing party, the whole idea of grammar schools had been kicked into the long grass. Suddenly, out of nowhere, it got into the headlines last week—another £50 million for grammar schools. There really are better ways than grammar schools in a society where we are trying to give everyone the same opportunities to succeed. Without banging on about it, there is so much empirical evidence that shows that they are counterproductive and do not improve outcomes for disadvantaged people. There is so much evidence there that I will not even bore the Minister by outlining it.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath for securing this really important debate on an issue that affects our future and our children’s future. I had the pleasure of welcoming pupils from a wonderful school in my constituency called Shinewater this morning. I know it well; I have visited it probably one gazillion times over the years that I have been either the MP or the parliamentary candidate. It is in a more disadvantaged part of my wonderful constituency of Eastbourne, in Langney. It is a great school with passionate teachers, and the sort of school where the Liberal Democrat policy of the pupil premium, which we delivered when we were in coalition, makes such a difference. That additional funding and support means that children who may not have the obvious advantages that I and many other Members of Parliament have had have an equal chance to have a very successful life in their jobs and relationships.
It was wonderful to welcome the children here. They were all about six or seven years old. Many of them had never even been on a train, let alone an underground. It is so long ago that I was that young that I can barely remember, but it was a pleasure to welcome them. I know the pressure that school is under. It is a good school, and it is doing its best and doing well, but it does not have anywhere near the number of TAs that it used to have. Its funding for special educational needs is severely stretched, and likewise its funding from the county council. It is the sort of school where the teachers go the extra mile, beyond anything that any teachers would have even contemplated 30, 40 or 50 years ago. They do it because they are passionate about the children and the school. I urge the Minister to help us to help schools such as Shinewater around the country—to give them the budget they deserve, to give the teachers the salary rise they deserve and to secure our schools’ funding and future for many years to come.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I am most grateful to be called to speak, Mr Walker, in particular because, only about five minutes ago, I intimated to you that I had not prepared a speech and did not intend to deliver one. I am most grateful that you have found time for me. This is an important subject, which it was important to raise, and I thought it deserved a longer airing in the House than would otherwise have been the case.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing the debate. My colleagues in West Sussex and I campaigned long and hard for a national funding formula. We were pleased to get a 5% increase in overall funding for the county, so I suppose I should congratulate the hon. Lady on doing better than that—the hon. Lady or, if I may be so bold, her predecessor. A 7% increase is possibly one of the highest increases achieved by any area of the country as a result of the NFF reallocation.
The hon. Lady is right that one can do a lot with statistics, but those I have seen show that we have, as a country, rightly put a huge emphasis on education. I think we have more than doubled our per pupil funding since the early 1990s, and we needed to: we expect a lot more from schools and teachers than we ever did before, and I pay credit to their huge commitment. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe we spend more per pupil on education than France or Germany. We need to—it is an investment in our future, and I am delighted that we make that commitment as a country. We owe it to our children and to our country to ensure that we have a fantastic cohort of children coming through.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
In my constituency, we get £171 less per pupil, so when we talk about funding increases, it is important to bear in mind that, outside London, the situation is not the same for every constituency—the funding formula may not be fair for areas that are deprived.
Jeremy Quin
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. [Interruption.] I hear whispers from the direction of the Minister, so I am certain there will be an answer about per pupil funding of schools in Peterborough. I hope there shall be.
We have to look at where we were before the NFF came in and at what brought me and my colleagues here. The first meeting I had in this place as an MP was with the then Secretary of State for Education to insist that we push through the NFF, because we needed it. Historically, the allocations were all over the place, but data from about 2000 to 2005 revealed genuine demographic changes, meaning that funding should be better allocated.
Disparities between parts of the country remain—the Minister knows I think this—and over time they need to be addressed, but the NFF was a proper step in the right direction of allocating funds according to the need of individual pupils. We need to have a basic amount of funding per pupil, and we need to make certain that we get that right. Beyond that we also need to allocate according to the need or characteristics of individual pupils.
Wera Hobhouse
Will the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that if we simply say, “We will increase per pupil funding,” but do not take into consideration inflation and other pressures on school budgets, such as teachers’ pay rises and so forth, that does not give the proper picture?
Jeremy Quin
I totally accept the hon. Lady’s point about significant cost pressures. Some of those have been through the system—we have gone over a hump in cost pressures in relation to pensions in particular—but she makes a valuable point about staff pay. That will need to be addressed, but I am sure we shall hear wise words on funding teachers’ pay rises as they come through.
I recognise the issue of costs, but the debate is about funding and the NFF, and my county will get an extra £28 million as a result of the fully implemented national funding formula. West Sussex needed that funding, and that it received it was right. My secondary schools will get an increase of between 7% and 12%. There are increased costs, and I recognise those pressures, but the NFF is a fairer way of allocating funds than was previously the case.
Similarly to the hon. Lady, I have schools that have not done as well out of the NFF. Some of my primary schools are experiencing significant cost pressures, and I have talked to them and to the county about how to mitigate the impact of cost increases as they affect primary schools. I also have other issues, as the Minister knows. I would like more focus on the high-needs bloc, and I think the ASHE—the annual survey of hours and earnings—formula for allocating local costs of living in different areas could be improved. If I find a better way of doing it, I shall beat a path to the Minister’s door, because areas such as Horsham have very high costs of living, and I am not sure that that is properly reflected in the ASHE formula, which may need some attention.
The motion, however, was about the national funding formula and social mobility. At core, yes, we must make certain to have the right level of per pupil funding throughout the country to ensure that our excellent teachers can deliver the curriculum to the best of their ability and give our kids the head start in life that they need and that we all want for them. However, the NFF is right to go beyond that: we also need to allocate according to the characteristics of the pupils, be that speaking English as a second language, being in receipt of free school meals or having low prior attainment.
Education is part of the answer to help the country achieve better social mobility—it is only part of the answer, but it is an important part. Surely an NFF approach through which we recognise the individual characteristics of pupils is the right approach. The NFF is not the perfect answer, and I shall continue to work on it and to bend the ear of the Minister, but it is a step in the right direction, and the Government were right to introduce it.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker.
I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing the debate and for her eloquent and detailed speech outlining the key issues facing our schools and the negative impact that some of the Government’s decisions are having on our children. I also thank the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) for their contributions, and other Members for their interventions.
It is safe to say that there is a consensus in the Chamber: we all agree that our system of school funding should be designed to improve social mobility. Sadly, that is probably where the agreement ends, because everything the Government do flies in the face of improving social mobility—from their inaction on low pay and insecure work to their punitive welfare reform measures, which led the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to conclude that almost 400,000 more children have been plunged into poverty in the past four years and that the number of children in poverty is due to soar over the next few years to a record 5.2 million. The new schools funding system is no different: it will not achieve social mobility.
Children should never be denied the same opportunities in life just because of the place they were born. Yet in the north, two to three-year-olds are less likely than their London counterparts to reach the expected standard of development when starting school, and the National Education Union has said schools in my part of the world—the north-east—face the biggest cuts, with one school due to lose nearly £8,000 per pupil. Success in life should not be the result of a postcode lottery, but under this Government it is.
I think I can pre-empt what the Minister will say. He will tell us that there is funding for children in disadvantaged areas, for children with low prior attainment and for children eligible for free school meals. That is correct, and it is welcome, but it is simply not good enough. It is not good enough, because it ignores the wider issues facing schools in terms of the implementation of the funding formula and the impact of the first cuts to school budgets in a generation.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Lady agree that headteachers are not just making that up? For example, a headteacher in a deprived area in my constituency is not laying off support staff because he enjoys doing that; he is laying off support staff and those who help vulnerable children because he does not have the money.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I agree. I have had representations from headteachers, staff and support assistants in my constituency as well. That problem faces schools throughout our country—they are put in an intolerable position because their funding has been cut and cut.
The Education Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have both said that every school in the country will receive a cash-terms increase to their funding. We know, however, that that is simply not the case, as do the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies and the UK Statistics Authority, which has repeatedly told the Government that that claim is not accurate. Perhaps the Minister will get it right this time. I am sure that by now his Department has received the local funding formula for every local authority in the country. Can he tell us how many schools will face a real-terms cut to their budgets, and is he able to tell us where those schools are?
The Minister has told us of the local authorities that have written to his Department to seek permission to top-slice their budgets to fund additional high-needs support. How many schools across the country will see their block funding cut as a result of those decisions? Such cuts should not be necessary. Schools and councils should never be forced to choose between funding the day-to-day expenses of their schools and getting the high-needs funding that is vital to so many of their pupils’ needs.
Layla Moran
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and for raising the issue of special educational needs provision. The education, health and care plan system is not working in places such as Oxfordshire because the county does not have the resources to deliver it. Although the schools are able to come up with the plans, they and the county do not have the money. Is this a picture that she has seen, because it is inundating my inbox?
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. A recent local ombudsman report said that the picture of ECHP plans across the country is dire, and local authorities are often spending more money on tribunals to rectify decisions they made in the face of cuts, rather than actually implementing the plans in the way they should be implemented in the first place.
The fact is that school budgets have been slashed for the first time in a generation. The National Audit Office found that, since 2015, £2.7 billion has been lost from school budgets in real terms. If the Government were not making cuts to school budgets, it would be possible to introduce a new funding formula in a way that was equitable and sustainable and that could actually improve social mobility, but the Government are failing to do that. When the revised funding formula was put forward after the snap general election, one of the major changes was the introduction of a minimum funding level per pupil in secondary schools. Given the way that the formula allocates funding and the extent to which it allocates more funding to disadvantaged pupils, a minimum funding level would be particularly helpful to schools that take a very small number of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds—in other words, grammar schools.
When the £4,600 minimum per secondary school pupil was announced, the Government committed an extra £1.3 billion to schools over two years. How much of that additional funding will find its way to grammar schools? It seems to us in the Labour party that finding extra funding to go to grammar schools—most of them in areas represented by the Minister’s colleagues on the Conservative Back Benches—is not a policy that will increase social mobility. In fact, it will do the opposite and focus resources more and more on the pupils who need it least, while those who need the additional support and additional funding will simply not have access to it.
We do not object to the principle of a minimum level of funding per pupil. However, it is worth remembering how the Conservative party arrived at that policy. When the funding formula was first devised, the Government did not believe that there should be a minimum funding level. Only after their Back Benchers—particularly those representing schools with more affluent intakes—raised concerns that they did not see enough extra funding in the formula did the Minister come to believe in the policy.
Although we welcome the belief in the minimum amount to which every single pupil should be entitled, I wish the Government would do this properly. Instead of finding a fraction of the funding that our schools need by making cuts elsewhere in an effort to buy off their own Back Benchers, why did the Minister not push to end the cuts to school budgets and increase per pupil funding in real terms for every single child, not just a minority of children?
Despite there being some elements of the funding formula that we welcome, the funding that goes to the most disadvantaged pupils is being cut in real terms year after year. Despite the rhetoric from the Government, the pupil premium has been falling in real terms every year since 2015. They have failed to increase the funding in line with inflation, which has led to the funding falling in real terms. In fact, it has fallen by £140 million.
A recent article in the press noted:
“A Department for Education source confirmed that in real terms the amount per pupil spent on the pupil premium specifically has fallen.”
Will the Minister confirm today that the per pupil spending on the pupil premium has fallen in real terms? Will he also tell us why, in reducing the funding formula, the Government have not ensured that that vital funding is protected?
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Lady is very generous for allowing me to intervene again. Does she agree that the pupil premium introduced by the coalition Government was a powerful thing because it followed every single pupil around? The fact that funding per pupil is now being cut is a tragedy and is counter to what was radically introduced during the coalition Government.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. It will come as no surprise to her that I am a big advocate of the pupil premium and pupil premium plus.
Does the Minister really believe that the funding formula can truly support social mobility when it has not included meaningful protection of funding for the most disadvantaged students in our schools? He might say that the funding formula does not distribute pupil premium funding, but it would be disingenuous to act as though the two issues could be meaningfully separated. The issue of school funding and how it is allocated includes the pupil premium, whether the Minister considers them to be the same issue or not.
I sincerely hope that, in answering our questions and after listening to today’s debate, the Minister will show some appreciation of the fact that it is simply not possible to really improve social mobility when the Government have cut school budgets for the first time in a generation and are slashing the funding that goes to the most disadvantaged pupils year after year. Frankly, Minister, our children deserve better.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this debate. I will start by saying that standards are rising significantly in our schools: 1.9 million more pupils are in schools now rated good or outstanding compared with 2010. Children are reading better thanks to our reforms and we secured the highest ever scores in the PIRLS—the progress in international reading literacy study—of nine-year-olds’ reading ability when that was published last year. The proportion of young people taking at least two science subjects at GCSE has risen from 63% to 91%. Nine out of 10 young people now take at least two science subjects at GCSE.
The attainment gap between those from disadvantaged and advantaged backgrounds has closed by 10% both at primary and secondary level. We are spending record amounts of money on our schools: £42.4 billion this year, rising to £43.5 billion from next year. We are spending £2.5 billion on the pupil premium: £13 billion since 2010. None of that could have been afforded had we not made careful decisions about public spending across Whitehall when we came into office in 2010, tackling a historic budget deficit of £150 billion, equal to 10% of our GDP. The country was on the verge of bankruptcy owing to the banking crisis of 2008-09 and because of decisions taken by the previous Government. We brought that down to about 2% of GDP. We have the highest level of employment in our history and the lowest level of unemployment for 40 years, and that has enabled us to maintain spending in real terms per pupil in our schools.
Of course, there have been cost pressures, particularly in the three years leading up to last year: higher national insurance contributions, which help to deal with the deficit, and higher employer’s pension contributions to the teachers’ pension scheme are costs that schools have had to absorb. We are helping schools with our school resource management advice on how they can manage those costs.
Nick Gibb
Under the national funding formula no school will see a cut in funding this year or next year. They will all receive, through the national funding formula, the money that is allocated to local authorities, which will be a rise of at least 0.5% for every school in the country and up to 3% this year for the lower-funded schools. How those local authorities allocate the funding to the schools this year and next year—we are allowing local discretion as we transition towards the national funding formula—will be for them to decide, but every local authority is receiving sufficient cash to pay at least a 0.5% increase to every single school in their area.
Wera Hobhouse
Can the Minister explain to me how advice increases funding? Advice is not the money that the schools need. In Bath, which has definitely not had a particular drop in population, 58 schools are losing and 17 are gaining. Almost three out of four schools are losing funding. How can the Minister explain that loss in funding?
Nick Gibb
Perhaps I may turn to schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Funding for Bath and North East Somerset will rise by 8.8% once the national funding formula is fully implemented. That is an increase of £8.4 million under the national funding formula. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Jeremy Quin) said, it is one of the largest increases for any area. To take some individual examples of schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency, Bathwick St Mary Church of England Primary School will have a rise of 9.5% once the national funding formula is fully implemented, and there are large increases for other schools in the constituency. She cited Twerton Infant School, whose funding level is £5,457 once the funding formula is fully implemented. That is significantly higher than the national average for a primary school of £4,189. In the move to a national funding formula, there will be schools that do not get as big an increase as schools in, for example, Horsham, or, indeed, other schools in her constituency that were underfunded, according to the formula. She happened to pick the one that was receiving a smaller increase than others, but that is because its per pupil funding of £5,457 under the formula is significantly higher than the national average.
Wera Hobhouse
Figures are figures, and can be turned one way or the other. I said in my speech that the funding increase received per pupil is 0.5%, but the extra pressures, which have been acknowledged, are mounting up to 4.5%. That is a lot of pressure—more than the extra funding. I worry about schools that are getting even less, because the head teachers in Bath do not lay people off for the fun of it. They do it because they do not have the necessary resources any more. Figures and percentages will not take that away. Will the Minister explain why headteachers have to lay off staff?
Nick Gibb
In circumstances where headteachers feel they have to do that, it is because they need to manage their funding within their budget. Funding for schools goes up and down depending on the number of pupils. If they have fewer pupils, they will of course receive less money per pupil and the overall budget will be less. That sometimes means planning for staff not to be replaced.
Stephen Lloyd
On that basis, how does the Minister explain the fact that in the past 18 months or so the number of schools releasing teaching assistants has grown faster than in the previous few years? Does he accept that that must be because of budgetary pressures and that, if it happens across the piece, it could lead to severe challenges down the line?
Nick Gibb
We have a benchmarking website where schools can look at their pupil-staff ratios. We have a tool that schools are using, called the curriculum-led financial planning tool. Schools can examine their curriculum using the tool, which was developed by some schools in the north of England—the Outwood Grange multi-academy trust—to ensure that over a three to five-year time span they are planning their staffing to reflect their curriculum. I think that a lot of schools are applying that tool and becoming more efficient. We are helping schools to manage their resources in a way that ensures they can balance the budget.
Every school will, according to the national funding formula, receive an increase in funding of at least 0.5%, but the Secretary of State has acknowledged on many occasions, as I have today, that there have been cost pressures: employers’ national insurance contributions have risen, as they have across the public and private sectors, and there are higher employer’s contributions to the teachers’ pension scheme. We think that is the right thing to do, to get the balance of the cost of those things spread between the schools and the taxpayer and to help to deal with the deficit. We are helping schools to tackle those cost pressures, but the hon. Gentleman should remember that we are spending record amounts of money on schools—£42.4 billion this year rising to £43.5 billion next year. We have been able to do that and maintain per pupil funding in real terms because we have a strong economy and have managed the public finances in a sensible way, bringing down the deficit and keeping public spending under control.
Layla Moran
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his acknowledgement of the increased cost pressures. Another cost pressure—welcome, in a sense—is the rise in pay, particularly for teachers on the main pay scale. I want that to continue, because as the Minister knows teacher retention and recruitment is a major issue in the sector, but does he agree that if it does continue we will at some point need new money in the system, so that we do not keep eating away at the tiny amounts left until it is necessary to cut the number of teachers to make the numbers work?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Lady will know that the School Teachers Review Body, the independent pay body that makes recommendations about teachers’ pay, has reported to the Department, and we are looking at that report. We will respond to it, and I hope that that will be before the summer recess; that is our intention.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I have been following the Minister’s remarks on overall funding. Does he seriously think that what the Government are now implementing makes up for the £2.7 billion lost since 2015 in the first cuts to school budgets in a generation and for all the neglect since 2010?
Nick Gibb
I remind the hon. Lady that last year schools funding was £41 billion. This year—2018-19—it is £42.4 billion, and in 2019-20 it will be £43.5 billion. As the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed, that will allow us to maintain school and high-needs funding in real terms per pupil for the next two years. The IFS also pointed out that by 2020 real-terms per pupil funding will be some 70% higher than it was in 1990 and 50% higher than it was in 2000.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) acknowledged the extra £1.3 billion brought in, which we were able to identify last summer. We have been able to ensure that all schools, and all areas, will attract some additional funding over the next two years and have provided for up to 6% gains per pupil for underfunded schools by 2019-20. We have therefore, Mr Walker, gone further than our manifesto pledge—and I should have mentioned at the outset what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship; I was keen to get stuck into the debate. Now every school in every area will, under the national funding formula, receive at least 0.5% more per pupil this year than it received in 2017-18 and 1% more in 2019-20. The significant extra investment in schools demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that every child, regardless of their background, receives an excellent education.
During consultation on the formula, we heard that we could do more to support the schools that attract the lowest per pupil funding, something that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) mentioned in her remarks. We listened to those concerns—something that I am criticised for, but I thought it was important to do so—and our formula will rightly direct significant increases towards those schools. In 2019-20, the formula will provide a minimum per pupil funding of £4,800 in respect of every secondary school and £3,500 in respect of every primary. That ensures that every school will attract a minimum level of funding through the formula, no matter what its pupil characteristics are. In addition, those schools will be able to attract even larger increases, as we have not limited their year-on-year gains to the 3%. Some of the lowest-funded schools in the country will therefore attract gains of more than 10% per pupil by 2019-20—something that I now understand the Labour party opposes. It therefore opposes, for example, the increase under the national funding formula of 10.1%—some £145,000—for Newbridge Primary School in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bath. That minimum funding also applies to St Stephen’s Church School, which, under this system, will receive a funding increase of 17.5%, or £214,000. Beechen Cliff School will receive a 10.9% increase in funding, equal to £427,000, once the national funding formula is fully implemented.
Nick Gibb
I will give way once I have finished this list, which I have to say is rather long. Hayesfield Girls’ School in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bath will receive an 8% increase, equal to £335,000, once the national funding formula is fully implemented, and Oldfield Secondary School will receive a 9.4% increase of £414,000. Saint Gregory’s Catholic College will receive an 8.2% increase once the funding formula is fully implemented, equal to £293,000.
With the national funding formula, we have been able to allocate funding to schools that historically have been underfunded. We listened carefully to the f40 campaign, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham was part, and we want to deal with the historical unfairness of schools that have been underfunded year after year. We are addressing that, and the examples I have given show that we have a national funding formula from which schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Bath are benefiting. Bath is getting one of the biggest increases of any local authority in the country, and I had hoped that she would come to this debate to congratulate the Government on taking a brave stance in implementing that funding formula.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister is generous in giving way. I am grateful on behalf of any school that receives extra funding, but that extra funding should not come at the expense of other schools that most need more funding. To me, a fair funding formula should be based on the biggest need. As I said earlier, every child from whatever background should receive the education they deserve, but if we are to address social mobility, we must focus on those who need the most support. In Bath, schools in the most deprived areas are losing out, which is not acceptable.
Nick Gibb
But those schools are funded at significantly above the national average for schools, and if we are moving towards a national funding formula, that will be the consequence. We addressed that in our 2017 manifesto when we said that no school would have a cut in funding to get to the national funding formula position, but we changed that when we came back after 2017 and secured extra funding of £1.3 billion. That enabled us to introduce this minimum funding from which many schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency have benefited and to ensure that no school will have a cut in funding, since the worst that can happen is a 0.5% increase in each of those two years.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
The Minister is talking about fairness and equity in the system, but what does he say to a school in the north-east that, according to the National Education Union, is set to lose £8,000 per pupil? How is that fair?
Nick Gibb
What the NEU is doing with its school cuts campaign is misleading. It is taking the cost pressures that we have acknowledged and telling the public that those are funding cuts. I have been clear that no school has had a funding cut. School funding went up in real terms per pupil in the last Parliament, and that increase has been maintained in real terms.[Official Report, 19 Jun 2018, Vol. 643, c. 1MC.] The NEU is talking about cost pressures that have had to be absorbed, not just by the school system but by other parts of the public sector and the private sector. The hon. Lady will know that once the national funding formula is fully implemented, funding in South Tyneside will increase by 4.5%, which is equal to £3.9 million more going into schools in that area.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I was not going to intervene again, but the Minister mentioned my area, and I will not take any lessons from him about what is happening to schools on my patch. Teachers come to see me on a regular basis saying that they are at breaking point because the cuts are damaging their ability to continue. Some schools are saying that they will have to go down to teaching just four days a week. I am sorry, but the Minister is wrong when he talks about how great things are for school funding in south Tyneside .
Nick Gibb
I am saying that thanks to the £1.3 billion extra funding that we secured, schools in south Tyneside will receive an extra 4.5% once the funding formula is fully implemented, which is equal to £3.9 million. [Interruption.] I have acknowledged that over the last three years, up to 2017-18, there have been cost pressures. Higher employer national insurance contributions have had to be absorbed not just in the school sector but across the public and private sectors, and there have been higher teachers’ pensions contributions, which was the right thing to do.
Jeremy Quin
I am slightly frustrated, so I will share my frustration with the Minister. I would like more money to be spent on schools—I think everyone in the Chamber would like more money to be spent on pupils, and we would like better standards even more. I know that standards are rising, and what is being achieved on the attainment gap is great. However, I am frustrated because when the Conservative party came into office with its coalition partner, there was a £145 billion deficit that the kids of today were going to have to pay back. It is all very well wanting more and more money spent on things, but that money has to be raised. In the past, billions and billions of pounds were being left for the schoolchildren of today to repay, and that is not fair either.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend makes a good point, because that debt also carries an interest charge, which is similar to the overall amount of money we spend on schools each year. If we were to go down the Labour party’s route of promising even more expenditure and borrowing tens of billions of pounds to renationalise whole swathes of the private sector, as was promised during the general election and has been promised since, we would add even more to the interest that we have to pay each year. Indeed, we would have to pay something like £9 billion more in interest charges than we pay already.
When fully implemented, the national funding formula will lead to a 4%—£3.4 million—increase in the constituency of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya), and in Oxford West and Abingdon the increase will be 2.4%, which is £1.2 million extra for schools. Once the funding formula has been implemented in full, there will be a 3% increase in funding for schools in Oxfordshire as a whole, which is £10.5 million. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon referred to high-needs schools, and those schools will get an increase of 3.7% to £60.6 million. That important money is being spent on the most vulnerable children in our society, which is why there has been a 3.8% increase in funding in her area.
Layla Moran
Does the Minister understand the frustration not just of the teaching profession but of parents? I am a governor at one of the schools in Oxfordshire that he mentioned. Perhaps he is suggesting that the board of governors and I are not managing our money or resources properly. I assure him that we are doing everything we can for this issue not to affect frontline services, but it does. My question is simple: does the Minister accept that although he can spout numbers—it is true; these are facts—the reality on the ground in schools such as Botley Primary School in my constituency is that teachers are at breaking point, and parents are beginning to see the real effects of the cost pressures that are played off against the increases in funding that the Minister lists?
Nick Gibb
We have to live within our budget, and the Treasury has to work with the tax receipts it receives and deal with the historic budget deficit it inherited. Somebody has to lend the state that money, and they would not lend us £150 billion every year if we showed no sign of reducing that figure to something more manageable and did not plan ultimately to eliminate it altogether. That is what is happening. That is why we have a strong economy and the lowest level of unemployment for 40 years, why there are opportunities for young people to have a job once they leave our school system, and why fewer children are living in workless households. That is all part of how to manage the public sector in a serious way, which is what the Government have been doing since 2010. That is why we have been able to maintain school funding in real terms over that period, spend £23 billion on capital funding for schools, and fund an increase of 825,000 school places to deal with the increasing pupil population.[Official Report, 19 June 2018, Vol. 643, c. 2MC.]
When we came into office in 2010, we discovered that the previous Government had cut 100,000 school places, despite the increase in the birth rate at the turn of the millennium. We were very sensible in how we managed the capital budget and the revenue budget at a time when we had to tackle a very serious budget deficit as a consequence of the banking crash in 2008.
Stephen Lloyd
The Minister has been talking a lot about the national fair funding formula and the additional money in the constituencies of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and of my hon. Friends the Members for Bath and for Oxford West and Abingdon. When exactly will that national funding formula come in? Does the Minister acknowledge that when it comes in, it will be taking over from cuts of upwards of 20%? There is an awful lot for it to make up for.
Nick Gibb
It came in this year, for 2018-19. In the first two years, because of the transition, we want to allow local authorities to have some discretion over how they implement it on a school by school basis. Most authorities are moving quite close to the national funding formula if not moving to it fully, but some want to tweak it for the two years of the transition, and we have allowed that. As I said, we acknowledge that there have been cost pressures, and are helping schools to manage those cost pressures. Going forward, as the IFS said, we are maintaining funding in real terms per pupil for the next two years, because we have managed to secure an extra £1.3 billion.
We are absolutely committed to providing the greatest support to the children who face the greatest barriers to success. That is why we have reformed not just the schools formula but high needs provision, by introducing a high needs national funding formula. It will distribute funding for children and young people with high needs more fairly, based on accepted indicators of need in each area. The extra money that we are making available means that every local authority will see a minimum increase in high needs funding of 0.5% in 2018 and 1% in 2019-20. Underfunded local authorities will receive gains of up to 3% a year per head for the next two years. Overall, local authorities will receive £6 billion to support those with high needs in 2018-19, up by more than £1 billion since 2013-14.
I will draw my remarks to a close, to allow the hon. Member for Bath to make a final contribution to the debate. I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. Our prime concern is the investment we are making in schools and the steps we are taking to ensure that that money reaches the schools that need it most. That is why we have introduced the national funding formula.
We have been reforming our schools system since 2010, by changing the curriculum to improve the way children are taught to read and the way that maths is taught in our schools. We have reformed our GCSEs so that they are on a par with some of the qualifications taken in higher education institutions around the country. We have been improving behaviour; we have given teachers more powers to deal with bad behaviour in our schools. Standards are rising in our primary and secondary schools, and the attainment gap between children from wealthier and poorer families is closing by 10% in both. Clearly there is more to do, but we are on the right track. Our funding formula is a fairer and more transparent way of distributing funding to our schools.
Wera Hobhouse
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I thank everybody who has contributed to the debate, including my hon. Friends the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and the hon. Members for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck).
I thank the Minister for his response. He has been eloquent in telling me how much funding the schools in my constituency have received, and I am sure that on an individual basis, some schools have increased their funding. But the overall picture is that of a funding crisis. I would not have been on the march that I mentioned at the beginning of the debate if headteachers were not so very desperate about the situation they are in. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne that this is the first time that people from the profession have gone directly on to the streets to shout about that. I urge the Minister to listen to the professionals—to the headteachers and the teachers across the country—who say that they are in crisis. I urge him to listen to the trust of which I am a trustee. We are very worried, because our reserves are running low and we cannot support schools, particularly in our more deprived areas in our multi-academy trust, because the funding is not there.
If we really are committed to social mobility, it is important that we look particularly at the schools in our more deprived areas and make sure that they receive extra support, rather than support being taken away from them. I will take him up on what he said about extra funding for high needs areas, and I will scrutinise that. I am not quite certain whether that is new money. I agree fully with Members who have said today that we need new money. The 0.5% extra money per pupil that has been put into the system does not make up for the pressures from extra pension contributions, inflation and pay rises. Whatever figures we are bandying around, I believe what I see on the ground. I listen to the parents and the teachers, and I look at the young people in my constituency. We should do so across the country, and make sure that young people do not lose out.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of the national funding formula on social mobility.
Somerset County Council: Unitary Status
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Somerset County Council’s plans for unitary status.
Thank you for calling me, Mr Hollobone. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) in his place, joining me today. This is an important subject to us, because it concerns the county of Somerset. A fortnight ago, the leader of the county council came to Westminster and threw an unexpected spanner in the works for all Somerset Members, who got no advance warning of the desperate plans to turn the whole county into a unitary. One by one, he spelled out his vision to us, and we were collectively gobsmacked—we had had no warning.
We knew that the county council was squeezed, and we understood the pressures of providing the most expensive public service with a small grant from Government. We also recognised that the writing had been on the same wall in Taunton for years. Funnily enough, it was back in 2006 that the idea of a Somerset unitary was originally conceived. I was there at that time; unfortunately my hon. Friend was not, but I believe that he was a county councillor.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
He says from a sedentary position that he was not, so that is me in the doghouse already.
The idea came from the dangerous mind of the chief executive, a tiny little man called Alan Jones—no surprises there. He was ruthless and he wanted a “lean, mean council”—his words. He went for the quick fix of getting rid of the district councils, and said the county could pocket—guess what?—£28 million. I will come back to that in a minute. Nobody ever knew quite how Jonesy arrived at £28 million, including me.
The present leader of the county council is still running with the idea 12 years later, and I am afraid that it is as wrong now as it was then. This is what rings alarm bells in my mind: Somerset County Council has never been good with money. I have looked at its books just to prove how bad it is. In 2007, it had only £11 million in the general reserve fund. Here we are, 11 years later, and it still has about £11 million—it is difficult to get a handle on it, but it is between £11 million and £18 million. That may sound like a lot in certain quarters, but it is chickenfeed when the overall budget runs into hundreds of millions. If an unexpected crisis happens—normally it does—there is nothing to fall back on, and unfortunately we have had that in Somerset. Occasionally, the place floods.
Alan Jones liked to pretend that everything was going well, but it was not then and it is not now. The county needed to borrow £376 million in 2007, so Napoleon Jones did a dodgy deal and signed his life away to IBM. He even persuaded his mates in Taunton Deane Borough Council to follow suit. Only two councils did so; the only other organisation to do so was the Avon and Somerset police force, known as the police farce. Together they created a thing called Southwest One, an overblown IT monster that it was boasted would save money faster than anyone could print it. The two councils apparently stood to gain £200 million in savings if everything went according to plan, but it never does—not in Taunton, anyway. Welcome to the south-west bubble: our proud county town—that is what it is—where backhanders are normal and nobody trusts the leaders. The two councils handed over a mass of public money to a multinational, and they wondered why it went belly-up.
If only little Jonesy had got away with creating a unitary, there would have been even more money for—guess who?—IBM. Many of us know of it. The plan was taken over by the districts, but it was doomed because the public did not buy it. When the county council refused to hold a referendum, we—me and the MPs at the time—organised it ourselves, along with the district councils who, regardless of political colour, all subscribed to it. Two hundred thousand people voted, and 84% of them said no.
By July 2007, the people had spoken and unitary Somerset was dead in the water. My hon. Friend the Minister might like to know this. He is the Member for Richmond—I helped on the by-election for his predecessor, Mr William Hague, only because I was in the Army and had a car—and North Yorkshire had also planned to become a unitary, but that plan was rejected by the Government at exactly the same time. There is historical precedent.
As for the Somerset IT monster, Southwest One had only two councils on its books, which made its own death inevitable. Then along came the international financial crisis, the credit crunch and the grim dawn of austerity, which we all remember with no great fondness. Austerity for everybody? Not in Taunton. Jones was sacked by the county in 2009, but it cost £300,000 to get rid of him. Down the road at Taunton Deane, the other IBM champion, Penny James and Shirlene Adam are still in the top jobs and, I am afraid, heading for another IT disaster. They say that donkey dung floats—we have incontinent donkeys galore in Taunton.
By 2012, Somerset Council’s borrowing was on course to hit £410 million, which means shelling out £100,000 every single day just to keep the loans going. All the while, the price of providing vital children’s services and social care was going up, and I say gently to my hon. Friend the Minister that Government grants were coming down.
There is plenty of evidence that the council cannot control what it spends and tackles big problems by taking even more ridiculous risks. The learning and disability service was outsourced, for example, which made financial sense only if the savings added up, but, just like with Southwest One, the real cost outweighed the benefit. Learning and disability burst its budget and then faced extra cuts.
There are ongoing problems in several parts of the council. A recent peer review found that only 65% of promised savings actually took place, so I am afraid the reserves are running out. They were dwindling three years ago when a budget freeze was imposed, but things have got worse. By September 2016, the cabinet talked about declaring the authority bankrupt. It did not happen then, but it is dangerously close to happening now.
I am indebted to the work of Kevin Nacey, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil knows well. He has been the head of finance at Somerset County Council for donkey’s years. He has done the accounts since 2006, but he has had enough: as the latest county calamity began, he announced an early exit. Mr Nacey is off to pastures new, and—dare I say it?—a big juicy carrot: he will soon be in charge of the books of the donkey sanctuary. Eeyore would say of all this, “How very appropriate.”
I have several direct questions for the Minister. We have to work through this; we cannot go on like this in local government. Last week, he and I had another debate on the future of Taunton and West Somerset, which—dare I say?—the Government managed to get through. I feel I was unfair in what I said at the time, but I gently say that I strongly believe that the Government are not playing fair with local government. Last week I was a little more profound, but I was more cross; this week I am more measured.
Local government does matter. The Minister’s constituency covers a vast geographical area—he has a seat bigger than mine, and I always think that Bridgwater and West Somerset is pretty large—and the problem for all of us is that the democratic deficit cannot be taken away without leaving a problem. Where unitary status has happened in very big counties, it has created enormous stresses, not least on the MPs in those areas. When councillors have to look after more and more, and deal with more and more, that deficit gets big. I ask him to pass this point on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: please think about the future of local government. I do not wish to spend whatever time I have in this place getting up every time I can to say to Ministers, “Could you please defend local government?”
Reorganisations are never good. In 1974 the Government of the day created Avon, which my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil is aware of. They created North Somerset and Bath and North East Somerset, which is now a unitary and is struggling because it is too small for a unitary. Maybe we as a county need to talk to Devon and to North Somerset.
Mr Fysh
My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech about the history of local government in Somerset. Does he not think, though, that to deal with the overhang of debt that the Liberal Democrats left the county with in 2009, it has been necessary to take a raft of difficult decisions? Is it not worth at least exploring ways of saving the taxpayers money? This proposal might be a solution, but like him, I would say it is imperative that we ensure no democratic deficit is created through the process.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He was a county councillor, and so was fully aware of the situation—more so than any of us. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey), who I know had a pressing engagement, has made it here. He will recognise this point, because he wrote a devastatingly good article that follows on from what my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil has said. My hon. Friend puts forward a good case that we must look at the debt, look at our options and look at our future. I will take that first point first, if I may.
My hon. Friend is right that it was the Liberals who created the debt—not the Conservatives, but the Liberals. We are now living with that legacy, but it has to be faced. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is our social services that are pulling us down. The problem we face is that we do not have enough money to take care of the neediest in our community.
The second point my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil makes, which I have made before and which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wells agrees with, is that we should also look to our neighbours. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells wrote a good piece about looking toward BANES, and I mentioned looking toward Devon. We have no parameters—we could look at either of them—but we need democratic accountability. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that if we are going to go through with any form of unitary, we need to have a referendum. If we need to look to the people of BANES to split up the ghastly edifice that is Avon and get our old county back, we will do that.
When Councillor Fothergill came to the House—he was very courteous; it was a very courteous meeting—I asked him directly about a referendum. He said, “I will hold negotiations or conversations with our stakeholders.” To me and to my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil and for Wells, the stakeholders are our constituents. They are our stakeholders, not the Avon and Somerset police farce, based in Bristol, or the ambulance service, now based in Exeter, I believe, or the fire service, based wherever the heck it has got to now. We, the people of Somerset, are the stakeholders. That is who we represent.
I would like the Minister, if possible, to say a referendum should be held. We did not hold one in West Somerset. When I had to put my views gently to the Minister last week, I said that the majority of people who took part in what can only be described as a pretty desultory consultation were against that proposal, but they were ignored. I hope that will not be the format for the future.
I say to the Minister, please do not underestimate the ability of Somerset to fight back. We have done it once, and we will do it again. The last time was the battle of Sedgemoor in 1685, which happened in my constituency, very close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells. We marched on London. This time we are coming by train, so we will not get it wrong, and I assure the Minister that we will do what we have to in order to overturn this decision. I therefore urge him to think constructively about a great county such as Somerset. We have had our traumas, but we have a team that is blue throughout, and we want to keep that.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that, while a referendum is certainly the way to finish this process with full public support, the problem with referendums in recent years is that people have sometimes gone into them with incomplete information at their disposal? We must insist that the county council and the districts fully resource the analysis of all possible courses of action, so that a decision can be made on our future as a county based on all facts, rather than those selectively presented to engineer the outcome the county council desires?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend does a phenomenal job up on the north flank of Somerset. He is absolutely correct in what he says. We must take local opinion into account—not by saying in some waffly way, “Well, it’s quite a good idea,” but by saying, “A referendum must be held.” As I think my hon. Friend alluded to, his preference would be to go north and look toward BANES, if possible. We need to talk about that. It is no good the county council leader’s turning up in the House of Commons to try to persuade MPs of a course of action.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I am not from Somerset; I am an MP for Oxfordshire, which of course is thinking of going through a unitary process as well. Does my hon. Friend think it is wise for councils that are thinking about that to share common experience and the enthusiasm that he has for a referendum on these issues?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
My hon. Friend and I have worked together for many years, and I totally respect his guidance and thoughts on this. That is a wake-up call to the Minister. We need to have referendums, because this process is not working the way it should. We need to take public opinion into account, and a referendum is the way to do that. The Government need to make sure that they insist on referendums and therefore that we have democratic control, as opposed to a democratic deficit, which is where I started in the first place.
I therefore say to the Minister that this plan is a dangerous, unwarranted and unnecessary intrusion into government in Somerset. We will talk about it and look at it, but at the moment there is no merit in doing it. In fact, it would be more sensible for the districts to take over the county’s functions than for the county to take over the districts’ functions, because the difference is that the districts will not go bust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, for what I think is the first time in my new role. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) not only on securing this important debate, but on his continued engagement on the topic of local government. I have enjoyed the discussions I have had with him in previous parliamentary Committees and debates, and I look forward to many more. It is also a pleasure to see my hon. Friends the Members for Yeovil (Mr Fysh), for Wells (James Heappey) and for Henley (John Howell) contribute to the debate, and perhaps we may have the honour of hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) later.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset will have heard me say before that the Government are committed to considering locally led proposals for unitarisation and mergers between councils, where requested. He will also have heard me say that the Government are not in the business of imposing top-down solutions on local government; we wait to hear proposals delivered, developed and initiated by local government.
Only last week, as my hon. Friend mentioned, we discussed in a Delegated Legislation Committee the draft secondary legislation that, if Parliament approves and it is made, would implement the merger proposal that was submitted to the Government by two district councils in Somerset, West Somerset and Taunton Deane. Today we are considering the possibility of Somerset councils wishing to pursue further restructuring to form unitary local government in Somerset.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said earlier this month, the Government believe that there is space and scope for unitary authorities, and where unitary authorities can seek to make a difference, the Government will support that. However, we want to hear from the sector itself on the benefits that can be experienced, and we will listen.
There are two unitary councils in the ceremonial county of Somerset—Bath and North East Somerset Council and North Somerset Council. It is important to put on the record that the Government have not received any proposals from the county council or any of the district councils for further unitarisation in Somerset. However, should such locally led proposals emerge, we would of course consider them.
If such proposals were to emerge, the Government have laid out previously the three specific criteria that we will use to judge them. It will be helpful to Members if I lay them out. The first criterion is that the proposal is likely to improve local government in the area, by improving service delivery, giving greater value for money, yielding cost savings, providing stronger strategic and local leadership, delivering more sustainable structures and avoiding a fragmentation of major services.
The second criterion is that the proposed structure is a credible geography consisting of one or more existing local government areas and that the population of any proposed unitary authority must be substantial.
James Heappey
Since the county council kicked off this conversation a couple of weeks ago, it has come to my attention that the Government have a figure in mind for what “substantial” means, in terms of the minimum size of an authority. Will the Minister offer any detail on that?
Rishi Sunak
My predecessors, the Secretary of State and myself have previously laid out that a unitary authority should contain at least 300,000 people or more. That figure comes from research conducted by the Department in the past. However, each proposal will be considered on its merits.
The third and final criterion is that the proposal commands local support. In particular, the structure must be proposed by one or more existing councils in the area, and there must be evidence of a good deal of local support for it.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
Will the Minister say these wonderful words: there should be a referendum?
Rishi Sunak
I am afraid that I cannot say those specific words; indeed, that is not the Government’s previous guidance. The criterion is that there should be evidence of a good deal of local support for the proposal, including from business, the voluntary sector, public bodies and local communities.
My hon. Friend will know from the various proposals that the Government have already considered that there have been a range of ways to demonstrate that good deal of local support. Other areas have engaged electoral and polling agencies to conduct representative polling, county and district council members—who represent people in different areas—have voted and extensive engagement exercises and consultation processes have happened. There are various mechanisms, but the key is that, at the end of the day, there must be evidence of a good deal of local support.
I will elaborate a little further on what a good deal of local support means, as opposed to the mechanism for establishing that it is there. We would like to see a good deal of local support, which we assess in the round across the whole area—from business, the voluntary sector, public bodies and local communities. We do not mean unanimous agreement from all councillors, stakeholders, councils and residents. However, we expect as much consensus from councils as possible.
My hon. Friend talked about democratic deficits, and he is right to highlight the importance of local democracy. From parish councils and all the way up, strong local democracy serves communities well and can make a difference to how people live their lives and to the area that they call home. We have seen in previous reorganisations and restructuring an increase in the incidence of parishing, revitalising that most local form of democracy. For example, in Wiltshire, Salisbury became a town council as part of that process. We are seeing similar moves towards parishing in other areas, such as Suffolk, which is currently in the process of a district merger. The Government also have powers to confer charter trustees as part of any reorganisation.
John Howell
I agree that proposals will never get unanimous support from councils, but that is not the issue. In many cases when a unitary council has been created, parish councils have not even been asked. If we are to put the emphasis on parish councils as the basic building blocks of local government, they need to be asked and they need to be included in the decision-making process.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If a local area tries to demonstrate to the Government that it has a good deal of local support from every possible sector in the local area, parish councils would clearly be a set of institutions that it would be worth considering talking to. Indeed, previous proposals that we have received have specifically engaged parish councils as part of their deliberations. The charter trustee status that I mentioned also means that ancient civic traditions can be retained in an area, regardless of the final form of the restructuring that takes place.
James Heappey
I am keen to understand exactly what level of support is required among local authorities. If all or most districts involved in the proposal were against it, would that be sufficient to block whatever plans might come forward?
Rishi Sunak
I am afraid I cannot give my hon. Friend a specific quantitative mechanism or definition that needs to be met. I re-emphasise the guidance, which states that a good deal of local support is needed. I have tried my best to elaborate on how that will be interpreted by the Secretary of State when he considers proposals in the round, along with all the other criteria that he has to balance.
I am keen to give my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset a minute or two to wind up the debate, so in conclusion—[Interruption.]
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. In a half-hour debate, Ministers do not have the prerogative to give the Member who brought the debate time to wind up. The Minister has almost four minutes to go.
Rishi Sunak
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I was not aware of that; I appreciate the extra time.
It is important that the councils of Somerset think long and hard about how best to serve their communities and about how to deliver the public services that people rely on, whether adult social care, children’s services, strategic planning or transport. It may well be that innovation and re-organisation will help to deliver for the people of Somerset, but it is crucial to note that that decision should be taken by the people of Somerset themselves. It will not be for the Government to impose a top-down solution.
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I will be very brief; I promise I will not wind up the debate, Mr Hollobone. I am confused, because the Minister says that there must be local involvement, but also that local stakeholders must support the proposals. Most of West Somerset’s local stakeholders are not based in the county, funnily enough. Ambulance services are based in Devon, the fire brigade is based in, I think, North Somerset and the police are up in Avon. I would love to know how that will work. I ask the Minister to think this through. The most important people are the 500,000 based in the county of Somerset.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and he is absolutely right to demonstrate that local people should have their say and that their voice should be heard. However, it is also important, when these deliberations are made, that we consider effective local government as one of the criteria. In any local area, there will be institutions and stakeholders, who may or may not be based in that area, who will make a difference to the delivery of local services, and their views will form part of those deliberations.
My hon. Friend started the debate by saying something that I wholeheartedly agree with: local government matters. I take that very seriously, as I know does the Secretary of State. That is why the Government will remain committed to responding and listening to proposals that come forward from local government. We will not seek to impose our view, but where there is a desire and a thrust for more change and innovation—whether in Somerset or elsewhere—we will look to support those involved, according to the criteria I have laid out. In conclusion, I commend my hon. Friend for the continued passion he has shown in ensuring that local democracy in Somerset remains vibrant and strong.
Question put and agreed to.
Christians Overseas
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Will those not staying to discuss the persecution of Christians please be kind enough to leave the Chamber quickly and quietly? Let me say right at the start that this is an hour-long debate and an awful lot of hon. Members wish to speak. Depending on how long the mover of the motion speaks for, it is likely that other contributions will have to be limited to two minutes or less.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the persecution of Christians overseas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Given the amount of interest from colleagues, I will keep my remarks as short as possible in order for them to have the maximum amount of time to speak.
In April last year, a young Nigerian woman, Dorkas Zakka, was murdered, along with 12 others in Kafanchan, simply for attending an Easter mass. Local priest Father Alexander Yeycock said that Nigerian military units stood by and did nothing while the murders took place.
Last November in Mina, Egypt, a mob surrounded a Coptic church, threatening worshippers inside, many of whom were also physically attacked. Local Coptic leader Anba Macarius says that the Egyptian authorities have done nothing to bring those responsible to justice.
Asia Bibi was sentenced to death by hanging for blasphemy in Pakistan in 2010. Thankfully, that sentence has since been suspended. Two Pakistani politicians who advocated on her behalf and opposed Pakistan’s blasphemy laws were assassinated.
In May last year, two churches in Sudan were destroyed on the orders of the Sudanese Government. In June last year, 33 Christian women in Eritrea were imprisoned by the Eritrean Government simply for taking part in prayer activity.
Just two weeks ago, Pakistani man Suneel Saleem was beaten to death by a group of doctors and security guards—a group of doctors, Mr Hollobone—at the Services Hospital in Lahore, Pakistan, when he protested about the anti-Christian abuse that his heavily pregnant sister had suffered at the hospital. A man was beaten to death by doctors in a hospital simply for being Christian.
In January this year, in Tamil Nadu, in southern India, a mob pursued and beat a priest and three companions outside a police station. Despite their desperate pleas for help, the police stood by and did nothing. We have heard nothing by way of condemnation of these sorts of attacks in India from Prime Minister Modi.
According to a petition presented to Parliament last year by Aid to the Church in Need, such attacks have been taking place in about 50 countries worldwide. In India alone, about 24,000 Christians were physically assaulted last year. In Iraq, the majority of the Christian and Yazidi populations have come close to being wiped out.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about various countries persecuting Christians. I hope he will come on to North Korea and China, which have also been persecuting Christians; in fact, that has been going on for a long time. In Egypt, the Coptic Church has been persecuted for years and years. I hope that the Minister, when he winds up the debate, will tell us, for a change, what the British Government are going to do about it. Perhaps we should look at aid for a start.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts my speech in two or three regards, but as he mentions North Korea, I will say now that Aid to the Church in Need ranks North Korea as the worst country for Christians to live in. Accurate information is of course hard to obtain, but ACN estimates that at least 200,000 Christians have gone missing in North Korea since 1953. North Koreans who are found practising as Christians face arrest, torture and imprisonment, and there are worrying examples of Christians being publicly executed in North Korea.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
May I take my hon. Friend back from North Korea to Iraq and the middle east, but may I first make a general point? There are so many hon. Members present who want to speak—I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this really important debate—that I suggest he sponsor a longer debate in the future so that all of us will have a chance to speak. However, may I also invite him to praise the work of Open Doors, which has been working with the Christian communities in Iraq and Syria?
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend. Perhaps we should all get together and ask for a Backbench Business debate one Thursday, when we could debate this matter more fully. Let us all, as an action, take that away to the Backbench Business Committee. I will note down who is here, so that I can get in touch after this debate.
I would specifically like to praise Open Doors. I did write its name at the top of my notes, but in my haste to get the debate started and not to take up too much time, I overlooked it. In fact, I can see sitting in the Public Gallery Rev. Sue Thomas from St John’s church in Old Coulsdon, in my constituency, who I have been discussing this issue with for some time and who works with Open Doors. I thank Open Doors for its work in this field, and I specifically thank Rev. Sue Thomas.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. The Open Doors charity has found that, overall, persecution of Christians has risen for the fifth year in a row. Such persecution—indeed, persecution of any religious group—is abhorrent and unacceptable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK Government must put the protection of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, at the heart of their foreign policy and use all diplomatic means available to ensure adherence to international law?
Chris Philp
I agree very strongly with the sentiments that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. I will come on to what I believe the UK Government could do in this area, or could do more of, but whatever efforts are being made at the moment, worldwide they are not enough, because as the hon. Gentleman has just pointed out, the problem of Christians being persecuted is getting worse, not better. The direction of travel is the wrong one, and it is incumbent on those of us in the United Kingdom and other countries who have or can have influence to do a lot more than we are doing at the moment. We need to reverse the trend.
There are many examples of where the trend is getting worse. We all know about the activities of Boko Haram in Nigeria, where 276 Christian schoolgirls were kidnapped several years ago; 112 of them are still missing. In Myanmar, where Rohingya Muslims have been persecuted, Christian converts have been persecuted as well. About 100,000 Christians are living in displacement camps as a result.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Actually, there was a bid to the Backbench Business Committee for a wider debate, but unfortunately it was rejected—we should try again. He has just mentioned the Chibok girls. May I, through him, remind colleagues of early-day motion 1246 about the plight of one particular girl, who had to spend her 15th birthday still in captivity because she is refusing to renounce her faith? If all colleagues were willing to sign that early-day motion, that would be very helpful.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue and draws attention to a very important early-day motion. So many Christians subjected to this sort of persecution show tremendous faith and tremendous bravery by standing up for their faith in the face of the most appalling threats. The example that my right hon. Friend cites is truly inspiring and tells us how seriously we must take our duty to protect girls such as the one to whom she refers. They deserve all the support and protection that we can possibly give them.
I deliberately chose the examples that I gave earlier because in all of them a Government—a nation state’s Government—failed to take action to protect Christians being persecuted, whether it was those army units in Nigeria standing by and doing nothing, the police in Egypt and India standing by and doing nothing or, in the example from Sudan, the Government themselves imprisoning Christians.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He is itemising the huge displacement that there has been. Does he agree that, in relation to the middle east alone, we are talking about unprecedented movements of Christians out of their historical homelands, and we really need to address that problem?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I have been raising individual cases, because they tell a painful and powerful story, but behind those individual cases lie hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Christians being persecuted and displaced, particularly in the middle east. We cannot stand by or walk by on the other side. We must take action.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important debate. I was reminded that when I was the parliamentary churchwarden for St Margaret’s, we did some good work trying to engage the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to get an interface with some of these countries where we are not getting through. Could we be optimistic and get something moving back on that kind of track?
Chris Philp
I hope we can. The hon. Gentleman is driving at the point I was just beginning to make. We understand that there are terrorist organisations, such as ISIS, that do terrible things, and we are quite rightly combating them. However, I chose the examples I did very specifically, because in those examples, Governments of nation states—some of them Commonwealth members, and some of them allies of the United Kingdom—have either stood by and done nothing or, in some cases, actively encouraged and facilitated the persecution I have been describing. It is unacceptable that allies of the United Kingdom should stand by and allow this kind of persecution to take place. As a powerful western nation, we have levers at our disposal to influence these countries that are allowing the persecution of Christians to take place under their nose—and knowingly, deliberately and intentionally doing nothing.
The most obvious lever that we have was referred to by the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), namely the overseas aid budget. It is a good thing that we spend £13 billion a year on overseas aid, which is 0.7% of GDP. That gives us enormous influence. Much of that aid is spent bilaterally. It goes directly to countries rather than via third-party agencies such as the United Nations or the European Union. I believe we should use the power that aid donation confers to achieve the change we want to see.
For example, the largest bilateral recipient of overseas aid is Pakistan, which receives about £350 million a year. Yet, Christians there are persecuted terribly with violent acts. The court system in Pakistan often prosecutes Christians using blasphemy laws, which are wholly contrary to any notion of free speech or religious freedom. I believe we should be looking at imposing some conditionality, particularly on aid we give directly to another Government. We should ask that they do more and not just pay lip service and say fine words, which generally speaking they do, but that they take real action to prevent the persecution of Christians, whether it is in the court system, or through the police and other armed forces standing by and doing nothing.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree, on a more positive side, that we need to expect the Department for International Development to take far more account of the work that Christian and other faith-based organisations do? It does not take enough account of the strength of the work that those organisations do in development on behalf of the people of that country. My right hon. Friend the Minister has been an exception to that in his role in the Foreign Office, but that needs to spread to DFID, which cannot be a religion-free zone.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right. Christian charities and organisations often show enormous courage in going into areas where Governments and the UN fear to tread, and they do work protecting Christians who are not being protected by anybody else. I endorse my hon. Friend’s point, and I hope the Minister will specifically reply to it in his remarks.
I am clear that we should be using the overseas aid budget as a means to influence behaviour by sovereign Governments. In this country we offer full religious freedom, quite rightly, regardless of faith, to everybody. I am proud that we do, but in return we should be demanding that Christians and people of any faith around the world receive precisely the same religious freedom. Where that religious freedom is not extended by unenlightened Governments, we should be doing everything to change that.
We allow some countries, for example in the middle east, to send quite large amounts of money into this country to promote their domestic faith, which is fine, and we are happy to let that happen, but at the same time, those very same Governments that are sending money here are denying religious freedom over there. That is fundamentally unfair, and it should end.
I am conscious that time is pressing on, so I want to conclude. There are two reasons why I believe this issue should be at the top of our foreign policy and overseas aid agenda, and why we need more than warm words from some of these overseas Governments. There is a human rights dimension. Religious freedom is a fundamental human right. There is a human tragedy, in that individual Christians are being persecuted in the most appalling ways, as I described in the examples I gave. I also believe that it serves our national interest to see human rights promoted, because if we help these countries become more tolerant—if we help human rights take root—that will in itself combat extremism. Where there is tolerance and respect, extremism will not flourish. There is an overwhelming human rights case for pushing this agenda hard and properly, and there is a national interest argument as well.
I know that lots of hon. Members want to speak, so I will conclude now. This is an important issue and one we all feel strongly about. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Would all those seeking to catch my eye please stand? I have to call the Front-Bench speakers at 5.7 pm. There are 12 Members standing, and there are 20 minutes left, so the time limit will have to be 90 seconds. It is amazing what you can say in 90 seconds, so I expect some powerful speeches. If there are loads of interventions, I am afraid that those at the back of the queue will not be able to contribute.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) for bringing this important debate. He so eloquently put forward the argument about the persecution of Christians. We have clearly seen a considerable increase in attacks by armed Fulani herdsmen on predominantly Christian farming communities in northern Nigeria. To get an understanding of the scale of these attacks in the past three years, I note that the Fulani herdsmen, armed with AK47s and in some cases chemicals, are believed to have killed more men, women and children than Boko Haram.
Egypt is home to the middle east’s largest Christian community—comprising some 10% of the population—the majority of whom are orthodox. The spread of ISIS-affiliated groups in the country has seen a significant rise in their persecution. In February 2017, the group released a propaganda video vowing to wipe out Egypt’s Coptic community and this followed the killing of 28 Christians by a suicide bomber in the Coptic Orthodox cathedral of St Mark in Cairo, in December 2016. Last year, two church bombings killed 49 people and another 29 were killed when extremists attacked people travelling to a monastery in May.
Given the time constraints, I will conclude by reminding the Minister that in 2017, in its report on human rights, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated that freedom of religion and belief was now considered
“a key and integral part of the work”
of the UK Government and one of three areas that the Government would be prioritising. I urge the Minister to ensure the Government stand by that commitment.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I would like to speak with particular reference to China. A recent hearing of the Conservative party human rights commission, which I chair, heard—as the Aid to the Church in Need report, which has already been referred to, says—that persecution in China has notably increased recently.
There are 127 million Chinese Christians, yet we have heard that, partly as a result of the revival of Christianity in China, the Chinese authorities are now cracking down even more strongly than previously, not just on the unregistered churches, where we have heard that thousands have been pulled down, crosses have been pulled down and clergy have been routinely detained, but now on registered churches and even house churches, the small churches where groups have met legitimately. Officials are going into those homes, removing any Christian items and replacing them with a picture of the Premier.
This spring, new laws were implemented to prevent certain groups of people from going to church in China, including people in certain types of employment, and even—quite shockingly—to prevent the taking of a person under 18 to church. Increasingly, apart from the imprisonment of the clergy, the human rights lawyers, who used to be able to defend the clergy from unreasonable accusations, have also been imprisoned. I understand that it is now virtually impossible to find such a lawyer in China—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for the opportunity speak. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on introducing the debate. I welcome the Minister and look forward to his important response. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, many things come to my attention. In Nepal, the new anti-conversion and blasphemy laws threaten Christians. In Nigeria, Christian farmers and others have been murdered in their thousands by the armed Fulani militias. In Pakistan, at least 1,000 Hindu and Christian girls are kidnapped, forced to convert, forcibly married or sold into prostitution annually.
I would like to leave something for the Minister to do in these 90 seconds—it is a bit like that radio programme “Just a Minute”. He should develop strategies to advance freedom of religion or belief in countries with severe FORB restrictions; develop a database that tracks quantitative data on issues relating to religious or belief minorities; increase Government expertise internally or via external experts; and introduce mandatory training for employees of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development who work in countries with severe levels of discrimination against religion or belief.
Those steps will address the persecution of Christians. This year, 100,000 people will die for their faith, 200 million will be persecuted and 2 billion will live in an endangered neighbourhood. When we put those figures into perspective, we know why this debate is so important. That is why I am very happy to support the hon. Member for Croydon South.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on securing this debate. In the brief time I have available, I will compliment Open Doors on its work.
The necessity for this debate is shown by an attack on the Emmanuel Christian College, which Open Doors has been supporting, that took place on 14 May in South Sudan, where 10 people, including five children, were killed. Although the details are unclear, witnesses blame the Sudan People’s Liberation Army. That is a sad reminder of the risks people face to do what many of us take for granted in our daily lives, which is to declare our Christian faith, to go to church and to wish to share that faith with others.
This is not just about the state actors—the traditional idea of a Government oppressing their people—but the non-state actors, such as Daesh, which have brought so much terror to the middle east and, in particular, to Christian families there. In the Minister’s response, I am interested to hear what work he plans to do with Governments who we want to change their policies to allow more religious freedom and to support Governments who are genuinely struggling to deal with extremist elements within their nation states that cannot be dealt with by normal law enforcement mechanisms.
The key part is about stopping the persecution not just of Christians, but of people who freely choose which faith they have, or who have no faith. All Christians should stand for that fundamental right.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). I will be brief and talk about one person in China: Gao Zhisheng, a prominent Chinese human rights lawyer who is best known for his work defending Christians, Falun Gong adherents and other vulnerable social groups. He is believed to have been forcibly disappeared by the authorities since August as a result of his work on sensitive cases and his open letters to Chinese political leaders.
Gao was detained and tortured numerous times before being convicted of inciting to subvert state power. He was sentenced to three years in prison and was released on 7 August 2014 with serious health problems. He was disappeared again in August and I met his daughter not long after being elected.
My only ask is that the Minister makes direct representations to the Chinese authorities to revise all regulations and legislation pertaining to religion to ensure that they align with international standards on freedom of religion or belief, as set out in article 18 of the international covenant on civil and political rights, in consultation with religious communities and legal experts. That is my ask. The Minister should get on with it.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I place on record my huge respect for people of all faiths who are persecuted around the world for their faith and, in the context of this debate, particularly for Christians who face horrific circumstances that we in this country can only imagine. We honour their dignity and courage.
Persecution is not always about violence and killing people. It often takes more subtle forms where Christians and people of other faiths are excluded from certain parts of society and from obtaining certain jobs—in some countries they cannot work in the public sector—and are perhaps put under surveillance. We should be conscious of all forms of persecution that Christians face around the world, not just the most extreme.
To echo other hon. Members, our Government should do more to use the influence they have, particularly through the Commonwealth and our overseas aid budget, to ensure that the rights and freedoms of Christians around the world are protected and to challenge countries where that is not the case. Like other hon. Members, I place on record my huge respect for Open Doors and the incredible work that it has done over decades to raise the issue of the persecuted Church around the world and to support persecuted Christians. It is a sad reality that despite the organisation existing for more than 50 years, its work is more needed in our world today than ever before. We should support everything that it and others do to support the persecuted Church.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Given the time constraints, I will focus on the Coptic Orthodox Church. In Islwyn, St Mary’s and St Abu Saifain’s Coptic Orthodox church is the first in Wales, and hundreds of people from across Wales go to worship there every year. I was lucky to be invited when my son, Zachariah, was three weeks old. I went with my wife and we celebrated our first mass with the Copts there. We were so welcomed.
Although Coptic Christians in my constituency and across the UK can freely worship without persecution for their beliefs, the same cannot be said for those in Egypt and elsewhere. Many will remember that a Coptic church just south of Cairo was targeted in a horrific terror attack in December, which took the lives of 10 people, including the perpetrator. That same day, an electronics shop owned by Copts in nearby Helwan was also attacked, leaving another two people dead. The Egyptian Interior Ministry confirmed that those attacks were by Daesh.
Estimates vary as to how many Copts there are worldwide, but it is believed that there are up to 20 million. Of those, at least 15 million reside in Egypt. That makes Copts a minority in Egypt’s population of 95 million, the majority of whom follow Islam, which is recognised as the state religion. There have been many examples of Copts, especially women and girls, being kidnapped, forced to marry and converted. That needs to stop. I agree with hon. Members who have said that where Governments are struggling to keep a lid on extremism and protect Christians, we must do all we can to help them in word and deed.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The largest Christian community in Africa is in Nigeria, a country for which I am the Prime Minister’s trade envoy.
The centre and south of Nigeria are tolerant places where faiths live side by side in happiness. The problem comes in the north and north-east of the country, where there is a great deal of radical Islamism. Christians are caught in the crossfire there between ethnic or illegal groups as they pursue their vendettas against other groups.
Nigeria did not stand by, however, after an attack on a Christian church. The President was summoned to Parliament and he condemned the attack in the strongest possible language. The Parliament suspended its sittings for three days. Before it did that, it passed a no-confidence motion in the security chiefs. That is a strong indication of the feeling across the whole of Nigeria—we should not forget that the President is a member of the Islamic faith—that the attack on the church was not to be tolerated.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to speak. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) for securing this important debate.
Earlier this month, I had the privilege to meet the Reverend Yunusa Nmadu, the chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide Nigeria and general secretary of the Evangelical Church Winning All, who gave me an insight into the awful situation facing Christians in Nigeria, particularly in the north of the country. I was told of the worrying rise in the number of young Christian schoolgirls being abducted and then subjected to forced conversion and forced marriage. I heard about Leah Sharibu, the sole Christian among the Dapchi girls abducted by Boko Haram on 29 February, who remains in captivity.
The rise in attacks by the Fulani militia was also highlighted to me. It is reported that since 2011 such attacks have displaced some 62,000 people and left 6,000 dead and many more injured, in what observers have described as some form of ethnic cleansing. In the same timeframe, the Fulani herdsmen have destroyed some 500 churches in Benue state alone.
I trust that the Minister will be able to use this Government’s influence to encourage the Government of Nigeria to meet their constitutional and international obligations to uphold freedom of religion and belief for all citizens. The examples that I have highlighted just touch on the issues in Nigeria, but there is certainly a great need to press the Nigerian Government to overhaul their existing security arrangements, so as to protect vulnerable communities from the threat posed by the Fulani militia.
I hope that the UK Government are able to raise those concerns, and that the Minister will join me in urging Nigeria to tackle the proliferation of small arms and to address the violence caused by the armed bandits and the Fulani herdsmen, among others.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for chairing this crucial debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) for securing it.
Sadly, persecution of individuals due to their religious belief is nothing new. However, there is no doubt that communities of Christians that might once have expected to live in peace now face new threats that go hand in hand with rising political violence, attacks on free speech and discriminatory law making in countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Indonesia. The Minister will be aware of the appalling attacks that took place this month on churches in Surabaya.
What can we do? I know that the Minister has been developing a strong relationship with Indonesia, and I would like to know how the UK is sharing our security expertise with nations affected by Islamist terror, what work we are doing to share expertise on deradicalisation, and what engagement we have had on anti-blasphemy laws that are affecting Christian and Ahmadiyya communities.
What can we do to encourage thought leadership in regions such as the middle east? Saudi Arabia clearly wishes to rebrand itself very carefully as a more modern nation, in part to satisfy a growing demand for change from its young and vibrant population but also to diversify its economy. How can we harness that drive and carefully encourage the kingdom towards a more moderate approach, which other nations might be inclined to follow? I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
It has been mentioned before, but we also have leverage through our aid budget, with some £350 million going to Pakistan alone each year. Understandably, that development package is highly controversial among many of my constituents, but in so far as the Government wish to continue that aid relationship I agree with other Members that it ought to be conditional.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
This issue is an extremely important one, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on securing the debate.
It is shocking that more than 2 million Christians around the world are persecuted simply because of their faith, and like many hon. Members today I commend the work of Open Doors. What stood out for me on its world watch list was the fact that many of the countries on the list are also synonymous with luxury holidays, such as the Maldives and Mexico.
We need to talk more about this issue and not be afraid to talk about it. We are traditionally still a Christian country, and this issue does not necessarily get the airtime that it deserves. We have leverage with our international aid budget, enabling us to push countries to do more and to stop persecuting people simply because of their faith. We should also ring-fence a proportion of our international aid specifically to address this issue, because it is so important. In addition, I want us to ensure that our aid does not have unintended consequences, whereby we try to further causes such as education but actually make the problem worse.
I also note the work of SAT-7 in my constituency of Chippenham. It is a broadcaster across the middle east and Africa that tries to promote Christian values but also tolerance of and respect for all religions, which we all want to see. Also, I echo the comments made earlier about SAT-7 being unable to get donations from the Department for International Development just because of its religious background.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone—thank you for calling me to speak, given that I have already made an intervention.
I return to what is happening in Nigeria. The 2018 world watch list names Nigeria as the country with the largest number of Christians who have been killed, at 3,000. In fact, 6,000 people in Nigeria have been killed by the radicalised Fulani herdsmen since 2011. Can the Minister give us some assurances that the Government will examine the spread of such terrorism into the centre and south of Nigeria, since those parts of Nigeria have ceased to be the focus of the Department for International Development’s responsibility? Nigeria is a vast country that lies on a fault line between Islam and Christianity. There should be very real concern in our country about Nigeria, which, after all, is a Commonwealth country upon which we should be able to bring some pressure to bear.
Will the Minister also come back to the question that I asked in my intervention about what the Government are doing to get the last of the Chibok girls freed? These poor girls have slipped all too easily from the attention of the media around the world, and to think that a girl had to spend her 15th birthday in captivity just because of her unwillingness to give up her most profound belief shocks me to the core. I hope that by having this debate we can do something to ensure that those girls are not forgotten.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. The guideline limits are five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Then Mr Philp will have the time remaining at the end to sum up the debate.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on securing this very important debate. He made a powerful speech, which at times highlighted very disturbing, even harrowing cases from across the world, and he talked about the fundamental human rights that are jeopardised when people are not free to practise their religion.
As Christians in the UK, we can be subject to verbal abuse, but nobody ever prevents us from practising our religion. We have had many contributions this afternoon, and I will mention some of them. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) talked about the rise of ISIS and the difficulties that presented for the Christian community. The hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) both talked about the Christian community in China and the fact that 127 million Christians in that country are in great danger. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) all talked about the Christian community in Nigeria. In fact, Nigeria is one of the countries where Christians face the greatest degree of persecution.
A number of Members have mentioned the Open Doors world watch list, and I will just highlight some of the countries on it. No. 1 on that list is North Korea, where persecution is led by the state, which sees Christians as hostile elements that have to be eradicated. Neighbours and family members, including children, are highly watchful and suspicious, and will report anything to the authorities. If Christians are discovered, they are either deported to labour camps or killed on the spot, and their families suffer the same fate. Meetings for worship are virtually impossible to arrange and so are conducted in the utmost secrecy. The churches in Pyongyang that are shown to visitors serve mere propaganda purposes.
In Somalia, family members and clan leaders intimidate and even kill converts to Christianity. Al-Shabaab, the radical militant group, relies on a clan-based structure to advance its ideology, forcing sheikhs and imams to teach jihad or face expulsion or death, so it is not only Christians who are targeted in Somalia but Muslims too. Christians from a Muslim background in Somalia are regarded as high-value targets, and at least 23 suspected converts were killed last year.
In Sudan, there is a complex cultural mix, but the Government are implementing a policy of one religion, one culture and one language. Under that authoritarian rule, freedom of expression is curtailed and the persecution of Christians is reminiscent of ethnic cleansing. Some Christians disguise their faith, even from their children and even after death, preferring to be buried in a Muslim cemetery rather than a Christian one.
In Pakistan, Christians suffer from institutionalised discrimination, with occupations that are regarded as low and dirty being officially reserved for Christians. I want to highlight the work of a Glasgow-based organisation called Global Minorities Alliance, which has produced a number of reports. Some of its staff travelled to Thailand to see some of the Pakistani Christians who had travelled to that country. What they found was that Christians fleeing Pakistan can easily gain access to Thailand, because of Thailand’s loose tourist visa regime, but Thailand is no safe haven for them. Once they are in Thailand, they are in a country that refuses to recognise their status as refugees and they find themselves in limbo, unable to go back to Pakistan and unable to start a new life. Daily life has become an economic hardship, coupled with the fear of arrest, detention and deportation.
Finally, I want to mention three countries that target Christians, all of which we have links with—Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey. We sell arms to Saudi Arabia at the same time as it targets Christians. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) mentioned tourism links. We have strong tourism links with Egypt and Turkey, yet their persecution continues, so we need to think carefully about our trade deals and our relationships when considering paying into economies through tourism.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on his powerful speech on an important subject.
Christianity has been dominant in this country for 1,000 years and, for us, it can be difficult to imagine what it is like to be the persecuted. We tend to think of the persecutions of the first century or of the Tudor TV dramas, but the scale of what hon. Members on both sides of the House have described shows that persecution is a large and growing problem. I want to say something about some particular countries, but we need to ask ourselves why this is happening before we can discuss what we need to do.
Hon. Members have spoken about the middle east. Between 50% and 80% of Christians in Syria and Iraq have been forced to move in recent years, according to Open Doors. I, too, commend that organisation’s excellent work in supporting those communities and in bringing the significant problems to our attention. I also commend the work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which came to see me recently.
Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), talked about the problems in Nigeria, which are particularly concentrated in the north of the country and which have grown recently. My husband was born in Kaduna and his father, who had been a colonial civil servant, died in 2004. At that time, the persecution was a small cloud on the horizon, not the big problem it is today. We need to do more. It is, of course, not easy, and we cannot just go around threatening people, but we need to pay more attention to the problem, as we do to the oldest Christian community, the Copts, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) talked about, and their particular need for protection.
As hon. Members have said, the persecution takes different forms. In some places it is about a religious divide. In some places it is state-driven oppression, particularly in China. In some places it is about people being excluded, and that is what we see in Mexico where, for example, someone in the wrong denomination might have their water and electricity cut off—shocking things, which I will raise when I am in Mexico next week.
It is hard for us to understand why people feel that they are under threat from other religions, that what other religions do threatens their position, or that they are so entitled, and so confident in their own rightness, that they should impose their views on other people. It is important that we increase and improve religious understanding. The Minister probably knows that there is a very good centre for religious understanding at the London School of Economics and Political Science, led by Rev. James Walters. We also need to consider how we can use our aid money. We need to think more open-mindedly about what misunderstandings we have, as well as about those of other people, without in any way saying that any of the abuses are acceptable.
In Vietnam, there are arrests, imprisonments, torture and extrajudicial killings, yet the Home Office wants to send a constituent of mine, who is a Christian, back there. When I asked the Bishop of Durham for examples he knew of persecution, he raised that of a Jordanian Christian woman who came to this country and was then interned in Yarl’s Wood before she claimed asylum. We need to use the aid programme and we need to speak out, but will Foreign Office Ministers please also talk to the Home Office so that the very people who have been victims are not re-victimised in this country?
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) for initiating the debate. I particularly respect his consistent and long-standing commitment—well, long-standing for a colleague of three years, anyway—to the issue during all his time in the House. He and other hon. Members from across the House have given appalling examples of the persecution of Christians overseas. I fear that I will not be able to do justice in the relatively short time available to their heartfelt contributions, but I will, if necessary, write to those whose issues I am unable to address in these few words.
I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). She made a very good point. I am a great believer in joined-up government. Sometimes I fear that, between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, things are not quite as joined up as they should be on these sorts of matters, and I will do my level best to take up the hon. Lady’s case and address it more avidly, if she will give me the details.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
While we are on the subject of joined-up government, will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to seek to ensure that, when Christian clerics are invited to the United Kingdom on religious visits, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office will facilitate visas rather than blocking them?
Mark Field
No doubt I will have the specifics of that matter before too long. Yes, I will endeavour to do that for my hon. Friend.
The Government are, sadly, all too familiar with research conducted in recent years by reputable organisations that shows that the persecution of Christians is on the rise. In the 12 months to October, Open Doors concluded that more than 200 million Christians in 50 countries experienced what it regards as a high level of persecution. Its latest watch list charts a swathe of Christian persecution stretching from northern and western Africa to North Korea.
I should at this point like to touch on the situation in Nigeria— an issue that a number of Members expressed concern about. In addition to the challenges presented by Boko Haram, particularly in the north and on the north-eastern border with Cameroon, Nigeria faces daily violence in its central regions between Christian farmers and predominantly Muslim Fulani cattle herders. That cycle of violent clashes has resulted in countless deaths, particularly in recent years, and even in the destruction of entire villages, which we of course condemn.
I fully understand the concerns that have been raised. I should stress that this is a long-running conflict with complex causes, including land, farming rights, grazing routes and access to water, as well as the religious divisions referred to. Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), I warmly welcome President Buhari’s engagement on the issue. It is imperative that the Nigerian Government and the military work together with the affected populations to bring perpetrators to justice and develop a solution that meets the needs of all the communities affected, as British officials will continue to encourage them to do.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) wanted some reassurance. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Nigerian vice-president following the abductions of the Dapchi, and the Prime Minister herself, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, raised these issues with President Buhari on 16 April. Our view is that the attacks on schools must stop. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden is right, unfortunately, that the terrible events in the north-east of the country and the abductions—still—of over 100 schoolgirls have disappeared from the media, and this is an opportunity to raise the issue, as we will do in Abuja and beyond.
Returning to the broader theme, Christian persecution takes many forms. As we have heard, places of worship in far too many countries are targeted, shut down or even destroyed. Followers are discriminated against, subjected to mob attack and criminalised—in some cases, by the state. Many live in fear for their lives, and many thousands have been forced to flee their homes.
In whatever form it manifests itself, all religious persecution is abhorrent and deplorable. Governments, religious groups and right-minded people must do all they can to bring it to an end. I am glad that point was raised by a number of Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), among others.
In our work around the globe, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will stand up for religious freedom—full stop. We do not do that simply for Christians; indeed, one has to recognise that for us to stand up exclusively for Christians would risk protecting a minority perhaps close to many western hearts to the exclusion of others or would, indeed, risk making them more vulnerable.
I assure Members—I saw this in my most recent visit—that we do our best to recognise that the persecution of Christians has become much more profound in particular parts of the world, not least China. I hope to come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) later.
Fiona Bruce
The Minister talks about bringing perpetrators to justice. Two years ago in a debate in this House, Parliament voted by 278 Members to nil to call on the Government to take action to hold to account the perpetrators of genocide against Christians, Yazidis and others in Syria and Iraq. Will he say what action has been taken since then, or perhaps write to us? In his response then, the Minister’s colleague said that the UK is taking an international lead on the issue. Will the Minister meet Lord Alton and me to discuss the genocide determination Bills we have introduced in our respective Houses? They would go some way to addressing the issue.
Mark Field
I will meet my hon. Friend. If she will excuse me, I will write to her with some of the details she has asked for.
We believe that religious freedom is a bellwether of broader individual freedoms, democratic health and, ultimately, economic health. For all those reasons, it is a priority for this Government to defend and promote the rights of not only Christians but peoples of all faiths and none so that they can practise their faith or belief without fear or discrimination.
I could say much—time is running tight—about aspects of the bilateral work we do. Earlier this month, I visited Nepal. I expressed concern to Prime Minister Oli in a meeting I had with him that uncertainty around provisions of the new penal code might be used to limit the freedom to adopt, change or practise a religion. Those provisions can especially target Christian minorities. I also raised concerns about freedom of religion or belief and about the protection of minority religious communities in Pakistan with the Ministry of Human Rights during my visit to that country in November.
Needless to say, we will continue to raise concerns with the authorities in China at our annual UK-China human rights dialogue and on other occasions about the increasingly worrying and widespread persecution of Christian minorities—particularly those converting from other religions. Our values form an integral part of our relationship with China; indeed, the Prime Minister raised human rights issues when she met President Xi and Prime Minister Li earlier this year.
Mark Field
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I only have a small amount of time left.
So far this year my ministerial colleagues have raised issues about freedom of religion or belief with counterparts in such places as Iraq, Egypt and Burma. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) mentioned Indonesia. We have made representations to the Indonesian Government to ensure that the proposed blasphemy laws are not applied on their current rather discriminatory basis. I will be going to that country for four days in August and will raise those issues then. My hon. Friend will appreciate the strong intelligence and security relationship we have with Indonesia. That is not in any way to forgive any of these issues, but we have important intelligence relationships, not least because of the global threat, particularly in Mindanao, which is just the other side of the Philippine border.
It is not just about Government-to-Government work. I could say much about NGO and project work, but I think it would be worth while to focus the end of my comments on issues around aid conditionality that have been brought up by a number of Members—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). It is important to state that the Department for International Development has its own faith-based principles that provide a framework for engaging faith partners in development. It also wants to actively support faith-based NGOs to apply to the UK Aid Connect fund, which is a funding pot for smaller NGOs.
In addition to our discussions with Governments, it has been suggested that UK overseas aid should be entirely conditional on recipient Governments taking concrete action to end religious persecution. I reassure the House that we challenge our development partners precisely and specifically on these issues, in whichever country they arise. There may be countries where we disapprove of what they are doing.
This is a non-religious issue, but in Cambodia we have had opposition leaders being locked up. However, equally, we have long-standing relationships in aid and development terms, particularly in mine clearance in parts of that country. The interests of some of the most vulnerable are at stake. If we do not clear those mines, arable land will not be able to be used. While it is right that these things are conditional and that guidelines are set down, we equally have to recognise that we are sometimes acting for the most vulnerable with a range of aid programmes. Simply to cut off that money mid-flow would not be the right way forward.
Generally, DFID will assess a country’s commitment to each of the four partnership principles. One of those is a commitment to human rights, which includes freedom of religion or belief. Evidence of a lack of commitment to the principles influences decisions on how much aid is given and in what manner it is passed out. For example, it might mean that aid is provided through civil society organisations, rather than Government bodies. Our aim is to support projects that can stimulate positive change in the countries concerned, such as our project to help secondary school teachers promote religious freedom in classrooms across parts of north Africa.
The hon. Member for Croydon South specifically mentioned Pakistan. As I have said, Ministers have raised concerns with the Government in Islamabad this year. We are doing a great deal of work through our projects to try to benefit religious minorities in Pakistan. Last year, for example, we had an £800,000 FCO project to counter hate speech and a £200,000 project to celebrate Pakistan’s religious diversity.
We should all be proud of the life-saving impact of our overseas aid on persecuted religious groups. While we do not allocate humanitarian support to them specifically—because we believe it could be counterproductive—our policy of prioritising those most in need means such groups are often the beneficiaries.
I share many of the concerns that have been raised by other Members. The situation is desperate in Iraq and Syria. Some 1.5 million Christians lived in Iraq as recently as 2003. It is understood that fewer than a quarter of a million now remain. Likewise, in Syria, huge numbers of Christians are now in refugee camps in Lebanon or have fled the country. Very few, I suspect, will feel it is safe to return any time soon.
In conclusion, I thank Members for all their contributions. I fear that a 90-second speaking limit does not do anything like justice to the passion they all feel. Less is more sometimes, but not always in every parliamentary debate I have been part of. As a Government, we will continue to defend the fundamental right of religious freedom, not least because of our commitment to the universal declaration on human rights. I very much hope that other Members will have a chance to speak at much greater length. I will endeavour to look through this debate in Hansard and reply individually to each Member whose points I was not able to pick up in this contribution.
Chris Philp
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken in this afternoon’s debate. It was a great shame that time was so constrained. I have noted down everyone who was present, and I will follow up and try to organise a proper full-day Backbench Business debate on this important topic at the earliest opportunity.
This debate shows there is cross-party support for pursuing the issue. I think every major party was represented in today’s contributions, and there is agreement around the Chamber about the need to do more, because things are getting worse, not better.
I once again thank Open Doors for its work raising this important issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) has been a Parliamentary Private Secretary in this debate, and he has done a lot of work with Open Doors, which is based in his constituency. I know he is a great friend and supporter of the Open Doors movement.
I welcome the Minister’s remarks on overseas aid conditionality. I am glad he made the comments he did, but I would go a little further: no Government who are failing to take action on this issue should receive any overseas aid from this country on a Government-to-Government basis. Where there are mine clearance programmes or we are dispersing aid through charities, that work is valuable and should not be threatened, but no Government who stand by and allow this persecution to happen should receive a single penny of aid from the UK taxpayer.
Religious freedom, whether it is for Christians or any other group, is of fundamental importance. It is a fundamental human right and a mark of our civilisation as a country and as a world. We must do everything we can, and more than we are currently doing, to ensure that religious freedom is protected around the world.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the persecution of Christians overseas.
Written Statements
Clean Air Strategy
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
Today, the Government published their consultation on a clean air strategy. At the most fundamental level, our health and prosperity depend on the health of the planet on which we live. From the air we breathe to the water we drink, the food we eat and the energy which powers our homes and businesses, we need to ensure we have a healthy and sustainable environment.
Nowhere is this more true than in the case of air quality. Air pollution is a major public health risk ranking alongside cancer, heart disease and obesity. It causes more harm than passive smoking.
This clean air strategy sets out the case for action and demonstrates this Government’s determination to improve our air quality. Leaving the EU provides us with an excellent opportunity to be even more ambitious about achieving cleaner air for the health of the nation, and for our environment and the biodiversity it sustains. We want to do all that we can to reduce people’s exposure to pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, ammonia, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter and sulphur dioxide.
Air pollution has improved since 2010, but we recognise that there is more to do. This comprehensive clean air strategy sets out how we will tackle all sources of air pollution, making our air healthier to breathe, protecting nature and boosting the economy.
Government must act to tackle air pollution which shortens lives. We are already acting to reduce concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (N02) around roads from cars, but vehicles are not the only source of toxic emissions. Air pollution is a result of the way we currently generate power, heat our homes, produce food, manufacture consumer goods and power transport. Better, cleaner technologies and simple changes in behaviour will tackle the pollution that claims lives.
The new strategy is a key part of our 25-year plan to leave our environment in a better state than we found it. It sets out the comprehensive action that is required from across all parts of government and society to meet the challenge. By 2025, we will halve the number of people living in locations where concentrations of particulate matter are above the World Health Organisation guideline limit of 10 ug/m3, protecting public health.
Through the introduction of new primary legislation, we will introduce a stronger and more coherent legislative framework for action to tackle air pollution, giving local government new powers to take decisive action in areas with an air pollution problem.
We are investing £10 million in improving our modelling, data and analytical tools to give a more precise picture of current air quality and the impact of policies on it in future. Alongside this, we will seek ways to support further investment in research and innovation, in partnership with UKRI, which will help the UK become world leaders in clean technology and secure further emissions reductions.
From farming to consumer products, a large range of other day-to-day practices, processes and products produce harmful emissions. Of particular concern is burning wood and coal to heat a home, which contributes 38% to harmful particulate matter emissions. It is why we will ensure only the cleanest fuels will be available for sale and only the cleanest stoves will be available to buy and install.
For the first time, the Government will take concerted action to tackle ammonia from farming by requiring and supporting farmers to invest in the infrastructure and equipment that will reduce emissions. The agriculture sector accounts for 88% of UK emissions of ammonia, and action by farmers can make a big difference in reducing the impacts of excess nitrogen on sensitive habitats and reducing the overall background levels of particulates in the atmosphere.
Government cannot act alone in tackling air pollution, and our strategy sets out how we will work with businesses, farmers and industry to implement lasting solutions to reduce air pollution, and the importance of each of us taking action and playing an important role in cleaning up our air for the next generation.
These actions will, we hope, ensure that this country is recognised as the leading global champion of cleaner air for the next generation.
[HCWS705]
EU (Withdrawal) Bill: SO No. 830
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
I am today placing in the Library of the House the Department’s analysis on the application of Standing Order No. 83O in respect of any motion relating to a Lords amendment for Commons consideration of Lords amendments stage for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
[HCWS704]
Foreign Affairs Council
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 April. The Council was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini. The meeting was held in Luxembourg.
Foreign Affairs Council
Syria
The Council discussed the latest developments in Syria, including the targeted US, French and British airstrikes on chemical weapons facilities. Ahead of the Brussels Conference on Syria and the region, Ministers discussed the need to relaunch a political solution to the conflict in the framework of the UN-led Geneva process. The Council adopted conclusions on Syria.
Iran
Ministers agreed on the need for unity on continuing the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA). They encouraged the diplomatic efforts to ensure that there continues to be strong commitment to the agreement by all the parties involved. Ministers also discussed other issues outside the scope of the JCPOA, in particular the role of Iran in regional conflicts, not least in Syria and Yemen, as well as the EU’s concerns at Iran’s ballistic missiles programme and its human rights situation.
Russia
The Council agreed unanimously on the continued relevance of the five guiding principles that were agreed in March 2016. Following the Salisbury attack and the European Council conclusions that were agreed in March 2018, Ministers highlighted the need to strengthen the resilience of the EU and its neighbours against Russian threats, including hybrid threats such as disinformation campaigns. Ministers commended the work carried out by the East StratComms taskforce in the European External Action Service. Ministers also highlighted the importance of supporting Russian civil society and continuing to develop people-to-people contacts.
Western Balkans
Over lunch, Ministers discussed the Western Balkans in preparation for the EU-Western Balkans summit in Sofia on 17 May 2018.
External action financing instruments
The Council held a preliminary exchange of views on the future financing of external action instruments after 2020. The Commission is preparing its proposal for the EU’s next long-term budget (the future multiannual financial framework, MFF).
Members agreed a number of measures without discussion:
The Council approved the annual progress report on the implementation of the EU strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which covers activities carried out in 2017;
The Council adopted conclusions on chemical disarmament and non-proliferation ahead of the Fourth Special Session of the Conference of the States Parties to review the operation of the chemical weapons convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction. This session will take place in The Hague on 21-30 November 2018;
The Council adopted conclusions on South Sudan;
The Council adopted conclusions on malicious cyber activities that underline the importance of a global, open, free, stable and secure cyberspace where human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law fully apply;
The Council approved the High Representative’s six-monthly report on Operation Althea, which covers the period from 1 September 2017 to 28 February 2018;
The Council adopted a decision approving Mazars and KPMG S.A. as the external auditors of the Banque de France, the National Central Bank of France, for the 2018-23 period.
[HCWS707]
Suspect Vehicles: Police Pursuit
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
I announced in September 2017 that the Home Office would lead a review of the legislation, guidance and practice surrounding the police’s pursuits of suspect vehicles. As I said in September, this Government are determined to get ahead of and tackle emerging threats like motorcycle-related crimes, including those involving mopeds and scooters. People must be able to go about their daily lives without fear of harassment or attack and criminals must not think they can get away with a crime by riding or driving in a certain way or on a certain type of vehicle.
I am today publishing the review’s findings for public consultation. The findings will be available on gov.uk and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House. The consultation sets out and seeks views on a number of proposals, including:
Judging whether a police officer’s driving is careless or dangerous against the standard of a careful and competent police driver of a similar level of training and skill, rather than any careful and competent driver, as now;
Requiring that specific driving tactics employed by the police are authorised appropriately and are both necessary and proportionate to the circumstances;
Making clear that the police are not responsible for the standard of driving of a suspect being pursued; and
Clarifying the various emergency service exemptions to traffic law to reduce the potential for confusion.
I have been clear from the outset that we must ensure that the end result of these changes enables the police to do their job effectively and keep us safe while ensuring that we continue to keep our roads among the safest in the world. It is important therefore that we seek the public’s views on these proposals, given their potential to affect all those who use our roads. I look forward to hearing the views of all those interested in the proposals before the consultation closes on 13 August.
[HCWS706]
Prison Service Pay Review Body
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
I am pleased to announce that the Prime Minister has extended the appointment of Dr Peter Knight CBE as chair of the Prison Service Pay Review Body for the period 1 March to 31 July 2018. The extension has been made in accordance with the governance code on public appointments.
[HCWS708]
House of Lords
Brexit: Sheep Farmers
Lord Wigley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of Brexit on sheep farmers in the United Kingdom.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my relevant interests as a member of the Farmers Union of Wales.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the sheep sector’s immense contribution to rural life, local economies and the iconic landscapes of the different countries of the UK. We are carrying out a programme of analytical work that will aid our understanding of how leaving the EU will affect the UK sheep sector. This work will help us shape new domestic agricultural policies and explore new trading opportunities.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Given that 90% of Welsh sheepmeat exports go to the European Union and that lambs born today will probably go to market after 29 March next year—and, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, may face a 50% or higher tariff barrier—can the Minister assure the House that the Government will have a contingency plan in place to help sheep farmers facing possible market collapse next April? When will the farming industry be given at least an outline of any such plan?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the Government are committed to securing the best deal with the EU and beyond for the farming, fisheries and food sectors. In safeguarding the sheep sector, we have committed to continue the £3 billion of agricultural support until the end of the Parliament in 2022, and the Environment Secretary has said that support for our farmers will continue for many years to come where the environmental benefits of that spending are clear.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that livestock farmers in upland and less favoured areas—where lambing percentages are much lower and mortality rates are much higher than their lowland counterparts—must be supported following Brexit, as must their communities, and that any change in the farm payments scheme must recognise this? These are special cases.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, Brexit provides us with a perfect opportunity to review our subsidies. The vision in our consultation for the new English agricultural policy is around public money for the delivery of public good, and the uplands have the potential to benefit from new environmental land management schemes as they deliver a great deal of public good for the environment and landscape—for example, in improving biodiversity, flood risk management and carbon sequestration. We have consulted in England on what additional support farmers in upland areas may need as part of this new domestic policy and a report on this consultation’s findings will be published in due course.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Can the Minister go a little further than she did in her Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and tell us what assessment the Government have made of the consequences for sheep farmers in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England if they have to face the full common external tariff, which will be the case if we leave under WTO terms? Further, what assessment have the Government made of the consequences of removing the protection of the common external tariff in the context, for example, of the trade agreement with New Zealand? If she does not have the figures at her fingertips, can she write to me and place a copy of her reply in the Library of the House?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, we are confident of getting a deal on Brexit, which is very important to remember. Obviously assessments are going on all the time as new data becomes available. Independent assessments have also been made, such as, for example, the Impacts of Alternative Post-Brexit Trade Agreements on UK Agriculture. This assessment covered the sheep sector and highlighted the importance of low-friction trade.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, my family’s interest in Welsh agriculture has been declared. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, responding on 2 May to my speech on the withdrawal Bill, was unable to set out what the basis of the agricultural payments will be after 2020. Would it not be grossly unfair and a backward step if future payments in Wales were made on the Barnett formula rather than on the present basis? Further, can the Minister clarify the position and put an end to the anxiety of sheep farmers, whose livelihoods are at stake?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his question and am happy to give a little more clarification if I can. As noble Lords will know, the consultation closed earlier this month, to which we had 40,000 responses. Agricultural policy is a devolved matter so there will be a system by which the Government have committed £3 billion of funding, which will continue. That money will be divided up between the four devolved Administrations according to an agreement between them and from then it will be up to the Welsh Government to decide how that money gets to Welsh farmers. In doing so, two considerations must be borne in mind. First, the UK as a whole will always be the unit for international negotiations and, secondly, we must maintain the integrity of the UK internal market.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance today that the Government will not ban the limited and highly regulated export of live trade in sheep? This is a lifeline to farmers in North Yorkshire and other upland farmers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It must not be stopped.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am sure my noble friend is well aware that our call for evidence closed today. Of course, we will look at the responses. We have also asked the Farm Animal Welfare Committee to look at the transport of live animals. We will respond to the call for evidence in due course.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I refer to the Minister’s earlier response about upland farmers and their ability to diversify. The Health and Harmony consultation document stated:
“Compared to lowland farms, farms within the Severely Disadvantaged Area have less opportunity to diversify”.
Would the Minister care to comment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness is completely right. The opportunities for diversification will depend on the type and location of a farm. This is what the consultation tried to draw out. It tried to understand what sort of farmers will need what sort of support going forward. We will have policies supporting diversification, innovation and skills. Noble Lords may be aware that only 12% of farmers benchmark their services against widely available data for farming. That can be improved and if it is, we can improve efficiency.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that hill farmers throughout the United Kingdom are already among the lowest earners in agriculture? Any damage to them, whether through exports to Europe or the Government’s failure to support them adequately, will have a catastrophic effect in the hills on families and their children.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I am well aware that those particular farmers are most at risk. That is why the Government are looking at how we can make sure they receive the support they need. There are many opportunities in our post-consultation policy development to look at how we will provide grants, which provide public money for public good.
Sexual Offences Legislation
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to reform sexual offences legislation.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of keeping sexual offences legislation under review. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was amended in 2015 and again in 2017. We are currently reviewing the law around upskirting and considering the wider law on non-consensual photography.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, given that Mr Harvey Proctor has launched a civil action in the High Court, revealing in his particulars of claim the full name and identity of the man “Nick” who trashed the international reputation of Sir Edward Heath and others, and in so far as the public interest provisions under court procedure rules, which deny anonymity in the Proctor action, are in conflict with anonymity provisions in sexual offences legislation, surely the cloak of lifetime anonymity should not be extended to false accusers such as “Nick”, whose full name is now plastered across the internet worldwide. This was never, never, never the intention of Parliament. Is it not about time that we reviewed the law on anonymity?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, lifetime anonymity that is extended to complainants may be removed. Indeed, those complainants who are found to have made false and misleading claims regarding sexual conduct may be subject to prosecution.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the case, highlighted on Channel 4 last night and again in the Times this morning, of a defendant who was arrested for rape in 2015, charged 18 months later, suspended from his job without pay and whose case was dropped by the CPS yesterday? Are such cases the result of a failure in the law to protect the innocent—to uphold the principle of being innocent until proven guilty—or are they a failure of the police and the CPS properly to investigate such cases? What do the Government intend to do about it?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not going to comment on the particulars of an individual case. However, police guidance is clear that the name of a suspect should not be released before they are charged. The naming of people who have been charged with a sexual offence is consistent with the principle of open justice.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, I draw the Minister’s attention to an item in today’s Times, which states:
“Google is helping its users to uncover the identity of rape victims whose anonymity is protected by law”.
What action will or could the Government take?
Lord Keen of Elie
Again, I am not in a position to say what action the Government will take with regard to such a matter, but clearly such conduct could potentially be regarded as a contempt of court.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that when, in cases such as those of Sir Edward Heath—there would be many others such as Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini—people’s names are leaked or made public because the police are on a public fishing expedition and no charge is made, there is no formal way in which they can be acquitted? Therefore, their reputation is permanently damaged.
Lord Keen of Elie
We quite recognise the danger to a person’s reputation where their name is leaked prior to charge. That should not occur, as I indicated before. That does not mean that they do not have civil means of redress. The noble Lord referred to the case of Cliff Richard, who I understand has undertaken a civil course for redress in these circumstances.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Further to my noble friend’s question, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, informed the House recently that the Government have the power to establish an inquiry into Operation Conifer. Since the hopeless Wiltshire chief commissioner has made it clear that he will not take any action, will the Government now establish this inquiry so that the reputation of Sir Edward is not left in intolerable limbo?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, that would be a matter for the Home Office and not for the Ministry of Justice to consider. However, I am sure that Ministers in that department are listening.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, can I take the Minister back to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Corston? His answer seemed rather complacent. If on Google women who have been victims of rape can be identified and help is being offered to do that, surely the Minister would want the Government to take some action and not just accept it.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble Baroness, there was no complacency in my previous answer. Clearly, we will look at the facts and circumstances of any complaint and then determine what action it is appropriate to take. However, it would not be appropriate to anticipate prosecution or other action without a proper investigation of the facts. Indeed, that underlies many of the complaints made here today.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, are there any positions on which the noble and learned Lord can take some action?
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, will the Government make the change whereby, when people are not prosecuted, the police do not say “because of insufficient evidence” but use the phrase “a lack of evidence”? There is a very important distinction.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not sure that I would necessarily draw a strict distinction between those two terms, but clearly no charge will made unless the police have an element of evidence. Where a case is not proceeded with by way of prosecution, that may be because of an absence of a sufficiency of evidence.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Further to the answer that I understood my noble and learned friend to give earlier on, will he recognise that many people who have faced such accusations have spent many hundreds of thousands of pounds dealing with lawyers and seeking representation to clear their name before any decision is taken about no further action? To suggest that they should then pursue redress implies that they have the resources to pursue that claim. For many of them, that is just not financially practicable.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I entirely agree with the observations of my noble friend: it may well be that some of those who are charged and indeed prosecuted and found not guilty of an offence do not have the means to take civil action in order to vindicate a complaint about the way in which they were treated.
Leaseholders’ Rights: High-rise Blocks
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what advice, if any, they are giving to local housing authorities about the rights of leaseholders in high-rise blocks which have cladding which has failed fire safety tests.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests in the register and beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, we have advised local housing authorities that building owners should take responsibility for funding fire safety measures and should draw on their existing resources to do so. It is important that leaseholders are able to access specialist advice to understand their rights. The department is providing additional funding to the Leasehold Advisory Service which provides free initial and tailored advice to support leaseholders in understanding the terms of their lease.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, for the announcement last Thursday of the extra £400 million being provided by the Government and for the further clarification yesterday which made it clear to the House that it could be more than that if remediation of these tower blocks costs more. I bring to the Minister’s attention the fact that in a large number of local housing authority tower blocks, fire-watching staff have been in post now for almost a year and will presumably be for some time to come. I seek the Minister’s confirmation that no cost will be incurred either by tenants or leaseholders of such a block; the faulty cladding is no fault of theirs and it seems unreasonable to expect them to pay any additional cost, either through service charges or through rents.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the amount is actually £420 million, but the noble Lord is absolutely right that that could be somewhat higher: it is an estimate. That money is designed for replacing the cladding system. On the type of 24/7 watch he referred to, some of these interim measures were in place for blocks where the remediation work has not yet been completed. It is certainly our view that social tenants should not bear the cost of that. In the private sector, similarly, interim measures are in place and it is the view of the department that those costs should be borne by freeholders. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is having round-table meetings in the next few weeks to discuss these issues with leaseholders and owners.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Is it not the case that the responsibility of the landlord will depend to a large extent upon the lease or tenancy agreement and that these may vary considerably? In the circumstances, does the noble Lord not agree that there is a strong case for imposing a blanket statutory responsibility on landlords in this connection?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that the position will vary according to the nature of the lease in question: it may vary enormously from one lease to another. We already have the example of Citiscape in Croydon where those responsible, the leaseholders under the lease, have had the owner of the block, Barratt, come forward and say it will bear the cost. We are hoping that that position will be replicated in other cases. We rule nothing out, but in the meantime the round tables that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is organising provide a way forward to see how this will be received.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The sum of £400 million for removing potentially dangerous cladding is welcome. Can the noble Lord confirm whether this is new money or money diverted from the affordable homes programme? Have the Government completely ruled out providing any new additional funding to alleviate the problems highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right and I suspect he knows the answer he is going to get. The money is out of the existing funding programme but additional money will be forthcoming in the year after: it alters the profile by delaying that additional housing by a year.
Lord Stunell (LD)
The Minister has set out very clearly the solutions to one particular problem, but he will be well aware that the Hackitt review said that to avoid these things recurring, it was essential to have a dutyholder who would take responsibility for every phase of the building. Can he confirm that the Government have the power to do that by regulation and do not need to wait for primary legislation in order to deliver this important safety consideration?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I believe the noble Lord has written on this very subject—I saw a copy of his letter this morning. We are looking at the points he has raised. But in relation to Hackitt in general, some measures will need to be taken forward in primary legislation, others possibly in secondary legislation, while others might not need legislation at all. We are reviewing that because obviously we accept what Dame Judith has said in all regards, except in relation to the banning of combustible cladding, which we are carrying out and which she is content with.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. It was indeed £400 million, not £420 million. He is better informed than I am. We have so many figures flying around but I apologise to him.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, in many cases private leaseholders do not know the identity of their freeholder. The freehold may be held in a foreign trust away from the public gaze. Can the Minister explain how in those cases leaseholders will be able to get recourse on these expenses?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that it is not always straightforward; I suspect that that is a minority of cases. We are, I think, beginning to get to the tail end of the identification of buildings. We have made additional money available to local authorities, which have powers under the Housing Act 2004 to require information from the owners. He is absolutely right about that issue. We are looking at that with a view to ensuring that leaseholders do not pick up the bill, irrespective of whether or not that is a provision in the lease.
House of Lords: Size
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the size of the House of Lords.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, as I said yesterday, the Government are committed to working with others in your Lordships’ House to address the question of its size. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to the Lord Speaker on 20 February to set out the Government’s position in more detail, and a copy of that letter is in the Library of the House.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply and for his response to the PNQ yesterday, which helpfully set out a number of points. Bearing in mind his reassurances then, does he recognise that there was widespread surprise and dismay about the timing and number of the appointments? Given the very widespread support in the House for the Burns report and its recommendations, does he agree that although “one in, two out” is a useful yardstick, the quicker we can get down to the Burns target of 600, the greater the respect in which this House will be held as a self-regulating body?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble and right reverend Lord’s Question no longer has the sparkle it had when he tabled it on Friday as a Topical Question. Indeed, it is the 15th question on the composition of the House that I have answered in the past week—or to be more accurate, it is the 15th question I have been asked.
In response to the noble and right reverend Lord, who was a member of the Wakeham commission and spoke in support of the Burns proposals in the debate in December, I say that it is time for us to move on from the adversarial position we had yesterday. I apologise and ask for absolution for any role I may have played in that. We need to put behind us the announcement, which was a legacy issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, and address ourselves to the question posed yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which the noble and right reverend Lord has just mentioned; namely, the time has come to arrive at an understanding for the system of arrivals and departures from the House between now and the end of this Parliament, within the framework—if not necessarily to the letter—of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Burns. As some noble Lords said in the debate on Tuesday, if we do not do this ourselves, somebody will do it to us.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I think we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and then from the Conservative Benches.
Lord Grocott
I gently suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Young, that he would not be answering 15 questions if he could give us one answer. The answer that I would like him to give us is the one that was presented by the Burns report, which has been largely accepted by the House, and indeed implicitly by the Government; that is, the completely anomalous position of having 92 protected places while trying to reduce the size of the House, so that, following last week’s vacancy caused by the retirement of Earl Baldwin, this House will be by law obliged—against its policy—to replace that exiting Peer with a new Peer. If the Minister will simply answer yes to my question of whether the Government will put an end to that anomaly, I guarantee that he will not get any more questions from me.
Lord Young of Cookham
There are, however, many others who might fill the gap. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was the first to admit that his Bill would have but a marginal impact on the size of the House, which is the subject of this debate, dependent as it is on the mortality of the hereditary Peers—none of us would wish to see that accelerated. So far as his Bill is concerned, as I said when he asked a question last week, unusually we have offered additional time to him. There will be another Friday when he can take the Bill forward and I have made it absolutely clear that the Government will not obstruct it. It is up to him and the House to make progress with the additional time that we will make available.
Lord Garel-Jones
My Lords, if memory serves me right, I believe that Jeremy Corbyn gave an undertaking that, if elected leader of the Labour Party, he would not nominate any new Peers. If that is the case, can my noble friend the Minister speculate on what might have led him to change his mind?
Lord Young of Cookham
Certainly, one positive outcome from the announcement last Thursday was that Jeremy Corbyn recognised that the House, as at present constituted, has a role to play in holding the Government to account and refreshing its membership. My noble friend is right that when Mr Corbyn was campaigning to be leader in 2015, he pledged:
“I don’t think there should be any more appointments to the House of Lords”.
When pressed as to whether he would appoint new Labour Peers as Labour leader, he said:
“I see no case for it”.
I am delighted that sensible heads on the Benches opposite me have persuaded him to change his mind and help refresh those Benches. Speaking personally, I hope that at some point in the future Alan Johnson and Jack Straw might join us.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Institute for Government this morning that Andrew Tyrie cannot be an independent chair of the Competition and Markets Authority and take the Government whip? Will he suggest that he should follow the precedent of the noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, and sit as a Cross-Bencher?
Lord Young of Cookham
Andrew Tyrie was a robustly independent-minded chair of the Treasury Select Committee in the last Parliament and regularly held the Government to account. I spoke to him this morning and I can confirm that he will be sitting as a non-affiliated Peer. I gather that if you want to join the Cross Benches, you have to do a period of quarantine if you have been a member of a party. Since he took up the job as chair of the CMA, he will sit as a non-affiliated Peer and therefore not be in receipt of the Conservative whip.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the original Question from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, asked what plans the Government have to reduce the size of the House. As illuminating and entertaining as the Minister’s answers always are—they are very enjoyable—I have not yet heard the Government’s plans. Given that the only sensible, credible plan on the table is that of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee, and that other parties have agreed that if the Government abide by its terms then we will too, is that not the plan which the Government have to accept and move forward on?
Lord Young of Cookham
The Prime Minister set out the Government’s plans in her four-page letter to the Lord Speaker dated 20 February, which I referred to. There are two basic elements. One is restraint on appointments; the Prime Minister has said that she will sign up to it and I think that she has already shown that. The other is to take forward the work which the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referred to yesterday. The Government are prepared to play their part in those discussions as the Burns committee continues its work.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
Rather than the Government just being prepared to play their part, is there not a part for the Leader of the House to play in bringing together the leaders of the other groups? Does the Minister not agree—indeed, he pointed this out acutely yesterday—that relying on retirements and, even more so, on deaths produces an unfair and disproportionate result between the parties? If we are to succeed by our own volition in reducing the size of the House, we need the leaders of those groups to come together and agree on a fair formula so to do.
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Baroness makes a powerful case. The Government will play our part, within the framework of the Burns committee recommendations, in getting the size of the House down. That committee has now been reconvened and the Government will listen carefully to any proposal that it makes. We are anxious to play our part in reducing the size of the House. As I have said before, and without wishing to be provocative, we have led the way, in promoting retirements from our Benches.
Licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation (Mandatory Conditions of Licences) (England) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 19 and 21 March be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 May.
Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 April be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 16 May.
Smart Meters Bill
Tuesday 22nd May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Smart Meters Act 2018 View all Smart Meters Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 83-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF, 67KB) - (11 May 2018)
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given today by my right honourable friend Alistair Burt, the Minister of State, to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Answer is as follows:
“We remain deeply concerned for all our dual national detainees in Iran, including Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and are doing everything that we can for them, including trying to secure access and ensure their welfare. We will continue to approach the case in a way that we judge is most likely to secure the outcome that we all want. Therefore, she and the House will forgive me if I am limited in my comments on both her case and those of other dual nationals, both at the moment and in relation to any continuing developments. The Prime Minister raised all our consular cases in a telephone call with President Rouhani on 13 May, and the Foreign Secretary raised the cases in a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif in Brussels last week. I also raised them with my contacts in Tehran. Our ambassador in Tehran has also raised concerns with the Iranians at the highest levels, and spoke by telephone with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe on Sunday 20 May. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials are in regular contact with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s family”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that response to an Urgent Question. Yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said the Government were taking all possible steps to raise our concerns about Nazanin. Obviously, our first consideration is for her welfare and that of other British nationals who are detained, but in terms of not giving a running commentary and actually focusing on the most successful strategy for her release, I feel it is also important to focus on the welfare of her family and particularly her husband. I hope the Government and indeed the Foreign Secretary himself will undertake to meet Mr Ratcliffe as soon as possible so that the Government’s strategy and hopes for its success can be fully outlined to him, and so that we can all go forward in the confidence that she will be released as soon as practicable.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord makes an important point. I reassure the House that the principal source of our information is indeed the family, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is closely in touch with the family. He makes a good point about our natural concern for the well-being of Mrs Ratcliffe. We understand that she is receiving twice-weekly visits from her family, including from her little daughter, Gabriella, and that she is allowed to speak by telephone to her husband regularly. I am sure that the noble Lord’s observations have been heard. I understand that Mr Ratcliffe was in the Gallery in the other place. I believe that my right honourable friend may have had a meeting with him; I cannot confirm it categorically.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I accept and understand the constraints under which the Minister has dealt with the matter, but it is at once complicated, disappointing and sensitive—not helped, if I may say so, by what one might charitably describe as the carelessness of expression of the Foreign Secretary when he publicly implied that Mrs Ratcliffe’s visit to Iran was for more than family reasons.
Without overly linking this to present circumstances surrounding the nuclear deal with Iran, is this not a propitious time at which to make a humanitarian case on behalf of Mrs Ratcliffe, based, first, on her previous ill-health and her continued separation from her husband but also, one might argue, more particularly her continued separation from her daughter?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for recognising the undoubted sensitivities and delicacies which inevitably prevail in this case. He makes an important point. Sunday’s telephone conversation was the first that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe was able to have with Her Majesty’s ambassador in Tehran. He assured her that we continue to prioritise her case and do everything we can to bring about her release, including requesting consular access, access to medical reports and a temporary furlough so that she can celebrate her daughter’s fourth birthday on 11 June. Again, I am sure that the noble Lord’s observations are being noted.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I urge the Minister to consider how those who are friends, as well as relatives, of dual nationals imprisoned in such circumstances can be reassured. Of course, I appreciate the constraints on what she can say and what can be said outside this Chamber. I ask this question having had the experience of contacting the Foreign Secretary’s private office at the request of a friend who is a friend of someone who has recently been imprisoned, who wanted to provide information about that person’s background which might be of use to the Government. Having spoken to the Foreign Secretary’s private office, I then emailed, my friend emailed and I emailed again. There has been no response to any of those contacts. I do not expect to be told the detail, nor does my friend, but a reassurance that offers to help are taken seriously would make the Government’s position better understood.
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Baroness for raising the issue. Obviously, I do not know the specific case to which she refers, but I should like to do whatever I can to assist. If, after Questions, she would like to have a word with me, I will do whatever I can to facilitate a response to her approach to the FCO.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend think that Mrs Ratcliffe is being used as a bargaining chip?
Baroness Goldie
Quite simply, no. It is important, as others have rightly observed, that we acknowledge that these are extremely difficult and challenging circumstances. The United Kingdom Government are doing what we can to maintain contact with the family and to try to facilitate access through the normal diplomatic channels. It was a welcome development that we were able, via the ambassador, to have that conversation with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe on Sunday.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, may I just make one point to the Minister? These are very difficult cases, and I speak as someone who dealt with the two nurses in Saudi Arabia. That went on for a very long time and was very distressing to many people. It is necessary in addressing this issue to take account, and to be seen to take account, of the Iranian Government’s judicial processes. We will not get very far unless we at least do that. We may not like their processes—they may be impenetrable and very unwelcome —but we have to take account of them.
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord. Just as we would expect other countries to take seriously and respect our judicial process, it is extremely important that we reciprocate that respect to the Iranian judicial process.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on the unilateral position taken by the United States towards the JCPOA, there are understandable increased tensions within the Iranian authorities—between those who are more, let us say, hard line and those who are maybe more progressive in their relationship with the West. Can the Government give an assurance that, as our dialogues with our European partners continue, we will not lose sight of the fact that there are interests involving British joint citizens in our discussions at a high geopolitical level, and that such issues can be raised on an ongoing basis rather than just through a consular relationship?
Baroness Goldie
I can reassure your Lordships that the Government are cognisant of the position of dual national detainees everywhere. We do everything we can to facilitate appropriate support not just for the detainees but, of course, for their families. I said earlier that there were limits to what I am able to say. I do not dispute that there is always room for global diplomacy, but this case has understandably caused a great deal of disquiet and concern, and the Government remain utterly committed to trying to support the family to see whether we can find some resolution to the difficulties.
Transport Emissions in Urban Areas
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat as a Statement an Answer given to an Urgent Question in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on improving transport emissions in our urban areas. The Statement is as follows:
“Air pollution is the greatest environmental threat to human health in this country and the fourth biggest public health killer after cancer, obesity and heart disease. Today marks the publication of the latest stage in this Government’s determined efforts to reduce and reverse the effects of air pollution on our health and on our natural environment. Our clean air strategy consultation, published today, outlines steps that we can all take to reduce the emission of harmful gases and particulate matter from all the sources that contribute to polluted air. It is important to recognise, as I know my honourable friend does, that air pollution is generated by a wide variety of sources: from the fuel used for domestic heating to the application of fertilisers on agricultural land; and from the use of chemicals in industry to sea, rail, air and road transport. The strategy published today outlines specific steps that we can take to reduce the use of the most polluting fuels, to manage better the use of manures and slurries on agricultural land and also to ensure that non-road mobile machinery is also effectively policed, among other measures.
Also, my honourable friend asks specifically about urban transport pollution and of course last year the Government published their UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations. The plan allocated over £3 billion to help reduce harmful NOx emissions, including £475 million to local authorities to enable them to develop their own air quality plans. Since then we have been working with local authorities to help them deliver specific solutions and have issued ministerial directions to 61 local authorities to ensure that they live up to their shared responsibilities.
Our plan, of course, committed us to phasing out the sale of conventional diesel and petrol cars by 2040 and taking them off the road altogether by 2050. This is more ambitious than any EU requirement and puts Britain in the lead among major developed economies.
Alongside that commitment, we are dedicating £1.5 billion to the development of zero-and ultra-low emission vehicles, including support for new charging points across the country. We were, of course, helped in the preparation of our clean air strategy by the excellent report produced by the chairs of the Health, Transport, and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committees, which was published earlier this year. In their excellent report on air quality, the Joint Select Committees recommended introducing a new Clean Air Act, and we will introduce primary legislation to clean up our air. They suggested that we initiate a new health campaign and we will, as the Secretary of State for Health has emphasised, introduce a personal messaging system to ensure that those most at risk receive the information that they need about pollution risks.
It was also recommended that we place health and environment at the centre of our strategy, rather than simply technical compliance, and we do that with ambitious new targets that match World Health Organization metrics on improving air quality. We were also asked to reduce emissions from tyres and braking, the so-called Oslo effect, and today we announced action to work with manufacturers to do just that.
Emissions have fallen consistently since 2010, and my predecessors in this role are to be commended for the action that they have taken. But today’s strategy marks the most ambitious steps yet to accelerate our progress towards cleaner air, and I commend it to the House”.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Statement. He will know that the Question focused on transport emissions because of their glaring omission from today’s published clean air strategy. Defra’s own research makes it clear that the quickest way to tackle nitrogen oxide pollution is to introduce a network of clean air zones in urban areas. Can the Minister explain why this Government are adamantly refusing to take this action?
At the same time, there is an urgent need to phase out diesel cars and vans. The Government’s current target is a very unambitious 2040. Does the Minister accept that it is both feasible and desirable to bring that date forward?
Finally, today’s clean air strategy has been produced in part to satisfy the courts, which have demanded urgent action. Does the noble Lord recognise the important role that courts can play in defending environmental standards? Will his Government now pledge to support our amendment, giving greater powers, including recourse to court action, to the UK green watchdog post Brexit?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this is an extremely ambitious strategy. New legislation will be introduced to give local government new powers to take decisive action. We have deliberately said that this is for local government because, with the funds that we are providing of £3.5 billion, we want to work with local government because we think that that is the place where local decisions can be best made. That is why we need to work in partnership—and we are intending to, because that is how we will receive the greatest remedy.
The noble Baroness suggested that, in effect, the Government were not proceeding with vigour. In fact, we are bringing forward some of the most ambitious proposals for any developed economy. Many of them exceed what other EU countries are doing—and I think that that is very important indeed.
On the point about the courts, clearly we are mindful of what court proceedings have said. We were very pleased that the court in the last case acknowledged the right course of action. Where it did not agree was in saying that we should have directed local authorities, which we have now done; we will work with 61 local authorities where the most concern is directed. That is precisely where we will solve a lot of problems, particularly of nitrogen dioxide. Certainly, that is what we intend to do.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the endless repetition of the mantra that this is ambitious and that the Government are world leading does not convince anyone. The truth of the matter is that 50% overall of roadside pollution by nitrogen oxide, and 80% in dense urban areas, is caused by transport, which is largely omitted from today’s announcement.
Is the Minister aware that, in the last three months, sales of petrol vehicles have soared to fill the gap left by diesel ones, which people are deserting because they have become aware of their emissions? Yet, by buying petrol vehicles, they are now creating pollution from CO2, which has been the subject of so much concern in the past. Do the Government realise that what they are doing by their laissez-faire approach is far too little, far too late? Producing a date of 2040 for ending the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles means that the Government are dragging along in the wake of the motor industry, which is working very much faster than that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I dispute what the noble Baroness has said. I have figures here from when my party and hers were in government, which include considerable reductions in air pollution since 2010. I wonder whether the noble Baroness wishes not to acknowledge the reduction of, for instance, 27% in nitrogen oxide from 2010 to 2016. So progress is being made, but we want to make more. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but I would have thought she would have been pleased about the investment of £1.5 billion to position the UK at the global forefront of all ultra-low emission vehicle development, manufacture and use. We are doing all these things and we are world leaders in this. Our investment in ultra-low emission vehicles may not be recognised by some in your Lordships’ House but it is recognised by other countries. We are going to ensure that, with increased electric charging, these vehicles will replace conventional combustion engine ones.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that one of the causes of extra emissions is traffic congestion? Am I the only Member of your Lordships’ House who feels that there are an increasing number of occasions when local authorities and others close roads and are extremely slow to reopen them after the work has been done? Can I direct him to come with me to Parliament Street and Whitehall, where there is an absolutely classic illustration of that problem? One drain has been repaired, the south side of the carriageway is completely closed and there is serious congestion in Horse Guards Avenue. I talked to the people who were removing the barriers, in a rather leisurely way, work having finished some time this morning, and said: “When is this going to reopen?” They said, “Midnight tonight”. There ought to be an arrangement when, if the work finishes early, there is a messaging system and roads can be reopened swiftly, so that the traffic can flow and we can then end the congestion that otherwise occurs when there are these blockages.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I entirely agree with my noble friend and will pick that up with TfL and the Department for Transport. As my noble friend rightly identified, congestion is a cause of pollution, as is the idling of vehicles. I am pleased that the City of Westminster has issued an edict about idling and turning engines off. This is very helpful.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, 2040 to 2050 is still a long way away. I appreciate that one has to develop infrastructure so that there are charging points for electric vehicles. However, could we not have made an immediate decision to encourage the use of hybrid cars at the expense of petrol and diesel ones? Hybrid cars have enormous advantages and this could be done very quickly, without any charging points. Why not?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, there are many plus points in hybrid cars and I entirely agree that, at this time, they are a very good option. However, with our investment in ultra-low emission vehicles and in more publicly accessible charging points, we are clearly moving towards ensuring that ever more ultra-low emission vehicles are bought.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has quoted our position worldwide. However, the fact is that the end of last week the European Commission infracted us for not meeting air quality standards. So we are one of the six dirty half-dozen of Europe for air quality. That is a fact—we would not be going in front of the ECJ if we were not. Commissioner Vella put that down in particular to those six member states being persistent offenders that were in the last chance saloon. Can the Minister say how we can make these strategies, and all the other plans we have, credible, not just to Europe but to our own citizens, to convince them that this time we will perform where in the past we have singularly failed?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
There were a number of points there. We are one of 22 member states reporting exceedances, and there are 12 other countries against which infraction proceedings are carrying on. So this is undoubtedly a problem in many of the developed economies, which is precisely why the £3.5 billion, plus what we are announcing today on particulate matter and ammonia, is all about bearing down on the problem of improving air quality generally. We recognise that it is a great health problem that has a great cost in misery and financially. We wish to address this, and this is what we precisely need to do.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, I draw my noble friend’s attention to a scheme I saw being demonstrated at the current Chelsea Flower Show. Research has shown that some common house plants such as ivy are brilliant at clearing pollution within a domestic situation. This seems to be an interesting point that might be followed up.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I entirely agree with my noble friend, whom I saw at Chelsea very early yesterday morning. Plants and trees—the natural world and its protection—are hugely important because of what the natural world does for us. We still have a lot more to learn, and there are many plants from which I hope we will learn a great deal more about improving our environment.
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill
Tuesday 22nd May 2018
(6 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 View all Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 30 April 2018 - (30 Apr 2018)
Lord Henley
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the introduction of a price cap on standard variable and default-rate tariffs for domestic energy customers is a critical measure as the UK’s retail energy market is reformed. The price cap will ensure that UK consumers are protected from suppliers seeking to exploit the loyalty of their longest-standing customers by providing them with poor-value tariffs.
In June 2016, the Competition and Markets Authority identified that customers of the big six suppliers were paying £1.4 billion more than they should in a truly competitive market. What is worse, the consumers most likely to bear the burden of this huge detriment include some of the most vulnerable. Since the investigation by the CMA, the problem has not dissipated. Today, the difference between the cheapest available tariff and the standard variable tariff of a big supplier remains at around £300. I must reiterate that it is often some of the most vulnerable in society who pay the price of this disparity. There is an absence of behavioural change, particularly inside some of the large energy suppliers.
However, the Government believe that long-term state intervention in markets is neither desirable nor beneficial. Competition is the best way to drive value, service and innovation. Competition in the generation sector has brought forward significant investment and innovation, including new technologies. In the energy retail sector consumers now have a greater choice of supplier than ever before, with nearly 70 energy suppliers operating in the domestic market. More than one in five energy consumers are now with small and medium-sized suppliers, as more people switch to get a better deal. Despite the increase in the number of suppliers, however, the benefits of competition are not being felt by all consumers. That is why the Government are taking this action.
The Bill will ensure protection for consumers who find themselves on poor-value, standard variable or default-rate tariffs. In doing so, it will complement existing and recently expanded protections enacted during this Parliament. Following an order made by the Competition and Markets Authority, Ofgem has already provided protection for 4 million customers with the introduction of the price cap for customers on prepayment meters in April 2017. This has helped these households to save an average of £60 a year. Early analysis of suppliers who primarily supply prepayment customers shows that they are continuing to grow at a similar rate to the one that was in place before the price cap was implemented.
On 2 February this year, the prepayment meter cap was extended to include a further 1 million more vulnerable customers in receipt of the warm home discount. Five million customers are now protected by these measures. These protections are part of a package of measures being introduced by the Government and Ofgem to protect consumers and increase competition in the retail energy market. Other measures include support for faster and more reliable switching, initiatives to improve consumer engagement and the rollout of the next phase of smart meters. The Government believe that each of these measures will help forge the conditions for more effective competition and, in doing so, create a market in which a market-wide price cap is no longer required. It will be for Ofgem to carry out a review into whether the conditions for effective competition are in place. The Secretary of State will then make the decision on removing an extension of the cap.
I now turn to the Bill. Within its 13 clauses, it has one central aim: to give Ofgem the powers and duties to design and implement a tariff cap for standard variable and default-rate tariffs as soon as is practicable. Ofgem must design and implement the cap in a way that, first, creates incentives for suppliers to improve efficiency; secondly, enables suppliers to compete effectively; thirdly, maintains incentives for customers to switch; and, fourthly, ensures that efficient suppliers are able to finance their supply activities. The Bill will also require Ofgem to review the level of the price cap at least once every six months. Provisions in the Bill require Ofgem to consult on exempting tariffs which people choose to be on and which support the production of energy from renewable sources.
As I stated, market intervention is not something that the Government do lightly. The Bill is therefore a targeted and temporary intervention, with an initial end date of 31 December 2020. Subject to a report and recommendation from Ofgem, the Secretary of State can extend the cap one year at a time, with a hard deadline of 2023, after which the price cap must come to an end. The task of setting the cap is key. Ofgem has already started work with the publication of five working papers, to which stakeholders have had a chance to respond. Further consultation is planned as the Bill progresses through the House, and there will be a formal consultation on the final design of the price cap should the Bill receive Royal Assent.
As many of your Lordships will know, the merits of the Bill’s different components have been debated extensively in another place. As a consequence, the Bill arrives in this House unamended, which shows the strong cross-party support that it has. A draft version of the Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Select Committee, with a great deal of written and oral evidence weighing its merits. I am very grateful to the committee for its thorough scrutiny. Its final report was wholly supportive of the purpose, structure and effect of the Bill. The Government have accepted all the Select Committee’s recommendations to strengthen and improve the Bill and the outcomes it aims to achieve.
During our forthcoming debates, I look forward to hearing from noble Lords with a wealth of experience on a matter of such importance for consumers and for re-establishing trust in the domestic market. As regards when the price cap will be in place, there was significant consensus in another place that it should be implemented by the end of 2018. I note that Ofgem is already well under way with its consultation, including issuing a series of working papers on the design of the price cap.
In conclusion, I hope that our scrutiny will be both timely and harmonious so that this important measure may be implemented by the end of the year. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and for giving it a good going-over in terms of its various elements. It is a very short Bill, but sometimes the shorter Bills are the more contentious ones that come before us. We will have to see how we get on with this.
I should also apologise for the non-appearance of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who would normally introduce Bills of this type—he has a lot of experience and knowledge of them—but unfortunately he is ill and cannot be with us today. I am sure that your Lordships will join me in sending him good wishes for a speedy recovery.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
We are very pleased that the Bill is finally before the House today. The 2017 Conservative manifesto committed to implementing an energy price cap, and it has been Labour Party policy since 2013 to introduce a price cap on consumer energy bills. So, as the Minister says, we should have a harmonious time on this Bill. But as background, let us be clear that National Energy Action found that, on average, some 9,700 people die each year because they live in cold homes. To put that in context, it is close to the number of people who die from breast or prostate cancer every year. So although the principle underlying the Bill is good, we remain concerned that, as drafted, it does not go far enough. Why? Because our energy market is fundamentally broken and needs to be changed. The Bill is silent about the fundamental changes that need to be made.
I start with the question of why the Bill does not provide any direction from the Secretary of State on what might be a preferred level for the cap. The Bill merely states:
“The authority must exercise its functions … with a view to protecting existing and future domestic customers who pay standard variable and default rates”.
In so doing, Ofgem must consider a number of factors, including creating incentives for suppliers to improve efficiency, enabling suppliers to compete effectively, maintaining incentives to switch between suppliers, and the need to ensure that the holders of supply licences which operate efficiently are able to finance activities authorised by that licence. It is a good list, but it is a very interesting list, because it is largely focused on maintaining the present structure of the industry. Where is the need for Ofgem to devise a scheme that benefits consumers? We want to promote fair and transparent competition within the energy market but not at the cost of consumers, neither literally nor metaphorically. Why do the Government insist on a market-facing approach? Is it perhaps because the main aim of the Bill is to promote switching, not to protect vulnerable consumers?
Secondly, why is there no duty on Ofgem to consult on how such measures can accurately be quantified? Will they form part of Ofgem’s cap methodology consultation, and if not, how will Ofgem reach a determination among these somewhat contradictory goals?
Thirdly, we welcome the fact that the Government are bringing in an absolute cap. We are agreed that it will help customers, especially those languishing on standard variable tariffs. However, this absolute cap is time-limited; it will be in place for only a few years before it is lifted. While there are reviews of switching practice going on, the Government have not answered the fundamental question of how they expect the energy market to be fixed by the time we reach the end of this process. Surely we should not be changing things in an arbitrary way until the landscape of the energy market has changed and all customers benefit from low energy prices, especially those who have not switched from SVTs. Perhaps the solution would be to require that a relative price differential mechanism should be established and implemented while the absolute cap is in place. This would at least have the effect of preventing the current and perverse “tease and squeeze” culture of trying to attract customers with cheap or loss-leading tariffs and then rolling these customers on to very expensive SVTs, as commonly happens in the market. A relative price differential, absent the fundamental reform which is required, would at least drag SVTs down towards cheaper tariffs and hinder the “tease and squeeze” approach.
Fourthly, what is the process when the cap comes to an end in 2020? The Bill merely states:
“The Authority must carry out a review into whether conditions are in place for effective competition for domestic supply contracts”.
It does stipulate that the review must include an assessment of progress made in installing smart meters, but unfortunately that is as good as it gets. We think it is highly unlikely that the smart meter rollout will get anywhere near completion by that date. Why not use the completion of that programme as a point at which to review the capping scheme, without a sunset clause?
Fifthly, what exactly is a “clear and realistic definition of effective competition”? The magazine Which? says that,
“the criteria for effective competition are not defined so it is not certain under what circumstances the cap will be lifted or how its success will be judged”.
Sixthly, we are concerned that the consumers who benefit from Ofgem’s safeguard tariff may actually see their energy bills rise as a result of the cap. If the overall price cap consumes the safeguard tariff, vulnerable customers could see their prices go up by more than £30 as a result of the difference between the safeguard situation and the likely absolute tariff. When responding to these concerns on Report in another place, the Minister agreed that it would be perverse for some of the most vulnerable customers to see their energy prices go up as a result of a price cap and agreed to give the issue further consideration. The Minister did not mention it in his introductory speech, but I hope he has reflected on this and will, during the passage of the Bill, require Ofgem to identify affected customers and put in place measures to offset their loss or else not proceed with removing the safeguard tariff.
Seventhly, we are concerned that, because this Bill is at heart intended to promote switching as a means of reforming the energy market, it will not of itself reduce prices. According to the Dieter Helm review, the cost of energy is significantly higher than it needs to be to meet the Government’s objectives and, in particular, to be consistent with the Climate Change Act and security of supply. Further, energy policy, regulation and market design are not fit for the purposes of the emerging low-carbon energy market as it undergoes profound technical change. Since this was a review commissioned by the department, I think it is fair to ask the Minister why the Bill does not seek to remedy the problems identified by Dr Helm. If, as Dr Helm suggests, we are moving towards a decarbonised, digital, smart electric energy world, why are customers not benefiting more from the prospect of ever-lower costs from cleaner energy? To narrow it down to something at the heart of the Bill, why are the Government even considering excluding green energy from the cap?
I see from the list of speakers that we are going to have the benefit of the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, later on. I have a suspicion—I may be wrong—that he is going to talk about appeal mechanisms and will want to ensure that there is a proper merit-based appeal mechanism to the CMA if any company, the prices of which are capped by the Bill, is adversely affected. I do not want to anticipate his speech because I look forward to hearing it, but I put it to him that there may also be a case for civic agencies such as Which? or Citizens Advice to be able to raise appeals on behalf of consumers in a symmetrical, although not identical, manner. Perhaps he will consider this suggestion carefully when he comes to his amendments at a later stage of the Bill.
As I have said, the Bill does not provide an answer to the broken energy market. The rules in place are contradictory and self-cancelling. The place of green energy is equivocal. Between 2007 and 2013, electricity bills soared by 20%, while in the past year alone every household in the UK paid an average of £120 towards the dividends extracted by energy company shareholders. Over the past few months, report after report and news story after news story has detailed the unfairness of the current system. However, it must be noted that the final bills that consumers face are not simply a consequence of manipulation by some supply companies. As the BEIS Select Committee has highlighted, network-fixed costs make up the second highest element of a dual fuel energy bill.
Reform of the market is critical not just to instil fairness and affordability but to ensure that Britain has an energy system fit for the future. We are experiencing a pace of change in the energy sector that has never been seen before. Batteries, storage and smart systems are transforming demand and supply. There is a move to smarter, more decentralised forms of energy generation and supply, emulating many of the models established across Europe, along with the potential of accessing a low-carbon market that is, according to Goldman Sachs, worth over $600 billion.
The main problem is why the system is not treating vulnerable consumers fairly. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee found that vulnerable and low-income families were especially affected by poor-value tariffs, with 83% of those living in social rented housing, 75% of those on low incomes, 73% of those with no qualifications and 74% of disabled customers on a standard variable contract. It was clear from the committee’s findings that, even with the advent of smart meters, these groups will still require protection from overcharging. I therefore urge the Government to reconsider their opposition in the other place to amending Clause 7 to ensure that, when it considers “effective competition”, Ofgem has regard to the impact of removing or extending the cap in relation to vulnerable and disabled customers.
Finally, I am concerned that there is no timetable in the Bill and no guarantee that the price cap will be in place for this winter. The Bill currently states that Ofgem must introduce a cap “as soon as practicable” after it is passed, but Ofgem has already said that it would take around five months after the Bill receives Royal Assent to enact a price cap because it has a statutory duty to consult power companies. We need to look at this again. Ofgem currently estimates that it,
“will look to set the level of the cap over the autumn and bring the cap into effect at the end of this year”.
But that is half way through next winter—the cap will not even be in place when the weather turns in autumn this year. The Bill would be greatly improved by the inclusion of a hard deadline by which the cap must be in place, and we will seek to include such a deadline of the last weekend in October 2018, when the clocks go back.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I have been ambivalent about the Bill since it was published some months ago. However, I accept that it is a sticking plaster, as the Government rightly describe it, and that a huge problem needs to be solved.
We have heard some of the statistics: £1.4 billion of overcharging, as estimated by the Competition and Markets Authority, and 11 million households affected, many of them the most vulnerable. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned, there were an estimated 34,000 excess deaths due to cold weather in 2016-17. I know it is an estimate but it is why this Bill is as fundamental as life and death to many households. People fear turning on their energy supply during winter because they cannot afford the bill, and being confronted by court action and cut off, even if that is not would happen if that occurred.
In a broader context, the title of the Bill refers to a tariff cap, not a price cap. In this country we are obsessed by prices and not by the total of the invoice or the bill. I am not arguing against this Bill, but invoices or bills are more important because our housing stock is so energy inefficient. It is one of the major problems and one of the reasons why we have this issue.
I am the first to agree that there is no option to change that between now and the coming winter, but I am seriously disturbed by the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday on science and modern industrial strategy at Jodrell Bank. She said that,
“in the clean growth grand challenge, we will use new technologies and modern construction practices to at least halve the energy usage of new buildings by 2030”.
Until the Chancellor of the Exchequer got rid of the target after the 2015 election, we were going to have zero carbon homes by 2016, two years ago, and zero carbon commercial buildings by next year. Now, we seem to have moved to a target—which the Prime Minister has crowed about—of halving energy usage only in 12 years’ time. That concerns me because the industry was set to achieve the 2016 target but it was taken away by the then Chancellor, George Osborne.
I understood from both the green growth strategy and the 25-year environmental plan that we were going to be more ambitious in this area and bring back some of those targets. However, if we are talking about half of homes being zero carbon by 2030, then, frankly, this is missing the plot completely. I re-emphasise that this problem cannot be solved overnight, but if we lose that focus I am afraid we will have tariff cap bills for the next 12 years and they will not end in 2020.
Perhaps I may go through some of the issues briefly because the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the Minister have mentioned a number of them. We have the broad outlines but we do not know exactly how the system is going to work, so Ofgem will have to invent it. What we certainly do not know are the outcomes. In some ways, I welcome the fact that this issue will have to be looked at again regularly because it is difficult to understand what the practical outcomes will be. As we know, interventions in markets tend to create all sorts of unintended consequences, so it is important to keep a close eye on this.
I turn first to the green exemption. I have a renewables-only tariff for my domestic electricity supply which I have just been informed will go up by 10%. The year is up and I have to do something about switching again. It seems that this is a particularly uncertain area in the Bill, and I wonder whether there should be a relative cap if we are letting renewable energy suppliers off the hook, if you like, as regards the price cap. Are we sure that there will be no cheating going on in this area? I am also concerned that decisions about the green exemption do not have to be made on the same date as the rest of the cap. Everything should be done at the same time.
I will reflect on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the safeguarding tariff. It may be absolutely straightforward, but perhaps the Minister could clarify whether the benefits which will come from that tariff continue for those consumers, despite what this Bill is going to do?
Unlike some others, I am less convinced that an absolute cap is entirely right. I am referring to “tease and squeeze” and how we get rid of that. It is the main problem with the way the market and pricing work: getting people on board for the first year and then hoping that they forget about you. I wonder whether having the fixed percentage that is allowed between the minimum or entry tariff and consequent tariffs is a better way to do this, but I could be convinced otherwise.
However, what I would like to see is price comparison sites being obliged to show what the tariff will be after one year if the consumer fails to renew. That would provide real transparency in the growing switching market. We could look at that issue in a potential amendment. The mortgage market is often held up as the example in that regard, but that may have more to do with Financial Conduct Authority rules; it may be that Ofgem needs to be given similar powers.
The timing of the Bill is absolutely crucial and I am sure that the House will not want to hold it up in any way. But my concern, as with all legislation, its implementation and consultation periods—all of which are important—is that we will be too late for a number of consumers, and that there will be excess deaths if the winter weather sets in early. I would like to know from the Minister when he expects the price caps to come in and the benefits to be available, and about the broader issue of improving the efficiency of our housing and commercial building stock. What is the vision after the Bill expires, because I am far from clear about that?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner in the global commercial law firm, DAC Beachcroft LLP and as one of the Ministers who took through the Gas Act 1986. Introducing price controls into the energy market was indeed included in the last Conservative manifesto and codified in a draft Bill published last year. Today’s debate should therefore focus on how a price cap can be implemented in the most appropriate way, not on whether it should be.
The Bill represents a major intervention in the energy market with significant implications for competition and consumers. It is therefore essential that the Bill provides for strong oversight of how the cap is formulated and introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, has already mentioned my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern; I know I am not alone in feeling that the Bill does not include the long-established precedent that organisations should be able to appeal to the Competition and Markets Authority against a price control set by a sector-specific regulator. This right exists in every comparable example of sector-specific regulation, including in the energy sector, and plays an important role in driving better regulatory decisions.
The Bill directs the energy regulator, Ofgem, to introduce a price control on default energy tariffs. It also states that the regulator must have regard to ensuring that the market remains competitive, incentivising switching and allowing suppliers to finance their operations while inducing them to operate efficiently. This will be an extremely complex balance for Ofgem to strike. It is clear that greater competition has been vital to improving this market; Ministers have indicated that this trend should not be reversed. There are now 60 suppliers in the market, compared with just six in 2010. Consequently, there is more choice of tariff than ever before, with 17% of customers switching supplier last year. On a historical basis, these switching rates are better than those of broadband, mobiles and fixed-line telephone markets.
Ofgem will also need to undertake a detailed analysis of the cost of major national infrastructure programmes when constructing the cap, including the smart meter rollout programme, which is central to innovation and future competition. Her Majesty’s Treasury estimates that there will be £100,000 million of investment in critical infrastructure between now and 2021. Ofgem’s approach must ensure that a cap does not impede these large investments. Recent regulatory interventions in the energy market show that meeting this balance of regulation and competition is difficult to achieve. Regulators occasionally err in their decisions. I remember that the CMA concluded in 2016 that Ofgem’s previous attempts to regulate the number of retail tariffs that could be offered by a supplier—the Retail Market Review —had damaged competition and should be removed. We have also seen that the introduction of a prepayment meter price cap led to prices bunching to within £15 of a cap. Like any major intervention in a competitive market, the introduction of price regulation therefore needs a strong system of scrutiny and oversight.
Appeals to the CMA are the long-established way of providing such scrutiny and ensuring that any errors can be corrected efficiently. The CMA is a specialist economic regulator, established to review regulatory decisions and ensure that they are well founded. Price control decisions in every other comparable sector—such as telecoms, water, aviation and post—can be appealed to the CMA, as can other price control decisions made by Ofgem. Price regulation for network companies can also be appealed to the CMA by third parties, including consumer organisations. An appeal to the CMA in 2015 on the level of price control imposed by Ofgem found that Ofgem had made an error. As a result, £105 million was returned to consumers.
There are currently 26 panel members on whom the CMA may draw for any price control appeals. There is also a specialist utility panel within the CMA. The CMA and its predecessor, the Competition Commission, have more than two decades’ experience in assessing such matters across any number of industries. My noble friend the Minister may say that there are specific examples, such as payday loans and the PPM price cap, where CMA appeals are not allowed. I do not believe that those are analogous. The FCA is not comparable to Ofgem and has not been tasked with the same challenges of setting a complex price cap that assesses the cost of the provision of service and maintaining competition. The PPM price cap was adopted by the CMA itself, so its scrutiny had already informed the process.
My noble friend the Minister may add that he has concerns that an appeal could delay or frustrate the introduction of a cap. Ministers have made clear their desire that this legislation should be passed by July and implemented by next winter, but there is no precedent for CMA appeals delaying the implementation of a price control. In the last 11 price control appeals, no delay took place. CMA appeals typically take place while the regulator’s original decision remains in place. Any remedies are then implemented prospectively. The Bill could easily make provision to ensure an appeal could not delay or stop the implementation of a cap—no doubt my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern will have all sorts of ideas about how we might do that, particularly in Committee.
On stopping a price cap being introduced at all, this is not possible in practice, because the Bill imposes an explicit duty on Ofgem to impose a cap. No appeal process could override the will of Parliament. A CMA appeal would be less burdensome, more straightforward and less costly than the alternative route of legal challenge; namely, the judicial review. Since 2000, CMA appeals have taken on average a little under nine months end to end, compared to around 10 months for JR cases. The CMA’s procedural rules and the rules on costs deter litigants from bringing vexatious challenges.
Equally significantly, the CMA is able to make changes immediately, while a court would need to remit the matter to the regulator, potentially extending the process by a number of months. Based on my experience, judicial review does not seem the appropriate standard for an assessment of a price control. A judge would be focused primarily on the process through which a price control was set and not on the type of complex considerations relating to the level of the cap that should be taken into account. Additionally, judges are not adequately equipped to assess this type of decision. The CMA was established and equipped with the appropriate resources and specialist expertise to undertake such work. It must be better and more helpful in alleviating the burden on the courts to have a specialist body looking at these technical issues.
In summary, the Bill introduces a significant intervention into the energy market, and recent history shows that care is needed to support competition and consumers. Price interventions are complex and should not be taken lightly. It is our responsibility to ensure that the appropriate checks and balances are in place to provide for a fair measure of legal and regulatory certainty, which is essential to underpin vital confidence and investment in the energy sector. I do not believe the usual mechanism for such oversight, CMA appeal rights, would delay, obstruct or frustrate the implementation of a price cap—on the contrary. I hope the Government will reconsider to ensure that a more proportionate, efficient and appropriate form of intervention is achieved.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, although it is a non-financial interest, I should have declared that I am a trustee of Regen SW.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us that the motivation for this Bill did not stem either from the industry or from the sector regulator but was based on the very substantial CMA report in 2016 on decisions by Ministers and indeed by the Prime Minister. He is correct in saying that some interventions by Prime Ministers have not turned out that well, including David Cameron’s intervention on the four tariffs. That was not a great success, to say the least, and had to be abandoned, as he says. The fact that this intervention seems to have united the election pledges of Mrs May and Ed Miliband —albeit in different elections—does not necessarily mean it is going to be any more successful. In passing, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the need for an appeal to the CMA. I think that is needed in the Bill: I agree with him and, prospectively, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
I need to declare an interest: I will be chairing a commission on vulnerable energy consumers set up by the industry. That body has only just started work, so nothing I say today should be taken as anticipating the commission’s conclusions or anything like it.
But I do have some immediate questions. My two queries are these: are we answering, or attempting to answer, the wrong question? And are price caps on their own ever enough to protect the most vulnerable consumers? The CMA report two years ago met a mixed response. For myself, I thought its analysis was very substantial and essentially sound, but I also felt that its detailed recommendations were, in some cases, weak and confused, and that lies behind the method that this intervention is intended to achieve—what the CMA found was wrong with the market.
The CMA did indeed find that the big six, in particular, were making excessive profits margins on their standard variable tariff customers, but the key finding, as implied by the Minister in his opening remarks, was that this is a somewhat odd market, in that energy consumers are broadly speaking split into two groups, with one group being exploited and another benefiting. Newer, more active customers—the switchers —were being cross-subsidised by the loyal, older customers who have never, or not recently, switched supplier or tariff. The CMA also identified, as has been said, that the most marked unfairness related to prepayment meter customers. On that, the regulator has now moved and I support that in principle.
But if the problem is that long-term customers, often customers of the big six who have actually not switched since privatisation, are effectively cross-subsidising switchers, company by company—in other words, there is a sort of negative loyalty bonus—then surely the remedy is that the relativity between the tariff with which long-term customers pay, which is normally the default tariff or the standard variable tariff, and the tariff and package for newcomers is the most important metric in this approach. In other words, as my noble friend Lord Stevenson implied, we should perhaps be regulating by differential or by margin between the two, rather than, or possibly in addition to, an absolute cap. I appreciate that this could be complex, because many of the starter rates which entice new customers and switchers are time-limited and in practice revert to something very close to the standard variable tariff after a year or two. That is another practice that perhaps the regulator should look at. But the issue of whether a relative cap is more appropriate than an absolute cap needs returning to. I am not sure that the Government gave an adequate reply to that in the Commons. I would like to hear more clearly the rationale for that today.
My second point is that the price needs to be seen together with the broader issue of customer service, customer choice and consumer protection—for all but particularly for those who are the most vulnerable, either temporarily or permanently. Let us face it: most households do not understand the energy market or the choices within it. For many people, price comparison sites can be more confusing than helpful and in some cases are downright misleading. Any tariff intervention, therefore, needs to be accompanied by greater care for the consumer, for example on the choice of method of communication between the supplier and the consumer. The insistence on electronic or telephonic communication disadvantages certain subgroups of consumers, who prefer paper. Noble Lords may well have received the information on the Keep Me Posted campaign, which spells this out. The additional help that companies appear to offer consumers is often very limited and does not really help the individual consumer to navigate the complexity of tariffs; rather, they revert to the default position of staying on the rate that they have always been on.
It is no use simply putting a cap on the price, valuable though that can be in certain circumstances, if the consumer does not understand how and why they are being charged that rate and what the alternatives are. At a minimum, therefore, the Bill needs to have some provision on customer service and support and help for vulnerable consumers—perhaps I should say the more vulnerable consumers, since most of us are at risk at some point in our lives and sometimes struggle with our energy bills. The Bill would be better for such a clause, even if it were put in the most general terms. I repeat that I would like a clearer answer to why the Bill is, on the face of it, about a temporary absolute cap, when it has clearly been shown that a relative control would reduce unfairness and deliver a more just relative treatment between long-standing customers and the small, active proportion—it may be 20%—of frequent switchers.
The Bill requires a further CMA investigation of the market. I am not against another detailed study. I find tying it to the timetable for smart meters slightly odd. At best that needs to be kept reasonably flexible. The point is that neither price caps nor competition is sufficient to ensure that all consumers benefit from the market. Treatment of the more passive and the more vulnerable consumers requires much more specific interventions by companies and a better consumer service from all suppliers. It is true that all markets require switchers to make them work, but in a market as central to our lives as energy the market price and the structure of tariffs need to reflect fairness and justice for all consumers, certainly, but between different groups of consumers as well.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I fear that the Bill is flawed. I accept that we may need to tackle the “tease and squeeze” culture and that this is a manifesto commitment, but price capping and rent controls often turn out to be ineffective or even counterproductive, especially with respect to the most vulnerable. They tend to treat symptoms rather than causes and in this case I fear that they pass the blame for energy costs from the Government to scapegoats.
The pachyderm in the parlour here is that the costs of government policies vastly exceed any aggregate saving to the consumer that might come about from a price cap. Policies deliberately introduced, mainly under the coalition Government, with the full knowledge that they would push up energy prices are now coming home to roost. Telling the industry to cap prices is like fattening a pig and then demanding that it weigh less. Like worrying that in crossing the Rubicon Julius Caesar might get his feet wet, it lacks a sense of proportion.
Even if we restrict ourselves to the official data from the Office for Budget Responsibility by consulting its Economic and Fiscal Outlook from March 2018 and go to tab 2.7 of its spreadsheet, “Fiscal supplementary tables: receipts and other”, we find that in the current year, 2018-19, environmental levies will cost £10.4 billion. That is more than seven times the “customer detriment” found by the Competition and Markets Authority inquiry on which the Government are relying. It is seven times as large as the sum that my noble friend the Minister described as huge. Subsidies to renewables account for £8.9 billion of that annual sum, or 86%.
The total cost of subsidies to renewables, according to the OBR, from the current year to 2022-23 is an almost unbelievable £52 billion, as the table that I referred to confirms. It is appropriate to look towards 2023 because, under the Bill, the price cap could be extended till then. Domestic households will pay for all of that £52 billion. About one-third of it, £17 billion, hits them directly in their electricity bills, but they will pay for the rest through increased cost of living. If a supermarket has to pay more to refrigerate milk, it must recover that cost at the check-out.
Remember: none of these subsidies for renewables is actually working very well. These technologies are not market ready; they are manifest failures, still begging for subsidy after decades of public largesse. As suggested by the Dieter Helm review, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, referred, we are not getting emissions reductions at a reasonable price.
Lord Teverson
I will not argue with the noble Viscount, although I disagree with him. But one thing I would specifically point out is that a number of onshore energy companies are trying at the moment to operate subsidy free. They are being prevented in doing that largely by government policy, but they are looking for subsidy-free onshore wind.
Viscount Ridley
I shall come to that point in a minute.
The recent low bid prices for offshore wind were, frankly, a bad joke. They were a play on the optionality that the Government have created and tell us nothing about what is really happening in the market. Onshore wind, far from being the lowest cost generator, remains one of the most expensive when its systems costs are taken into account. That is the key point: going subsidy free, to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, refers, did not include the systems cost of adding wind in remote areas. Systems cost contributes to these energy prices.
Here, the Government are proposing an ineffective and probably counterproductive price cap to save, at best, £10 billion on bills up to 2023. It is probably more like £3.5 billion and may even be a negative number, when their own failed policies are already stinging the consumer for £50 billion over that period. I am sorry, but I think this makes no sense. In effect, the Government have asked the energy suppliers to be their tax collectors and are now, in an incoherent gesture, forbidding their tax collectors from collecting the revenue. The energy suppliers would be acting entirely reasonably if they were to tell the Government to collect their own taxes and take the consequent blame.
Yet I believe the situation is even worse than that because the estimate of £1.4 billion a year detriment that the CMA identifies is almost certainly an overestimate. As the former electricity regulator Stephen Littlechild put it in a letter to the BEIS Select Committee in the Commons, Oxera argued that the correct figure could be anywhere between £0.7 billion, which is half of the CMA’s estimate, and minus £0.7 billion. Adjustments of £1 billion were made after the data room closed, so they could not be scrutinised by anyone. This point has not been rebutted.
Five former energy regulators—Littlechild, Callum McCarthy, Eileen Marshall, Stephen Smith and Clare Spottiswoode—have argued, in a strongly worded criticism of the detriment calculation, that:
“In our view this is a very misleading calculation. It is not, as might be thought, an estimate of excess profit. Rather, it is an estimate of how much lower prices could be if all suppliers in the sector were hypothetically more efficient than any actual supplier in the sector today. Such an approach seems to be without precedent in investigations by any UK competition authority”.
These former regulators warn that the Bill could result in increases in lower prices as suppliers remove offers from the market to offset the cost to them of the cap, and could be harmful to competition and customers generally, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. So even on its own terms the Bill might well be taking a non-problem and turning it into a likely one, and it ignores the real reason why Britain’s electricity prices are so high and are hurting our competitiveness.
What does the Minister propose to do about the real £10.9 billion a year detriment to customers instead of the specious £1.4 billion? What is his estimate of the cost of renewable subsidies to the British consumer over the next five years? What does he think is the risk that this price cap will drive prices up rather than down? What weight does he put on the criticisms of the five former energy regulators?
If I have failed to do so, I declare my interests in energy, including mainly coalmining.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the CEO of the Energy Managers Association, which runs courses on procurement—I can tell noble Lords that it is an extremely complicated area in the non-domestic sector—and as the CEO of the Water Retail Company, a retailer in the new water market, next to which the energy market looks positively logical.
The Minister started by saying that there has been a failure in the marketplace and this should lead to major intervention. Here I must digress. I have just been talking to my son, who is doing his politics A-level at the moment, and some of the work that he has to do is to link political ideology to certain policies. I was trying to work out where this Bill fits. One could say that it fits with Corbynism. Obviously it was introduced originally by Ed Miliband, so it is a Labour policy going backwards, but I suppose that now it could be seen as a Mayism, if there is such a thing. However, this policy does not have an ideological base; it is really just a way of trying to garner public support. Saying that energy bills are high and we want to reduce them is a very easy way of bringing about public support. The speed with which this is being introduced could have something to do with the very valid points raised by my noble friend Lord Teverson, but it could also be that people are just trying to get the political benefit of doing this.
I am not against the reduction of the cost of energy and looking the problems of the marketplace. However, for years we have been talking about the energy sector becoming one of the most competitive marketplaces in Europe. If we have a competitive marketplace that is being pushed forward, there will be winners and losers. Indeed, the problem with the marketplace is that for companies to afford the deals to bring customers through the door, there have to be tariffs where they make more money in the marketplace.
The CMA report came out with a number of assertions about the amount of money being made by energy companies. I have to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—perhaps for the first time ever in this Chamber—that there are certain problems with that assumption. I believe that the CMA report was highlighting a problem but I do not think the figures given could be taken as anything more than indicative. The reason I raise these points is not that I believe energy companies have a right to receive a certain amount of profit, but that I believe any cap being set is fraught with a number of difficult assumptions.
The cap will skew the marketplace. It is not as easy as saying, “We will set a cap”, because certain things going on at the moment mean that the cap may have to change quite quickly. As of half an hour ago, 48.1% of our energy came from gas. Twenty per cent of our gas comes from Qatar, and the recent problems with the treaty with Iran mean that there could be problems with the Strait of Hormuz. Even if nothing actually happens, the uncertainty could lead to a rise in fossil fuel prices which will have a major effect.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said—
Viscount Ridley
As we are agreeing so much today, does the noble Lord agree with what the Energy Minister said yesterday: these are reasons why we should get on with shale gas in this country?
Lord Redesdale
I am very tempted to go down that line. Of course, we could become energy independent if we were to use shale gas—for a whole seven years, and then it would be gone. I am not sure it is such a long-term solution.
There is a real issue about the cost of fuel, although wholesale costs will of course be a smaller amount compared to levies. However, we have to move to a low-carbon economy, away from our present one, although today, no power whatever was being generated by coal.
The Bill is flawed. It is being taken forward at great speed. Many people are saying that it is a popular Bill, because we all want to reduce the cost, especially to the most vulnerable, but I ask the Minister to look again at three things in the Bill which I know will be raised in amendments.
First, I ask him to reintroduce the CMA as the body that reviews any price cap. I do not suggest that this would hold up the process in any shape or form—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—but as the CMA is used as the backstop for most other Bills as good practice, leaving it out of this measure seems slightly perverse.
Secondly, I hope, following the Minister’s statement in another place that renewables tariffs may well be exempt from the price cap, that that provision will be introduced. I am thinking of shifting to a renewables tariff that would be higher than the price cap. I am prepared to pay more for a renewable source of energy. That is probably a point on which the noble Viscount and I disagree, but there is value in renewable energy. Although the Minister talked about ensuring that that was the case, I should like to see something in the Bill.
Thirdly, one problem often raised by energy companies, as well as the risk that they face from global politics, is regulatory risk. I find it interesting that the last substantive clause in the Bill says that this tariff rate might end in 2020, but it might go to 2021, 2022 or 2023, at which point it must stop. That is a difficult assertion to make, considering that companies buying large amounts of energy for the future have to make certain assumptions about where the price will be and what regulation they will face in future. On that point, I look forward to the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords I shall confine myself to the Bill. I think my noble friend Lord Ridley’s submission is that it should not get a Second Reading. That is rather wide of the real mark, so I shall not go down that road. I ought to declare an interest. I am a dual account customer of an energy company and I have an absolutely minute holding in Centrica.
Apart from these, my main interest is trying to understand what this Bill does and what it imposes on the regulator. It is significant that the Government have not tried to set the cap themselves. That is probably wise because the difficulties are quite substantial. We need only read what the authority has to have in mind to realise that. The principal object of the Bill is to protect existing and future domestic customers who pay standard, variable and default rates. I understand that the other customers are people on time-limited contracts. One of the difficulties that I have found as a customer is finding out exactly what the variable contracts you can have are likely to result in long term. One thing is certain: to do that, you have to make sure that you look at the account pretty regularly to see whether the contract term has run out, because if that happens without having done anything, you find yourself in the area that needs protection.
Protection is designed to prevent people being overcharged. If that is the primary responsibility of the authority under Clause 1(6), it is interesting to see what the conditions are that have to be satisfied—or that the authority “must have regard to” rather than satisfy. First, in subsection (6)(a), there is,
“the need to create incentives for holders of supply licences to improve their efficiency”.
I am slightly at a loss—I am not at all technical in this matter—to know how you create incentives for holders of supply licences to improve efficiency by imposing a price cap. My noble friend will explain that when he replies, I am sure.
The next one is,
“the need to set the cap at a level that enables the holders of supply licences to compete effectively for domestic supply contracts”.
Again that strikes me as quite a difficult thing to do if you are aiming to protect customers.
The next one is,
“the need to maintain incentives for domestic customers to switch to different domestic supply contracts”.
As far as I am concerned, the main incentive to switch to a fixed-term contract is because, on the whole, the rate is usually less than in any of the other variable options that require protection. That perhaps is not too difficult, but on the other hand, if it is meant to relate to switching to other suppliers and not just switching to fixed-term contracts with the same supplier, I find it difficult to see how the price cap can help to maintain that.
Finally, subsection (6)(d) refers to,
“the need to ensure that holders of supply licences who operate efficiently are able to finance activities authorised by the licence”.
One need only look at these provisions to see how difficult fixing this tariff will be.
One thing that struck me on reading the Bill was that the Government accept that fuel costs are an essential part of life, but the difficulty associated with the fact that houses are rather leaky is an important aspect. There is not much that a consumer can do to prevent that, at least quickly. I had thought that there might be a reference to the benefit rates that people get. Presumably the universal credit system takes account of the fact that people are required to pay for fuel. In considering the level of the cap, that would be quite important. All this is just designed to show how difficult it is to fix this particular cap.
Then I come to the fact that there is no appeal provision in this Bill. As forecast by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, I am going to say something about that. The details are a matter for Committee, because one would want to put a fairly detailed proposal forward. No appeal system means that we have judicial review, because that is not excluded, and I do not think that it could be. It means that, if the companies or the people proposed to be protected feel that either of those things is not working as it should, they have to go to court on judicial review. I wrote a fairly detailed letter to the Minister in the Commons on this matter, and after some time I got a fairly detailed letter back. I do not propose to weary your Lordships with examining them just now, but I shall attempt to take account of these in framing our possible amendment for discussion in Committee.
One thing is certain—that the courts are not very equipped for dealing with the detail of this cap. Apart from the difficulties that I have just highlighted, which seem fairly difficult theoretical problems, the courts have very little in the way of help. In the letter to which I referred, I am told—of course, it was not news to me—that the court could appoint assessors. Of course it could, but that is not a fixed arrangement such as is supplied by the Competition and Markets Authority. Therefore, my view is quite strongly that a proper appeals system to the Competition and Markets Authority is something that we should consider very carefully indeed. The idea that it could defer the introduction of the cap is, of course, not really a fact. In any case, our amendment could make sure that that did not happen.
That is the primary purpose of what I have to say. I think that there is some difficulty about the matter of when the people or authority fixing the cap are not required to take account of the benefits system and the rates of benefit in fixing the cap. That suggests to me that the purpose of the cap is a somewhat difficult concept to grasp and therefore difficult for the authority to fix—which, no doubt, is why the Government did not fix it themselves in the first place.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to see that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has arrived lately in his place. I am sure that he will acknowledge, however, that his recent arrival means that it is appropriate that I should speak now.
I start by declaring a relevant but past interest, having spent eight years as the chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. In that context, we used to debate on a very regular basis the difference between judicial review, which was not the standard by which the tribunal was making its judgment—the same applies now—and the merits-based appeal, which is the standard by which the tribunal reaches its decisions. I will have a little more to say about that later without, I hope, repeating what has already been said.
I support the principle of this Bill, subject to suitable scrutiny procedures being in place on a merits assessment. I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who said that this was plainly a politically motivated Bill, which was designed to give advantage to the Government. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that most Bills have a political motivation. The Government are sending out a hostage to fortune, because the people will be expecting their power bills not to rise, in real terms, as a result of this Bill. If the Government let the public down in that regard, the voters will, no doubt, make their judgments on a very visible, tangible issue.
Consumers have been faced with substantial increases in energy prices. I suspect that the price increases announced last week may have had the consequences of the Bill partly in mind. The proportionality that energy costs have to average earnings is an important measure of the economic relationship between the state and its citizens. This applies especially to those who are responsible for the upbringing and care of families and to the elderly—the cohort so nobly represented in your Lordships’ House. Fuel poverty is not only a sign of a poorly organised country, it is also a basic and justifiable cause of political discontent.
The public’s dissatisfaction with energy companies is compounded by their poor performance. It happens that, last Saturday morning, I noticed in my inbox an email from npower, the company that supplies gas and electricity to my home. It set out very clearly—because it has to—that I could save a few hundred pounds a year if I moved on to another tariff. Later that day, thinking that I could save myself that money, I went on to the npower website. I got one of those responses that reads something like: “Oops; there seems to be something wrong with our website”. I left it for an hour or two and tried again, and “Oops” appeared. In the early evening, I tried again and “Oops” appeared, so I left it. On Sunday, I went to the npower website and no “Oops” message appeared. It was possible for me to go on to a site which told me clearly that I could save a few hundred pounds a year on my gas and electricity combined. I looked very carefully for the button that said something like: “Do it now”, but there was no such button, though it was well within its power to produce one. I then embarked on a parlour game, or obstacle course, depending on the view you take, and eventually, after having two cups of tea while trying to get through the exercise, I was, thankfully, able to reduce my energy costs by a few hundred pounds. However, if I had not been determined, bloody-minded and reasonably good at dealing with computers, I may well not have been able to do that.
Those very cohorts which I mentioned earlier are not being given the opportunity by the energy companies to reduce their prices as easily as possible. That means that those companies are canny about what they can do. They will take every point at their disposal, and that brings me directly to the appeal process. I said earlier that I have relevant experience, through being a member of the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The existing appeal regime enables parties to challenge decisions of sector-specific regulators, in front of a specialist body—in this instance, the CMA—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, this is part of the existing regulatory model in the UK. For example, as chairman of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, I dealt with Oftel and the ability to port your number when you change from one supplier to another. What had been done was not wholly unreasonable, but it was not right on the merits, so we provided a ruling that meant that you can port your number. People have been able to do that ever since, and it has become easier.
We were able to consider things as mundane as bus prices in the city of Cardiff because unfair competition was taking place. Again, we considered the matter on its merits, not by looking at points of law but by looking at when buses arrived and where the competition was on the street at the time of the arrival of those buses. That is what a merits-based appeal system achieves. Indeed, the established system is central to driving better regulatory decisions and thus the level of legal and regulatory certainty upon which all industry stakeholders depend. That is a long-winded way of saying that if there is a merits-based appeal and a decision, people know what they have to do.
Judicial review is not the appropriate standard for legal challenge to a decision that has significant consequences for competition and consumers. I suggest to the Minister that an appeal right to the Competition and Markets Authority could be inserted in the Bill by an amendment such as that alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to ensure the appropriate checks and balances for price control while not delaying or frustrating the process in any way.
I do not intend to repeat everything said so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral—I agreed with every word he said on this issue. I just wanted to add this to try to simplify matters a little. If judicial review principles are applied, the court could hold that the decision was rational but wrong, and therefore it would stand. If the CMA principles are applied, the CMA could hold that the decision was reasonably reached but wrong and therefore would not stand but would be replaced by the correct decision. Stated in that way, I believe that the proposition is unanswerable other than by allowing an appeal to the CMA.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him a quick question? I was deeply saddened to hear of his travails in trying to move his tariffs. Would he believe me if I told him that that was a relatively “short ride in a fast machine” compared to the three months and counting I have spent trying to achieve the same thing?
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I absolutely accept that, because two or three years ago I changed my provider, and it took me about three months to achieve.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the Bill—very briefly, because at this stage of the debate, much of what I wanted to say has been said by other noble Lords.
At first glance, the imposition of price controls would not immediately strike one as a true Conservative policy. Edmund Burke, however, held that it was the duty of government to prevent people—whether consumers, workers or investors—from being exploited. That is exactly what the Bill does. As we have heard, the Bill seeks to protect the consumer from the significant price increases that can arise from standard variable tariffs. These are imposed on those of us—11 million at the last count—who fail to renew our tariffs with energy suppliers in a timely fashion. If any noble Lords here have not made contact with their supplier in the past two years, I suggest they do so today, as they will almost certainly be on a default tariff—although it may take them until tomorrow, as we have just heard.
Under the Bill, Ofgem must set retail price controls in the form of a temporary but absolute cap through consultation with the industry using an agreed transparent methodology in the next five months. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay observed, that is no small task. Notwithstanding the very poor behaviour that has been prevalent in the industry over the past decade, I add my voice to concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Hunt and my noble and learned friend, as well as by the noble Lords, Lord Whitty, Lord Stevenson and Lord Carlile, about the options for redress and the building-in of poor governance to this legislation.
It is proposed that the only recourse to an appeal that a retail supplier or a consumer will have to challenge the cap proposed by Ofgem is through a judicial review. As has been said, a judicial review is many things, but it does not seem entirely appropriate to judge anything beyond the legality of the control or indeed whether the process by which it has been imposed has been executed in an appropriate fashion. Further, it has no time limit and in many ways it seems a pretty blunt instrument to use as a mechanism for dealing with retail price controls.
Meanwhile, as we have also heard, the Competition and Markets Authority is an established feature of the existing regulatory model in the UK. It has proved itself to be faster and more effective at providing the level of forensic, commercial analysis that may be needed to resolve disputes. Other sectors of the economy —water companies, mobile phone companies, Openreach and networks that can be subject to price controls—have recourse to the CMA, and I remain unconvinced that judicial review represents the best route to good governance in this instance.
The last thing I seek to do is to put the regulator in a weak position, particularly with regard to this industry. I understand that there is a fear that questioning the appeals procedure could be a delaying tactic by the major energy suppliers, which are seeking to delay the imposition of any cap. This would seem unlikely, as any CMA appeals process could run alongside the imposition of the cap.
In the long term, only healthy market competition will obviate the need for a permanent cap. However, I believe that a temporary cap is necessary while other measures are taken to promote competition. If set at a sensible level, competition need not be stifled, and there should be plenty of scope for smaller operators in particular to compete effectively.
To conclude, I support the Bill and the intentions behind its interventions. I am confident that it can be made to protect vulnerable consumers and to remove the penalty for loyalty. In common with others present, I just have reservations about the appeals process contained in the Bill, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. The principle of the Bill is unusually uncontentious and it has considerable support around the House—other than from the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. However, that is not to say that the Bill cannot and should not be improved.
The Bill arises out of energy market failure and the shortcomings of Ofgem in addressing that failure over the past 20 or 30 years. Successive Ofgem leaders have not addressed the problem. As I understand it, not so long ago Ofgem was considering packing up altogether. It felt that its job was done and that it was no longer needed or significant to the industry. However, that was then and this is now, and we now have a meeting of minds between Labour and Conservatives on the need for such a Bill to come into being.
The current situation is that competition is failing customers. It is allowing market dominance by the so-called big six, who have something like 80% of the market. The biggest slice of the market that a small competitor has had over the last 30 years is about 1%, which does not seem to be enough to invade the market. Maybe 1.5 million customers overall between all 55 competitor suppliers against the big six is a very small number.
Competition was supposed to facilitate cheaper energy costs and to protect vulnerable customers. It was supposed to take away monopoly behaviour by suppliers and to make companies more efficient. Bits of that might have happened, but not in sufficient quantity—and it has not been sufficiently evident to customers in the prices they pay for their energy.
So what do we have? We have pricing that is described as a rip-off. Vulnerable customers are being exploited. They are on prepayment meters and pay higher charges. Until very recently those were capped, as it was very evident that they were being exploited. With 80% of the market dominated by the big six, inefficiency is built into the supply system.
The Conservative Party widely ridiculed Labour in 2013 when we proposed a price freeze. It was felt to be anti-competitive, unnecessary, a backward step and an admission of market failure. So it is hard to understand what the Conservatives say now. It is nice to see a damascene conversion of some sort, but the explanation of that conversion is not clear. We must have a tariff cap for all customers on top of what has already been introduced for vulnerable customers. Has the market significantly changed in the past couple of years to bring about the reversal of policy think? I do not think so. However, the CMA’s recognition that, unless something is done quickly, the ripping off of customers will become intolerable might be the justification that the Government give for introducing this now.
How does the market work? We have heard some accounts from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others about their experience of trying to switch, but the big six’s behaviour goes something like this. You start up on a leader-price, low-price tariff. They get you into the market and then, a year later, they will get you back, in some cases by more than doubling your charges. By the way, the cheaper deals they offer will be withdrawn for you just before you try to find them and renew and take up an alternative to your standard variable tariff. They all do it. Some do it more than others—some are more blatant—but they are all at it. All the big six are at it: monopoly suppliers fleecing largely their customers, until recently the most vulnerable of whom were the worst affected, as they had to have prepayment meters which charged higher rates because the companies had the additional cost of installing the meter. They did not take account of the fact that they actually got an income after installing a prepayment meter, having previously complained that there was no income coming from the most vulnerable customers.
There have been some beneficiaries. Those most able to afford to pay have exploited the market—the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, being one of them. They have made savings for themselves by switching but they are, as someone said, subsidised by those who are unable or unwilling to do so. Four out of five customers each year never do so; they do not have the time, the inclination, the resources or the access to computing to do so. So a large majority of customers have to be punished by paying higher prices. We have recently seen an increase in charges of 5%, or thereabouts, by many of the big six, which is way above inflation and above supply costs. Why is that in the Bill? Why has that become necessary? It is storing up some spare for when the tariff cap comes into effect.
Ofgem was set up to regulate the market against unfair competition, but its track record is not so good. It is cautious, it is safe, and it is ineffective, with instincts which are not to rock any boats in the industry. What is the cost? According to figures produced by the CMA, which may be disputed by certain noble Lords, we are paying £1.4 billion more for energy each year than we should. That £1.4 billion recurs every year that we have the current system in place.
What is to be done? The Bill should allow a bit of control to be brought to bear on the energy market. In order to address this, some questions need to be answered, so I ask the Government the following. Do they have any idea what the level of the tariff cap will be? Will the Secretary of State or Ofgem make the ultimate decision? Will it be a recommendation from Ofgem to the Secretary of State, or will it be Ofgem left alone? Why do the Government envisage that the tariff cap will be necessary only for a short time? We have heard that 2023 is linked to the potential rollout of smart meters. The plan is in some difficulty and I think that it is unlikely to hit that deadline. Therefore, why do the Government envisage it being necessary only until 2020 or 2023?
What would be the effect of smart meters on every customer’s bills? If the cost is £11 billion, what will be the cost in individual customers’ bills? How will the Government know when the market is working or behaving as it should? What indicators will the Government use to make judgments about whether the market is behaving properly? Will the warm home discounts be a requirement for all energy suppliers? Suppliers are currently exempt if they supply fewer than 200,000 households or customers. There does not seem to be any reason why that should be the case. Can that be considered as part of the legislation? Will customers be able to have paper bills at no additional cost, as has already been asked? That is important to older customers in particular. Finally, when will the tariff cap come into place? Certainly, it should be no later than when the clocks go back this year, when winter starts. Winter 2018 has been mentioned, but when does winter start in the mind of the Government?
I started by saying that there was little contention about the need for this Bill, and I remain of that view. But there are many unanswered questions and more detail is required as the Bill progresses through the House. We will know that the Bill has succeeded if customers have something like £1.5 billion to £2 billion returned to them as an effect of the tariff price cap coming into being.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, even the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, although I fear he and I will never agree on certain matters. A cap should never have been necessary and would not have been necessary if the big six were not greedy and if the regulator had used his teeth. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, said, a measure of their market failure that we are in this position. The cap must be only a temporary measure, because it will not create the competition that is needed to really drive down prices. We have seen the success of offshore wind auctions not only in bringing down the price of offshore wind but in forcing other energy providers to compete. I could hardly believe it when EDF came to me to discuss nuclear and said that it would be able to compete with offshore wind. Competition works.
A cap must beware of unintended consequences, as several noble Lords have said. A cap can precipitate rises before its institution and after its departure, and we have already seen this with E.ON, I think, raising its prices. I tweeted my dissatisfaction at this event and E.ON tweeted back to say that it was because of rising costs. The next week, I saw what had risen: its profits, by 41%. So forgive me if I have no time for suppliers which wring their hands and say that a cap is not the answer. It should not be, and I wish it was not, but it is the only short-term answer to protect the loyal and the vulnerable. Competition is the answer.
As many noble Lords have mentioned, we have seen a rise in switching—this year, something like 5.5 million people have switched. However, that is nowhere near the level of competition that we need. The Bill states that it seeks to protect switching, and we must do that, particularly during the period when the cap is in place. To quote the Secretary of State:
“There should still be an advantage in shopping around, but customers should be protected from an ever-increasing differential that particularly penalises those who are vulnerable”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/3/18; col. 207.]
As I mentioned, the big suppliers have lost our trust—definitely my trust—and they may try to find ways to stop their customers shopping around. Therefore, we on these Benches are not satisfied with the words of the Secretary of State. Ongoing benefit from switching needs active protection in the legislation.
It is not beyond the pale to imagine that, when the big six write to their customers to introduce what they are doing about the cap measures, they may fail to tell their customers that they can still switch and that the cap does not mean that their customers might not find a better deal elsewhere. For example, uSwitch wants Ofgem to make sure that suppliers cannot use misleading names for their capped tariff. If, when writing to their customers, suppliers were to use a name such as a “safeguard tariff”, that might make customers think that they are safe with that tariff. Therefore, uSwitch is suggesting that Ofgem should consider and test names for the cap—something like “temporary tariff”—to find out consumer response. We need to be sure that consumers will not be misled by their supplier’s anxiety to keep them by marketing ploys.
It also highlights a concern that, if and when the price cap is changed during the period, which might be the case, we will need to make sure that suppliers do not minimise consumers’ responses to such changes. Notification letters must make it clear that the price cap does not necessarily or automatically deliver the best deal and that customers may still find a better deal if they shop around, or not.
Lastly, the information on switching should be easy and accessible in all communications. I will probably bring forward an amendment mandating guidance as to what such correspondence must say about the cap. That must be universal to all suppliers so that it is the customer who is given straight facts and the supplier does not omit the facts for commercial purposes.
Some noble Lords have raised the point—not always in a good way—that one of the most disappointing parts of the Bill is the omission of the exemption for green energy tariffs. It is not only disappointing but unacceptable. The Government promised that they would seek an exemption for green energy tariffs and when they accepted a recommendation from the Select Committee I had some hope that they meant it. I understood the proviso they put forward that any tariffs exempted from the price cap on this basis would only be agreed to when Ofgem was satisfied as to its credentials in directly supporting the production of renewable energy. That is completely fair—but I do not see it in the Bill. The Government should stop pretending that they support the green agenda—they do not. They are happy to remove planning protections for local people fighting fracking—as mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley—they are happy to pay squillions for nuclear, they broke their promise on carbon capture and storage, they are doing nothing to deliver green gas, they have zero hope of reaching their existing targets and they have done nothing but undermine renewables.
Claire Perry, the Minister, who was by the Throne earlier, is asking the climate change committee to look at zero carbon 2050, no doubt spurred on by my report on zero carbon 2050, A Vision for Britain: Clean, Green and Carbon Free. The Government are about sounding green, not doing green. The original draft of the Bill included an exemption from the proposed cap for green electricity tariffs with an additional environmental benefit. In the event, the Bill only puts an obligation on Ofgem to consult on an exemption for tariffs supporting the production of gas or the generation of electricity from renewable sources. However, the cap may be introduced before that consultation is complete, let alone the exemption made. Firms such as Ecotricity and others which are doing the right thing and changing our world for the better—pioneers taking us forward—need to be supported and encouraged, not undermined by a Government who talk green but act blue. We on these Benches want to see that exemption in the Bill and I will table an amendment to that effect.
On the issue of vulnerable people, which has been raised by other noble Lords, it is proven that people with disabilities face higher energy costs. It is therefore right and necessary for the Government to tackle this with a temporary cap on standard variable and default tariffs. Scope issued a briefing highlighting the concerns for the most vulnerable. There is an issue for those on an Ofgem safeguard tariff, who could see their costs rise as a result of the cap. Those on the safeguard tariff, prepayment meters and warm home discounts are exempt from the cap.
Scope is concerned that the new extended safeguard tariff planned by Ofgem, which will be replaced by the Government cap on standard variable and default tariffs, may mean in effect that some consumers with disabilities miss out on support because they may not be on a variable or default tariff. Scope believes it is vital that the Government make Ofgem identify those in receipt of the safeguard tariff and put in place measures to offset potential loss or, alternatively, not proceed with removing the safeguard tariff. The Government must ensure—no, they must guarantee—in this Bill that no one with disabilities will be made worse off by this or future changes in the cap/tariffs. I will table an amendment to establish that principle in law in due course.
Scope says that the price cap will go some way to protect disabled consumers with high energy bills but it is not sufficient to tackle the range of barriers that customers face. Its proposals are around improving support for disabled energy consumers, more effective data capture and sharing, accessible communication and digital inclusion. It asks the Government to put in place a longer term plan to address those barriers alongside the price cap. This should be a must for the Government. It is not good enough to take half measures to create equality—they have to deliver. This is an opportunity for the Government to apply the principles of the DDA and the Equality Act promptly and without equivocation.
There is a clear failure to protect in the Bill as currently drafted and I trust and hope that, following amendments that will be brought forward in Committee, the Government will move on this issue. If they do not accept the amendments brought forward in Committee or on Report, I hope they will bring forward amendments to achieve the ends I have outlined in ensuring that the most vulnerable are securely protected.
I turn briefly to appeals, a subject that has been raised by many noble Lords. A large lobby of suppliers want the Government to introduce an appeal to the CMA on how and what Ofgem sets as the cap given that currently only judicial review is available. SSE is particularly concerned that the way in which Ofgem sets the cap should reflect the cost of supplying energy. It suggests that the bottom-up cost assessment approach would be the fairest one and carry the lowest risk, and it too subscribes to the right to appeal. I tend to pay heed to the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, who has made a strong case on this, and I will listen to the Government’s view on an appeal process. We do not want to introduce any delay, but as other noble Lords have mentioned, apparently there is no delay as the result of an appeal. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Henley, can answer this question in his response. Why should the normal process of appeal to the CMA have been omitted in this case?
Lastly, one of the key issues is what is to happen next? What will happen when the cap ends? What are the conditions under which it could be lifted? Surely the Government should set those parameters, given that this is after all a temporary measure. What would have to happen for the cap to be lifted and what is in place to ensure that the big six cannot repeat the sorry situation which has necessitated the cap in the first place?
Before I conclude, I want to reiterate a point made by my noble friend Lord Teverson on energy efficiency. A great deal of consumers’ money literally goes out of the window or through the gap under the door. Given that, it would be significant if the Government could consider making energy efficiency a national priority as part of their infrastructure plans. However, as noble Lords may have gathered from what I have said, while we on these Benches support the cap, we want to see some movement on the issues that I and other speakers have raised.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention, and for what I think is the first authoritative statement from the Liberal Democrats in the course of this Bill through both Houses. I take note of her concerns about the Bill; she has made it quite clear that the cap should never have been necessary. However, as I understood by the end of her speech, she seems to think it right to put the cap in place. No doubt we will hear more from the Liberal Democrats, as I hope we will from other noble Lords, when the Bill is considered in Committee. It is possible that we will have rather a busy Committee stage because a number of concerns have been raised. I hope to be able briefly to address just some of them in my remarks winding up the debate. It probably falls to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Teverson, who have in effect provided me with a template for a number of questions to address in the brief time I have. However, other noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, have made it clear that we will have to devote considerably more time to the issue of the appeals process. As I say, I hope I will be able to touch on some of those points, but obviously we will leave the detailed discussion until Committee.
That brings me to another point that needs to be raised at this stage which has been touched on by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson: the very important question of timing. If we are all in favour of a cap, and I am still not quite sure what the official Liberal Democrat position is on that, we must ensure that it will be of benefit to as many consumers—
Baroness Featherstone
I should make it clear to the Minister that we support the cap.
Lord Henley
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making clear the Liberal Democrat policy on this, but she did start by saying that the cap should never have been necessary and that she did not like it. However, she then stated that she wanted the cap introduced. I want to make sure that we have it in place, and that is why I must go back to the timing. While I cannot guarantee that we will have it in place by the time the clocks change, we hope to have it by the winter. For that reason, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that it would be helpful if we could deal with the Bill and see it returned from the Commons with all the concerns having been dealt with in one way or another by the time we take up our buckets and spades at the end of term. I do not know what it is that noble Lords do in the holiday months. We should get the Bill on to the statute book with Royal Assent so that the processes can continue and, by the end of the year, we will have a cap that offers benefit to consumers. If the Motion that I shall move at the end of the debate is agreed, I look forward to a constructive Committee stage in the Moses Room so that we can go through these matters and then sort them out on Report. I hope noble Lords will bear in mind what I said about timing at this stage.
As I said, the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Teverson, set out a template for a number of points that I want to deal with: vulnerable consumers, the absolute versus the relative, conditions for effective competition, the cost of an energy review and green tariffs—other noble Lords covered all these points so I hope that they will not mind if I do not pause to mention every name—as well as some of the network costs, the timing of the Bill, which I just have dealt with so I can cross that out, appeals and, finally, the cost of environmental levies, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ridley. I will refer to some of those at the end.
For now, I will run through some of those points; it might save a little time in Committee but I doubt it. I also want to say how grateful I was to my noble friend Lady Bloomfield for reminding us that bringing forward a Bill of this sort was very unusual for a Conservative Government, as I tried to make clear at the beginning of the debate. We believe, as she cited, that there are occasions where markets are not working and it is necessary to intervene. That is what we are doing; we are intervening temporarily. These are not rent controls. This is not about bringing back a prices and incomes commission. It is a temporary measure to deal with the current problem of markets not working. In time, we hope to be able to return to what I sensed the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, wanted to take the Liberal party back to—a glorious, 19th-century free market approach—although she reverted to something different later on. We will get there in the end and I look forward to that joyous Committee stage.
I begin with the crucial point about appeals made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, my noble friend Lord Hunt—an eminent lawyer whom I have served under—and other eminent lawyers whose tongues I have borne the sting of, such as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Obviously, we will debate this issue in much greater detail in Committee; as noble Lords know, it was raised in another place and considered by the Select Committee. We should all be grateful for the work done by that committee on the Bill and for our process of sending draft Bills to Select Committees or other committees. Having considered this issue, the committee concluded that,
“judicial review is a common and satisfactory appeal route for energy decisions, even highly technical ones”.
The Government hope that energy suppliers will focus on engaging with the regulator’s consultations on the design of the price cap, rather than the scope for appeals and legal challenges. I appreciate that noble Lords who spoke on this think otherwise. They think that an appeal to the CMA would be less burdensome than using judicial review. We can reflect on that and we will consider it, but I note what Members have to say at this stage. I think we will have considerable discussion on it in Committee.
Concerns about vulnerable consumers were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and others such as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Again, additional protections for vulnerable customers and the interaction of the cap with Ofgem’s existing safeguard tariff will be a matter for the regulator. The Bill provides for Ofgem to maintain a cap for vulnerable consumers that is separate from the prepayment meter cap imposed by the CMA. In addition to the duty imposed on Ofgem by Clause 1(6) to protect all existing and future domestic customers on standard variable tariffs, the Gas and Electricity Acts impose duties to protect the interests of customers. In carrying out this duty, Ofgem should have regard to all the points that noble Lords have raised. The noble Baroness mentioned the document produced by Scope, which I have seen. Obviously, Ofgem should take into account the interests of individuals who are disabled, chronically sick, of pensionable age—as the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, pointed out, there are many of that last group in this House—with low incomes or residing in rural areas and others. Again, these are matters that we can consider later.
The subject of the absolute versus the relative cap was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Teverson. This matter was discussed at considerable length in another place; quite often, one needs a cold towel wrapped around one’s head to understand some of the technicalities. Again, it is a process that we will consider in great detail. The Government, Ofgem, the Select Committee and another place all believe that what we are doing is the right way to proceed. A relative cap might simply prompt the withdrawal of more competitive rates by larger companies while offering no protection to those on poorer-value tariffs. We will look again at this in greater detail but, on some occasions, I think noble Lords will find these matters difficult.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, talked about the conditions we need for effective competition—it was the third point he raised. The legislation is framed so that consumers’ incentives to switch, which is what we want, and suppliers’ incentives to compete are maintained. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his usual amusing way, pointed out how difficult it can sometimes be when we sit down with our computers and have all these messages appearing. We want to make it easier; we will try to do that. That is one reason why we hope that the cap will be just a temporary measure which is removed when the conditions for effective competition are in place. We have not provided in the Bill for what those conditions will be, as in a changing market we do not want to impose conditions that may not be met or tie the removal of the cap to measures that will not be in place by the time that the wider market has become competitive. It will be for Ofgem to report on whether those conditions are met, and the Secretary of State will then make that decision on removal or extension. Clause 8 makes provision for that to happen repeatedly over the years if we seek an extension.
The fourth point raised by the noble Lord was the Cost of Energy Review. We are aware of Dieter Helm’s comprehensive and fully independent review of the cost of energy: I think it arrived very soon after I became a Minister and it was probably the noble Lord who put down a question very soon after that, which I had to respond to despite the fact that the review was some 158 pages. I had to assure him, or someone, that I had not read the entire review in the time available, which was about four days. I have had more time. I cannot claim to have read it absolutely from beginning to end, but we are still considering those findings and we will in due course set out our next steps in light of the responses we have had from others to it.
The Government have already taken action that has helped reduce costs and helped consumers to manage their bills. The cost of offshore wind, as noble Lords will know, has halved over the last two years. We have paid compensation to eligible businesses in energy-intensive industries across the UK for the indirect costs of energy policies: that has totalled well over £500 million since August 2013. We are also seeking to do more by upgrading something like a million homes to meet our obligations to make them more efficient. The costs of those policies to deliver clean growth on bills are more than offset by savings from improvements in energy efficiency, saving on average in 2016 something of the order of £14 on household bills.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others raised green tariffs. The Bill places a duty on Ofgem to consult on exemptions to the cap for green tariffs. I note in passing that while the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is perfectly happy to pay more, that will not be the case for everyone; but we leave that to him. Green tariffs are tariffs that support the production of gas or the generation of electricity from renewable sources.
Lord Redesdale
My Lords, I raised the example of myself but there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of consumers who are also prepared to take that route and would want that opportunity.
Lord Henley
I appreciate that that is the case and I have been on various websites that have offered me the choice of going either for a cheaper deal or what is termed a greener deal: that is an option for individuals to make. What we are looking at in this Bill is obviously to provide a cap to provide safeguards for people.
The Bill places a duty on Ofgem to consult on exemptions to the cap for green tariffs—those tariffs that support the production of gas or the generation of electricity from renewable sources. Having consulted, Ofgem will then have the power to implement exemption from the cap. That is for it; we are not opposed to green tariffs being exempt.
Moving on, network costs was another concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others. He asked, while being tougher in the future was all well and good, were customers being ripped off now? One could say that this is a matter for Ofgem: it is the independent regulator and responsible by law for setting the price controls. Ofgem reports that its assessment of network company business plans and the benefit-sharing arrangements in place in the price control is expected to save the consumers yet another £15 billion in the current price control Bill.
The seventh point the noble Lord raised was about timing. I repeat what I said at the beginning: it is important that we make good progress with the Bill, that we get it through to Royal Assent before the Summer Recess, and then we—or, rather, Ofgem—can get on with the process of bringing in a price cap, so that we will be ready with everything in place for the coming winter.
Lastly, I will touch on some of my noble friend Lord Ridley’s points. He referred to the “pachyderm in the parlour” and blamed the Government for putting up energy costs by imposing greenery, as I think he would put it, on household energy bills. I say to him that government policy costs make up only a relatively small proportion of the household energy bill—around 8% on average, according to Ofgem. Last year, as he will be aware, we published our Clean Growth Strategy, which outlined our commitment to supporting the growth of clean and renewable energy for all. Action to cut emissions can be a win-win for consumers: better insulated homes and more efficient vehicles mean less money spent on gas, electricity and other fuels. Our policies have helped reduce energy bills and costs overall: for example, my noble friend will be aware that we have seen the cost of solar cells come down by some 80% since 2008 and, as I said earlier, the cost of offshore wind has declined by about 50% over the past two years.
Lord Teverson
Does the Minister agree—I am sure he does—that when it comes to vulnerability and all the issues around keeping warm, it is important to note that the gas and oil that I have to use as a rural dweller to keep warm are not charged any environmental costs and so do not incur those additional costs?
Lord Henley
I am not aware of how the noble Lord heats his house—unless he was the Liberal who confessed the other day to having an Aga run on oil, which always struck me as a good Liberal policy: it is a thing others are accused of. I will find out about that in due course. I will look carefully at the noble Lord’s question and come back to him in writing in due course. I was trying to make clear that our policies have helped reduce energy bills for households in efficiency savings—
Lord Teverson
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but I was trying to be helpful. I apologise that I clearly was not. Environmental charges are only on electricity: they are not on gas and oil. He can take it from me. I do not want a reply from him. I apologise for having put him off his stride when I was trying to be helpful.
Lord Henley
The noble Lord is always helpful, as are the Liberal Democrats. I look forward to the help they will be offering and providing in Committee and at later stages. I will end by making it clear—as I was trying to do before the noble Lord interrupted me twice—that our policies have helped reduce energy bills for households as, on average, energy efficiency savings have more than offset the cost of supporting the low-carbon investment. The Bill will help consumers in due course. I look forward to an interesting Committee and Report thereafter, and I hope that all noble Lords will bear with me in what I said about the importance of timing in relation to the Bill. I beg to move.