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, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)
The UK Government are working closely with the Scottish Government, the two police forces and police authorities through a joint programme board to ensure that effective arrangements are in place for cross-border railway policing once responsibilities have been transferred. The safety and security of rail passengers and staff remains our No. 1 priority.
Andrew Rosindell
I hear the Minister’s reply, but does he agree that this proposal would let down hard-working and dedicated British Transport police officers and staff in Scotland, who are largely against these changes, and that this ideologically driven merger should not go ahead?
Stuart Andrew
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As he knows, we are committed to the devolution of powers for railway policing to Scotland and the Scottish Government. We are keeping the promises made in the Scotland Act 2016. Our priority is that the powers are transferred safely and orderly. How the powers are used, however, is a decision for the Scottish Government and they should be rightly held to account by the Scottish Parliament. My hon. Friend will know that our colleagues in Holyrood share his serious concerns and they strongly oppose the SNP’s plans. I am sure that they will have heard the point he has made today.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree with the Scottish Government that the BTP merger will deliver
“continuity of service for rail users and staff”,
or does he agree with the chairman of the British Transport Police Federation, who says that a failure to look at the alternatives would be “somewhat reckless”?
Stuart Andrew
The UK Government are committed to working with the Scottish Government, the British Transport Police Authority and the police authorities to ensure that the terms and conditions of officers and staff transferring to Police Scotland are maintained. However, this is one of the reasons why there has been a delay. It is important that the staff are properly consulted and we would encourage that to happen.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The Government are undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis in support of our EU negotiations and preparations. We want our future relationship with the EU to be a deep and special partnership, taking in both economic and security co-operation.
Stephen Gethins
The UK Government’s own analysis shows how devastating Brexit will be for GDP. That has already been felt with crippling uncertainty—so much so that Mr and Mrs Mitchell of Allanhill farm in my constituency have written to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wondering whether or not they should plant their crop for 2019, because of the uncertainty about seasonal workers. Will he give them certainty today?
David Mundell
The Government have already acknowledged that there will be an ongoing need for a seasonal workers scheme that will support the constituents of the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that he might focus on other constituents, given the report yesterday by the Scottish Government which said that, with Brexit, there will be a huge increase in the number of potential jobs in the fishing industry, which impacts on his constituency, with a £540 million potential boost to the Scottish economy.
Drew Hendry
Non-UK EU nationals in Scotland contribute around £4.5 billion annually to the Scottish economy. Both the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Prime Minister have failed to rule out an immigration skills charge on companies employing EU nationals in future. Will the Secretary of State oppose any such charge applying in Scotland after the UK leaves the EU—yes or no?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman knows very clearly that I oppose there being a separate immigration system in Scotland. Scotland has specific issues in relation to immigration, but those issues also arise in other parts of the United Kingdom. When the Government announce their new immigration policy in relation to leaving the EU, I want to see a policy that takes into account the concerns of Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Increasing trade is critical to the success of Scotland’s economy as we leave the European Union, and I was delighted that the first ever meeting of the Board of Trade in Scotland was held in Stirling just last month. It was a hugely successful day, not least for Stirling’s businesses. What lessons has my right hon. Friend taken from listening to Scottish businesses about their experiences in exporting?
David Mundell
I echo my hon. Friend’s comments about the suitability of the location of the meeting in Stirling and the beauty of Stirling castle as the setting for such an historic event. It is clear that businesses in Scotland want to get ahead with focusing on taking up the trade opportunities that will arise when we leave the EU.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Figures last month revealed that since 2007 the SNP Scottish Government in Edinburgh have missed five of their economic targets. Does this not demonstrate the incompetence of the Scottish Government in managing Scotland’s economy?
David Mundell
I agree with my hon. Friend that there are real concerns. My view is that the single greatest threat to the growth of the Scottish economy is a second independence referendum, which would put business on hold, disrupt our economy and drive away investment.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
David Mundell
I am clear that we need an immigration policy that is right for the whole of the United Kingdom and that takes into account the very specific needs that we have identified in Scotland. However, we know that the Scottish Government have powers that have very significant effects on immigration, such as the powers on the level of tax, and that making Scotland the highest-taxed part of the UK is not a way to encourage people to come to Scotland.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that what really matters to the growth rates and success of the Scottish economy is the Union of the United Kingdom? Does he agree that that is most demonstrated by the border area?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree. That is why I am astounded that the SNP now even disputes that there is an internal market in the United Kingdom; even by SNP standards, that is astounding. That internal market is worth four times as much to Scottish business as the whole of the EU put together.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
The UK Government work closely with the Scotch whisky industry and particularly with the Scotch Whisky Association to assess the industry’s market access needs. As we leave the EU and build our future trade policy, we are also working to ensure that geographical indications are protected and potentially extended around the world.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response, but given the potential trade war with the US, the Government’s strategy to throw in the bin 63 bilateral trade deals when we leave the EU, and reports on both sides of the Atlantic that the three-year designation for Scotch whisky could be removed in any trade deal with the US, what is he specifically doing to protect that vital industry for Scotland and the UK in the Brexit negotiations?
David Mundell
First, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the industry itself has been very clear that exciting opportunities can flow from trade deals post Brexit. That is what the Scotch Whisky Association has said, but the points he makes are very serious ones. I make sure that they are absolutely at the heart of the Brexit negotiations.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Scotch whisky is hugely important to my Moray constituency. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most immediate threat to the industry is the possibility that the EU could include bourbon as a counter-measure against US trade tariffs? Therefore, does he agree that we should urge the EU not to include bourbon for fear of the retaliation action that the US could take?
David Mundell
My hon. Friend is a great champion of the whisky industry and raises an extremely serious and important point. I reassure him that I am in direct contact with the Scotch Whisky Association on that issue and will ensure that the points he has made are fully understood within the UK Government and the EU.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
The Scotch whisky industry is very important, but does the Secretary of State agree that the construction industry in Scotland is, too. Crummock, a construction firm in my constituency, went bust last week, with almost 300 redundancies. What is he doing to protect construction in Scotland?
David Mundell
I recognise the issues that the hon. Lady raises, because unfortunately a construction company in my own constituency, Graham’s in Langholm, also went into administration last week. There are significant challenges facing the industry and I would be happy to meet her to discuss the specific issue in her constituency.
Mr Speaker
These dilations are of considerable interest, I am sure, but they are not altogether related to the matter of whisky. I fear that the Secretary of State was drawn away from the path of virtue, to which I know he will now speedily return, aided and abetted by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers).
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In future trade talks with India, will the Secretary of State place a priority on improving access for our exports of whisky from Scotland and Northern Ireland, as it is one of the United Kingdom’s greatest products?
David Mundell
I will indeed, and the Secretary of State for Wales would be unhappy if I did not also reference Penderyn, the whisky made in Wales. I can assure my right hon. Friend that I will take exactly that action in relation to all the United Kingdom’s whisky products.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, once we leave the EU, trade deals with countries such as Taiwan will open up massive new markets for Scotch whisky exports?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the Scotch Whisky Association and various companies in the industry recognise that there are exciting prospects out there for future trade arrangements, and I see that they have the confidence and the determination to achieve them.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
Having worked closely with the devolved Administrations on significant amendments, I am of course disappointed that the Scottish Parliament has not yet granted legislative consent to the Bill. The Welsh Assembly agrees that these arrangements fully respect the devolution settlements. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office is in correspondence again this week with Mike Russell, and the door remains open for the Scottish Government to reconsider.
Joanna Cherry
Can the Secretary of State tell us whether he has explained to the Prime Minister that, by a 3:1 majority of MSPs, four of the five parties in the Scottish Parliament withheld legislative consent? What has he advised her to do to recognise that overwhelming expression of the democratic will of the Scottish people?
David Mundell
What I have done is explain the constitutional settlement in the United Kingdom fully to the Prime Minister, which she was already aware of. I know that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) does not like the existing constitutional settlement and wants to see another one, but the current settlement, the arrangements within it and the Sewel convention are quite clear.
Patrick Grady
This is the Secretary of State who vowed to make Holyrood
“one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments”
in the history of the known universe, so why is he prepared to see this Westminster Parliament override the ruling of the Holyrood Parliament, which has withheld its consent? How does that square with his vow to respect and empower Holyrood?
David Mundell
I am not going to take any lectures on devolution from the SNP. Only today, Nicola Sturgeon has written, ahead of the SNP conference, that this weekend
“marks the start of a new chapter in Scotland’s road to independence”.
That does not sound very much like standing up for devolution to me.
David Linden
I have recently learned that the great saviour of the Tory party, and perhaps the next Prime Minister, Ruth Davidson, did not actually believe in the vow. Is it not the case that the chickens have come home to roost and that we are now seeing the anti-devolution party once again riding roughshod over Scotland?
David Mundell
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman—the anti-devolution party is riding roughshod over Scotland, but it is the SNP. It does not back devolution; it only backs independence.
Alan Brown
The Tory-friendly Spectator magazine has said that no self-respecting Scottish Government of any party could give consent to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill in its current form. So instead of expressing disappointment in the Scottish Government, what is the Secretary of State going to do to engage in cross-party talks and to try to find a solution that respects the will of the Scottish Parliament?
David Mundell
I have wanted to reach an agreement all along, and we have made it clear that we still want to reach an agreement in the exchanges with the Scottish Government this week. Either the Scottish Government need to reconsider their position, or a new proposal needs to emerge.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend think that the Scottish Government ever wanted to do a deal on the withdrawal agreement?
David Mundell
I think that Mr Michael Russell wanted to do a deal on the EU withdrawal agreement.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Why does the Secretary of State think that the UK Government’s proposals on the withdrawal Bill were acceptable to a Unionist Government in Wales but not a nationalist Government in Scotland?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Law, behave in accordance with your surname. Compose yourself, man. Indeed, I advise Members on both sides of the argument to seek to imitate the statesmanlike repose of Mr Alister Jack, from whom we have just heard. He has been attending to our proceedings in a most courteous and civilised way, as is his wont.
David Mundell
The Welsh Government, Welsh Labour representatives in the House of Lords and, indeed, the former Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, who is also in the House of Lords, have been clear that the Government’s proposals did not in any way undermine the devolution settlement.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I can forgive some members of the Cabinet their ignorance in not understanding the effect of their policies on the devolution settlement, but that is not a quality that we expect from the Secretary of State for Scotland. Does he not agree that it takes a particular form of arrogance to try to force through a position that is supported by only one of the five political parties in Scotland and by less than one quarter of the Members of the Scottish Parliament?
David Mundell
Again, this comes down to the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not accept the current constitutional arrangements, including the Sewel convention. That can probably be explained by this obsession with pursuing independence. The current constitutional arrangements are quite clear, and the Government are proceeding in accordance with them.
Tommy Sheppard
Four out of the five political parties in Scotland now understand that this is the first Secretary of State for Scotland in history who seeks to lessen the control of the Scottish people over their own affairs. Will he now stand down and make way for someone who will respect the wishes of the Scottish people and respect the national Government of Scotland?
David Mundell
The hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag with his final words. Scotland has two Governments. In 2014, Scotland voted to be part of this United Kingdom, and I will continue to stand up and defend Scotland’s place in it.
Lesley Laird (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
The Secretary of State should be aware that Scottish Labour leader, Richard Leonard, wrote to the Minister for the Cabinet Office on 10 May asking for Scottish cross-party talks. If the Secretary of State really has been standing up for Scotland, what has he done to get his Cabinet colleague back around the negotiating table?
David Mundell
The hon. Lady knows that I regard the position of Scottish Labour in the Scottish Parliament as pitiful, kowtowing to the SNP and not honouring its proud Unionist credentials. We are clear that, if any new, different proposal emerges, the door is open and we will discuss it. However, no such proposal has come directly from the Scottish Labour party.
Lesley Laird
That door is open. That invitation is there, but the blame for this lies squarely at the doors of the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. I have a copy of correspondence between the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Richard Leonard, and the Secretary of State is not even mentioned—he is not even at the table. Does that not epitomise the fact that the Secretary of State is Scotland’s invisible man in the Cabinet and that his colleagues are excluding him from future negotiations because of the mess he has already made?
David Mundell
I do not think the hon. Lady follows the media in Scotland very closely, otherwise she would know that Scotland’s invisible man is Richard Leonard, leader of the Scottish Labour party, who has simply gone along with the SNP at every turn. I am proud, in the Cabinet and elsewhere, to stand up for Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom, and I will continue to do so.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The founding principles of the devolution settlement have been turned on their head in the unelected House of Lords with its amendments to clause 15 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, yet we, Scotland’s directly elected Members, will have next to no opportunity to debate and scrutinise what their lordships have decided for us. In what sort of world can that possibly be acceptable?
David Mundell
In exactly the same sort of world in which, two or three months ago, we heard the hon. Gentleman setting out all the virtues of the House of Lords and how it would stand up for the Scottish Government’s principles. With your discretion, Mr Speaker, there will be an opportunity in this House to discuss clause 15 next week, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to do so.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
In March, the UK Government published their provisional analysis of where we believe frameworks may be needed. This showed that, of the over 100 areas in which powers are coming back from Brussels, we think 24 areas may need legislative common frameworks to make sure we maintain the UK’s internal market—a market that is worth four times as much to Scottish businesses as the rest of the EU put together.
Ross Thomson
Services account for over half of Scotland’s exports to the United Kingdom, so ensuring there are no new barriers to trade in services between Scotland and the rest of the UK is vital for Scotland’s economy. Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that, if the Scottish Government really wanted to put Scotland’s interests first, they would be working more constructively with the UK Government to preserve, and indeed enhance, the ability of the Scottish services sector to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Scottish Government could start by retracting their bizarre recent argument that the UK’s internal market does not exist. We all know they might want the UK’s internal market not to exist, as we realise they have reached such a stage of denial. The truth is that the UK’s internal market is vital to the prosperity and jobs of people across Scotland.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Will the new public relations post in the Cabinet Office covering Scotland and Northern Ireland be one of those essential frameworks that are being built? Is the Cabinet Office riding to save the Secretary of State’s bacon?
David Mundell
As the hon. Lady is aware, the Cabinet Office performs a vital role in operating an overview of the devolved settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in bringing together those constitutional arrangements.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) is no longer committed to coming in. Never mind. We will get him in another time.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that common frameworks in areas such as fisheries, agriculture, food labelling and animal welfare are crucial to ensuring that trade within the UK is not disrupted when the UK leaves the EU?
David Mundell
I absolutely agree. One of the first frameworks we want to agree is in the area of fisheries, because this Government want to take Scotland and the UK out of the common fisheries policy, exactly the opposite of the SNP.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stuart Andrew)
Universal credit is transforming lives across the country. Research also shows that universal credit claimants spend more time searching for work and applying for work than those on previous benefits. It is great news that employment in Scotland is up by more than 190,000 since 2010.
Mr Dhesi
People in my constituency and elsewhere, especially low-income families across the UK, have been suffering as a result of the roll-out of universal credit. In Scotland, there have been numerous reports of people having to apply for emergency support, such as crisis grants and food parcels, to meet their immediate needs, because of the six-week waiting period. Does the Minister think there should be such occurrences in the sixth largest economy in the world?
Stuart Andrew
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have been careful to roll out universal credit and where changes have been needed, we have made them. What is really important is that 77% of people on universal credit are looking to increase their earnings from work, which compares with a figure of just 51% for those on jobseeker’s allowance. Universal credit is a pathway to work and that can only be a good thing.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The roll-out of universal credit and personal independence payments has led to £56 million of cuts in disability payments every year, hitting Scotland’s poorest the hardest. Six out of the 10 worst-hit constituencies are in Glasgow, and the annual loss to disabled people in my constituency is £2 million. If the Secretary of State is really standing up for Scottish interests, what is he doing to stop this atrocious assault on disabled people?
Stuart Andrew
I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Government are spending billions and billions of pounds on disability payments, and we are ensuring that we give the support to those people who need it most and encourage people in receipt of such benefits who want to work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is considerable noise in the Chamber. The Minister is a most courteous fellow who is delivering an informative reply, which very few people can hear. Let us pay him the respect of hearing what he has to say.
Stuart Andrew
That is very kind of you, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also attending the joint ministerial group on welfare this Thursday, where all these issues are discussed regularly.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Yesterday, I was told by a senior member of the Scottish Prison Service management that discharged prisoners in Scotland are now routinely taken to food banks because prison staff know that the six-week lead-in time for universal credit payments will lead to their using food banks. Does that fact alone not illustrate why the roll-out needs to be paused?
Stuart Andrew
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we made some changes in the Budget, which were announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, following the raising of many of the issues. I should also point out that the Scottish Government do have powers of their own; if they feel they should make further discretionary payments to individuals in Scotland, they have the powers to do so. They have not done so yet.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
I have met RBS to discuss its decision and made it clear that its plans are disappointing for customers and communities across Scotland.
Luke Graham
Yesterday, I, along with other Members of this House, met representatives from RBS to voice the frustration of our constituents about how they have been treated by RBS. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to see what more can be done to pressure RBS to think again about its branch closure scheme in constituencies such as mine?
David Mundell
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I must say that I am very disappointed at the response from RBS to the significant report by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on this issue.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
With great swathes of Scotland losing bank branches while they are still awaiting decent broadband from the Scottish Government, what steps are the UK Government taking to support local authorities in the next round of the broadband roll-out, so that people losing local banking services can at least have good broadband?
David Mundell
First, I commend the hon. Lady for her part in the excellent Scottish Affairs Committee report on RBS. She will have heard the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport make it absolutely clear that in future this Government are not going to rely on the Scottish Government for the roll-out of broadband and will engage directly with local authorities in Scotland.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Last Sunday marked the one-year anniversary of the London Bridge terrorist attack. I, and others from this House, attended the very moving memorial service at Southwark cathedral, and I am sure Members from all sides of this House will join me again in offering our deepest condolences to the friends and family of the victims. I would also again like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the extraordinary bravery shown on that night by the emergency services and those who came to the aid of others.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Alex Chalk
I would like to associate myself with the remarks about London Bridge.
The number of children growing up in workless households in the United Kingdom has fallen to a record low. Does the Prime Minister agree that to further drive opportunity and social mobility in our country, it is vital to support projects such as the Cheltenham cyber park, so that, in the future, all our children can go as far as their talents will take them?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we ensure that all children have the opportunity to go as far as their talents will take them, and initiatives such as the Cheltenham cyber park are an important element in that. The wider point that he makes is absolutely right. If we are to ensure that we lift people out of poverty, as we have been doing, then helping them to get into the workplace is the most important thing that we can do. That is why, thanks to this Government’s economic strategy, we see employment up to another record high, unemployment at a 40-year low, and, as my hon. Friend has alluded to, 1 million fewer people in absolute poverty since 2010.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I, too, attended the service last Sunday in memory of those who died at London Bridge, and I would like to put on record my thanks to Southwark cathedral and the Borough of Southwark for all the work that they put into that, and, of course, to all our emergency services who keep us safe all the year round. Yesterday, I was able to do that in person at the Fire Brigades Union conference in Brighton where I was able to thank them for the work that they do to keep us all safe.
Last month, the Brexit Secretary promised a “detailed, ambitious and precise” White Paper on the Government’s negotiating position. Will it be published in advance of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill debate next week?
The Prime Minister
I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the work that our emergency workers do, day in and day out, to keep us safe, and I think that everybody across this House recognises that and we are all grateful to them for the dedication that they show.
Yes, my right hon. Friend the Brexit Secretary and I agree that we want to publish a White Paper that goes beyond the speeches and the papers that have been given and published so far, that does go into more detail and that ensures that when we publish it we are able to negotiate with our European Union and European Commission colleagues on the basis that this is an ambitious offer from the United Kingdom for an ambitious trade deal and security partnership in the future.
Jeremy Corbyn
The question was a very simple one actually: it was to ask when this White Paper will be published. Next week, we will be debating the most important piece of legislation we have seen for a very long time and we still have not seen the Government’s negotiating position. Will the Prime Minister at least assure the House that not only will the White Paper be published ahead of the crucial June EU summit, but that there will be an opportunity to debate it in this House ahead of the summit?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the votes that will take place in this House next week on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, and indeed those votes will be important. They will be important to show our commitment to do what the British people have asked us to do, which is to leave the European Union. If he is talking about clarity ahead of those votes, perhaps he will take this opportunity to do what he refused to do when I asked him last time in Prime Minister’s questions—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Yasin, calm yourself. You are normally a model of calm and repose. Relax, there is a long way to go.
The Prime Minister
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to take the opportunity to do what he refused to do two or three weeks ago in this Chamber, which is to stand up and rule out a second referendum.
Jeremy Corbyn
The last time I looked at the Order Paper, it said “Prime Minister’s Question Time”. We were told three weeks ago, to a great deal of fanfare, that the White Paper would set out the Government’s ambition for the UK’s future relationship with the EU and their vision for a future role in the world. It is nowhere to be seen and there is no answer to when it will be published. Four weeks ago the Prime Minister did confirm that the Cabinet was looking at two options for a future customs arrangement with the EU: a customs partnership model and a maximum facilitation option. Will she now tell us which of her sub-committees has met, what decisions they have made, when they are going to report to the Cabinet and whether we will be told about it?
The Prime Minister
We have already set out our ambition for our future relationship with the European Union, but crucially the Government are delivering on the vote of the British people to leave the European Union. I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman a question. I simply suggested that he could stand up and say what the Labour party’s policy was on a second referendum. If he wants to enter the debate next week in the right spirit, he will do just that and rule out a second referendum.
Jeremy Corbyn
It is not the Opposition who are conducting the negotiations but, very sadly, it is not the Government either. Last week the Brexit Secretary put forward yet another new plan, including a 10-mile buffer zone in Northern Ireland. Is that now the Government’s option?
The Prime Minister
We are looking at the two options for the customs model. Both of those will do what we have committed to do, which is to ensure that we deliver no hard border in Northern Ireland. We were very clear about what that means in the December joint report. It also means that we ensure that there is no border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—no border down the Irish sea as the European Union proposed. That is why we are putting forward alternative proposals to the European Union. We continue to negotiate with the European Union on all the issues that need to be addressed before we bring legislation before this House with the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. The debate that will take place in this House next week is important because it will show the sincerity of this House to deliver on the vote of the British people to leave the European Union.
Jeremy Corbyn
We have had no answer on the White Paper and I do not think that we have had an answer on the buffer zone. I could say that the one thing that the buffer zone proposal has achieved is bringing just about everybody in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland together. The British Irish Chamber of Commerce said, “the idea is bonkers”. Will the Prime Minister confirm that it remains her plan to leave the European Union in March 2019 and complete the transition by December 2020?
Jeremy Corbyn
Well, I look at the faces behind the Prime Minister and they are not all at one on this matter. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) does not share her certainty; he said that there will be a transition period that will follow her implementation period. When it comes to Brexit, this Government have delivered more delays and cancellations than Northern Rail. The Government’s White Paper is delayed, their customs proposals have been cancelled and they have ripped up their own timetable, just like our shambolic privatised railways. This Government’s incompetence threatens our economy, businesses, jobs and communities. My question to the Prime Minister is this: which will last longer, the Northern Rail franchise or her premiership?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman is not willing to stand up in this House and talk about the Labour party policy on Europe, we actually learned a little today from the shadow Brexit Secretary about the Labour party’s policy on Europe, who made it clear that it was a
“pretence that somehow everybody in the Labour party is in the same place on this”.
So now we know what the right hon. Gentleman is. Labour Members voted for a referendum; they voted to trigger article 50; and since then they have tried to frustrate the Brexit process at every stage. Their MEPs voted against moving to negotiate the trade discussions. They voted against the withdrawal Bill. Today, we saw again that they are refusing to rule out a second referendum. The British people voted to leave the European Union, and this Government are delivering on the vote of the British people.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on distributive ledger technology, as I think we should call it. We are committed to supporting the development and uptake of emerging digital technologies in the UK such as AI and DLT. The Government have invested around £10 million through Innovate UK and our research councils. The Treasury and the Bank of England are working on crypto-currencies and looking at these issues in a working group together. We are deploying the technology that my hon. Friend has referred to in order to help Government discharge our duties more effectively, and many Departments are already developing DLT proofs of concept. I thank him for the work that he has done. He might like to distribute the article on the work that he has done to all Members of this House.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Supermarkets running out of food within days. Hospitals running out of medicines within a fortnight. Petrol reserves dwindling after just two weeks. These are the concerns of UK Government officials, and now the—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is excessive noise in the Chamber. Mr Wishart, you are a very distinguished fellow, but you are not conducting an orchestra and your services in that regard are not required—at any rate, not on this occasion. Mr Blackford’s question must be heard, and however long it takes, it will be heard.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
These are the concerns of UK Government officials, and now the Dutch Government are telling Dutch businesses not to risk buying UK products. Does the Prime Minister understand the catastrophic negotiating position she has cornered herself into?
The Prime Minister
We have already set out our ambition for that trade deal with the European Union in the future. The right hon. Gentleman talks about supermarkets in Scotland and supermarkets across the rest of the UK. He might pay attention to the supermarket chains in Scotland, which said that one of the most important things for Scotland is to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Ian Blackford
Quite simply, the Prime Minister did not listen to the question, because it was about the fears that have been raised by her own officials on the consequences of Brexit.
For this Government in the negotiations, jobs have been an afterthought, the Irish border has been an afterthought, and the economy—at all costs!—has been an afterthought. While the Leader of the Opposition is playing games, the question he should have asked today is: will the Prime Minister stop her charade and vote for the Lords amendments next week for membership of the EEA and the customs union, protecting jobs and prosperity?
The Prime Minister
Jobs are absolutely at the forefront of what we are considering in terms of our future trade partnership. That is why we are as ambitious as we are for the possibilities of that economic partnership in the future.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Northern Ireland border. The Leader of the Opposition complains that we are giving too much attention to getting the answer right on the Northern Ireland border, and the leader of the Scottish nationalists says that we are using it as an afterthought. We are committed to ensuring that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. We also want to ensure as frictionless trade as possible with the European Union and that we are able to operate our independent trade policy. All those are about ensuring that we protect jobs here in the United Kingdom.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the upcoming National Democracy Week, which is important. I certainly support it, and I hope everybody across the House does. Because it falls on the 90th anniversary of the equal franchise Act, the week gives us an opportunity to look back and see how far we have come as a flourishing democracy. It also gives us an opportunity to champion and encourage greater democratic participation across the country. I hope every Member of the House supports that and will support National Democracy Week.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
What the Government said is that we will be publishing a White Paper that will be detailed and ambitious, and we will do just that.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The people of Scotland voted in a legal and fair referendum to remain part of the United Kingdom, and it is SNP Members, who are completely out of touch with the people of Scotland, who are continuing to press the issue of independence. Now is not the time for a second independence referendum. Now is the time for the United Kingdom to be pulling together, to get the right deal for the United Kingdom and the right deal for Scotland in our negotiations. As I indicated earlier, and as is recognised by many people across Scotland, the most important thing for the future of Scotland is to continue to be part of the UK’s internal market.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support for the third runway at Heathrow. We will ensure that that vote is brought to the House in a timely fashion. There is a requirement for it to be brought within a certain period, and we will ensure that that happens. This is an opportunity to increase job opportunities. It is also an opportunity to increase connectivity with other parts of the United Kingdom, which in itself will be of benefit to jobs in other parts of the UK.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes two important points: the first is the importance and significance of the investment that is being put into infrastructure across the country; and the second is of course that, as we do that—when we are putting in place these large infrastructure projects—we must make sure that they are planned in consultation with, and with sympathy towards, local communities. Of course, as we see with the proposals for Heathrow, for example, that does come with a significant compensation package for those people who will be personally affected.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As I have said before in this House, we are aware of the issue that has been raised about—[Interruption.] We have already taken action in relation to nurses. We are looking at the most recent figures, and considering what action should be taken.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am sure my hon. Friend understands and recognises that, alongside other terms and conditions, pay is a matter for authorities to manage as individual employers. Of course, since 2010, the Government have put in place a number of measures to increase accountability and transparency on senior pay. The Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 and the transparency code 2015 require authorities to publish details of senior salaries for staff earning £50,000 or more, which is why we are now able to see the sums that are being earned. We are also legislating on measures—on another issue that has been of concern, I know, to Members in this House—for capping pay-offs at £95,000 and clawing back redundancy payments should workers return to the public sector within 12 months of their exit, making sure that taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I think “Nice try” is the answer to the hon. Gentleman, but he said that there were fewer opportunities for young people here in this country. May I just point out to him the considerable improvement there has been in the opportunities for young people to get into work and the way in which we have seen youth unemployment coming down?
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
Heathrow has played an absolute blinder with the Department for Transport. It is a privately owned company that now has a DFT policy to give it an active monopoly status. Better still, it has somehow managed to get a poison pill clause agreed by the DFT that means the taxpayer has to cover all its costs if things go wrong. Is this not the worst kind of nationalisation—the public sector and taxpayers owning all the Heathrow downsides and risks, and the private sector owning all the upside and the financial returns?
The Prime Minister
Yesterday’s decision to support Heathrow’s expansion demonstrates this Government’s commitment to delivering the jobs and major infrastructure that this country needs to thrive, but the airport expansion will be fully financed by the private sector. The statement of principles is clear that it does not give Heathrow Airport Ltd the right to claim any costs or losses from the Government should its scheme not proceed.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises a specific issue about the Grangemouth renewable energy project. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be happy to meet him to discuss it.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
A majority of my Crawley constituents want their trains to arrive without delay, and a majority of them also want Brexit to arrive without delay. Please can we have delivery?
The Prime Minister
Of course, we are taking action on the issues on the railways, to ensure that trains are able to arrive without delay. We will be leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019, and the implementation period will last until the end of December 2020. That is our commitment, and that is what is going to happen.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises a very specific individual case. It is right that it be looked at properly, and that is what I will ask the Home Office to do.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I think Members across the House will recognise the role that animals play during war, not only in the sacrifice they make but in the support they give. I thank the Prime Minister for meeting the war horse memorial group from Windsor. The unveiling will take place this Saturday, and I am very proud of the work the group has done. Does the Prime Minister agree that recognition of the role of animals in war can unite us with the Commonwealth and the entire world?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was pleased to see the maquette of the war horse memorial, which will be unveiled in his constituency this weekend. I am pleased to say that that model is now in Downing Street. We have recognised the important role played by animals in warfare, and I am sure that when the memorial goes up in his constituency, it will remind many more people that we should never forget the part that animals have played.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate all Members who came into this House after the 2017 general election, including colleagues on this side of the Chamber, and I hope they will not take it amiss if I mention in particular the 12 Scottish Conservatives who came in after that election.
This Government takes very seriously the issue of social mobility. We take it seriously through the policies we are implementing to help ensure that our young people get the skills they need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) mentioned in the first question, so that they can take the jobs of the future. I want a country where how far somebody gets on is a reflection not of their background or where they come from, but of their abilities and willingness to work hard.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
May I urge the Prime Minister to do everything she can to ensure that Network Rail and Govia Thameslink Railway get a grip and bring to an end appalling delays suffered by my constituents on the Great Northern line?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely recognise the problem that passengers have faced. Passengers have been let down and the delays they have been experiencing are unacceptable. That is why we need to take immediate action, which is what the Department for Transport is doing.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I commend the work that the hon. Lady does with the all-party group on this issue, which I know that, as she expressed through her question, she takes very seriously. As she will probably know, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has published guidance that aims to improve the diagnosis of ADHD and the quality of care and support that people receive. She raised the particular issue of the data that is available; the National Institute for Health Research has awarded £800,000 to fund research to help to identify existing services and gaps in provision for young adults with ADHD, and the Department of Health and Social Care is exploring what data on ADHD diagnosis could be made accessible through the mental health services dataset.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
At his valedictory address yesterday morning, the Chief of the Defence Staff said that he was very concerned about the growing practice of legacy investigations of British servicemen and veterans, often many years after the events in question. There is growing concern in the House about the prospect of brave servicemen being, effectively, scapegoated by others for political or financial gain. We call our servicemen and women heroes; we should treat them accordingly, so would the Prime Minister be prepared at least to entertain some investigation of the concept of a statute of limitations to protect those who have served on the frontline and those who will follow them in future?
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend said in his question, we do not just call our servicemen and women heroes; they are heroes. They are incredibly brave and put themselves on the frontline for our safety. We owe a vast debt of gratitude to our servicemen and women, who have shown such heroism and bravery over the years.
We want to ensure that we do not see our servicemen and women—and, indeed, in relation to legacy issues in Northern Ireland, police officers—as the sole subject of investigations, which is what is happening at the moment. I want to ensure that terrorists are investigated for past crimes as well, which is why the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has launched the consultation on legacy issues. It is of course open to people to respond to that consultation. We should recognise the importance of ensuring that these matters are dealt with fairly and proportionately. I want to ensure that a focus is put on and investigation is possible for the terrorists, not just, as we see today, servicemen and women and police officers under investigation and terrorists not investigated.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely right that as a Government, over the years since 2010, we have taken action against illegal immigration. I am pleased to say that we have been removing illegal immigrants from this country and yes, we have tightened the conditions to ensure that we can take action against illegal immigrants. What is important is that we ensure that people who are here legally are not caught up in the actions intended for those who are here illegally. I hope that the Labour party will understand, recognise and support the need—sadly, one or two comments from those on the Labour party Front Bench suggest that they do not—to take action when people are here illegally.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The biggest challenge between the Commons and the Lords takes place next week—yes, I am referring to the Lords versus Commons pigeon race, which has been revived after a 90-year gap and takes place at Bletchley Park next Wednesday. Each Member of both Houses has been asked to sponsor a pigeon, and the money will go to that excellent charity Combat Stress. Will my right hon. Friend join me in not only wishing this revived event great success but sponsoring a pigeon?
The Prime Minister
I would be happy to do so. There was a little bit of laughter when my hon. Friend asked his question about the pigeon race, but it is in an extremely good cause: it will raise money for Combat Stress. We have just made the point about the bravery of our servicemen and servicewomen. We should support them in every way we can. I am happy to sponsor a pigeon and I encourage every Member of this House to do so as well.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Brexit vote means that families are already £900 a year worse off, while both Tories and Labour peddle the fiction of single market rewards without responsibility. I ask the Prime Minister, her hon. Friends and the Opposition: how much poorer will families become as they indulge in fantasy politics?
The Prime Minister
I have made clear to the House the ambition we have for our future economic partnership. The hon. Lady stands up and talks about fantasy politics. Perhaps she would like to go out and speak to the people of Wales, who I might remind her voted to leave the European Union.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment and astonishment that Labour and Scottish National party MEPs last week ignored the interests of British fishermen when they voted to back the European Parliament in an attempt—[Interruption.] It is true—to keep the UK inside the common fisheries policy? Will she confirm today that she still intends the UK to become a fully independent coastal state?
The Prime Minister
I find it extraordinary that the SNP and the Labour party are supporting our continued membership of the common fisheries policy. This party, the Conservative party, is the party that will take the United Kingdom out of the common fisheries policy and ensure that we can become the independent fishing state to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Despite the Prime Minister’s claims that she has put more money into education—she claims she has put £1.5 billion into education—over the past two years she has cut about £4 billion from education. With classroom sizes rising, teachers’ pay capped and school budgets cut, what is the Prime Minister going to do about it?
The Prime Minister
I do not recognise the description the hon. Gentleman sets out. We have indeed put more money into education in our schools. Through our national funding formula we are ensuring its fairer distribution across schools and we are making more money available for schools over the next two years.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
We all appreciate what an extremely difficult job the Prime Minister has in striving for the best possible deal for our country regarding Brexit, but has the time not come to reiterate to our EU friends, echoing the words of the Prime Minister herself, that no deal is better than a bad deal? In what circumstances is she prepared to walk away from the negotiations, saving the British taxpayer billions of pounds?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that I have said consistently that no deal is better than a bad deal. I have also said that we are working to ensure that we get the right deal and the best deal possible for the United Kingdom. We recognise the importance of ensuring that as a country we prepare for all scenarios. That is why Government Departments are looking at the issue of a no deal, because they are preparing for all contingencies. That is absolutely right for them to do so. Some of the arrangements that will be put in place for a deal will be the same as arrangements for a no deal and the Treasury has of course made money available to Government Departments to ensure that they are able to make all the preparations necessary.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
Wolsingham school in my constituency has been forced to suspend its sixth form as the result of years of cuts to post-16 education by this ruthless Government and a national funding formula that discriminates against smaller rural communities and their schools. The Education Secretary has washed his hands of the issue. As a result, young people in my community will face four hours or more in journey time for their education. Wolsingham is the first to face this crisis, but sixth forms across the country will collapse under the current funding situation. Will the Prime Minister intervene to help our schools, and the broader network of sixth forms and sixth-form colleges?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased the hon. Lady mentions Wolsingham—I well remember it from when I stood in North West Durham. [Interruption.] No, I was not successful. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I hope it is not being suggested that that is some sort of savage personal indictment of the Prime Minister. It probably was not very propitious territory at the time.
The Prime Minister
I understand that the decision to suspend recruitment to Wolsingham School’s sixth form was made by the school governing body after student numbers had fallen in recent years and that other good and outstanding school sixth forms and colleges are available within travelling distance of Weardale. Some young people are already choosing to access those, rather than the local school sixth form, but the local authority is looking at the question of future travel arrangements—that is its responsibility for post-16 transport—while our new national funding formula for pre-16 schools will help to safeguard rural schools by ensuring a more appropriate funding formula across the country, with a lump sum for every school and additional support for small rural schools.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating four schools in Redditch—Inkberrow First School, Woodfield Academy, Crabbs Cross Academy and Ridgeway Academy—which have received nearly £1 million to improve their buildings, which will help our young people get a great start in life? Does she agree that it is only because of our strong management of the economy that we can invest so much to help young people up and down the country?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I am happy to join her in welcoming the funding available to those four schools in Redditch. We are able to put more money into our schools and education only because our strong management of and balanced approach to the economy means that that money is available. Labour in government would borrow more, spend more, tax more and leave the country on the brink of bankruptcy.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Following the tragic murder of a 17-year-old on Saturday in broad daylight in front of his friends, will the Prime Minister meet me and the police and crime commissioner for Suffolk to discuss how such violent crimes might be prevented in Ipswich?
The Prime Minister
Of course, we are deeply concerned about crimes such as the one the hon. Gentleman has referenced, which took place in his constituency. The former Home Secretary had already published a serious violence strategy, and the current Home Secretary will be taking it forward. I am sure the Home Office, working with the police, will look at this issue very carefully to ensure that every effort is being made out there to take the steps necessary to deal with serious violence. I will ask the relevant Home Office Minister if he would be prepared to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter.
Points of Order
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder if you could give me some advice. I do not think the Department for Transport has given the Prime Minister good advice. The statement of principles referred to—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This matter and the right hon. Lady deserve to be heard. Although I invited her to raise her point of order, I feel that the House is not able fully to savour it in the present atmosphere. When colleagues have successfully beetled out of the Chamber—preferably without noise—we might be able to proceed with our business and to accord her the courteous reception she deserves.
Justine Greening
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can you give me some advice? I think the Department for Transport has misinformed the Prime Minister about the statement of principles she referred to. Paragraph 2.1.6 states that Heathrow
“reserves its rights (including but not limited to its rights to pursue any and all legal and equitable remedies (including cost recovery) available to it under law) in the event of…an alternative scheme being preferred by the Secretary of State or Government…and/or the withdrawal of the Government’s support for aviation expansion for Heathrow Airport”.
How can I correct this with No. 10?
Mr Speaker
Let me say a number of things to the right hon. Lady. First, I think that she has found her own salvation, because in raising her point of order she has aired her very specific and detailed concern about the alleged inaccuracy of what has been said, and what she has said by way of contradiction of those statements is now on the record and will, as she knows, be published in the Official Report tomorrow. It is also imaginable—I put it no more strongly—that the right hon. Lady might wish to communicate what she has said, and supply copies of the Official Report, to her constituents or to media outlets in her constituency, which is a perfectly legitimate and proper thing for her to do.
Secondly, I say to the right hon. Lady that this is not a matter for the Chair. Thirdly, I say to her that there are many mechanisms available to her to pursue the matter further. I believe that there is to be a debate in Westminster Hall on the relevant subject tomorrow; there will be business questions tomorrow; and, of course, matters that are judged to be urgent can be heard tomorrow. So I think that there is a long way to go, and I have a sense—knowing the right hon. Lady as well as I do—that we will be hearing from her regularly on this important subject in the period that lies ahead.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced in a written statement that the personal independent assessment contracts of current assessors would be extended. Given that two thirds of assessments are overturned on appeal, and given the general public concern about personal independence payments as a whole, is there any advice that you can give to ensure that future announcements of this kind can be properly scrutinised by the House by means of an oral statement?
Mr Speaker
The question of whether either a change of policy or a controversial confirmation of existing policy warrants a written or an oral statement is first and foremost a matter for the Government; it is not a matter for the Chair. If, however, a matter is not treated in the form of an oral statement and a colleague, or maybe more than one colleague, reckons that to be unsatisfactory and thinks that the matter should be aired in the Chamber, there are means by which to increase the prospect of that happening. I think that the record over the years shows that I have not been shy in granting such opportunities.
I am not familiar with the full details of this matter, although I understand the thrust of what the hon. Lady has said, but it seems to me that—rather as with the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening)—there is still a considerable distance to travel, and there are plenty of opportunities for the hon. Lady to try to secure ministerial attention to the subject in the Chamber.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the presentation of Bills, there are some words that I want to convey to the House following receipt of a letter.
I have received a letter from the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, requesting that I give precedence to the matter raised in that Committee’s third special report, which was published yesterday, namely a prospective witness’s refusal to comply with an order of the Committee to attend. Having considered the issue, I have decided that it is a matter that I should allow the precedence accorded to matters of privilege. Therefore, under the rules set out in pages 273 to 274 of “Erskine May”—pages with which I feel sure colleagues are very closely familiar, and of which I am merely reminding them—the hon. Gentleman may table a motion today for debate at the commencement of public business tomorrow, Thursday 7 June. The hon. Gentleman’s motion will appear on tomorrow’s Order Paper, to be taken after any urgent questions and statements. I hope that that is helpful and informative to the House.
Bills Presented
Counter-terrorism and Border Security
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sajid Javid, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Boris Johnson, Secretary David Gauke, Secretary Chris Grayling, Secretary David Mundell, Secretary Karen Bradley and Mr Ben Wallace, presented a Bill to make provision in relation to terrorism; to make provision enabling persons at ports and borders to be questioned for national security and other related purposes; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 219) with explanatory notes (Bill 219-EN).
Parental Leave and Pay Arrangements (Publication)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Jo Swinson, supported by Caroline Lucas, Mr David Lammy, Ms Harriet Harman, Nicky Morgan, Gareth Thomas, Alison Thewliss, Layla Moran, Sir Edward Davey, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Norman Lamb and Christine Jardine, presented a Bill to require employers with more than 250 employees to publish information about parental leave, and pay in the course of such leave; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June, and to be printed (Bill 220).
Youth (Services and Provisions)
Wednesday 6th June 2018
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Youth (Services and Provisions) Bill 2017-19 View all Youth (Services and Provisions) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to promote and secure youth services and provision of a requisite standard; to impose a duty on local authorities to provide youth services and establish local youth service partnerships with youth participation; and for connected purposes.
There is no doubt that youth services improve the life chances of individual young people, taking them beyond the constraints of the contours of their neighbourhoods and offering them new experiences of everything from the arts to outdoor adventures. Young people gain from those experiences. Youth work supports but does not replace formal education. It enhances the readiness for learning in the classroom and learning in life, but it does not only help young people in the classroom; it also helps them to develop the skills and attitudes that are needed for the employment about which the Prime Minister was so boastful today, and, of course, for general adult life, by giving them a chance to learn to relate better to each other and to different adults in a safe and challenging environment. They are enhanced, and our communities are enhanced.
Despite all that, however, a 2016 study showed that 600 youth centres had closed around the country, 3,500 youth workers had lost their jobs, and 140,000 places for young people had been lost. We should bear it in mind that those figures are two years old, and the cuts have only continued. Research carried out this year by the House of Commons Library has shown what the cuts have meant in terms of funding. In 2010 we spent £1.2 billion on youth work, youth services and related youth activity; last year we spent £358 million, which amounts to a 68% cash-terms cut.
I do not know what service or provision would survive that, and the youth sector certainly has not. Many parts of our country now have no youth service at all. Young people simply seek somewhere to go, something to do and someone to speak to. That is the simplest of mottos, but it sums up what youth work is about. Youth workers can prevent young people from undertaking harmful behaviour, and give them advice so that they can make informed decisions. So starkly is all this being felt that young people aged between 16 and 24 are now the highest demographic age group for feeling lonely. One in 10 say that they always or often feel lonely, which is a disgrace. When young people do reach out for help, in my city alone they can face 12 months to see a professional while their mental health continues to spiral downwards.
However, the problem is not just mental health, but crime as well. Young people who are devoid of positive influences can fall foul of negative ones. The Office for National Statistics has found that knife crime has increased by 22% in a year. We have also heard that the Ministry of Justice is cutting youth offending budgets in real terms this year—and so the misery goes on.
Our news media, and some of us in the Chamber, often characterise young people as the problem. The language used to describe some of the problems that they face is a constant reinforcement of that, referring to “youth gangs” and “young offenders”. The empowerment of young people as actors for positive change is constantly diminished in the narrative that they are a problem to be contained, to be ignored, or to be dealt with. Well, I think we are the problem. Youth work has a positive impact on young people’s lives, and what have we done? We have cut, and cut, and cut again, and then we blame young people when things fall apart. Our young people are not the problem—our inability to support and listen to them is.
I say proudly that I worked in my local youth service for many years and at the National Youth Agency, and I am proud to say that I was also a voluntary group leader in my local youth group, the Woodcraft Folk, and its national chair. Of course, before that, I was a young person involved in the Youth Parliament and British Youth Council.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Thank you. These three roles—young person, voluntary youth leader and professional youth worker—are distinct, but so often they are confused. In times of cuts, voluntary youth organisations are now having to step into professional statutory youth services, with volunteers overworked and frankly under-qualified for the technical detail. Young people have to organise their own activities without the previous support of the voluntary youth leaders who are so busy picking up the pieces. My Bill seeks to clarify the position following the guidelines set out by the Council of Europe and give registered youth workers a footing in law.
Most parents and members of the public will be surprised that the role of youth worker has no professional standards, as there are, say, for teachers, and anyone can profess to be a youth worker. My Bill seeks to redress that while celebrating the important role of voluntary youth leaders in our voluntary youth sector. Youth workers are all too often dismissed. They work long hours in difficult circumstances, often without a “thank you”. For my part, I would like to place on record a sincere thank you to the youth workers who have come to Parliament today to help to lobby for this Bill and for the importance of youth work generally. Thank you for staying back late and having a chat with that young person going through crisis. Thank you for organising those weekend trips or sports activities. Thank you for applying for those grants to give your young people the opportunities that they would never have had. Youth workers’ work is important and that is why they need support, but their support needs resource.
Some may say that councils already have the power to provide resources and to choose to fund youth services, but we know that in times of tight budgets, councils up and down the country are unable to spend what they would like and focus only on statutory provision. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 places a duty on local authorities to secure access to provision, but there are no definitions in that Act of what access to provision would look like, and the Government and councils have largely ignored it. There is little guidance on securing access. There is no requirement to develop plans or monitor the sufficiency of these services. There is no redress if councils fail in this duty and importantly, there is no funding to make sure that it happens.
My Bill rectifies that. It requires each authority to establish a youth services board with young people, parents, professionals and councillors—just like a school governing body—that will assess and plan the provision in that area. My Bill requires the plans to be submitted to the Secretary of State to nominate a body to review those plans. Many bodies exist: the National Youth Agency, for example, hosts much of the standard setting and the joint negotiating bodies for youth work already, but since 2011 it has received no Government funding and has had no statutory underpinning for its work. So bad has the situation got that the all-party group on youth affairs, which I chair, is launching an inquiry into youth services across the country, seeking out good examples and challenges. We have asked MPs to join us and we hope to develop a parliamentary scheme for MPs to visit youth clubs and youth centres around the country during recess. While that cross-party work goes on separately from the Bill, I hope that it too will raise the plight of youth services in our country.
It was the UK that first established clubs such as the YMCA and the Scouts and which pioneered a voluntary youth work sector. The UK, first in Coventry and then in councils around the country, established municipal youth clubs and showed the world how youth services could be run, but these gains have all been whittled or even swept away along with the futures of our young people. This is to our shame. A country where every young person has somewhere to go, someone to speak to and something to do is surely not too much to ask.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Emma Hardy, Emma Dent Coad, Thelma Walker, Catherine West, Alex Sobel, Rosie Duffield, Liz Twist, Danielle Rowley, Grahame Morris and Karen Lee present the Bill.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed (Bill 221).
Opposition Day
Retail Sector
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that 21,000 jobs were lost in the retail sector in the first three months of 2018 due to store closures and company administrations, with more announced since; further notes that the retail sector is one of the largest employers in the UK and contributed £94.6 billion to the UK economy in 2016; regrets that the Government’s industrial strategy contains only three references to the retail sector; further regrets that the Government has presided over the biggest squeeze in wage growth in a generation, is failing to provide certainty around future trading arrangements after Brexit and has failed to ensure a fair business rates system; and calls on the Government to urgently publish a strategy for the retail sector.
Melanie Onn
I thank the shadow Minister. The point on business rates is one that small businesses in my constituency regularly raise with me as something that not only curtails their opportunity to grow, but impedes their security for the immediate future. Does she think that the Government should do something about this immediately?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I completely agree. I will come on to business rates and the action that I would suggest that the Government take shortly.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I welcome this debate. My hon. Friend may be aware of research by Revo and intu shopping centres that looked at the UK’s appeal to international investors in the retail sector. They highlighted that business rates were the single biggest inhibitor of new international inward investment. Does she agree that that is a further reason why, in a post-Brexit environment, it will be all the more important that we review our business rate regime?
Rebecca Long Bailey
Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention—I completely agree. Before I start the substantive part of my comments, it is important to note that the commercial retail sector has faced significant strain over recent years, affecting landlords and tenants alike. That is not least due to the business rates system. A lot of major property investors—for example, St Modwen—have divested themselves of their retail arms, because they are simply not profitable anymore, not only for tenants but for landlords, so it is critical that the business rates question is addressed urgently.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I really appreciate my hon. Friend giving way on such an important issue as business rates. Can she fathom why the Government, when they announced 15 months ago that they were going to review business rates, have not done anything to progress this issue?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I completely agree, and now I will begin the substantive part of my comments, if I may.
The retail sector is undergoing a period of transformative change that will impact millions of workers across the UK. As has been played out in the press over the last few months, the sector is experiencing huge challenges, with almost silence from the Government, sadly. We have seen an onslaught of store changes; big-name chains that have been the stalwart of our town centres and high streets for years have collapsed and gone into administration.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
My home town of Stockton won the rising star award in the British high street awards, sponsored, ironically, by Marks & Spencer, which is now abandoning our town after taking profits from our people for over a century. We believe however that our town has got a future, but does my hon. Friend agree that firms like Marks & Spencer should consider the future prospects of towns properly, and show a bit of loyalty to their loyal customers instead of taking their profits and running off to out-of-town shopping centres?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I agree with my hon. Friend, but the issue is twofold. It is not simply about imposing obligations on businesses; the Government have a duty to provide a fertile business environment in which large and small businesses can grow and provide a positive contribution to their communities.
Toys R Us and Maplin collapsed on the same day in February, putting 5,500 jobs at risk in one day. Card Factory, Moss Bros, Laura Ashley, Carpetright and Mothercare have all issued profit warnings this year, and some have entered into company voluntary arrangements, with hundreds of store closures expected. In April we heard news of a possible merger between Asda and Sainsbury’s; a couple of weeks ago the one and only Marks & Spencer announced it will be closing 14 branches this year and 100 stores by 2022; and just this week there were reports that House of Fraser is on the brink of collapse and attempting to negotiate a CVA. That list is not exhaustive but it clearly demonstrates the scale of the challenge faced by the industry.
I am sure many Members across the House will at one point or another have worked in the retail sector; it is many people’s first experience of the working world, as it was for me. My first job was as an assistant at a pawn shop. I must clarify that it was a pawn, not a porn, shop—at a meeting a few years ago I said I had worked in a pawn shop and one lady in the audience, thinking it was a porn shop, was horrified. That first job was important because it taught me valuable skills and allowed me to gain some financial independence, but for millions of people retail is not just a Saturday job; it is their livelihood. It is therefore vital that the Government take the challenges facing the sector seriously and provide support to it.
The industry is one of the largest sectors in the UK, contributing £94.6 billion to the UK economy in 2016. However, staggeringly, its productivity is less than four-fifths that of the national average, and this low productivity drags down the productivity of the UK, a point made recently by the Institute for Public Policy Research. And, sadly, with low productivity comes low pay. We should not fall into the trap of thinking that all people in retail are low paid and in economic hardship—the student doing a summer job would certainly not be in that position—but there is a widespread problem in the retail sector, and according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation there are around 1.5 million people in low pay in retail, with a higher proportion of households facing economic hardship than in working households generally.
Because retail is such a large sector, the industry now accounts for just under one third of the total number of people in low pay in the UK. The economic importance of the sector should therefore not be understated, and the Government should be doing more to support it. I am sure the Secretary of State will listen to my suggestions today, but I hope that when he speaks later he staggers me with a comprehensive plan to support the sector.
I will start my kind suggestions to the Secretary of State by saying that one of the most glaring omissions from the industrial strategy White Paper was an appreciation that an industrial strategy is not just about labs or hard-hats, but is also about low productivity service sectors, where the majority of people work. Investing in and talking about headline-grabbing hi-tech industries is of course critical, but this alone does not constitute an industrial strategy. Despite the Government’s intention to improve productivity, sadly the industrial strategy Green Paper mentioned retail only twice in 132 pages, and the White Paper only three times in 256 pages, with vague references to working
“closely with sectors such as hospitality, retail and tourism on each of the foundations of productivity”,
but with very little detail to match.
Many challenges are facing the sector, and I will touch on just a few key areas today. Retail firms have since the economic crisis come under increasing pressure. Things have got so bad that in the first three months of 2018 some 21,000 jobs in the retail sector were at risk. The drive towards online retailing, and indeed bad weather, have of course had a significant impact on our spending habits, but one reason for this that is rarely mentioned is a clear failure to sustain wage growth. Wages are not expected to return to pre-crash levels until at least 2022, and household debt has spiralled to unprecedented levels. This clearly has a significant impact on what people spend their money on, with many, sadly, relying on credit cards just to get by each week, never mind buy luxury items.
The Office for National Statistics has stated that consumer spending is worth around 60% of GDP, and it has been one of the driving forces behind the recovery of the UK economy. Interestingly, however, trends are showing that British consumers have stopped taking on more debt, and Credit Suisse recently told clients that it believes this trend will continue, which would damage one of the key drivers of GDP growth.
Another issue is the increasingly hostile business environment many retailers are now facing. But it is not just businesses that will lose out: communities are having their hearts ripped out and high street after high street is becoming littered with empty shops, charity shops and bookmakers.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that another issue for high streets is that the banks have been leaving? Many retailers tell me that having an ATM beside their business makes all the difference to their takings. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government, as the majority shareholder in RBS, should step up to the mark and take action on branch closures?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I completely agree, and interestingly historically RBS had a last-man-standing agreement to be the last bank on many high streets, and that does not seem to have been enforced by the Government, so I call on the Secretary of State to look at this. My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and it is not just bank closures that are damaging the high street infrastructure; the closure of post offices is also a significant issue.
These issues are exacerbated even further by years of under-investment in many of our regions and nations. If the Government are not prepared to provide the tools businesses and communities need to provide a fertile environment for local businesses, how can we expect these fortunes to change? A worrying report by David Jinks called “The Death of the High Street” argues that, unless we see radical change within 13 years, the impact of online shopping and home deliveries will “destroy” over half of today’s town centre stores. His report also argues that between 2020 and 2030 half of the UK’s existing shop premises will disappear; 100,000 stores will close, leaving just 120,000 shops on our high streets.
Britain’s high streets are fading away because new shops are not opening fast enough to replace those that close. The Government attempted to deal with this issue through the Portas review, which advised that town teams be created to assist towns undergoing significant strain, but official funding for town teams ended on 1 April 2015.
The Government’s recent announcement to develop local industrial strategies was a welcome step forward. However, think-tank Localis stated last month that there was a capacity gap in Whitehall for developing these, leading to concern that a pipeline of local industrial strategies will face significant delays. I will be grateful if the Secretary of State provides clarity on this and confirms what resources are available to local enterprise partnerships and local authorities in taking these strategies forward.
EU funding has also been a significant supporting factor to many areas in decline; it has always been strongly targeted at less prosperous regions. The Government are currently failing to provide any certainty to business over the UK’s future trading relationship with the EU, the extent of regulatory alignment, or access to labour, but they have also failed to provide clarity on one key tool that previously helped spur the regeneration of many towns and high streets that had been starved of investment: EU structural funds. We know that the Government are planning a new fund to replace them when we leave the EU, but so far there has been no commitment on the scale of that fund, on how it will be administered or which investment it will be directed at. Will the Secretary of State give us more information on that today?
When we add to this massive uncertainty the significant cuts that local authorities have faced in recent years, we have a recipe for complete high street annihilation. That environment, and the lack of support that many businesses face, was made very clear in the shambolic handling of last year’s business rates revaluation, in which many businesses faced an unmanageable overnight hike in their rates. I am pleased that the Government have brought forward CPI indexation, but I urge them to go further by immediately introducing statutory annual revaluations, guaranteeing a fair and transparent appeals process and excluding new investment in plant and machinery from future business rates valuations. They must urgently evaluate and reform the whole system to make it fit for purpose and capable of addressing the changes that we are seeing in the sector.
Businesses were failed not only in regard to business rates; we also saw a failure to handle the scourge of late payments, which can lead to businesses struggling to cover costs or to invest, and sometimes going bust. We saw the effects of this recently in the collapse of Carillion, when huge swathes of supply chain companies faced a cliff edge due to late payments, often of up to 120 days. Many of those businesses will never see their money again. I urge the Government to adopt Labour’s position by ensuring that anyone bidding for a Government contract is mandated to pay their own suppliers within 30 days and by developing a robust system of binding arbitration and fines for persistent late payers.
As the retail sector struggles, how to boost productivity remains a major challenge. There are at least two schools of thought on this. The first concentrates on improving technology and ultimately automating many jobs. That involves automating warehousing, sales, deliveries and so on, and job losses could result. That was the view of Deloitte, which suggested that 60% of jobs could be lost. The jobs that would remain would require a range of skills such as operating advanced machinery, software and robotics. They are likely to be higher paid and involve higher skills.
The second model involves redesigning how business operates to boost productivity growth. Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown that many capable employees in the retail sector are reluctant to move up the rungs of the management ladder, as that involves greater responsibilities without much of an increase in pay. Jobs need to be redesigned so that an individual performs a range of different tasks that straddle the staff-management boundary and pay is increased. In that way, talented individuals could be engaged in the management side, raising performance and productivity. Either of those models—or a hybrid of the two, whichever the Government chose to take forward—would require dedicated Government investment in skills training for employees, to enable them to navigate the changes.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I agree with a lot of the challenges that the hon. Lady is outlining. My son works in the retail sector, and he has recently had a promotion to management level. He is only 18, so I give full credit to Zara for encouraging his talents. Does she agree, however, that the Government’s approach in bringing in T-levels has played an important part in tackling those challenges and that they are working with industrial partners to bring those changes forward?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Please will she congratulate her son on his recent promotion? Some of the Government’s commitments are welcome, including the national retraining scheme and the T-levels that she has just mentioned, but sadly they are meaningless in the context of the cuts that we have faced over recent years. For example, £64 million was announced for the national retraining scheme, but £1.15 billion was cut from the adult skills budget between 2010 and 2015. I hope that the Secretary of State will put forward proposals today to increase investment in skills, because if we do not invest in skills, we will not be able to take our employees on the journey that they need to make.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
The hon. Lady has been speaking for some time now, giving her analysis and talking about what the Government should do, but in her position as the shadow Secretary of State for Business, does she have any pearls of wisdom to give to retailers on what they should do to attract people into their retail outlets?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I do apologise for speaking for some time. If he listens, perhaps he will get some of those pearls of wisdom in due course. The point I am making is that the Government need to recognise that businesses need support. Businesses themselves need to innovate and to ensure that they drive productivity increases in-house, but the Government need to show dedication to providing the tools required to increase fertility in the business environment. Frankly, that is not happening at the moment.
An essential element in improving retail productivity is innovation, which is the best means of raising wages and boosting the competitiveness of British industry. Innovation is required by businesses themselves, as I have just pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, but the Government must commit more money to research and development spending. They referred in their White Paper to increasing that spending to 2.4% of GDP, which is welcome, but if they are really going to support low productivity sectors such as retail and ensure that we can compete on the world stage, they need to increase it to at least 3%, as other world leaders such as South Korea and Japan have done.
I also welcome the Government’s recent establishment of a Retail Sector Council, but I have heard very little information about it since its establishment. Will the Secretary of State update the House on how often the council has met so far and whether there have been any discussions with the Government about what role the Government can play in boosting innovation in the sector? Labour has pledged to establish a catapult centre in relation to retail, to lead on technological, managerial and employee innovation. This is important because the Fabian Society recently reported that increasing managerial innovation and sharing best practice in retail can drive productivity by improving quality, as well as sale and business growth, and I call on the Government to examine Labour’s catapult centre proposals.
Infrastructure investment is also a critical part of boosting productivity in the sector. We must recognise that the future of our high streets depends on quality infrastructure, transport links, parking amenities and high-speed broadband, as well as on the local anchor institutions that draw people in, such as entertainment and leisure facilities and libraries. The sums announced in the White Paper are sadly negligible, and the TUC has stated that public investment will be increased to just 2.9% of GDP, while the average invested by other leading industrial nations in the OECD is 3.5%. Again, I hope that the Secretary of State has some earth-shattering updates for me today, to restore our faith in what the Economic Justice Commission recently dubbed
“the most regionally unequal country in the whole of Europe”
in terms of investment in our regions.
This brings me to the subject of retail workers, who are vital to the success of the sector. They provide positive customer experiences, and a lack of staff can have an adverse impact on customer service levels. The impact of job losses in retail should therefore not be understated. They have a profound impact on families and communities right across Britain. Retail has traditionally provided entry-level, part-time and flexible jobs for millions across the UK, and it has often provided livelihoods for people who have had to leave declining industries in particular regions.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
One of my constituents who is directly affected by this has written to me. Her husband works in retail, and she is appalled by the contract changes being forced on people working in the sector, particularly in Sainsbury’s, where 9,000 long- standing and loyal staff will suffer a significant pay cut of up to £3,000 and see their paid breaks and premium pay scrapped.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend makes a vital point, and I shall come on to that shortly.
For some people, working in retail may be their only viable employment option. If a chain goes under and the local store closes or relocates out of the area, they will either have to travel further afield to find work or decide that the journey is simply not cost-effective and be forced to give up work altogether. According to a recent report by the Fabian Society, forecasts for the reduction in employment in the industry suggest that women, who make up the majority of the retail workforce, will sadly be the hardest hit. Workers in the retail sector are vulnerable, as my hon. Friend has just said. When costs need to be cut, workers are usually the first to face the squeeze. Only recently, Sainsbury’s announced sweeping changes to contracts for up to 130,000 staff in stores across the UK.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the likes of Lidl, which has its senior management at Manor Park in Runcorn, should allow access to the trade union USDAW, because a healthy workforce is a productive workforce?
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend makes an important point about another key factor in improving productivity. This is about not just improving skill levels, but engaging with the workforce proactively and collaboratively. That is best done through trade union membership and allowing trade unions access to workplaces, so issues on the shop floor can be identified and dealt with quickly, increasing productivity overall.
Kate Green
I am a proud USDAW member, and will my hon. Friend join me in commending its “Freedom From Fear” campaign, which seeks to ensure that shop workers are safe at work, travelling to work and leaving work? Too many of them still risk abuse and unpleasantness from customers in the workplace.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend and support what she says.
Going back to Sainsbury’s, staff will no longer get paid breaks or higher rates of pay for working on a Sunday under the new terms. Premium rates for night-shift work will be restricted to between midnight and 5 am, and shop floor staff will no longer be able to earn bonuses. It is interesting, however, that the freeze on bonuses is allegedly not likely to impact senior managers or the CEO, who will still receive their bumper bonus packages. There are also worrying reports that staff may be forced to resign if they refuse to sign these new contracts.
Sainsbury’s is not alone in this trend towards fluctuating terms and conditions and insecurity. As USDAW recently reported, a number of clear trends within the sector have led to the workforce feeling increased pressure. Many retailers, seeking to maximise flexibility to deal with fluctuations in customer demand, have introduced flexible, short-hours contracts. As a result, two thirds of USDAW members are regularly working additional hours above those that they are contracted to work, yet they have no guarantee that those hours and the associated income will be available to them in the future. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union reports similar trends, with McDonald’s workers recently striking in a dispute over zero-hours contracts and working conditions.
The Government’s recent response to the Taylor review included a right to request more stable hours, which I referred to when the Secretary of State made his statement on the review, but how does that actually differ from the current position? Without an obligation on the employer to accept, it is meaningless and I urge him to reconsider.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Coming from a family of shopkeepers and as a former co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on retail, I have been listened very carefully, but the shadow Business Secretary has made hardly any mention of Amazon and the onslaught of online trading that has decimated footfall on the high street. The vast majority of her speech has been gibberish to people in retail, with no practical suggestions. I hope that there will be something in her conclusion.
Rebecca Long Bailey
With the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of the sector, I am surprised that he says that, given that business rates are one of the critical issues affecting the high street. Retailers often tell me about the unfairness of businesses such as Amazon receiving skewed business rates valuations due to the size of their operations, so I have dealt with that point.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady, who has accused British retailers of lacking innovation. However, the UK is the third largest e-commerce market in the world. Digital taxation needs to be done on a cross-border basis, so will she join me in congratulating our Chancellor on getting 100 countries across the world to look at implementing a digital tax to allow us to address the level playing field between online and offline?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I have not in any way, shape or form suggested that any business lacks the capacity or drive to innovate—quite the contrary—but they do lack Government support to drive that innovation. As for making tax digital, I ask the hon. Lady to read some of the Library research. While the sentiment is credible, the implementation has been far from it, with numerous businesses reporting problems from start to finish, and that needs to be addressed urgently.
Rachael Maskell
Does my hon. Friend recognise that the retail sector suffers from offshore landlords charging exorbitant prices for property, forcing businesses off our high streets?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I referred earlier to the commercial retail property market, and the Government must recognise that they have to work collaboratively across the sector and with landlords to enable tenants to secure fair tenancies. In the current climate, many tenancies are unfair to retailers, forcing many of them over the edge. Offshore landlords are a significant issue that we have discussed at length in this Parliament.
That completes my whistle-stop tour of many of the issues the sector faces, and I hope that my comments have been helpful to the Business Secretary. He knows that retail is our largest industrial sector. It has the power not only to transform our economy, but to transform our communities, providing high streets and towns with the services and consumer choice that Britain deserves.
When I was little, my Uncle Ray was a butcher. He was proud of having his own business and the family were proud of him. However, he was not just proud of being an entrepreneur; he was proud of the services that he provided to his local community and to the people who came into his shop every single day. In all my life, I have never seen such profound change in the retail sector, and the alarm bells are ringing loud and clear. How many more Uncle Raymonds are there who want to start their own business but are frightened to do so in the current climate? How many more Uncle Raymonds are out there who are in business but are frightened of going bust due to the hostile environment they face? Once our high street is gone, it will be gone forever, and the basic lifeblood of an entrepreneurial nation from high street grocers and hairdressers all the way through to department stores will be in tatters. I urge the Business Secretary to act now before it is too late.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
To answer the question from the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) about people emulating her Uncle Ray, 1,100 new businesses are being created in this country every day of the year —record levels. We are seeing a resurgence of entrepreneurship right across the country, which she will welcome.
I am delighted that we have the chance to talk about the retail sector, which, as the hon. Lady recognised, is vital to every one of our constituencies. The character and identity of all the towns, villages and cities that we represent are defined by the shops, stores, cafés, restaurants and pubs, which make up the most important places in our settlements. Whether independently owned or part of a chain, and whether large or small, they play a vital role. As constituency MPs, we all do everything we can to promote and boost them. Things such as Small Business Saturday engage all Members on both sides of the House to promote the importance of retail.
More people are employed in retailing than in any other single industry in the country. Britain has long had a deserved reputation for being a retail environment of intense competition and innovation and for outstripping other countries in terms of the keenness of prices, the choice and range of products, and the pace of new offerings to consumers to meet their changing needs.
Any of us who has visited other countries, whether in continental Europe or the US, to take a couple of examples, will have noticed how comparatively advanced and well served our consumers are in this country. Already in this debate we have heard from many people who grew up with a retail background, which is not surprising given the sector’s importance. I make my own disclosure that my father was a retail milkman. My first job was delivering milk in the mornings as part of a small family business. My mother worked at the local Sainsbury’s. Such backgrounds are common among Members on both sides of the House. We all have friends, family and many constituents who owe their life and lifeblood to the retail sector.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles accurately describes the period of change the retail sector is experiencing. She is right to do so. As she says, in recent years, several familiar household names have disappeared from our high streets: Woolworths in 2009 and, more recently, Toys R Us and Maplin. Each and every case is a blow to the staff who work in those stores and, of course, to the customers. But we all know this is by no means new in British retailing. Each of the names I have mentioned was a disrupter and an insurgent in its day. Woolworths, for example, came as an American giant offering open shelves for consumers to serve themselves, rather than having to wait behind a counter, which was revolutionary and a major challenge to the prevailing model.
British Home Stores, much in the news in recent years, provided a one-stop shop containing everything under one roof, from light fittings to clothing and food. Again, that was a big disruption to the norm. The hon. Lady mentions Toys R Us. I am old enough to remember the dismay experienced by some traditional high street toy stores when out-of-town warehouses, including Toys R Us, entered the market. Those warehouses became familiar and many of us have bought toys for our children there. There is a story of constant change in the retail sector.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The retail sector in the centre of Sheffield has been greatly strengthened by the establishment of a business improvement district. The Secretary of State will know that, outside London, the only model for business improvement districts is an occupier or a ratepayer BID, whereas London can have property owner BIDs. After lengthy consultation by the Government, there were proposals in last year’s Local Government Finance Bill to roll out the opportunity of property owner BIDs across the country, which was widely welcomed in the north of England. The Bill was lost in the wash-up. Do the Government have any plans to renew that proposal to enable property owner BIDs across the UK?
Greg Clark
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the positive effect of BIDs. When I was a local councillor in London, I saw the benefits of the business improvement districts in the capital. The Local Government Finance Bill was a victim of the wash-up and I will raise the point with my colleagues to see where we are on further plans.
We have experienced constant change in the retail sector and, of course, at the moment we are experiencing an online revolution. We previously experienced the supermarket revolution and, again, I remember well my father’s milk rounds shrinking as supermarkets routinely began to sell fresh milk at a fraction of what the roundsmen charged.
There was never a time when the high street did not change and did not see the disappearance of brands that were regarded as anchors at the time. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles is remiss in not stating the context of constant change. We all remember many examples of presences on the high street, going back many years, that are no longer there.
The evidence shows that British retail is transforming but is still vigorous. Following the hon. Lady’s speech, Members would be forgiven for imagining that retail employment is in a state of meltdown.
Justin Tomlinson
I echo my right hon. Friend because the hostility shown by the shadow Minister towards retail does not reflect the reality. Productivity grew by 4% in 2017, as reported by the British Retail Consortium. That is the reality.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right. We all want to celebrate the success of retail in Britain and we all want to do what we can to further advantage it. In fact, the number of people employed in retail in the UK has grown substantially over the past 20 years, from around 2.8 million in 1996 to 3.1 million in the last full year for which figures are available, an increase of nearly 300,000 jobs.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
When I went to talk to my local jobcentre, it complained about the way the supermarkets treat their workers. My local jobcentre says it is grossly unfair and unreasonable to give people short 12-hour or eight-hour contracts. Is the Secretary of State confident that the increase in the number of jobs is an increase in full-time equivalent jobs, or is it just chopping up jobs that would previously have had a reasonable number of hours?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady raises an interesting question. She will be interested to know that the trend over the period is towards more full-time jobs taking the strain from part-time jobs. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles mentioned that part-time employment is valued by many people in the retail sector, but a higher proportion of jobs in the retail sector are now full time than in 1996.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Would the Secretary of State care to comment on a practice I see weekly at my advice surgery? Large numbers of my constituents, particularly among the Tamil community, are working 18 hours a week at Tesco precisely so that Tesco does not have to pay employer’s national insurance contributions.
Greg Clark
I was not aware of that, and my colleagues and I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss her example.
It is not the case that in recent years we have experienced a collapse in employment—rather the reverse. The trend has been towards increasing and, more recently, more stable employment. We are seeing more full-time work, rather than part-time work, in the mix. Nor is it the case that more retailers are failing. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles correctly mentioned some recent examples of retailers that have gone out of business, but it has always been the case that some retailers have failed and been replaced by others.
Rachel Maclean
Of course I regret that Marks & Spencer is pulling out of Redditch, but is it not the case that the consumer is the ultimate beneficiary when we see change in the sector? Consumers get new products, better prices and different things and new experiences they would not necessarily have had previously. That is what an entrepreneurial economy supported by this Government does.
Greg Clark
I agree. We want to make sure that our retail sector is dynamic and provides value and choice for consumers, as well as good career opportunities for members of staff.
Melanie Onn
The Secretary of State says that retailers are not failing, but the empty shops in Grimsby town centre tell my constituents something very different. Will he comment on that?
Greg Clark
Across the country, from time to time, businesses will close. I am familiar with Grimsby, as the hon. Lady knows, and one of the actions we are taking, which I know she will support, is to have a town deal with Grimsby to make sure that we maximise the advantages locally. Freeman Street in Grimsby shows this phenomenon has been happening not just over the past 12 or 24 months; there has been a long-term change. Local dedication, based on knowledge of the local environment, is required to have the best prospects for a revival.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Secretary of State rightly refers to the fact that towns have to look at change. Does he agree that in many cases it will be for local authorities to examine what the needs of a modern town centre are as a destination, rather than at what its needs were in the 1950s and 1960s, in a very different retail era?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is exactly right about that. Of course many of our towns acquired shopping centres and shopping malls to make them more attractive at that time, which again was a big change. There is constant change in what the offer and draw of town centres is, and local authorities are very active in thinking about how they can make their places as attractive as they can.
According to the latest market data for the last five years, covering the period from 2013 to the end of 2017, 191 retailers in this country have gone into administration. That compares with the 202 that did so in the five years before, so we have not had the sudden collapse that the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles was hinting at. During the last five years, the number of stores affected by those failures was 7,429, compared with 19,639 in the previous five years. So it is very important that we do not paint a picture of British retail undergoing some sort of experience that has never happened before; we need to make sure that its dynamism results in positive outcomes and not regard this as completely out of the ordinary.
The hon. Lady cited examples of closures and, as I said, they are hugely hurtful and worrying for everyone caught up in them. However, she conspicuously failed to mention the other side of the equation. If she reads Retail Week in any given week, she will see example after example of stores that are opening and of companies that are expanding. She could have mentioned that just in January the Co-op committed that it will open 100 new stores during 2018, creating 1,600 jobs. Lidl is investing £1.45 billion in expanding its UK presence, and Aldi is now the fifth biggest retailer in the UK and it aims to have 1,000 stores by 2020. Lest anyone think that discount retail means discount wages, Aldi has pledged to become the UK’s highest-paying supermarket by 2020.
Our tastes and habits are changing. Home delivery from stores was once considered a relic of pre-war and immediately post-war times, but now it is increasingly standard for all the big supermarkets; Ocado has recently joined the FTSE 100 on the back of its growth. We have more and better choice through online retail than ever before, as colleagues have said. ASOS is now the UK’s largest clothing retailer by market valuation, and this week the British Retail Consortium showed that total retail sales increased substantially in May. The hon. Lady does the retail sector and the country a disservice by claiming that we are seeing an annihilation of the high street. We need to be much more practical and positive about the prospects.
However, our habits are changing. We are buying more and more each year— retail sales are buoyant—but we are choosing to buy more of that online, which of course provides a challenge. In 2007, 3% of total retail sales were bought online, yet in little more than a decade—by May this year—that had grown to 16.9%. That is a revolution in a short space of time. In the past 12 months alone, online sales rose by 11.9%, and clothing and footwear sales online rose by 24.1%. The consultants Oliver Wyman forecast that 40% of non-food retail sales will be online by 2030. That is how people are choosing to buy so, just as happened when supermarkets challenged individual shops, retail will look very different in the future. If we choose to buy 40% of goods online, not all the shops we have been used to will exist as they do today. As the British Retail Consortium says:
“We have too much retail space…there will be fewer shops and their role will be different”.
It says that they will be based on convenience fulfilment or, most likely, fulfilling a desire for experience and local community concentration. Those are the changes that the sector anticipates and wants to participate in.
Kate Green
I cannot dispute what the Secretary of State says about the changing patterns of online shopping. He made a comment earlier about the quality of employment in low-cost supermarkets. Does he accept that it is also important that those online retail settings offer excellent employment conditions? Too often we hear of exploitative practices in these warehouses and of the abusive treatment of workers, who are being denied toilet breaks and being asked to do heavy lifting without proper risk assessments having been carried out. They do that for very low wages.
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and this was one of the reasons we commissioned the Matthew Taylor report, to which the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles referred. Knowing that employment patterns are changing and that different types of businesses are entering the market, it is right to consider what regulatory requirements we need in this new world to maintain the high standards we have insisted on in this country. That is the type of preparation—the strategic anticipation of what is required—that we are engaged in.
I applaud the way in which, in this time of adjustment, to prepare for the future, the retail sector is coming together, with its players working jointly. It has always been a rather fragmented sector, but in recent months we have seen a real sense of purpose in its coming together to work jointly with the Government and with local councils, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) said, to address the challenges it has faced.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as working at a national level to recognise the changes needed in our high streets, it is important that local councils work with local businesses to put in place a plan and vision for what the town centre needs to look like in future?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right about that. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles referred to local industrial strategies. The reason they are part of the industrial strategy is that the vision we have set out, informed by local councils, local leaders and retailers, is that that local dimension and knowledge, as I mentioned to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), is vital in ensuring we have prosperity. So the sector was a major contributor to the development of our industrial strategy.
One commitment we made was to establish the Retail Sector Council, so that firms, large and small, can work effectively with each other and policy makers, emulating the successful model that the Automotive Council UK and the Aerospace Growth Partnership have established, with which Members are familiar. The RSC is chaired jointly by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), and Richard Pennycook, who, as many Members will know, is the former chief executive of the Co-op and one of our most respected retailers.
The RSC is bringing the sector together to work with Government and local councils, making recommendations on the areas of challenge that have come up already in today’s debate. Those include business rates, where the Government have made a clear commitment to make sure that the system is up to date for a world in which people increasingly shop online. Of course, that builds on the commitment we have made to wider business rates reforms and on the relief that has been given following the recent revaluation. That stands in stark contrast with the record of the Labour party, which doubled the average business rates bill during its time in office. We are protecting the small businesses in this country from its increase.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Secretary of State provide some more detail about how the Government are going to reform business rates, because we know the retail sector is crying out for reform of the system and he has not set out any details? I would really appreciate those now.
Greg Clark
I do not want to incur the wrath of my fierce hon. Friend, the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), by speaking for too long, but there will be opportunities to do that. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, will be responding to the debate. The Retail Sector Council has that as part of its remit and objectives. A review is taking place with the Treasury of precisely those matters. Of course that is so because this is one of the big challenges that stores with a high street presence face. The context of competition from online retailers is fundamental to that.
A major concern of the industry, through the new sector council, and of this Government, through the industrial strategy, is to drive higher levels of productivity and earnings for workers in the sector. There are huge opportunities to do both. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles does a disservice to this very innovative sector and the people who work in it when she portrays it as some sort of backwater of uniform low productivity—it is far from that. In fact, in the past 20 years in the retail sector, output per hour has doubled; it has increased faster than the economy as a whole. Productivity in UK retailing is one of the highest of major European nations and one of the most rapidly growing. Pay in retail is increasing, responding to the recruitment pressures that come from the fact that unemployment is now at its lowest level for 40 years. That has been bolstered by the introduction of the national living wage, which has had a particularly beneficial impact on employees in the retail sector. As I have said, we want to secure improvements in the quality of working life that employees in the sector experience, which is why the Matthew Taylor report with its emphasis on good work is of such vital relevance to this sector.
Retail is already at the cutting edge of much of the innovation and new technology that we see. Our industrial strategy, with its major investment—the biggest increase in investment in research and development that we have seen as a country—is full of opportunities for further innovation. Through our industrial strategy challenge fund and grand challenges such as on artificial intelligence, this is a sector that will play a big part in that. Part of the reason for the creation of the Retail Sector Council is to enable the sector to do so.
The British retail sector is renowned as one of the most competitive and innovative in the world. It employs millions of people, and will continue to do so, in good jobs in every part of the United Kingdom. We recognise and embrace the challenge of responding to the changes that are taking place in retailing not just in this country, but across the world. We are investing in technology, investing in skills, ensuring that people can have satisfying and prosperous careers to look forward to in retail, and responding to the consequences of changing consumer preferences and the implications that that has for the future of the high street.
Those are the areas on which we will work in close partnership with the sector. Together we will ensure that, more than ever, retailing is something that is, in its quality, in the price that it offers to consumers and in the choice and innovation that it brings in, one of our world-leading sectors of the economy.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is always a genuine pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State and, indeed, the Secretary of State in these debates, particularly when they are on very important subjects such as retail that go right to the heart of our towns, cities and communities. As a former retailer myself, I should like to start by paying tribute to those sore-footed legions who go home every night having served us in their shops and stores. They perform an absolutely vital function, and that should not go without being underlined today and I mean to do that during my contribution.
Retailers always try to create the conditions to attract customers. The environment that they work in and that they present to consumers is extremely important for them. They will spend a long time working out whether they should concentrate on high-density product placement, low-density product placement, special offers and the placing of those offers. They know that the environment in which people shop is extraordinarily important to them. They approach that in a range of different ways. I do not want to major on the actual high street itself, but I do want to focus on it, because it is something that was perhaps glossed over by the Secretary of State today.
The success of retail depends on the wider economic environment—or the context, as the Secretary of State called it earlier. That is why the unrelenting situation that we have over austerity causes so much difficulty for high street retailers, and retailers in general. Store closures, such as the ones announced by Marks & Spencer, are just another indictment of what happens when these policies are brought forward, and they drive consumers away from the high streets. If people do not have a disposable income, they are not able to go and spend in the shops.
The Scottish Government continue to support the Scottish retail business, especially the crucial small business retail sector, with initiatives such as the small business bonus, and I will return to that matter shortly.
Ged Killen
The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Scottish Government’s assistance for small businesses. In my area, three businesses have had to close as a result of the treatment they have received from landlords, the most recent being The Big Coffee Cup. Does he not think that it is regrettable in Scotland that there is no statutory or common law right for a commercial lease to be renewed? These businesses were told that they had to close because their lease was not going to be renewed.
Drew Hendry
I would love to give the hon. Gentleman a direct answer, but I have not come across that situation myself. I will happily look into it. I will not come here and make up something that I do not know anything about, so I will look into the lease issue for him.
I will come back to what the Scottish Government are doing in Scotland later in my speech. In tough times, the last thing that retailers need is for costs to rise. When prices go up, the number of customers goes down. It is a natural cause and effect. The biggest current risk to the Scottish economy and the retail sector comes from the hard Brexit that is on the table now from this Tory Government. We still do not know what the Labour position is. [Interruption.] Well, we still do not know what the Labour position is on a hard Brexit. Hopefully, we will find out soon.
Drew Hendry
Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker, have I ever refused the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr)?
Stephen Kerr
And the hon. Gentleman maintains his record of giving way, so I thank him. He says that the biggest threat to the retail sector in Scotland is a hard Brexit, which is, I am afraid to say, all too predictable from the Scottish National party spokesman. That is not what the director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, David Lonsdale, says. He says that the devolved Administration’s increase in surcharges and business rates inflexibility have served to make it more expensive to operate shops in our town centres. We cannot go to a higher authority than the Scottish Retail Consortium to describe what is wrong with Scottish retail.
Drew Hendry
Of course, if the hon. Gentleman wants to trade in higher authorities, let us see if we can find one. Let us go to the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, who says that a hard Brexit will cost each family £900 per year—a reduction in income that people simply cannot afford and that will not aid anyone, especially retailers. Let us go to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which says that lower economic growth is predicted in each of the next five years—lower than the 1.7% in 2017.
The single market and the customs union remain vital for Scotland’s economy. It is a Herculean task to find a business person or a business organisation in Scotland that does not agree with that. Hard Brexit not only threatens the cost outlined by Mark Carney and others, but, according to the SPIE 2 report, means that costs will reach £2,300 per person per year compared with remaining in the EU. Report after report highlights the economic folly of the hard Brexit approach. All of that sucks up disposable income—the lifeblood of the high streets.
Let me return now to austerity and its effect on retail. Austerity is a choice. Dealing with a deficit can be done by encouraging growth, not by austerity. Between now and 2022-23, the Scottish Government modelling suggests that the Chancellor could provide an additional investment in Scotland of around £5 billion while still meeting the UK Government’s targets on structural deficit and debt reduction. These policies disproportionately affect the least well off—the very people who spend more of their income in local shops. On welfare cuts, the Resolution Foundation states:
“The coming year (2018-19) is set to be the second biggest single year of welfare cuts…(after 2012-13) at £2.5bn.”
Having been in a pilot area for universal credit for more than five years now, I can testify to the effects that it has had on the local economy by draining the ability for people to spend in their local shops. The people of Inverness in my constituency are all too aware of these consequences.
Of course, there is another effect that is likely to cause great problems and to be a damaging issue for retail. Retail needs people—to buy and to sell. The unique selling point of being in retail, particularly high street retail, is that customers can speak to staff and staff can show customers products. The Government’s proposed approach to immigration could mean that real-terms GDP in Scotland is 9.3% lower by 2040. That affects tax and employment not just for shops and businesses, but also for public services.
Over the decade to 2019-20, Scottish Government funding has been cut by £2.7 billion, which is 8.4% in real terms. The Scottish Government will only receive 2.5% or £37 million of the £1.5 billion funding for Brexit preparations allocated in 2018, so when we look at support for business, it is against a background of lower funding. The Scottish Government’s recent budget set out how reforms of the business rates, for example, will ensure that Scotland provides the best possible environment for business. Rates relief for small business in Scotland is more competitive than in England. We provide the most competitive reliefs package in the UK, worth a record £720 million—up from £660 million in 2017-18. From 2018, we will introduce a business growth accelerator that will see no bill rise for 12 months as a result of improvements or expansion of existing business property. It will also ensure that no rates are paid on new builds for a year when they are entered into the valuation roll.
Earlier I mentioned the small business bonus scheme, which was protected in the 2018-19 Scottish Government budget and has saved businesses almost £1.5 billion cumulatively since it was introduced in 2008. The scheme has provided record relief to almost 104,000 recipients over the past year. The estimated total relief under the scheme, which removes or reduces rates bills, rose to £230 million—an increase of £43 million from £187 million last year. This amounts to an average saving per property of £2,000. The maximum savings that a business can achieve through the scheme will increase next year from £6,990 to £7,200 a year. That is a record level of small business support. Andy Willox, the Scottish policy convener for the Federation of Small Businesses, said:
“Without this rates help, Scottish firms tell us they would scale back investment, and their plans for growth. This vital scheme forms the centrepiece of the Scottish Government’s package of help for smaller firms.”
The Secretary of State rightly talked about the need to diversify in retail, and we have to ensure that we take that factor into account. As he rightly said, most successful businesses are able to adapt and change with the circumstances they face and the opportunities that arise. Many successful retailers—small and large—have adopted online platforms alongside their traditional face-to-face retail. In fact, they are finding that a double benefit: not only can people find and access their products, but they also know somewhere where they can go and get direct advice about those products. It is of course important to set the environment to ensure that that can work properly.
Although the Scottish Government have committed to extending superfast broadband access of 30 megabits per second to Scotland by the end of 2021, the UK Government really have to up their act and understand that 10 megabits is not good enough for the rural parts of Britain that are not covered by the Scottish Government’s actions. The UK Government appear intent on cutting Scottish consumers out of the broadband universal service obligation completely, despite the fact that they are being asked to pay for it alongside consumers in other parts of the UK. In Scotland, we are investing £600 million through the first phase of our Reaching 100%, or R100, programme to achieve our goal of superfast broadband access for all. Procurement is under way and deployment will begin during 2019. Even though telecoms is reserved to Westminster, the UK Government’s contribution to R100 is just £21 million—only 3% of the total.
Figures provided by thinkbroadband show that the UK Government have met their target of 95% superfast broadband coverage, at the UK definition of 24 megabits and above. But, in fact, using the same data used by the UK Government and our own internal data, we have confirmed that we exceeded our target of 95% fibre broadband coverage across Scotland by the end of 2017. Our Scottish 4G infill programme aims to push 4G coverage beyond commercial roll-out by investing up to £25 million of public funding to deliver future-proofed 4G mobile infrastructure to help selected mobile notspots.
I agree with the Secretary of State that the quality of people’s working lives must be enhanced, and I join him in paying tribute to Aldi for making a commitment to being the highest paying supermarket. For too long retail sector wages have been too low for too many people. As I said in my opening remarks, working in retail is a rewarding job, but it is also challenging at times. Retail’s future workforce and customers are obviously going to come from the ranks of young people, so I will make the kind request that has been made eloquently in this Chamber by many other Members, for the UK Government to start to understand that they need to reward young workers, not punish them.
Research from the Scottish Parliament’s information centre shows that workers under the age of 18 would earn roughly £6,500 less than people who are over 25. The research further highlighted that 18 to 20-year-olds would find themselves £3,705 worse off—and apprentices £7,605 worse off—compared to workers over the age of 25. If the UK Government seriously want to reward hard workers, as they so frequently say they do, will they listen to the SNP’s demand and retract this deeply discriminatory decision that punishes workers solely for being young? It is a missed opportunity to provide economic empowerment to young people from lower socioeconomic demographics.
The SNP would encourage every employer to reward their staff fairly and, where possible, to pay the real living wage. Many of the most successful retailers, such as Aldi, are already committed to doing the best for their staff, and that is the right thing to do. The new national living wage rate of £7.83 an hour for over-25s came into effect on 1 April 2018, but the national living wage refers to average earnings, not living costs, and is therefore not a real living wage. The living wage differs in that it is calculated according to the basic cost of living, and therefore takes account of the adequacy of household incomes for achieving an acceptable minimum living standard. Incidentally, the Scottish Government were the first Government in the UK to become an accredited real living wage employer. Our young workforce and consumers—the very people who need to get into the habit of using retail and finding ways to stimulate the economy, and the people who will be paying taxes to support pensions into the future—must be included in a fair strategy.
To conclude, I ask Ministers—[Interruption.] I am getting some warm applause from the Tory Benches. How delighted I am to always find a few extra words to thank them for their attention during these exchanges! Will Ministers copy what has been working in Scotland with the small business bonus? Will they look at adjusting the rates system in that way? Will they finally listen to the endless stream of businesses and business organisations that have come forward to point out the perils of a hard Brexit direction? Will they listen to the people affected by the universal credit roll-out? This all cumulatively affects the future of retail and the ability of people to operate on the high street. It is time to help the whole of the economy. Listening to these points would definitely hit that mark. It is well past time to ditch the dogmatic approach to austerity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I hope that in a good-natured debate of this kind, we can get through the afternoon without a formal time limit. This is always an experiment, but I am going to ask hon. Members please not to exceed seven minutes in their speeches. If they do, then all they are doing is squeezing the time for someone else to take part in the debate. Of course I appreciate that some Members do not want other Members to have a say, but I want everyone to have an equal go at their arguments. Therefore, if seven minutes is exceeded, I will have to put on a formal time limit. I call Derek Thomas.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will reduce my speech to 40 pages now that you have said that.
In counties such as Cornwall, the retail sector is a significant contributor to the local economy, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss it. I am glad that the Secretary of State is still in his place, as it is really good to be able to speak directly to him. Most employees in Cornwall work in small and medium-sized businesses. A significant number of those are in retail, and many are on our high streets. High streets are the lifeblood of our communities in Cornwall—particularly west Cornwall and the constituency I represent.
The health of the high street is dependent on those small, independent retail outlets. They are made up of entrepreneurs who have often taken a risk in sinking their life savings into them, and who get up day after day to keep up an offer both to residents and visitors. Despite all their hard work and good efforts, they find staying open very difficult. They have had to contend with the living wage. I welcome, and they welcome, the living wage, but it is a significant challenge to them. Many have reduced their opening hours just to keep control of their staff costs. There is also auto-enrolment.
We have seen a significant rise in online shopping and a dramatic growth in out-of-town stores. In Penzance, just before Christmas, a new out-of-town store opened. I have spoken to businesses there who have seen a 40% drop in their business just since Christmas. There have been huge hikes in car-parking charges. Furthermore, I do not want to discourage Members from coming to Cornwall, but the roads are under par at the moment. We are working hard to improve connectivity on the roads. The weather can have an impact on whether people choose to go to the beach or to shop. These entrepreneurs, who are doing all they can, face all sorts of challenges that they have no control over. Those challenges are well documented and well rehearsed. I recognise that many of them, particularly planning and car parking, are matters for the local authority. We are working hard to see it rise to the challenge and to give opportunity rather than restrictions to our local businesses.
However, what the Government can and must do is address the issue of business rates. I recognise that for some time, even before I was elected, various measures have been introduced to address the difficulties that small businesses face with regard to business rates. I believe that nowadays business rates are indefensible. It is an outdated tax that reflects a business building rather than the business itself and causes significant harm, particularly to the high street. In my constituency, for lots of small businesses out of town in rural areas, business rate relief and various exemptions have been fantastic, and that is welcome. However, some businesses in the high street have seen extraordinary increases, particularly since 2016, and that has been extremely painful and uncomfortable for them.
In the three main towns in my constituency—Helston, St Ives and Penzance—I have been working with a number of businesses that tell me they will go out of business if we do not do something quickly. An independent business owner in Helston moved across the road in order to increase the size of her business, but even though her shop is smaller than her next-door neighbour’s and smaller than the shops opposite, which are both multiples, the business rates she pays are significantly higher. In Penzance, we have a new retailer who started his business after Christmas. He had no business rates charged whatsoever and was not expecting a charge, but in April he was stung with a new bill of thousands of pounds a year, unexpected and unplanned for. We are currently trying to discover why this has been the case.
In St Ives, we have seen the rate re-evaluation, high rents often charged by absent landlords, and a quick rotation of businesses that come into town thinking that St Ives is the place to be in business and will pay whatever rent is asked for. For several stores, that has led to year-on-year increases since 2016. Despite the voluntary support available from the local authority, they have not benefited. We have done all we can. We have had meetings with the Valuation Office Agency. We have done the checking challenge. We have met Treasury Ministers several times and raised individual cases. However, while Ministers are still engaged and helpful, at the moment we see no way forward.
For businesses under such pressure, the various things that the Government have done are helpful. However, I compare the situation with that of someone who has their hand in a bench vice. It is not helpful for the Government to say to them, “We will slow down the number of turns and how quickly we turn the bench vice so that the pain is not so great. We will just do half a turn a day, maybe.” What we actually need the Government to do is to remove the hand from the bench vice altogether.
I have three urgent requests—and they are really urgent. First, we must halt the increases above the consumer prices index that businesses in my constituency are facing. These increases are significant. They are introduced every year because of the re-evaluation. They are harmful and unacceptable, and I would like them to be frozen.
Secondly, I would like a discussion on—with perhaps legislation moved forward quickly—a measure to allow town councils to retain just 1% or 2% of the business rates collected in their area to support the high streets and build healthy and vibrant town centres. People would be able to go into town, park more cheaply and enjoy the public dwelling space, because the town council would have resources to invest in the town. As devolution has come to Cornwall Council, the money has stopped there. Devolution of sorts has gone down to town and parish councils, but money has not followed, and so they are continually strapped for cash and unable to help with the problems on the high streets. We do not have business improvement districts in any of the towns I am talking about. Helston would be a great place for a pilot scheme for the town council to keep 1% or 2% of business rates. That would give it a couple of hundred thousand pounds a year to really turn around the town centre, which has been under pressure for many years. Given the population around Helston—42,000 people—we could turn the town around. I am working with it do what I can.
Finally, I would like the Government—if they did this, they would earn themselves enormous brownie points within small businesses up and down the country—to commit to scrapping business rates altogether. I know that they need to continue to raise the £24 billion they collect from property-based taxes. However, that money could be collected through some form of transaction tax that would be based on the activity of the business rather than the location and size of the building it occupies. It would also be a fair tax, because it would tax equally high street businesses, out-of-town stores and online businesses simply on the business they do, not on the building they occupy.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I am really pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on the retail sector because it is hugely important to my constituency, where 23%—nearly a quarter—of jobs are in retail. That is 8,000 jobs and the highest percentage of retail jobs in any constituency across Great Britain. It is vital for my constituency and many others that we have a thriving retail sector, from the small high street traders such as Les Thompson, who sells loose fresh fruit and vegetables—not wrapped in plastic, I note—on the main road in my hometown of Ryton, to major retail centres such as the intu Metrocentre, which is still the largest retail shopping centre and houses national chains as well as smaller retailers.
Blaydon is made up of many small towns such as Birtley in the east, through to Whickham, Winlaton, Dunston Hill, Crawcrook, Chopwell, Rowlands Gill, Ryton and of course the town of Blaydon itself, where the shopping centre has recently been reinvigorated. All those centres provide valuable jobs and facilities and help to make our local communities vibrant places where people want to live and can access the essentials, and sometimes the extras, of life. The challenges that they face vary. Les and many other small shopkeepers like him face the problem of our small towns emptying during the day, as people commute to work and shop elsewhere. They need support to ensure that our small towns retain a vibrant high street and local facilities, especially since many of our banks have closed local branches and there is a reduced footfall. The large retail centres like the Metrocentre, where many of the retail sector jobs are located, face different challenges.
I want to support our retailers right across Blaydon. I am doing what I can locally, working with them and Gateshead Council, but we need a bigger plan and a strategy for supporting the retail sector across the UK. Retail is our largest industrial sector, but the Government’s industrial strategy hardly touches on how we can develop and support that sector in what is currently a very challenging environment for most of them.
Let me turn to those challenges. Many retailers tell me that the business rates system, which has been mentioned, is a massive challenge. All but the smallest, like Les, who are below the small business threshold, are facing big increases in business rates. The revised valuations for many mean a big increase at the same time as they face challenges from online retailers, which do not have the same shop fronts and so face much lower business rates. Of course, the huge growth in internet shopping is one of the other challenges, with many of us even looking at goods in store but then shopping online to find the best price. I am as guilty of that as anyone else, but we need to think about the implications.
Like many other industrial sectors, the uncertainty and fears about Brexit and the impact on trading and bringing in overseas retailers to our towns and shopping centres are having a huge impact on the retail sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) referred to evidence from research conducted on behalf of intu on that very issue.
We know that there have already been many job losses in the retail sector. In April, the Press Association revealed that 21,413 retail staff had already been made redundant or had their role threatened, the bulk of them at established high street chains, in just the first three months of 2018. Many of those retailers are present in my constituency. Last month I visited staff at Toys R Us at the Metro retail park. I met some staff who had been working there for more than 20 years. They felt that they had been left adrift without information about what would happen to them and their entitlements and what they should do as their shop and the business closed down. Their shop was performing well, but as in so many cases, big finance issues and management decisions far away—literally—from the shop floor led to them losing their jobs. I am pleased to say that the local retail community pulled together, and many of them were able to find new jobs, but it did not do away with that sense of uncertainty and neglect.
In the House, we often rightly highlight high-profile manufacturing job losses, but it is just as important for us to note the loss of jobs in the retail sector and to remember that these too are people and our constituents who need our support and help. We need to pay our retail sector much more attention than it currently receives, as it is a vital sector for our economy.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I appreciate and understand the point that the hon. Lady is making, but does she also acknowledge that there has been significant job growth in the last few years, particularly in areas such as logistics, handling and shipping, which should be celebrated?
Liz Twist
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. There are jobs in different areas, but that does not take away from the fact that we need these jobs as well as all those others in the sector.
As I said, the Government’s industrial strategy barely mentions the retail sector, with only three mentions in 256 pages of our largest industrial sector, which provides 15% of our jobs nationally and 23% of jobs in my constituency. The Government need to pay much more attention to this issue. They need to bring forward a sector deal for retail to ensure that it is given the emphasis it needs, and they must look again at the business rates system.
In raising these issues, I do not excuse the parts of the retail sector that have failed to manage their own affairs and businesses well. It is vital that the sector looks to act responsibly and manage its finances in a way that allows businesses to meet the challenges and to avoid more situations such as the recent collapse of BHS, Toys R Us and others, where financial issues seem more important than selling goods well. The sector has a responsibility to its staff and to our constituents who work hard in these stores but pay the price in job losses.
I cannot end this speech without mentioning the staff who work in our shops across the retail sector. Many of the 8,000 retail workers in my constituency face low pay and zero or uncertain hours, and many of them are women. If we want to strengthen productivity in the retail sector, we must address the question of low pay. Frankly, it is no good Ministers patting themselves on the back for jobs created when those jobs still leave people needing support from benefits, especially given all the problems with the universal credit roll-out in my constituency. That is a real problem. Any look at this sector must include a plan to put this situation right and to recognise the work that these people do and their need to live with decent wages and in decent conditions.
Since we are all making disclosures about our involvement in retail, I will put mine forward. My mum worked much of her working life in local shops, and my first involvement in representing people was in referring her and her colleagues’ case to the Wages Council, as it was then, because they were being underpaid. I am glad to say that we reached a satisfactory conclusion. That is my history in retail. Retail deserves our support and needs it now, so I urge the Government to take action immediately to strengthen the retail sector.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). As we are all sharing our retail experiences, I should declare my interest, as a former store assistant at Aldi—a fine and enjoyable job it was too.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the retail sector and what the Government are doing to support business. Some interesting points have been raised in the debate. The discussion about the future of business rates when these activities are increasingly online is particularly important. I want to focus on town centres and high streets, as many Members have.
Like most towns across the country, Mansfield’s and Warsop’s marketplaces and high streets have suffered from retail closures. That is happening right across the country, with the structural change in how people are shopping and what our town centres look like. Many people are shopping online or visiting out-of-town retail parks rather than visiting their local town centres. Mansfield has some great shops on the high street, from big names to cafés, bakeries, barbers and hairdressers, clothes shops and a fantastic vinyl record store that drags people in from miles around, but there are many empty units too. On Church Street, where my office is based, and around the corner on to White Hart Street, there are more empty properties than occupied ones, and there is clearly work to be done to deal with that.
Locally, I have been looking at ways to encourage consumers back into the town centre. One example is my recent campaign for two hours’ free parking in the town centre. Last month I submitted a petition signed by more than 2,000 local residents to Mansfield District Council. When parking is both an expense and a hassle, it puts people off visiting their high street, particularly when they can visit nearby retail outlets such McArthurGlen or Meadowhall—they are very close by—where parking is free and things are more convenient. Having handed in the petition, I hope that the council will look at this closely. Whether it is about cost, accessibility, clearer signposting for parking or other aspects, this is an important factor.
It is unfair to criticise the Government for inaction or for not supporting the retail sector. In fact, if any party in this place is the champion of businesses and works hard to support small businesses, it is clearly the Conservative party. As the Secretary of State said, record numbers of new businesses are being created under this Government. We have all talked about the challenges for town centres, but we have talked less about the growth in retail more generally, including the jobs—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) pointed out that there are jobs in logistics—that are linked to online retail and to this sector.
Earlier this year, the Government launched the first industry-led retail sector council, which will meet regularly to discuss the challenges facing this sector. It will review how retailers might adapt to changing consumer behaviour, and look at how we might embrace technology to improve customer service and productivity. Town teams are a great initiative, and as a local MP I am looking at how we might replicate and organise ourselves in such a way to boost our town centre.
In April, the Government switched business rates from RPI to CPI, a change which is worth £2.3 billion over the next five years in reduced business rates, including of course for many retailers. They have also committed to supporting business improvement districts. Locally, the Mansfield BID is working hard to support retail by bringing retailers together and discussing how the town should look, and to encourage people into the town centre. Mansfield BID is ably led by the fantastic Mr John Sankey and his fantastic team.
There are things that local MPs can do. I have already mentioned the free parking campaign and the locally organised town centre team, which includes local business. I am also working with Lloyds to support small and medium-sized businesses and charities by giving them digital skills to help with online marketing and boosting the customer base of high street shops. SMEs are at the heart of Mansfield’s local economy. Data from the last census shows that over 9,000 people in Mansfield work in wholesale and retail, making it a huge source of employment. It is the largest industrial sector both locally and across the country.
Although there are lots of scare stories about automation and technological change, it is important that we acknowledge the changing face of retail. We need to embrace this technology and look to the future in relation to how it can improve productivity and lead to upskilling jobs. The fourth industrial revolution, as it is often called, can be harnessed as a positive thing for retail. Technology can improve payment systems and provide support for businesses behind the scenes, such as in accountancy and payroll, thereby reducing the costs that are causing some of the challenges. Internet selling and online marketing can of course boost retailers and ensure that they can reach markets right across the UK and even further afield. Post-Brexit, the ability to do so in new and emerging markets around the world will be a real opportunity not just for high streets, but for the retail sector more generally.
As high streets and town centres evolve, it is important that the planning system develops to support the changing face of retail. This needs local councils to step up with a clear vision and plan for their high streets, and to use the tools at their disposal to deliver on it, while bringing retail and business into the discussion in order to drive footfall through our town centre. In the modern age, having a dentist or a solicitor’s office on the high street, along with cafes and restaurants, is as valuable as pure retail in that it drives footfall, fills empty shops and makes our towns into places to which people want to come. Those are businesses whose output cannot be put online—people must always physically visit them—but when we go to the dentist in the town centre, we might stop and have lunch or peruse the shops, boosting the town more generally.
I encourage the Government to consider the ways in which they can further help local councils with such plans to improve town centres. Regeneration is an important factor for the retail sector as a whole, and there are changes that could help, such as a local vision for delivering a change of use for properties. My most regular question in conversations with Mansfield District Council is: “What is your vision for the town centre? Where are we going to be in 10, 15 or 20 years?” I am not sure that we are yet clear about what exactly its plan is. On delivering such a vision, I have some idea of what I want it to look like. One of the challenges we face is adapting the physical space of town centres to fit this new market. We cannot rely on retail to fill every space in the way we once could; we need the flexibility to change things. Along with a local vision and local leadership, such flexibility needs some support.
One particular avenue that might be helpful—I hope this is a useful suggestion—is to consider the ways in which we could support local councils in relation to the compulsory purchase of buildings in town centres, where a positive plan has local approval. In Mansfield, a number of retail units on the edge of town are empty or dilapidated. I mentioned my office on Church Street, which is on the very edge of the town centre, and most of that area is made up of empty shops. The property values of these retail buildings have fallen, so many owners will not sell them or invest in them. They sit empty for years and years, but these sites are often ideal for development. They could be brought into use as new commercial or residential spaces, providing the small and more affordable properties that we need for local residents anyway. This would also move people into the town centre and boost footfall for other shops.
If the council was able to purchase such buildings and change their use, it would regenerate the edges of the town and help to fill units in the town centre. It would also bring properties that are often going to rack and ruin back into use, making the whole place more attractive and vibrant, and making it more of a place where people might be likely to come to and spend time. More and more, town centres should be a destination that we want to visit, as well as places for shopping.
For the many reasons I have laid out, I think the Government are working hard to support business generally and the retail sector, and it is important to note in all our comments that the retail sector is growing. The Conservative party is and always will be the champion for business, which drives our economy and creates jobs for my constituents. I hope Ministers will continue to be innovative and look across the board, including at my suggestion about compulsory purchase, at the ways in which we can continue to support local authorities and our small businesses in order to encourage the regeneration of our town centres.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman did very well in keeping to his seven minutes, but I am now imposing a formal limit of seven minutes to make sure that everyone’s time is protected.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I will aim not to disappoint, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As the name of my constituency suggests, there are two main towns, Ellesmere Port and Neston, both of which have a retail offer that is dramatically less than it was five years ago. However, we still have over 6,000 people employed in the retail industry in the constituency. The reason for that is the very successful Cheshire Oaks centre within our bounds. It was an answer that the local authority came up with in response to the ravages of the 1980s, when we lost so much manufacturing industry and there was a real recognition that we needed to broaden our employment base. The leaders of the council, Fred Venables and Reg Chrimes, both saw this as an opportunity, and it has transformed our area to the extent that we get 9 million or 10 million visitors a year, many from overseas. It is an expanding area, and it would be remiss of me not to mention that that has created a lot of employment in the constituency.
At the same time, however, we have had real challenges in our towns of Ellesmere Port and Neston. They are different in many ways—they have different demographics, transport links and ownership issues—but both have suffered in recent years from the changes in the retail market that we have heard about today. Neston, in particular, has now lost all its banks. That has undoubtedly had an effect on the high street not just for customers, but for other businesses that use local banks. I must say that the banks that have shut down have paid only lip service to improving services. They have made some very bizarre suggestions about people going to banks in other towns to which there are no public transport connections, and they have since talked about shutting down those branches as well.
We have also had transport issues, with real cuts to public bus services in recent times, which makes it difficult for people to get into the town. One particular example is of a shop owner working in Neston who is really concerned about the future of his business because he will not be able to get there if the bus service running from Ellesmere Port to Neston is stopped.
There have been some positives. In the Brook Street area, virtually all the shops were empty, but an organisation called Brightlife, which is funded through the lottery, managed to get a number of charities and good causes into those shops and brought back a bit of life to the area, which has made a real difference. Particularly innovative was the idea of moving the Little Actors into the jobcentre, which was an impressive way of finding a new use for an old building. That is all temporary, however, because it is all based on lottery funding and is not a permanent solution.
In Ellesmere Port, we have a bigger challenge because it is a bigger area to deal with. A lot more retail units are in private ownership, and many of them are too large for what retailers are looking for now. A lot of the big names have gone, and they just have not been replaced. As the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) has said, we need to look at different ways to promote interest in town centre food and leisure and the night-time economy, but the question is: how do we do that? I am concerned that local authorities do not have the capacity they once had to meet those challenges. My local council is looking at the One Public Estate programme, which will bring together different parts of the public sector, which will hopefully consolidate some jobs in the town. However, in terms of ownership, capital and vision, we are some way behind on delivering a new town centre for the future, and the Government’s industrial strategy is lacking in that regard.
If we do not take much more seriously the regeneration of our town centres, the inequalities and imbalance between towns and cities over recent years will continue to accelerate, and the feeling that a lot of people in towns have of not being as important as other parts of the country will continue to solidify.
As has been said, online sales put pressure on the retail sector, and about 21,000 jobs have been lost in the sector already this year. I also think that automation plays a part in that. Personally, I will not use an automated checkout; I think that every time we do that, we push shop people’s jobs a little bit closer to the exit door. I have read that £3 billion a year is being lost to retailers through theft as a result of abuse of those machines, which makes me wonder about the incentive for companies to install them. They cost retailers money, result in job losses and frustrate a lot of consumers. On a number of occasions, I have seen people having to call an assistant to get the machines to work properly. Perhaps it is the fact that the machines cannot join trade unions that makes them so attractive to companies.
Of course, I accept that companies have to do something to streamline their costs, because it is not a level playing field, as we have heard. Online retailers seem to have considerable advantages, not just in the way in which they are able to treat their staff but in how the business rates system works. I agree with the Secretary of State that town centres are an essential part of our character and identity. It is really important that we recognise that and that retail is only a part of it.
Certainly I have shown my commitment to my town centre in Ellesmere Port by placing my office there. The building had not been used for many years, but we got a grant to regenerate it and it is a signal of intent. That also shows that we have to look beyond the traditional retail offer to get life back into our high street. It has been under threat for many years, for myriad reasons. Retailers need to be given a fighting chance, but we cannot ignore the direction of travel in which online sales are leading us. We certainly cannot place all our eggs in the retail basket, so we have to reimagine and revitalise the town centre by offering something different and new to encourage people into it, not just to buy things but to experience things and to get back that sense of community for which I think most people yearn. In order to do that, we need to give local authorities the capacity, resources and authority to deliver, because austerity has put the skids under what they can do.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
Thank you for the welcome opportunity to contribute to this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also welcome the Opposition using their time to discuss these ideas, although obviously I do not agree with a number of things in their motion.
As many Members on both sides of the House have said, the fundamental point is that the high street and the retail sector are changing. Things are being done differently. We have to recognise that that is not something that we in this place can or should control to the extent suggested by some during the debate. The market is ultimately a market of people. It is a market of our electorate. It is our children, parents, friends and next-door neighbours. When we depersonalise these discussions, suggesting that things are being done to businesses, we miss the point that fundamental changes are taking place on the high street.
Every single job loss is a tragedy. I understand the concerns about, and the challenges created by, people having to do things that they were not previously required to do. Ultimately, however, we have to recognise that big trends and big changes are taking place. Ten years ago, 2% of our purchases were online; that figure is now 18% and it is only going to get bigger. As I said when the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) kindly allowed me to intervene on her, although challenges are created by jobs lost as a result of changes to the high street, many jobs are being created in other industries.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). He is a doughty campaigner and he made his point loudly and clearly, but there was an inherent, slight conservatism—he will not like me saying that—to some of his comments. I understand his point about automation, but so far it has created many more jobs than it has caused to be lost. I accept that his principles are valid and commend him for them—he said that he does not use the automated checkout—but if we were to resolutely adopt them, some would argue that we should not have come here by tube today or by train last week because they put people who kept horses 300 years ago out of business.
I do not seek to take the argument to the extreme, but the point is that we cannot stop progress. It is the responsibility of places such as this to discuss how we make sure that our constituencies are safeguarded to the best possible extent, but we must also recognise that there are trends happening that we should not stop or want to stop, because this is about how people want to live their lives, shop and interact with their local community, which is more important than we may think.
Like a number of Members who have spoken, I have a retail background. My father, just like the Secretary of State’s father, was a milkman. I spent most of my teenage years helping my parents on that milk round, often doing more early mornings than I particularly wanted to as a 15 and 16-year-old. I remember the town centre in my part of the world in Chesterfield when I was growing up. I delivered to shops such as Radio Rentals, which is no longer there because we no longer rent radios or need to do so. High streets have got to change. They have always developed. There is always a requirement to be careful about it, but we have to accept that change is inevitable.
That said, we also have to accept that we have to be cognisant of certain things. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about banks. I formerly worked in a bank. I understand their issues about making branches work, but they are adopting a short-sighted and wrong strategy regarding the removal of vital banking facilities from parts of the country. I have never understood why banks do not come together and share space so that everybody still has that vital link, with a desk for Santander and another for Barclays and any other bank that wants to join. We cannot simply channel everything through the post office, because that ends up with the ridiculous situation whereby it is always massively busy with far too few people to physically man it. We have discussed similar problems elsewhere on the high street as a result of an insufficient number of people.
I commend the Government’s work, particularly on town teams. I have some great town teams in my part of the world. Eckington town team spends an incredible amount of time organising events at Christmas and over summer to bring people into Eckington, where my office is located, and to encourage them to help and to see their local town centre and local village centre. Clay Cross town centre is doing the same thing. Clay Cross is the birthplace of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who is not in his seat. The area is now represented by a Conservative MP—[Interruption.] I had to get that one in. The town team has introduced initiatives such as “Clay Cross on the beach”. I would never have thought—and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would never have thought—that on a bank holiday weekend a load of sand would be put in the middle of Clay Cross, to encourage people to come. Such initiatives will make people choose that destination and show them the opportunities provided by their towns, including the shops and other possibilities. We in this place have to recognise that great work is going on elsewhere.
I do not want to suggest that there are no challenges. Local authorities in particular have a responsibility to do more. The local authority in my part of the world is completely shirking its responsibility to regenerate our town centre. A number of discussions are taking place, particularly in Dronfield. The town council is doing lots, and businesses want to do lots, but the district council is doing almost nothing and it should be called out for that.
There are challenges and difficulties, but we have to recognise that change is going to happen. We need to guide people through that, but we should not be afraid of those changes. The high street is going to change. It has always changed and it will change in the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I am afraid I must now reduce the time limit to six minutes.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Some 21,000 jobs in the retail sector were lost in the first three months of 2018 alone. In that time, we have seen Marks & Spencer announce plans to close 100 stores by 2020 and all 100 Toys R Us stores shut their doors. Just last month, we even heard that Poundworld will lose more than 100 stores, putting 1,500 jobs at risk.
The retailer that I wish to bring to the House’s attention today is Sainsbury’s. Since 1869, Sainsbury’s has been a pillar of the great British high street. Over 148 years, it has established a reputation as a leading retailer that looks after and out for its colleagues and customers. That is why the proposal by Sainsbury’s to force unscrupulous contract changes on its staff is so appalling. The organisation is hiding the scandalous terms of its new contracts under the guise of a supposed increase in basic pay and an artificial investment in its staff workforce, but here is the reality: 9,000 of Sainsbury’s most loyal and long-standing staff are set to lose up to £3,000 a year. How? Because Sainsbury’s is abolishing paid breaks, scrapping the Sunday premium pay, shortening the nightshift and even removing the employee bonus scheme. But that is only for shop-floor staff, of course: the executives will still receive their lucrative end-of-year bonuses. That does not sound like an investment in the staff workforce to me. Against all Sainsbury’s values, it sounds as if it is forcing thousands of dedicated staff to “work well for less”. Worst of all, those staff who refuse to sign the new contracts in September will be forced to resign.
Take Jayne, a night-shift worker at Sainsbury’s for more than 30 years. She is set to lose £2,000 a year. She loves her job and desperately wants to stay, but does not think she can afford to. She describes morale in her store as “at rock bottom” and tells me that she is beyond frustrated that her decades of loyal service appear to count for nothing. Or take Joe and Sam, husband and wife, who have shared three decades of service at Sainsbury’s. They rely on working the night shift and on Sundays, but anticipate that they will lose almost £6,000 a year under the proposals. That is a slap in the face for their loyalty and self-reliance, and for just about managing, as their work will simply no longer pay.
Finally, take Kate, who works in one of 150 branches of Argos that are now located inside Sainsbury’s stores. Unlike Sainsbury’s staff, Kate and her Argos colleagues will not receive an increase in their basic salary, and she can expect her hourly pay to be £1.20 less than that of her Sainsbury’s colleagues, despite working in the same store.
I took those cases, and dozens of others, to two meetings with Simon Roberts, retail and operations director at Sainsbury’s. He confirmed that thousands upon thousands of staff will lose out under the proposals, and described the most extreme cases as “anomalies”. I do not see them as anomalies; I see them as loyal, long-standing and hard-working employees who have dedicated decades of their lives to his organisation. How can a company that made a pre-tax profit of £589 million last year, with a CEO who receives £930,000 before bonuses, think it is right to force a pay cut on its most long-standing members of staff? Can the House imagine how furious those staff must have been to see their CEO, Mike Coupe, singing “We’re in the Money” on “ITV News”? He should be summoned urgently to justify his proposals before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
I draw the House’s attention to a staff-led petition on change.org, through which 122,000 colleagues and customers have called on Sainsbury’s to show some loyalty. The staff consultation is approaching its final stages and the voices of discontent are growing and amplifying. It is not too late for Sainsbury’s to rectify its increasingly damaged brand, for which its most loyal staff are made to “work well for less”.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a delight to speak in this debate. Ironically, if I was not here, I would be back in Torbay, helping to present the “Love Your High Street” awards. One recipient was the Kind Grind in Lucius Street in Torquay and another was a bar called Peaky Blinders in Winner Street in Paignton; both areas are famous for independent shops. This is a welcome opportunity to debate retail, particularly given its importance for many communities up and down the country. Given some of the campaign leaflets that I see in my constituency, it is rather odd that no Liberal Democrat Members were present for the first two hours of the debate, but I shall move on.
Let me start with our town centres, and particularly the internet’s impact on them. No one is going to be able to roll back the digital tide. Most of us have in our pockets a phone with which we could order the entire contents of a department store, a do-it-yourself store and a supermarket literally while we are sat here, if we so wished. The internet has also brought services and products into areas that in the past would have found it difficult to access them. That does, though, present a challenge to our high streets. There is no longer a need to go to the town centre and in future people will mostly go there out of choice, particularly as technology becomes more and more simple. We can heckle and make party political points, but that will not affect the change. It is therefore even more important that we look into what we can do not only to make town centres attractive places for those who still depend on them for their goods, but places to which people would go out of choice to go into a local shop and have an experience.
One thing that came out of the Tesco burger scandal was that a lot of people reconnected with the desire to know where their food comes from and what it is. A lot of local butchers had a boost that they had not had for a long time as people realised that there was something about going to a shop and speaking to a local business that could tell them almost from which cow the joint or product they were buying came.
There is a real need to look into what we can do to shape town centres as places. Rates can be a double-edged sword. They clearly have impacts on businesses, and there is a debate for the long run about how sustainable the existing business-rates model is, given that it is based on an era in which that corner on the high street was the best place to be—hence the location of a lot of Victorian buildings that became banks—and a crinkly shed on the edge of town was not very profitable at all—
Kevin Foster
No, I will not, because the hon. Lady was not present for almost the first two hours of the debate.
The business rates system is now not all that appropriate, even though it was appropriate for the shopping patterns of the 1950s. Of course, if we look at it the other way around, by retaining business rates and taking the growth in them, councils can fund exactly the kind of regeneration that is needed in our town centres. So there is a double-edged sword for local authorities in respect of how business rates can be used in future. The existing structure is certainly not all there.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) about the need to tackle long-term derelict properties in town centres. I think particularly of one in Paignton called Crossways, which is a pretty poor example of a 1960s shopping centre. It keeps going only because of the car park there, the mobile masts on top of it and a lease that was particularly badly negotiated by one retailer, which is still paying even though it shut its shop in the centre some years ago.
The problem with the existing compulsory purchase rules is that yes, in theory a council can get hold of a property like that to push forward regeneration, but the rules are cumbersome. I fully accept that there needs to be protection for people’s private property, particularly their homes, but if commercial properties—no one’s home—have been empty for many years, there comes a point at which it would make sense to make it much simpler for councils to compulsorily purchase properties in order to deal with eyesores. That simplification could be subject to protections based on how long a property has been empty, rather than on values and costs. Some owners almost rely on the fact that their property is such an eyesore that one day someone—I am thinking particularly the taxpayer—might pay a significant amount to have it dealt with.
It is right that local authorities play their part. Torbay Council is starting to look at the future of planning for our town centres, particularly in respect of Torquay, where there is a debate about its size and what we can do to revitalise it by bringing in residences and expanding student accommodation, particularly around the language colleges. That could bring a second wave of life to the town centre. We also need to deal with older, poor-quality office accommodation which, if replaced by new accommodation, could bring jobs and employment back into the town centre and provide the stimulus of people who work in the town centre then shopping, eating and drinking in the town centre after work or on their lunch break.
There is a positive story to be told about the future of our town centres, but they will be very different from what we have seen in the past. People will not use them out of necessity, so they will need to be encouraged to use them out of choice. There will still need to be essential services, such as local post offices and a network of local banks, but we need to be conscious that just standing in the way of technological progress is a strategy that will be as successful as it was for the Luddites who tried to argue against industrialisation 200 years ago. The Government can make a difference through their business rate policy, by giving local authorities more powers and by making it clear that there is still a retail success story in the future.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am very pleased to be able to speak in this debate, because 4,000 of my constituents work in retail. There are now more shop workers in my constituency than there were miners 50 years ago, although I have some questions about the quality of some of those jobs: the short hours, the low pay, and the constantly changing shifts that are forced on people. I found it very ugly to hear that people were given short shifts to, as their managers said, keep them hungry for extra hours. The problem is that in my constituency people are going to food banks—they are literally being kept hungry.
We need to look at bank holidays. It would be really good if Boxing day was a bank holiday, alongside Christmas day. Christmas day is often ruined for many shop workers, because they have to get up so early on Boxing day to rush in and reorder stores in time for the sales. [Interruption.] It is not a statutory bank holiday for people who work in shops.
High streets are very important and they can have a very significant impact on people’s wellbeing. In my constituency, a large number of people are working in a new out-of-town development in Tindale Crescent. The truth is that Shildon, Bishop Auckland and Spennymoor are all seeing a fading away of their town centres. There are good butchers and good bakers, but the overall picture is one of decline. There were a lot of closures after the post-crash recession, but we thought that things would come back. They have not come back and they continue to decline. If I may say so, I thought the Secretary of State’s opening speech was verging on the complacent. The question is: why are these shops closing and what is to be done about it?
The first issue is the shift to online sales. The Government have failed completely to set a level playing field on tax. John Lewis raised this problem at least three years ago. There should be a turnover tax for Amazon, Google and other big online retailers. I agree with the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) that we should move to that urgently.
The second problem is the very significant fall in wages across the British economy between 2007 and 2015—a 7% drop in real terms. We are not going to get back to pre-crash levels until 2024 and earnings are down £1,400 per person. That is bound to have an effect on what people can spend. In my constituency in County Durham, cuts to child benefit, tax credits, employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance and disability allowances are all having a very serious impact on my constituents’ incomes. Obviously, they have less money in their pockets to spend. Moreover, the Government keep telling us that employment is rising. In my constituency, the increase in unemployment in the past 12 months has been 29%. We are not being compensated for all those wage cuts with extra jobs.
A third issue affecting the modern high street was raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry): the unequal roll-out of broadband and the lack of access to wi-fi. This is a problem for the shops themselves and it makes town centres particularly unattractive to young people who like to be able to communicate using social media when they go out and about. The Government’s ineptitude in rolling out broadband equally, without notspots, across the country is a real problem in Shildon, Spennymoor and Bishop Auckland.
The fourth problem is cuts to public services. My constituency has seen the loss of a driving test centre, a magistrates court and a tax office—all from Bishop Auckland town centre. The next thing to go is the registry where you can get married. The swimming pool in Shildon has gone. A sixth form is going in Spennymoor, which means young people after school will spend their time and money in Durham city instead. We need a conscious strategy for these towns. When public services are always centralised in cities, it denudes small towns of the life that then has a positive, second-round effect on shops and retail. When the footfall to other public services drops, fewer people are there to go shopping.
The private sector is no better. Many hon. Members have complained about bank closures. We had another depressing meeting yesterday with RBS. Barclays is closing a branch in Spennymoor. HSBC closed the last branch in Shildon. That is bad for shops and bad for small businesses. I would like Ministers to look at changing competition rules, so that banks can share branches in small towns. At the moment, the banks want to be able to run on their current branding. Ministers rely on competition. There is a market failure and we need to put the public interest first. I would like to see a change in the competition rules.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the problem of business rates. Beales in my constituency closed for precisely this reason. Hon. Members have spoken about the importance of compulsory purchase. I agree completely. We could have had a much speedier redevelopment in Spennymoor had the council been able to compulsorily purchase the private Festival Walk in Spennymoor town centre.
I do not want to leave hon. Members with the idea that good things are not going on in the towns in my constituency. Auckland Castle in Bishop will be a fantastic tourist opportunity and the 1825 celebrations in Shildon of the Stockton to Darlington line will enable us to make the most of the heritage action zone. There are pluses as well as minuses.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
On the high street, there are very few things sadder than a boarded up storefront. It is the sign of a dream denied, a lost opportunity and of course lost jobs. I will not deny that in Stirling city centre we are finding it tough. On Friday afternoon, I spent some time with Lisa Sneddon, the owner of the Bluebell Teashop. I recommend it to all hon. Members—indeed, it is obligatory—when they visit Stirling. She told me of her concerns about the state of Stirling city centre. Those concerns will be all too visible to anyone who visits it.
The pressures on city centre businesses have perhaps been compounded by the temporary closure of the Kerse Road bridge crossing. The bridge is being replaced as part of the electrification of the railway. It has undoubtedly been much quieter in the city centre of late, and there has been a discernible drop in footfall. King Street is a particularly sad sight. This is the street that leads up to the castle. Stirling Castle is one of the most popular tourist attractions in the entire country, and it should be a lively thoroughfare, but since the loss of McAree’s department store, which had been on that site for 123 years, there has been a definite drop in footfall on the street and in the number of businesses taking up the slack. Among its reasons for closing, McAree’s cited the Scottish Government’s rates system and specifically mentioned the large business supplement—not really a large business supplement, but a large property supplement. In one year, its large business tax rose to £27,000, and that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
In the last two weeks alone, at least six other stores have closed in the city centre, including Toys R Us, which has been mentioned; Maplin; The Boozy Cow; The Fat Cyclist—interesting names betraying the fact that these were individually owned and independent businesses; and Mr. Simm’s Olde Sweet Shoppe. All have closed their doors for good, and I cannot deny that I am concerned. It came to light yesterday in a report entitled “Retail and Leisure Trends Report”, from the Local Data Company, that 520 units on the high streets in Scotland had closed in the previous year—more than anywhere else in the UK, including Greater London. I have already mentioned what David Lonsdale, director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, had to say about those numbers.
There is undoubtedly a way to save our city centres. They can have a bright future, Stirling city centre can have a bright future, but the city centre needs to be skilful and repurposed. I will work with anyone who can help bring it back to its former glory. The landscape is changing, and bricks and mortar retailers must move with that change. People are buying online, and that is not only about choice; it is also about the convenience of shopping when and where the consumer chooses; it is a simple and relatively hassle-free experience.
Leigh Sparks, professor of retail studies at the University of Stirling, has called on retailers to demonstrate a more imaginative approach to customer experience, to create new concepts of retailing that stimulate consumers and to make their stores must-visit attractions in their own right. He has talked about retailers that have not done a particularly good job, among them Toys R Us. He said that
“when Toys R Us came to Britain, it was innovative and new. Yet the Toys R Us you see today is pretty much…the same as it was when it first opened—it hasn’t grown or offered the consumer anything new. The current pressure on retailing is weeding out the poorer retailers. We will undoubtedly be left with a smaller landscape. If it is smaller and becomes concentrated so it provides spaces that people want to use, then it will be a better landscape.”
I concur.
We need to see our city centres differently. We need to do much more to bring people to them, and that means that businesses need to work together in the business improvement districts already mentioned—we have one in Stirling city centre—to make the city centre a compelling and irresistible proposition, a positive destination. That means creating an experience that supersedes the perceived benefits—convenience and price—of shopping online. The high street needs to be more about retail experiences—entertainment, food, independent stores—that people want to have.
We cannot have more of what the Americans call “cookie cutter” department stores—where someone can close their eyes and spin around and find it difficult to identify which town they are in. We need more variety and to entice people not only to visit city centres, such as Stirling city centre, but to live in them. We need to make that possible. People living in the city centre will bring life and vibrancy to an important civic space, and public policies that create the right conditions for the revival and prosperity of the high street are now overdue.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I confess I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I realised that week in, week out my constituents consistently talk about the state of Grimsby town centre. It is an issue on the doorstep and in my surgery. They all want something done about it. People in Grimsby are incredibly passionate about their town, are filled with pride for it, but they are losing hope that things are on the up. I agree with some of the comments from the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr): the impression they get reflects on how they feel not only about their town but about themselves, and seeing things in a state of decline and disrepair has a negative impact on the sense of community.
The town centre is where most people from out of town get dropped off on the bus or the train—obviously, there are car-parking facilities as well—and serves the needs of a much wider population than that of the immediate Grimsby town. Lots of people from lots of neighbouring villages visit for a variety of reasons, whether to meet their health needs, to shop, to use the libraries, or whatever. The first thing they see, however, when they get off their bus or train is boarded-up shops. I intervened on the Secretary of State when he said that retailers were not failing. If closed shops are a sign of success, God only knows what failure looks like! It cannot be right that there are so many vacant properties across town and city centres that seem to have no planned future use.
People understand that their consumer habits have changed—as they wait for their deliveries from online retailers, or in a queue to collect them because they were not at home—and that this has had an impact on the high street. Grimsby has a big shopping centre, Freshney Place, and its manager, Amanda Austin, has done a huge amount to attract new retailers, but it feels like she is fighting a losing battle.
We have lost, not just from Freshney Place but more broadly across the town: Mothercare; Maplin; BHS—of course; GAME; Trade Nation; Starbucks—it came back again, but it left for a while; Radio Humberside—it had a property from which it ran the local radio service, meaning the town felt connected to the BBC and the local news service, and it felt like there was some investment from the outside; and the Co-op bank—interesting that it is opening up new supermarkets, but its banking facility has gone; while the RBS will be closing soon. I wrote to RBS about a continuing service, and it was very regretful, but it does not seem to take seriously the impact it will have more broadly not only on its business but on the whole town and area. We have also lost Homebase, Muffin Break and Cycle Mode—a lovely independent high-end cycle retailer. These shops all seem to have been replaced by vape shops, money lenders, charity shops and hairdressers—Members probably could not tell looking at my roots. [Interruption.] I have not quite managed to find the time yet.
However, we are not doing nothing. There are some brave independents that have set out to establish new businesses, but that tends to happen in the café market. As with supermarkets, we are surely at saturation point. There will come a time when we do not need any more cafés—when we do not need to eat any more cakes or drink any more tea, lovely as that is and excellent as those providers are. The future of our town centres cannot be entirely based on that. I mentioned saturation point. We have two Tesco Extras, a Sainsbury’s, two Lidls, two Aldis, and a Morrisons—whose move to a continental shift pattern is having a huge impact on individual members of staff—but those are not the high street, and relying on them for the future of our town economies seems utterly ludicrous to me.
In Grimsby, 4,500 people are employed in retail: about 11% of the working sector. Let me use my final seconds to say to the Minister—unsurprisingly—that we are trying to pioneer a town deal that will bring together all the elements that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Stirling. We are talking about repurposing the whole town centre: introducing entertainment to create a new night-time economy, adapting buildings for housing, and creating a heritage action zone that will feed into the centre. We are not sitting idly by and hoping that things will get better. We are trying to future- proof our town centre, but we are asking for help from the Government, and we are not being shy about it. We need some money—and can we have it soon, please?
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a great privilege to follow all the other Members who have spoken.
May I take you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on a journey to Redditch? I do not know whether you have ever been there—
Rachel Maclean
I am sure that you went there back in 2010, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those were happy days, with former colleagues. You will have seen the wonderful traffic-free roads that lead to Redditch. It is a new town, which was built in a moment of hope to accommodate people who were moving out of Birmingham and from elsewhere in the country. They wanted to come to Redditch to build a home. You will drive smoothly to the town centre, because there is no traffic holding you up: you can go straight past the islands. When you reach the town centre, you will park your car at the Kingfisher shopping centre. You will walk through that wonderful shopping centre, which is privately owned and very well run, and is doing a lot of work to attract new retailers. It is an example of excellence in our town centre.
Unfortunately, however, when you leave the Kingfisher shopping centre, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will go out into the old part of the town, where you will observe a scene almost identical to the one described by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn). You will see boarded-up shops and graffiti—not the trendy kind for which people pay good money, but the kind that we really do not want. You will see underpasses leading nowhere, the sort that you do not want to go through. That is a great shame, and it affects people’s impression of the town. They are passionate about Redditch, they love it with all their heart, but they want it to compete on a level playing field with other shopping centres that are only 10 or 15 minutes’ drive away, in Solihull and Birmingham.
At present our town centre is struggling, partly because, unfortunately, the leaders of Redditch Borough Council—sadly run by Labour, until the local elections last month—have not grasped the many opportunities that are at their fingertips to improve things for local residents. The Conservative-run county council went to Redditch and asked its council, “What is your vision for your town?” A number of successful, thriving towns in the rest of Worcestershire are using Government funds to make improvements. One example is Hereford, with its university of technology, its specialist area. Another is Kidderminster, with its incredibly successful ReWyre partnership which is driving investment in the town. Before that, it was haemorrhaging people because no carpets are made there any more.
Redditch used to be a centre of needle manufacturing, but what did the local Labour leadership come up with? I am sorry to say that the best it could come up with was the £800,000 that it spent on paving a yellow brick road on the high street. What good does that do in the face of all the challenges so eloquently outlined by Members in all parts of the House? What does it do to drive investment into our town centre? What does it say to the new business investors, the entrepreneurs who are putting their life savings at risk? There is, for example, Rees Café, which serves the most amazing vegan brownies. There is Heaphys Menswear, one of the oldest independent retailers in Redditch. There is Sew Fab, which purveys wonderful sewing kits—not that I have time to sew. What does that say to them? It does not give them a vision of hope for a town centre. It is just blocks on a road. It is absolutely useless.
That is the tragedy of the Labour council, but now we are turning over a new leaf. People really want to see Redditch thriving. Our whole message to the people of Redditch is that we need to—and can—unlock Redditch. It will take time—we appreciate that, but we need to work together. We need to create an environment where local leadership is welcoming people into the town and encouraging entrepreneurs to thrive. That is what we need in Redditch, and not this approach from Labour with a lack of imagination and no vision for our town.
This has been a great opportunity to have this debate and to make points to the Minister. On business rates, in common with others, I really welcome the work that he has done, which I believe will see £2.3 billion of business rates being saved by our local businesses, but please can we keep that work up? Businesses up and down the country are going to welcome that.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The motion before us today is somewhat rambling, dare I say. It has three parts. It is about squeezing wage growth, the condition of the retail sector, and there is a bit of Brexit put in as well—but we will have 12 hours next week to discuss that. Generally, however, what the Opposition are putting forward is that the Government should do more. They should spend more, subvert reality and revert this country to a command and control economy.
Let us look at wage growth, because we have had so much misdirection and ignorance of the truth regarding that. I think that the Opposition hope that if they say it often enough, people might believe it, but I recommend that they look at the facts. Let us look at a hypothetical, lower-paid employee. In 2010, the national minimum wage for those over 21 was just £5.80. Today, in 2018, it is £7.83; that is a 35% rise. Let us look at the income tax personal allowance. When we came into Government in 2010—we were left to pick up a lot of mess by Labour—the tax-free allowance was just £6,475. Today, in 2018-19, it is £11,850; that is an 83% rise in the tax-free band. Let us put those together. A 35-hour-a-week lower-paid employee at minimum wage in 2010 would have had take-home pay, after tax, of just £9,740, but today, the minimum wage and that huge increase in the tax-free allowance means that their take-home pay is £13,768. That is over £4,000 in real cash in the pockets of the lower paid under this Government. That represents a 41.4% increase in take-home pay.
Wera Hobhouse
It is, however, about the balance between the two. In relatively successful towns or very successful cities such as Bath, which I represent, shops are still doing fine but life is more expensive, so the balance of what people take home as pay and what they have to spend to live in an expensive city is much higher, too. The balance of the two, even in good, successful town centres such as Bath—and it is not that successful—is not right.
Craig Mackinlay
I thank the hon. Lady. Today’s debate is about the retail sector and wages. I was going to say that 41.4% over eight years is 5% a year, which is greater than any measure of inflation, no matter which one people care to mention, so there has been a real cash increase to all those working. We have the lowest unemployment since the 1970s and more people in work today than we have ever had in the history of this nation. I am afraid that we must stop listening to the misinformation from the Opposition. Their statements are simply not true. Real wages are rising.
In the retail sector, as we have heard, we have had business rates relief and changes from RPI to CPI, which will mean a reduction of over £2 billion to those who have retail stores. During this Parliament over 600,000 businesses will pay no business rates whatsoever, and in the first half of 2017, more retail units were opened than closed. There are 300,000 more in employment in the retail sector than in 2016.
That does not mean that everything is rosy on the high street, but when we consider what the Government did in 2008, when they took this country into probably the worst recession that it has ever known, in the third quarter of 2008 alone, there was a 4.2% decrease compared with the year before. That happened in just one quarter under Labour; that is what they condemned this country to.
The real debate here is the changing face of retail, and the internet is the reason for that. With spending now at £1.2 billion per week, 17% of all spending is now on internet purchases, and that is a 12% year-on-year increase. That is not unique to Britain, but is happening across the entire world.
That is the reality of life, and we are all guilty of fuelling it. If I want a shirt like the one I am wearing but in blue with a 34 inch arm and a 15½ inch collar and I want it delivered tomorrow, ordering that will take me three minutes, and it will be delivered. We are all purchasing in that way now; unfortunately, we are all fuelling the changes to the high street.
We have had debates about banking in the House, and I have taken part. Our banking landscape is changing, sadly, because we are all being encouraged on to mobile apps and mobile banking. Also, when did anyone in this House last book their flights in a high street travel agent?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I used a travel agent in the centre of Grimsby in April.
Craig Mackinlay
Well done to my hon. Friend; I am afraid I am not as reliable in buying my travel tickets on the high street as he obviously is.
When did Members last browse property prices on the internet? We do not do that so much in a high street shop any longer; it is likely to be on the internet now. The reality is that in current retail there is a far higher spend per staff member on new internet retailing such as Amazon than on the high street. It is also likely that there are higher costs on high street stores per square foot than on warehouse-style retailing.
Things are changing. We have a 20th-century tax system that looks at bricks and mortar and taxing things. Part of the formula for addressing this issue must be that we tax more appropriately the abstract activities of internet retailers and warehousing. When I go on the high street in Ramsgate the retailers say they do not feel that the big online retailers are paying their fair share.
Craig Mackinlay
No, as we are nearly at the end of the debate.
The high street simply needs to redefine itself. High streets need to create themselves as places to go for a pleasurable afternoon—to do some browsing and shopping, but to enjoy the experience as well. That means there is a duty on councils and the retailers themselves to make the high streets clean, attractive and somewhere good to go.
My answers to this conundrum are that we should revise taxation of retail more towards the internet and warehousing-style operations, focus on making high streets places to go for an experience, and in many cases, such as in Ramsgate, high streets are too spread out and too big, and they need to be smaller to become the vibrant heart of the town. We all need to shop locally, too; that will help.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The retail sector faces a challenging and testing environment. The high cost of business rates alongside the challenge of online retailing for high street shops, the long-term squeeze on household incomes, the squeeze on pay and loss of retail jobs, and the failure to provide clarity to business on the future of our relationships with the outside world: these are all key factors where the Government should have something to say, but also where the Government could and should take action. They are all areas, however, where this Government have been found wanting.
I thank colleagues on the Opposition Benches for their contributions. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on the high number of her constituents employed in retail—a quarter of the jobs in her constituency. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on the importance of balancing the high-quality, out-of-town shopping centre at Cheshire Oaks with the high street, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), to whom I pay tribute for the fine work she has done in standing up for workers at Sainsbury’s. We also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), who both spoke of the difficult challenges being faced in our high streets. One of the themes that has come out of this debate is the difficulty created by a two-tier economy, not least in retail, between our cities and our towns, particularly the smaller ones.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Would my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems in market towns is that the ownership is often with distant landowners who are more interested in speculative development than in improving retail opportunities?
Bill Esterson
That is a very good point, and it has also been made by other Members today. Where is the strategy, not only for retail but for our towns, and for our high streets in particular?
Bill Esterson
Indeed; as my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland also said in the debate, there is no such strategy.
In the response to the urgent question on Marks & Spencer on 24 May, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), said that the Government had set up a new Retail Sector Council, but why has that taken so long? Why did it take eight years to create that council? What is needed now is action. Business rates are a huge fixed cost for businesses in our high streets, and that is a disadvantage that their larger online-only rivals do not have to contend with. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), will no doubt say that there have been changes to business rates, but those changes have made matters worse for many businesses, particularly smaller ones. Last year’s revaluation resulted in an average rates increase for smaller shops of £3,363 over the next five years.
The Government commissioned Mary Portas—remember her?—to tell them how to re-energise high streets. How is that going? Not so well. Her report recommended cuts to business rates, not the massive hikes that so many are experiencing. Meanwhile, ASOS reports its profits going up 26% while its rates bill fell by £30,000. Rates rises for our brilliant independent retailers alongside rates cuts for the multinational online retailers are hardly the stuff of fair competition or a level playing field. There was very little in the Secretary of State’s opening speech about independent retailers, yet smaller firms in all sectors, including retail, are crucial to the future economic success of this country. The Association of Convenience Stores has stated that
“the cost of business rates remains too high”.
And what about the fact that investors in retail are put off by the high cost of business rates? The Government should be doing so much more to ensure the right balance between high street, online and out-of-town retail, and we need to see that happening in the sector deal when it comes forward.
That brings me to the retail workforce. There are 2.9 million people working in retail and the sector is worth £94.6 billion to the economy. It is where many people develop their first experience of the world of work, and it is often the source of good-quality employment in businesses large and small, but the pressures on retailers are starting to show. We have seen job losses at Toys R Us, Maplin, M&S, Conviviality and maybe now House of Fraser, and CVAs and profit warnings at many others. We have seen 21,000 jobs go in the first three months of this year alone, and cuts in pay and conditions at companies such as Sainsbury’s, which has ended paid breaks and premium pay. Yes, there has been a rise in the hourly rate, but it has been offset by cuts in workers’ rights, adding up to a pay cut for too many people.
Ministers could and should be working closely with campaigning unions such as USDAW, GMB and Unite, which are doing such a good job on behalf of workers’ rights and on campaigns such as Freedom from Fear. It is in the interests of responsible retailers and of the whole economy for the Government to play their part in ensuring that workers are treated fairly. A high-pay economy is good for workers, but it is also good for business because workers are also consumers who buy goods and services from retailers. It makes economic sense to prevent the exploitation of workers, not least in the large distribution centres. It was simple complacency for the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth to imply in her answer to the urgent question on 24 May that M&S staff could just go and work at Amazon, complete with its airport-style security and unpaid toilet breaks.
I am afraid that it was also simple complacency for the Secretary of State to say earlier that retail employment was going up. There are 2,500 fewer retail stores than there were three years ago. According to the Office for National Statistics, 40,000 fewer staff were working in retail in 2016 compared with 2015. The British Retail Consortium says that its figures show from 2015 to 2017 the number of jobs fell by 73,000. Meanwhile, the average hours worked in January to March 2018 were 30.2 a week, which is a fall of 30 minutes on the previous year.
Those figures are a cause for concern, not complacency, and are indicative of an overall decline in retail employment. The Government should be doing so much more to improve productivity. As in other sectors, it is true in retail that skills and investment in infrastructure and new technology are the keys to better productivity, and that needs to lead to better-paid jobs as well as more profitable businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) set out some ideas for how to boost pay. The British Retail Consortium has its “better jobs” agenda, and I refer the Business Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to its excellent report. Productivity gains from cuts to workers’ pay and conditions or to the prices paid to suppliers are short term and characterise the lack of economic progress under the Government, not least in retail.
That brings me to our relationship with the outside world. Frictionless trade is vital for the import of perishable goods. It is vital for the supply chain in the car industry, where components cross the border multiple times. Car retailers need certainty, as do our supermarkets, because 79% of food is imported by retailers. Certainty is needed for retailers to plan for the trading arrangements post Brexit. Arrangements at the Port of Dover, Holyhead, Liverpool and across the country will play a huge role not only in business life, but in daily life, and retail is one of the sectors that most affects daily life.
Warnings of empty shelves need to be heeded. Consumer choice will be badly affected—dramatically so—if border arrangements are adversely affected. The Government’s failure to confirm their preferred negotiating position with our European partners is causing real problems. Many retailers rely on foreign workers. It is not just the highest-qualified EU workers who need assurances that they are welcome in this country. Workers in lower-paid sectors, including retail, need the same assurances and so do businesses. Some 22% of retailers report that foreign workers have left since the referendum. It is time for clarity.
Bill Esterson
No.
The Government need to make up their mind, stop negotiating with themselves and start negotiating with the EU for a deal that puts jobs and the economy first and that is not just in the interests of a handful of extreme Brexiteers in the Conservative party. Let us have a proper sector deal that sees action, not just words. Let us see the Government make a proper commitment to retail. Three mentions of the sector in a White Paper do not inspire confidence in the Government’s commitment to retail businesses or workers.
Let us have a deal with thriving town centres, not crippled communities, and one that addresses the concerns of the British Retail Consortium, which describes a sector in stasis, where vacancies are going up. Let us see a deal that reverses the long-term decline. Let us see proper business rate reforms that include the switch to CPI-measured inflation, encouraging innovation and growth, that exempt new investment in machinery from valuations and that ensure businesses can access a proper, comprehensive appeals process. We need a deal that has smaller independent retailers at its heart and one that supports retail by investing in skills, in education and in an immigration system that brings in the skills this country needs. We want a deal that takes on board Labour’s plans for a catapult centre for retail, that listens to the views of employers and unions and that promotes the best outcomes for workers, communities, consumers and businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Andrew Griffiths)
It is a delight to get to the Dispatch Box at last, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will indulge me and allow me to answer some of the important points that have been made in this excellent debate. I thank the Opposition for bringing it forward. It is clear that there is strong agreement across the House that the retail sector is vital to our economy, our local communities and the many thousands of constituents who rightly rely on the sector for their livelihoods.
I will quickly address some of the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members in this debate. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), in an interesting speech that particularly focused on Brexit for a change, raised the issue of austerity but forgot to remind the House that, as a result of changes to lift the lowest paid in society out of paying tax and as a result of the biggest increase in the national minimum wage and the national living wage for 10 years, those on the lowest pay are now £3,800 a year better off—that is thanks to the policies of this Government.
The hon. Gentleman understandably raised an important point about the pay of the youngest in society. I share his desire to ensure that young people are fairly paid, but he forgot to mention that unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is persistently higher than among those aged 25 and over—12.1% compared with 3.1% across the country. The unemployment rate for 16 to 17-year-olds is 26.9%. Increasing pay would make it more difficult for young workers, whose priority is to get their first years on the job ladder, to secure work.
Andrew Griffiths
I know the points the hon. Gentleman will make, so I hope he will forgive me if I do not allow him to intervene. Time is pressing.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) made an interesting speech in which he talked particularly about the loss of banks. Although I share his concern, he will know the Government have invested some £370 million in the post office network, which now provides both business and retail banking. I am sure he values the contribution that that is making to the important post office network across our communities.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) had a shopping list of questions, which is apt in a debate on retail, but, as with all shopping lists from the Labour party, it had a huge price tag attached. She asked for Boxing day to be a bank holiday for retail workers, but she forgot to mention that that would cost employers an extra £1.2 billion.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of competition policy and the banks being able to share premises. As I understand it, there is no competition policy issue that would prevent banks from sharing premises—they would obviously have to be careful about sharing data and personal information. If she has other concerns, I will be delighted to talk to her. Perhaps she could drop me a little note on her concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) made an interesting speech, particularly on “Love Your High Street,” which he is championing. I hope he will be getting free beer at the Peaky Blinders bar after he mentioned it. He made a particular point on the need to revitalise our high streets and change the way they are purposed, and I absolutely agree.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) raised the sad loss of The Boozy Cow and The Fat Cyclist Café, which are a great loss to us all. He also raised the important issue of the need for innovation in our town and city centres.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) again raised the Grimsby town deal, about which she cares passionately. She also raised the issue of coffee shops and said that surely we cannot eat any more cake—there are hon. Members present who might disagree. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) made some particularly important points, for which I am grateful.
Let us reflect on the recent structural changes in the sector and on the announcements we have had of late. There has been a shift in consumer behaviour, and we need to be aware of that shift. The move towards new technology is a great innovator and it provides great opportunities, but it also provides great challenges. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for his campaign for free parking, which is an excellent proposal. He is standing up for his local residents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) mentioned Labour’s yellow brick road, and on the folly of the Labour party, I point to the problems of Cannock Chase District Council, which is now trying to charge hard-working independent retailers £85 just for having an A-board to advertise their shops. That is the Labour party getting in the way of private business, as usual.
Many Members mentioned the key issue of business rates. The Government are aware of the wider business rates concerns and are looking to address them. We undertook the last fundamental review of business rates in 2016, announcing reforms worth £9 billion. A further £4.3 billion package was announced at the spring Budget in 2017, including £110 million to support 16,000 small businesses. I hope that Members from across this House will join me in celebrating Small Business Saturday later this year to try to support small high street retailers.
The Secretary of State mentioned the Retail Sector Council, which I am chairing, and the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) asked whether we were working with USDAW. I should point out to him that USDAW sits on the RSC and is making a great contribution, and we are grateful for its support. The RSC will look at the issue of business rates, as per our manifesto commitment.
We all recognise the importance of retail and the contribution it makes, not just to the UK economy, but to our communities up and down the country, and the people it employs. I reassure the House that we will continue to work with the unions, the retail sector, local government and everyone else concerned to make sure that the retail industry across the UK has a bright future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that 21,000 jobs were lost in the retail sector in the first three months of 2018 due to store closures and company administrations, with more announced since; further notes that the retail sector is one of the largest employers in the UK and contributed £94.6 billion to the UK economy in 2016; regrets that the Government’s industrial strategy contains only three references to the retail sector; further regrets that the Government has presided over the biggest squeeze in wage growth in a generation, is failing to provide certainty around future trading arrangements after Brexit and has failed to ensure a fair business rates system; and calls on the Government to urgently publish a strategy for the retail sector.
Rural Crime and Public Services
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House is concerned that the level of rural crime remains high; notes research by the National Famers’ Union that rural crime cost the UK economy £42.5 million in 2015; recognises that delivering public services across large, sparsely populated geographical areas can be more costly and challenging than in urban areas; agrees with the National Rural Crime Network that it is vital that the voice of the countryside is heard; calls on the Government to ensure that the personal, social and economic costs of crime and anti-social behaviour in rural areas are fully understood and acted upon; and further calls on the Government to ensure that rural communities are not disadvantaged in the delivery or quality of public services.
In the public imagination and in international reputation, rural Britain is a place of near meadows, still streams and sleepy villages, but the challenges facing it and its police forces are significant and unique. Although media coverage and our political attention this year has, understandably, focused on metropolitan areas, particularly London, given the horrifying spate of serious violence and of growing crimes associated with mopeds, that is not to say that the crimes experienced by victims in our rural communities do not matter. Indeed, one of the greatest challenges our policing model faces is its ability to provide a consistent service to every victim, and indeed offender, regardless of where they live.
There is perhaps a sense that has crept in, as budget cuts bite, that rural crime is more trivial, but as we will hear today from many Members representing rural constituencies, not only do we face the traditional types of rural crime, but crime is mutating and rural communities are no longer immune to serious crime. In the most recent year for which figures are available, more than 88,000 farm animals were snatched by thieves, amounting to more than £6 million in lost stock to farmers, with the consequential impacts on our rural economy. Last year, Humberside police spent 1,200 hours battling hare coursing, with more than 500 reports of the crime in the 2017-18 season. The pursuit has been illegal since the Hunting Act 2004 and it involves “sighthounds” such as lurchers, greyhounds or salukis being set on hares, often with large sums bet on the outcome. Dealing with this is resource intensive for rural forces but it is necessary to respond, as the practice intimidates local communities and has significant criminal and antisocial behaviours associated with it.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. County Durham is a large rural area—my constituency comprises 300 square miles—yet our police have been cut by 25%. Is she satisfied that the formula for policing adequately takes account of the difficulties of pursuing policing in a rural area?
Louise Haigh
It may not surprise my hon. Friend to know that I am deeply unsatisfied with the resources available for policing and with the funding formula on which we base our police funding at the moment. She makes an important point. On recent visits to forces in the south-west, I was particularly struck by the challenges facing police in huge rural areas, such as those in her constituency.
In the Devon and Cornwall force, not only is the chief constable responsible for an area of almost 4,000 square miles, but he—and in this case it is a he—is also responsible for 500 miles of coastline and for 10 miles out to sea. That is an incredible challenge when we consider that my old force, the Met, has 44 officers per square mile, while Devon and Cornwall has 0.7 officers per square mile. In that context, it is useful to discuss the proposed merger of Devon and Cornwall with Dorset police force and the strong belief of both forces that the move would produce better working, better connectivity and a better presence in communities and that neighbourhood policing would become more of a priority.
I have had similar conversations in Warwickshire and West Mercia. Given how significantly crime is changing, perhaps it is time to look at the structure of policing in this country, particularly at how we can ensure a consistent approach across the country. It has been fantastic to see innovations in forces such as those around drones, the development of tech solutions in forces such as Avon and Somerset, and the use of tri-service officers—officers who are trained as police community support officers, fire officers and paramedics all in one. However, we must ensure that where best practice is evidence-based and effective, it can be rolled out across the country, so that we are not reinventing the wheel time and again.
At the heart of our policing model is, and must always be, community policing, but that is what has been most affected by eight years of austerity. Those rural community policing beats are essential in preventing, detecting and tackling crime in rural areas. Community officers are treasured in all our communities, and yet, in many rural forces, neighbourhood teams have been completely abolished or merged with response teams, which effectively means the same thing.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend is making a really, really powerful speech that will resonate in many of our rural communities. I know that she will want to pay tribute to the great work of organisations such as Farm Watch. Those of us in rural areas are not scared of voluntary action working alongside statutory services, but where we do get angry is when there is not enough neighbourhood policing.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. True community policing and neighbourhood policing work very effectively with Farm Watch, Neighbourhood Watch and other voluntary organisations in our communities. We are not just talking about a police officer walking down the street with his hands in his pockets. True neighbourhood policing requires officers to engage and build relationships with communities and to grow trust in the police. Having grown up in South Yorkshire, I know that the policing of so many communities, particularly the hardest-to-reach communities, requires that approach in order to be able to police by consent. On top of all that, we have seen numerous rural police stations close—the symbol of a rural community’s relationship with its local police service and a symbol of the police’s commitment to those communities. There is strong evidence that they have contributed to the legitimacy of the police in the eyes of the public. Little wonder then that the National Farmers Union has found two worrying trends: first, that four in 10 people in rural areas fear crime, double that of individuals in urban areas; and secondly, that two thirds think that the local police fail to deal with the problems that matter to them—twice as many as the national average. Those figures show that the ability of the police to interpret and respond to the needs of rural communities is fading away, leaving those communities isolated.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
As always, my hon. Friend is giving a very well-informed and impassioned speech. On this point about rural communities, does she agree that it is also very important that we think of rural communities not just as places such as Somerset, Devon or Cornwall, but as seats such as mine, former heavy industrial areas? For example, the Ogmore and Garw valleys in my constituency no longer have police stations, but what they do have now is high levels of rural crime. They are isolated and cut off because of deindustrialisation. That must be put into the mix of how we see rural crime moving forward.
Louise Haigh
I could not agree more. It is exactly the same in my own home force of South Yorkshire. The pernicious and long-term effects of deindustrialisation in communities are often the same issues that other rural forces and areas experience and are affected by.
The feelings of isolation can be strong and overwhelming, particularly for vulnerable individuals in rural areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). If police do not have the ability to reach out, they will feel ever more vulnerable. The Conservative party used to be clear on this. A leaked internal communiqué said that
“police-stations are important to local communities and the sheer number of closures is worrying.”
But since that communiqué, closures have rocketed. Nearly 400 police stations have closed in England and Wales, with the number of front counters open to the public falling from over 900 in 2010 to just over 500 today. It is harder to ignore the knock-on effects that sales of police stations and closures of custody suites have had on policing. Particularly in large rural areas, officers now have to drive for long distances to take offenders into custody, taking them off the streets for a considerable period of time.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady actually saying that she would reopen those police stations?
Louise Haigh
No. I am saying that we would properly resource the police to be able to do their job, unlike the Conservative party. In reducing the police, as the Conservatives have done, to nothing more than a flashing blue light that only arrives when the absolute worst has happened, not only have they destroyed the police’s ability to prevent crime from happening in the first place; they have rolled back all the progress of the previous generation in building trust with the police in the hardest-to-reach communities. That is the danger of the loss of community officers from rural police forces.
The devastating assault on the strength of our police service as a result of decisions taken by the Conservatives has undermined the fundamental foundations on which policing in this country has been based. Chief among these is the notion that every community matters and every community deserves a police service that is able to respond to the challenges that it deems important. Although the challenges and risks for each community may vary, each is deserving of a community police service, and the priorities of local communities are of equal merit.
The independent inspectorate of constabulary laid bare the breathtaking pressure that the police are now under thanks to the financial constraints imposed on them by the Government and by rising demand. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said that
“policing is under significant stress. On occasions, that stress stretches some forces to such an extent that they risk being unable to keep people safe in some very important areas of policing.”
Not only have we lost more than 21,000 police officers; thousands of emergency calls are waiting in queues with not enough officers to respond. Some victims facing an emergency get no response at all. The police have yet to assess risk posed by more than 3,000 individuals on the sex offenders register. We do not know whether those individuals are a threat to the public. There is a shortage of more than 5,000 detectives, as unsolved crime rose to 2.1 million crimes last year.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I do not want my hon. Friend to move on from this incredibly important point. It is not only the cuts to resources and the loss of police stations that are important issues that have had a terrible and adverse impact on rural crime; she is also absolutely right to point out the changing nature of the demands made on policing, including trafficking, modern slavery and some of the sex offenders to which she refers. That makes it even more important that police forces across the country are properly resourced.
Louise Haigh
I could not agree more. The police have been cut to a level at which they are unable to prevent and respond to crime, and the demand on them is completely unprecedented, not only from new crimes, but as a result of other services being cut.
The police are now unable to respond to the basic task that we ask of them and that the Prime Minister asked them to do at the Police Federation conference eight years ago, which is to prevent and respond to crime—nothing more, nothing less. Police chiefs have warned the Government about the issue time and again. They have warned that local policing is under such strain that the legitimacy of policing is at risk, as the relationship with communities is fading to a point at which prevention, early intervention and core engagement are ineffective. This is a stark warning. Never before have police chiefs, usually incredibly reticent to enter political debate, spoken out so plainly about the risks facing public safety. Only yesterday, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, told the Home Affairs Committee that it would be “naive” to dissociate police cuts from rising levels of crime.
While the lack of resources has hampered the police, there is no doubt that crime itself, and the demand on rural police forces, is changing. County lines is a clear and growing threat for rural forces. It has been partly responsible for a serious increase in violent crime in areas that do not traditionally suffer from it. County lines dealers from the cities are exploiting hidden poverty and a cohort of vulnerable youngsters in rural areas. With the numbers of looked-after children and homeless children rising, this is of significant concern. The exploitation of young and vulnerable persons is a common feature in the facilitation of county lines drugs supply, whether for the storage or supply of drugs, the movement of cash, or to secure the use of dwellings held by vulnerable people—commonly referred to as cuckooing.
As the Home Office’s own analysis of the rise in serious violence states, childhood risk factors, including economic stress, mean that interventions with vulnerable young people such as those excluded from school and looked-after children would be successful in reducing violence and drug demand. The Government are aware of this, but so far their response has been muted, and their continued refusal to fund the police properly is felt across the country.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not agree that it is our job as constituency MPs to stay in touch with our local police forces and to address their concerns? That is what I did, and that is how I managed to raise the precept in our local area and increase the police force there.
Louise Haigh
Raising the precept in the way that the Government have done is a fundamentally unfair way to fund police forces across this country. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I do not know which police force area the hon. Gentleman represents, but I am almost positive that raising the precept by 2% will result in significantly more in his force area than in my area of South Yorkshire, or in Northumbria, Cleveland, or many metropolitan areas that have significant demand.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
In my own police area of Derbyshire, we have seen a drop of over 400 police officers. Yes, we have raised the police precept, with £12 a year from every resident on top of the 5% increase in council tax for social care, but that will fund 25 officers, while we have lost over 400. There is absolutely no comparison in terms of what can be achieved.
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend puts it much better than I did. Last year, the precept was able to raise £270 million. That is a drop in the ocean given that this Government have taken £2.7 billion out of policing over the past eight years. The force in the area of the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) may have been able to increase numbers from their existing point, but I am sure that they will not have been driven up to the levels that we saw in 2010, and will certainly not account for the level of demand or the cuts that we have experienced.
There are other demands on rural forces—if not unique to them, then certainly more pronounced. From cyber-crime to hate crime, from domestic violence to historical child sexual exploitation, the Government keep stating that crime is falling, but the experience of the police on the ground could not be more different. Nowhere is that more obvious than in non-crime demand that falls on the police. Non-crime demand makes up about 83% of calls to command and control centres, and in rural forces that is likely to be higher. Over the past eight years, because of the sparsity of social, mental health and more general health services, rural police forces have taken on an increased role as an auxiliary social and emergency service. I know of one rural county in northern England which, at the weekend, has one social worker on duty for the entirety of its social services, including for children with learning difficulties and those living with dementia. From 5 o’clock on a Friday, the police are the only service available to fill the gap.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there has been a massive increase in the number of calls to 101 that now go unanswered? That just proves how stretched our police forces are.
Louise Haigh
There has been the same level of demand from 101 and 999 as, just a few years ago, the police would have experienced only on new year’s eve. As I say, that is coming not only from traditional crime but from the demand on other public services.
This is not only wrong for the police, who are not trained or equipped to deal with the responsibilities of other public services, but, most importantly, wrong for the people struggling with their health needs, who are met with a criminal justice response rather than a health one because the proper provision simply is not available.
The result of all this is that criminals have recognised that our rural communities do not have the protection they need, and they are exploiting that. One reason why we are now hearing calls for all rural police officers to be armed is that the response time is unacceptably high for police and armed officers in significant swathes of the country, but arming all officers fundamentally undermines the principle of policing in this country: to police in communities and by consent.
While all forces experience seasonal variations, the minimum relative to maximum variation, especially for daily crime and antisocial behaviour, is far greater in rural forces with national parks and coastal areas attracting tourism. The seasonality of demand must be recognised, to ensure not only geographic equity but that minimum levels of service can be maintained throughout the year.
Clearly the police funding formula needs to take into account the real picture of demand and pressure facing every police force. We know that the current funding formula is broken. It uses age-old data and does not reflect the needs, demands and pressures on forces, nor the modern demands of policing.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I am listening to her with great interest. One of the worst aspects of the centralisation of police services in England and Wales over the last few years has been the centralisation of air support services and the creation of the National Police Air Service. That has removed dedicated helicopters from Dyfed-Powys, for instance, which covers two thirds of Wales. Would it be the Labour party’s policy to scrap NPAS or to keep it?
Louise Haigh
The issue with the centralisation of services such as NPAS is that those decisions have been made for all the wrong reasons. They have been made to drive cuts, rather than being genuinely about where provision should be. We would certainly keep NPAS and other services like it under review, but those decisions need to be made on the basis of the efficiency and effectiveness of that service, not solely to drive cuts for ideology’s sake.
The police funding formula cannot be reformed from a position of ever decreasing budgets. We saw what happened when they tried to do that with schools; it just shifted the pain elsewhere. It has to depend on need and take into account all demands for policing services. Though crime levels are important, we know that some rural forces face other unique challenges, such as the cost of policing a huge area, modern slavery and seasonal influxes of tourists. That has to be reflected in the funding formula.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
It felt like the hon. Lady was describing Lincolnshire—a huge, sparsely populated rural area with a huge coastal influx. Given what she says, why did Labour vote against a fairer funding formula that would have benefited Lincolnshire and against £450 million extra for the police? I am still waiting for the bit in her speech where she pays impassioned tribute to the hugely brave work that police officers in Lincolnshire do, in difficult circumstances, when they are battling all the issues that she has raised.
Louise Haigh
If the hon. Gentleman had not chosen to interrupt me at that stage of my speech, I would have got on to the bit where I praise police officers. I am a former police officer, as he may well know. We voted against the Government’s unfair funding formula because it did not deliver the funding that our police services so desperately need. As I have already explained, funding our police through the precept is unfair and distributes funding disproportionately away from the areas that need it most.
I would like to close by thanking the NFU for its support in preparing for today’s debate and, of course, the tens of thousands of police officers and staff across our country who work tirelessly to keep us all safe. Our conversations so often in this place cover the pressing challenges of our urban centres, but we can demonstrate how to deliver a consistent policing service for everyone, no matter who they are or where they live. The Government’s reckless and ideological approach to policing has not only left our inner cities rocked by serious violence but has left every single one of our communities exposed to crime. Only a Labour Government will keep the public safe and give the police the resources they need. I commend the motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
May I thank the Opposition for securing this very important debate? I answer, of course, as a Minister, but I hope you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I occasionally speak from the heart, as a constituency MP who represents one of the largest rural constituencies in England—a mere 531 square miles. I have the pleasure of serving my county alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). So, with respect to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), she does not need to tell us about the challenges of policing rural areas. In Louth and Horncastle, we have beautiful countryside—not just some of the richest farming countryside in the country, but the rolling hills of the Lincolnshire wolds and some of the most undeveloped, natural coastline in the country.
It is with that experience that I respond to the motion with interest. If I may say so, I think the Opposition have fallen into a trap in the first line of their motion, in which they refer to “rural crime”, because there is of course no definition of rural crime. The crimes that can be found in urban areas can also be found in rural areas. Indeed, I have just come from a very interesting debate in Parliament Street, run by the all-party groups on domestic abuse and on mental health, where we discussed exactly the point that domestic abuse knows no boundaries.
We are aware—looking across the House, I see there are some experts here—that modern slavery and human trafficking know no boundaries. These crimes are found in urban areas, but also in rural areas. Indeed, I commend Lincolnshire police for their extraordinary piece of investigative work last year in bringing together the largest ever modern slavery prosecution. It brought to justice the Rooney family, and nearly 100 years’ worth of imprisonment was delivered to the disgraceful defendants in that case.
We should not labour under the misapprehension that rural crime is different from urban crime, although it may manifest itself in different ways. However, there are of course particular types of crime that may have a unique effect in rural areas.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister will know that some crimes are present only in rural areas. In my constituency, sheep worrying—dog attacks on sheep—is one example. The police do not record that centrally, in the Home Office, as a crime, and she cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and tell me the extent of sheep attacks in the United Kingdom.
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because I was about to come on to that point. There are crimes that have a particular impact in rural areas, but I am saying that we should not confine our discussion to those crimes. Important though such crimes are, we must reflect on the fact that rural areas deserve support and attention when it comes to crimes that are also found in urban areas.
If I may, I will draw on the point about antisocial behaviour. Such behaviour might not be at the most serious end of the range, but nevertheless it may well have a hugely detrimental impact on local people. Families living in isolated homes may feel that they have been targeted precisely because they live in an isolated location. We know of examples of organised crime gangs targeting farms—for example, in my county, with fly-tipping.
Organised crime gangs are also working in consort across county boundaries to indulge in one of the cruellest crimes that can be committed against animals, which is hare coursing. I suggest that colleagues on both sides of the House may soon be addressing us on the issue of hare coursing. We know that criminal gangs are profiting from animal cruelty, with dogs that can be worth up to £50,000, depending on how large their betting rings are. This type of crime has similarities, in terms of exploitation, with types of crime in urban areas, but it has a unique impact in rural areas.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Is trespassing via organised hunts on farmers’ land and people’s private property a rural crime or an urban crime?
Victoria Atkins
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Is he suggesting there are hunts in central London or in city centres? I do not know, but perhaps I have misunderstood his intervention.
Victoria Atkins
I will move on, however, because I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman.
Jonathan Edwards
Over the recent bank holiday weekend, an illegal rave was held in Brechfa forest in my constituency. More than 1,400 people descended on the small village of Brechfa and into the forest to hold the rave, causing huge disruption for local residents. Will the Minister look at what extra powers can be given to the police to chase the organisers of illegal raves and to act as more of a deterrent to stop such events happening in future?
Victoria Atkins
That is very interesting. I am looking at the Solicitor General. If I remember correctly, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 introduced measures to deal with organisers of illegal raves. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could write to me and I will provide an accurate response.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
On cross-border matters, does the Minister agree that sometimes the issue is not the money going to police forces, but the co-operation between them in seeing matters through? That causes great problems for constituencies such as mine, which is on the border of three or four different police forces.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I will move on to in due course. The shadow Minister mentioned the impact of county line criminality on rural areas, and I am pleased she did so, because we are both determined to tackle it. That is precisely why the Government have announced, through the serious violence strategy, £3.5 million of funding to bring about a national co-ordination centre to share intelligence and expertise among police forces, particularly in those areas whose experience of gangs is perhaps not to the same extent as that in urban areas, so that they learn not from scratch but from colleagues elsewhere in the country.
The theft of farm equipment can have a devastating impact on farmers. I had the pleasure recently of driving a tractor worth £350,000 in my constituency. I was slightly surprised when the farmer allowed me to reverse it, but it remains intact. What if that equipment is stolen? That small business person has made an enormous investment and may well have taken out loans to pay it off. That theft would be a crime committed against them, their family, their business and their local community. Rural constabularies are aware of such issues.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley raised the issue of police funding. We understand the wish that rural communities are not disadvantaged in the delivery or quality of public services to tackle crime. The Government are committed to providing police forces in England and Wales with the resources they need to do their crucial work. I must, however, set the issue in context. The hon. Lady knows that I only do this when she talks at length about funding. The reason the Government had to make such tough spending decisions after the 2010 election was the economic legacy of the previous Labour Government and the global financial crisis. If we are going to have a good, productive debate, we must remember the historical context in which we were operating.
We have absolutely recognised the resources the police need. That is precisely why in 2015 the then Home Secretary insisted in the spending review that the Government protected overall police funding in real terms, and we have done so since. We have also increased our investment to support police transformation and technology, so that our police can respond to the changing nature of crime.
Giles Watling
Will my hon. Friend celebrate the fact that we have succeeded in getting thousands of police out from doing useless paperwork in back offices and back on the frontline of policing?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. One of the challenges to the police over the past few years has been to get warranted officers, who hold positions of responsibility after we have given them their warrant and training, to use their powers and specialist skills in accordance with their warrant. I am delighted that the figures show that constabularies across the country have made extraordinary improvements in using warranted officers in frontline policing. That means more officers on the beat or investigating crime, doing the job they signed up to do, rather than sitting in human resources departments and so on.
David Hanson
Will the Minister confirm that it is not that central Government have increased police funding this year, but that local ratepayers in counties such as mine, Flintshire, and throughout rural areas in north Wales, have had their rates increased to meet central Government money that was cut?
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I was just about to explain the funding settlement, but I make the point that there is no such thing as Government money: it is taxpayers’ money. Whether our constituents pay it through income tax or council tax, the fact is that it is their money that we take from them to support our public services.
Victoria Atkins
If the right hon. Gentleman will please allow me, I will make a little progress. I shall deal with the funding settlement in some detail in a moment.
I was talking about transformation and technology, which is a really exciting area of policing. We have seen great innovation in recent years in how police forces can use technology to serve their communities and to use their specialist skillsets in the best possible ways. If I may, I must pay credit to my local police and crime commissioner, Marc Jones, a Conservative, who has purchased a drone for Lincolnshire police which, given the size of the county, is an invaluable tool for the local constabulary. Lincolnshire police have used the drone for a variety of reasons, including to locate missing people—one can imagine the difference that such an investment can make in a very rural area—as well as to help with hare coursing investigations, in which a drone can make such a difference.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is very welcome that new technology is used in that way, but does the Minister accept that some technological improvements are dependent on decent wi-fi, mobile phone and broadband connections, which in rural areas are not yet quite where they need to be?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend knows, as I do—it was my first ever campaign as a candidate—that the challenge of improving broadband in rural areas is always there. By and large, more urban areas have excellent coverage, although there are blackspots. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has announced a scheme whereby we can use some technology at parish churches, and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a keen interest in the issue and is acting accordingly.
Let me turn to funding. We have continued to listen to the police. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service spoke to every police force in England and Wales about the changing demands on the police and how they could best be managed. We have acted on the basis of that consultation and announced an increase in overall investment in the police of £460 million from April for this financial year. That includes a £50 million increase in counter-terrorism funding, and it enables police and crime commissioners to raise up to £280 million of local funding through council tax, protecting the police grant in cash terms and increasing funding for national priorities by £130 million. I am delighted that most police and crime commissioners have accepted the Government’s challenge to make that change to their policing precept and are consequently able to decide for themselves how that money is best spent in their local area.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right to make the point that there is no such thing as Government money, only taxpayers’ money, but my constituents in Lincolnshire, and hers, think that although it is okay to talk in these overall terms, there is a fundamental unfairness against council tax payers in rural areas, in terms of the services that we receive—our policing, NHS and broadband. We pay far more in council tax and get infinitely less than people get in urban areas. The Government have to grasp the nettle and get fairer funding for rural areas.
Victoria Atkins
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising that point. I extend that challenge to Opposition Members. If they are able to find themselves in a position where they can look at fairer funding and how it may have an impact on rural areas, I am sure that is something we would be content to consider.
Taken together, public investment in policing has grown from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion in this financial year.
Ruth George
The Minister was making the point that this is taxpayers’ money. It absolutely is, but the decimation of police forces like mine in Derbyshire, which has seen 26% cuts to its funding over seven years, has meant that it does not have the capacity to prevent county lines crimes and the sort of retail crime that saw small shops in my constituency lose £100,000 last year from their tills. That is hitting them in their pockets. My taxpayers say they would rather pay a little bit extra tax, get a decent police force and not lose out through crime.
Victoria Atkins
I wonder, then, if the hon. Lady could help with the fact that her constabulary, as of March last year, had reserves of £32.2 million—20% of funding. It may be that the police and crime commissioner has plans for how those reserves are to be spent, but that is a decision for the PCC. We need to be careful. The whole point of police and crime commissioners is that they are democratically accountable to local people. They are elected by local people to set policing priorities. Decisions on how money is spent must be made by local police and crime commissioners. We gave those powers to police and crime commissioners precisely because we thought it was better for local people to make those decisions, working together with chief constables, rather than bureaucrats in Whitehall trying to decide policing priorities across the country.
As I said, taken together, public investment in policing has grown from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion in this financial year. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he will prioritise police funding at the next spending review, again demonstrating this Government’s commitment to providing the police with the resources they need.
Community policing is obviously very important in our rural areas.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
There is a lot of talk about rural areas. Geographically, over half of my constituency is rural and we have rural crime, such as fly-tipping and the theft of agricultural equipment. The West Yorkshire police and crime commissioner is perceived as being an urban PCC. Does the Minister accept that even in supposedly urban areas there are large numbers of rural crimes?
Victoria Atkins
Absolutely. I do not claim there are boundaries when it comes to criminal behaviour. Indeed, we have heard from across the House how some criminals deliberately exploit county and constabulary boundaries, because they hope that that will cause investigations and so on to be more difficult for the police. We are very clear that we need the police to work together better. In fairness, I think they are doing that. There have been huge changes in the way police forces talk to each other and share information. On county lines for example, there is a great deal of work going on to co-ordinate and share intelligence, and we see this with the regional organised crime units.
The reformed policing landscape and the introduction of police and crime commissioners by the Government has supported community policing. We have enabled police and crime commissioners to work with local people to set priorities for their areas. They are the ones best placed to make decisions with their communities, rural or urban, based on their local knowledge and expertise.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council is also transforming its role and presence in dealing with rural crime. The NPCC recently published its rural affairs strategy, which, following a period of consultation with rural stakeholders, sets out operational and organisational policing priorities in respect of tackling crimes that particularly affect rural areas.
The strategy recognises that rural areas experience the range of crimes faced in our urban areas—the threat of modern slavery, for example—and also identifies specific rural threats, including poaching, fuel theft, theft of farm machinery and types of antisocial behaviour such as fly-tipping. We welcome that strategy.
Susan Elan Jones
Does the Minister accept that speeding on rural roads is an horrific problem? Is there anything in the strategy on that, because it really is devastating at the moment?
Victoria Atkins
That is precisely the sort of issue that we as constituency MPs can help with—by helping PCCs, police chiefs and councils to identify areas where speeding is a problem. My constituency has, I estimate, about 100 metres of dual carriageway; the rest is single carriageway across 531 square miles, so sadly we are particularly aware of the dangers of speeding on rural lanes. It is one of the challenges that the police face in the most rural areas. I encourage colleagues across the House to engage with their councils and PCCs on that issue if they feel there is a particular need in parts of their constituencies.
Home Office officials have met the national police lead and discussed with them the approach in the NPCC strategy. It is intended that the strategy will support safer rural communities and a better rural focus on policing. Yesterday, the Policing Minister met the National Farmers Union and colleagues on the all-party group on rural crime to discuss the crime affecting rural areas. We take crime in rural areas very seriously. We know that the methods used by criminals are constantly evolving and recognise the importance of staying one step ahead, which is why we are encouraging the police to innovate and transform how they investigate.
We have recently published the serious violence strategy, which targets the drivers behind the recent increases in serious violence. This might be thought a largely urban concern, but such a belief is misplaced. With county lines, we see urban gangs exploit children and young people and spread their evil business across the country, including into rural and coastal areas. It is important that rural communities understand and respond to this threat, which is precisely what we want to achieve through the new strategy.
I will conclude by returning to my constituency and perhaps inviting yet more people to visit my beautiful rural part of the country—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
Don’t forget Cheshire.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend will get his chance.
As the crime Minister, I think constantly about what crime means for my constituents and the consequences and impact on them. We take rural concerns about crime and policing very seriously and understand the great importance of ensuring that rural communities are taken properly into account in all the action we take to tackle crime. We thank each and every police officer and police community support officer for the work they do in our rural areas.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am pleased to speak in this debate. I appreciate that a lot of the things being discussed today are devolved and that therefore much of the detail is unfamiliar to me and does not apply in Scotland, but I hope that I might make one or two comments about the experience in Scotland and that Members might notice some things that are the same and some that are different and perhaps think about why they might be different.
I find it a bit surprising that we are having a three-hour debate on rural crime, when, according to the Minister, rural crime does not exist, and that we are having a debate that appears to be all about policing, despite the fact that the motion does not mention policing at all. There are lots of things about how this place operates that I never expect, or indeed hope, to be able to understand.
It is difficult to know the actual level of crime in either urban or rural areas. It is accepted, including by the police, that a lot of crime goes unreported. We reckon that in Scotland about 30% to 40% of crime is never reported or recorded; for some relatively minor crimes, the figure is much higher. The Scottish crime and justice survey, which asks a large sample of people every year what has happened to them that year, gives more reliable figures.
The survey showed that, between 2008-9 and 2016-17, the number of adults reporting that they had been victims of crime fell by more than a third. The reduction in England and Wales was about the same, although the figures are not exactly comparable. That is important because it tells us that, although the level of crime is still too high and there are still people who genuinely live with the concern and even the fear of crime, it is not as big a problem as some would have us believe.
Something that I found surprising when I was told about it—and it still keeps popping up—is that older people are much less likely to become victims of crime than younger folk. I think that there is a question to be asked about the fear of crime. There are people who make it their business to make old people scared of it, but all the evidence, both from reported crimes and from comments made by people after they have been victims of crime, suggests that they are less likely to be victims.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
In South Yorkshire, the number of insurance claims for rural crime has increased by 54% in a year, so it is clearly an issue. A number of constituents have come to my surgeries to report thefts of farm equipment and antisocial behaviour. A group of 500 Barnsley residents have come together because they are concerned about nightly antisocial behaviour. This is very much an issue for my constituents.
Peter Grant
I do not doubt that at all. Indeed, I am about to say something about crimes committed in rural areas. First, there is the problem of definition: how do we decide what is rural and what is not? I would never consider myself to represent a rural constituency, and I would not be considered to do so in the House, but about 3,000 of my constituents undeniably live in rural areas, and probably another 5,000 live in villages and towns that are so small that, while their residents experience many of the benefits of living in small isolated communities, they also experience many of the challenges.
Peter Grant
May I just finish making my point? I did promise to speak for a fairly short time, but that will be difficult if I am too generous.
A finding that appears regularly in the Scottish crime and justice survey—I do not know whether it is reflected in other parts of the United Kingdom—is that people living in rural areas are less than half as likely to become victims of crime as those living in urban areas. While people living in isolated areas undoubtedly feel more vulnerable in respect of some kinds of crime that are more likely to be committed in rural areas, overall, it is the case that rural areas in Scotland—and, I imagine, rural parts of England, relatively speaking—are safer places in which to live. It is also the case, however, that for a victim of crime, the crime rate on that day is 100%.
Sir Edward Leigh
When I and my rural constituents travel to the most remote areas of Scotland, we are struck by the difference between the quality of the roads there and the quality the of roads in Lincolnshire. There are no potholes, and there is wonderful broadband and wonderful public services. Is the hon. Gentleman grateful to my Lincolnshire constituents who, through the Barnett formula, are subsidising his own constituents to such an extent, and would he not be sorry to see that go after Scottish independence?
Peter Grant
What I am grateful for is the fact that the hon. Gentleman has completely contradicted his Scottish Tory pals, who seem to be away enjoying the sunshine at the moment, but who tell us almost every day of the week that the Scottish Government’s performance on broadband is useless and the UK Government’s is great. One of the things I have learnt today is that even Tory Back Benchers think that the Government are making a complete hash of providing broadband in rural areas. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman contradict his Scottish pals the next time they raise that particular myth, both when it is relevant to the debate and, more often, when it is completely irrelevant.
Let me return to the comment made by the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock). According to the latest figures from NFU Mutual, in some parts of the United Kingdom, there have been staggering increases in rural crime levels over a fairly short period. I take that to mean that organised gangs have been targeting an area until it gets too hot for them, and then moving on. That is why co-operation and the sharing of intelligence between police forces, and between the police and other agencies, are so vital.
In 2015 the Scottish Government helped to set up the Scottish Partnership Against Rural Crime—a partnership between the Government, Police Scotland, NFU Scotland, NFU Mutual, which, obviously, provides much of the insurance cover for rural businesses, and other key stakeholders. In its first full year of operation, recorded rural crime in Scotland fell by 21%. I said earlier that recorded crime figures came with a lot of caveats, but during roughly the same period, NFU Mutual reported a 32% reduction in a single year. This is perhaps not the place to go into detail about what might be done well in Scotland that could be copied or examined in other parts of the United Kingdom, but I simply read those figures to indicate that although people living in rural areas and rural businesses, as the Minister referred to—
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Peter Grant
I will just finish this point. There is no doubt that, when a rural business has a piece of plant stolen that cost it a quarter of a million pounds, it is a massive blow to it, but there are ways—by sharing information and working across constabulary borders and national borders, if possible—in which, if everybody who wants to stop crime co-ordinates themselves as effectively as the criminals sometimes do, we can start to see an end to this, or at least a significant improvement in crime figures, both rural and urban.
Mr John Hayes
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech—it is like a poorly signposted ramble through the Trossachs—but if he is right that much crime is under-reported, does he acknowledge that what may be happening in rural areas is this? Because tolerance of petty disorder and petty crime has risen, many crimes take place irrespective of the effect on their victims, because the victims know that nothing will be done about them so they do not bother to report them.
Peter Grant
I cannot comment on that. Scotland is regularly surveyed on public attitudes to policing, and generally speaking, the public have a high degree of confidence in the police and their ability to deal with crime and clear it up. It is not enough—there is not 100% confidence yet, and that has to be the target. From my first days as a councillor 25 years ago, what I have always recommended to my constituents is that there is no such thing as a crime that is too minor to report, because a lot of policing is intelligence-based and trend-based. In the policing model that is used in Scotland, it may be that a similar incident that is reported five or six times will not get a heavy response, but it will eventually trigger a very significant response of the kind that puts a large police presence into the area very quickly. It would be nice if we could get a blue-light response every time somebody phones the police, but that is simply not realistic.
I want to make a few comments on some of the exchanges that I listened to with great interest about the way in which the police service in England and Wales is set up, the way it is managed nationally and locally and the way it is funded. With all due respect, it seems to me that it is a complete and utter mess. I am not convinced that people in any part of England or Wales understand what they are paying for the police force, why they are paying that amount and not a wee bit more or a wee bit less, what they do if they want to pay a bit more to get a better service, or how they can influence the provision of their service.
I cannot understand why people who are sitting in here should take the majority of decisions about how much police funding is needed in Lincolnshire, Cornwall or Lancashire. Surely the people there know their needs better than any of us down here, with the possible exceptions of the hon. Members who represent those particular counties. Since I was elected, I have been struck by the fact that, for its size and diversity, England is a ridiculously centralised place as far as government is concerned. I do not say that meaning to be offensive or to insult anybody. I simply cannot see how local services can be effectively delivered across such a big and diverse country as England when decisions are so centralised in one place. It is bound to mean that a lot of time is spent by MPs from different parts of the country fighting about who gets a bigger share of the cake, when the problem is that the cake is far too wee to begin with.
At the end of the day, it does not benefit any of us if we move some resources from one county to another and a reduction in crime in one part of England is matched by an increase in crime in another. It is much better if we can find ways to resource the police properly, if it is quite clear that they are not properly resourced, and to make sure that crime levels can be driven down across the whole country.
I found the early part of the debate very interesting. It has been an eye-opener to me to hear about the way that local services—particularly the police service—are being delivered in a country that, in so many ways, is an example to the rest of the world. Is it fit for purpose? That is not for me to say, and not because I do not believe in politicians from one country telling other people how to run their country. But I invite Members who represent constituencies in England and Wales to ask themselves the hard question: is the way the police service is set up fit for the 21st century? If not, potentially, there are difficult decisions to be taken.
I will be happy after the debate to give more details about how the police service is set up in Scotland. It is not perfect. There are problems. The new national service has some teething problems and there are things people do not like as much as what they had before, but the fact is that, by almost any measure, public confidence in the police remains high. People’s feeling of being safe is as high as it has been for a great number of years. Three quarters of people in Scotland feel safe walking home alone after dark. It would be nicer if it were 100%, but I was surprised that it is as high as 75%.
There are ways that our respective national Governments can learn from each other about the way we manage and provide public services. I sincerely suggest that Members here with responsibility for policing look at some of the changes that have happened north of the border over the last few years. They were not always easy or popular, but some of what has happened there might give an indication as to changes that could be implemented for the benefit of the 50 million-plus people—there are another 3 million or 4 million people in Wales—who deserve the best police service that can possibly be provided for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I would prefer not to impose a time limit, and if colleagues stick to about eight minutes we should be able to get everybody in without one.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I am unaccustomed to being called this early in a debate; it is something of an inversion of the norm.
First, I want to respond to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), as it takes a brass neck for the SNP Front-Bench spokesman to complain about the over-centralisation of this country when it is a system that massively benefits his constituents, and in particular his party as it does not have to make the tough decisions we face in other parts of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) was absolutely right: my constituents are net contributors, whereas those of the hon. Member for Glenrothes are net recipients. That is a great unfairness, and I would prefer it if his party recognised that now and again. But I am going to move on to the subject in hand.
As an MP for a rural constituency, I am particularly concerned about this subject and I welcome the fact that Her Majesty’s Opposition have tabled this motion. I last spoke on the subject in the final stages of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill—the Bill of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—on Friday 27 April. I said that I was concerned that we seemed to be living in more violent times, and that comment then unexpectedly appeared all over the local radio and newspapers because many of my constituents share that sense.
This debate is not about the sort of stats we bandy across the House in political fashion; this is about the experience of recent months in South Suffolk, where we have unquestionably had a spate of serious incidents. In the last week in Sudbury, the main town in my constituency, there was a very violent rape, for which I am glad to say there has been an arrest of an individual today by the police in Sudbury. I pay tribute to them, because at the same time as they have been investigating that crime, police in our part of the world have been focused on a very serious murder in Ipswich, of a 17-year-old, which was raised by my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) at Prime Minister’s questions today. The sense of greater violence is therefore impossible to escape, and is, I am afraid, borne out by the figures for Suffolk: there has been a 29% increase in violent crime in Suffolk in the year to September 2017.
The context of this, however, is an overall fall in recorded crime in the independent crime survey for England and Wales of 38% since 2010. That is a very large decrease in overall crime, and it has occurred at a time when, because of the funding pressures we were under—because of the deficit we inherited—we have seen significant reductions in police numbers; I would be the first to accept that.
But this is the thing: if we have seen such a fall in crime when police numbers have been falling, it cannot simply be the case that police numbers are the sole determinant of the level of crime. This spike in violence, which has been seen in other parts of the country too, is a relatively recent phenomenon, and I want us to move away from these political brickbats about how many police stations have been closed—I should point out that some 400 police stations were closed between 1997 and 2007. Instead, we should try to understand why we are seeing this change. I want to try to understand some of those causal factors in my brief remarks.
Mr John Hayes
My hon. Friend is right to say that police numbers are not the sole determinant of a rise or fall in crime, but they must be a determinant. In Lincolnshire, fundamental flaws in the funding formula have left us short of funds, and that makes it very difficult for my excellent local police force to respond to crimes of the kind that he has just described.
James Cartlidge
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. The way I would put it—which is kind of what he is saying—is that the fall in numbers does not, of itself, drive the social behaviours that cause a change in crime, but clearly, in an ideal world, we would have more officers to deal with it. It is a question of how we respond to the situation.
In terms of the primary causal factors, lots of hon. Members have talked about the county lines crime phenomenon, which was on the front page of The Sunday Times as recently as 6 May. It is a real problem not only in Suffolk but right across the country. The statistics show that 85% of police forces across England and Wales are dealing with county lines, and that 80% of those cases involve children. This is a serious crime phenomenon, and the growth in county lines, which involves increasing violence, leads to the spread of drug crime, knife crime and other associated crime.
There is another factor, which I find potentially the most interesting. I was at the Suffolk show recently, and I was talking to the chief constable. I asked him why he thought there had been this change in behaviour, and he said that social media were a really important factor because the videos and other media that are shared by the young people in gangs are being used to goad them. The gangs are goading each other into more violent behaviour in a competitive fashion. That is the type of behaviour that we see in the very worst crime areas such as Mexico, which has a terrible murder rate. The reason that crime escalates in such areas is that more violence is used to mark out and defend territory. We are seeing gang violence worsening here because the gangs are becoming competitive, and social media drive that competition because the videos—which, according to my chief constable, are often of very high quality—are being used to brag and to goad.
I do not pretend to have the answer on the social media issue, but I believe that the companies providing the media—they are private companies—have a social responsibility to involve themselves in this. I fundamentally believe that the primary responsibility of the Government is the defence of the realm, at home and abroad, and if the media companies will not get involved, we will have to start talking about the defence of the virtual realm. We cannot have any no-go areas in crime; we do not want them in a physical sense, and we cannot have them in a virtual sense either. I for one would support more powers to ensure that social media companies took action on these kinds of videos to ensure that they are not shown, not displayed and do not incite greater gang violence.
I also want to talk about funding. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) said, police numbers may not directly cause the changes in crime rates, but we need the officers in place if we are to resource our forces to deal with the changing patterns of crime. There are two elements involved: national funding and local funding. On national funding, I recently tabled a written question to the Home Secretary asking him what assessment he had made of the different costs involved in policing rural and urban areas. The answer from the Home Office was that it had made no such study and that there was no such information. I believe that rural MPs should be engaging with local stakeholders such as the National Farmers Union and possibly the Country Land and Business Association to look into the hard stats and the evidence. If we want to go to a Government Department and ask for a change in the spending formula to favour our local area—or rural areas more broadly—we have to have the evidence to show that we need that extra funding. A study of the cost of rurality in policing would be very welcome, and I would certainly support one.
My last key point is about local funding. I disagree with Opposition Members on this point. I strongly support the use of the precept to fund the police, for the simple reason that it is a guarantee that the money will be spent in our county. If we increase the precept to fund the police in Suffolk, it might cost more than an increase in central taxation that people would not necessarily notice, but every pound will be spent in the county on the Suffolk constabulary. I want to see more of that, and I would go further. I would like to see more of what I call parish policing, where parishes—or perhaps groups of parishes in electoral wards—would have the opportunity to fund their own police community support officers. This is where we must be realistic about rural crime. When the police in Suffolk deal with a major incident, such as the stabbing we had in Ipswich, or when we have the threat of terrorism, it is unrealistic to expect the force to prioritise shed theft or the theft of tractors at the same time, no matter how many officers we have. If our villages and rural communities want the added value of an extra visible police presence, they should be prepared to see something on top of the precept and get direct policing as a result—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) wants to intervene—she is obviously very interested in what I am saying—I will be more than happy to take an intervention, because she completely failed to answer the question about police stations earlier. In fact, when I asked her whether she would reopen closed police stations, she confirmed that Labour would not, and I do not understand why on earth an Opposition would criticise something that they are not going to reverse.
Ruth George
I am sitting here fairly flabbergasted listening to the hon. Gentleman making the case for some of his poorest constituents paying the price of delivering the sort of law and order that he says is the Government’s responsibility—the first responsibility of the state is to keep its population safe. People are already paying an extra £12 a year in Derbyshire, so how much more does he want his constituents to have to pay to get back to proper levels of policing?
James Cartlidge
I would be more than happy for them to pay more. Is the idea that the poorest cannot afford 50p extra a month on their precept to get a police officer? The point is that it would be a choice for the community. Many communities would not choose to have parish policing or direct policing, but it is a new option for them.
James Cartlidge
I will take one last intervention, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you will be pleased to know that I will then be concluding.
Mrs Badenoch
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of our constituents have requested the ability to pay more specifically for local policing? Constituents have written to me to say that if the Treasury could not fund it, they would happily pay extra.
James Cartlidge
Absolutely. I will finish by saying that the local funding formula means that funding is transparent—people will know that the money will be spent in their county. We should still look at the national formula, but the model of elected police and crime commissioners being responsible for the money raised locally in a clear and transparent fashion is the right one, and we should use it to get more officers on the beat, providing greater security and comfort to our constituents.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Despite having two towns, the majority of my beautiful constituency is rural, meaning that my constituents are increasingly on the receiving end of rural crime. Nationally, fly-tipping has increased by 7%, becoming something of an epidemic in rural areas. In 2016, agricultural vehicle theft cost farmers and others working in rural industry £5.4 million. It is likely that that increased in 2017 and in the first quarter of this year, which is simply unacceptable. How long will the Government stand by, slashing our police force funding and leaving my constituents to pick up the pieces and pay themselves for the damage caused to their livelihoods?
My constituency is in Kent, which is the fifth-worst affected area for rural crime. Sadly, that is not a surprise. The Government have cut 532 police officers and 104 police community support officers in Kent, while simultaneously ever promising us that they will be tough on crime. To be honest, the myth of the Tories being tough on crime has been long since busted, and probably no one living in Kent believes it to be true anymore. These days, “tough on crime” is just about as untrue a Conservative adage as “strong and stable”.
The truth is that due to the shocking austerity measures imposed on Kent’s police since 2010 not only are our towns and high streets more vulnerable, but so are our rural lanes, our quiet villages and our previously idyllic hamlets. All those places have seen a huge rise in fly-tipping, littering and nuisance crime. Kent police has launched the Country Eye app, through which members of rural communities can share information on crime and suspicious behaviour. While I of course commend the effort and thought behind the initiative, it is a sad indictment of the state of police funding that communities are expected to shoulder the responsibility to deal with problems themselves. An app and volunteers should supplement adequately resourced police forces, not simply replace them.
I recently had another meeting with the National Farmers Union, an organisation comprising over 55,000 members, and it shares my constituent farmers’ concerns about livelihood-destroying crime. Farmers are paying for the damage to their equipment; they are rebuying livestock; they are paying to clear waste that has been dumped on their land; and they are paying for installing expensive CCTV camera systems. They cannot afford it.
I am standing up for Canterbury and for Kent by saying that enough is enough. When will this Government start taking seriously the concerns of farmers and those who live in rural areas? More than 9 million people live in rural areas, and agriculture contributes around £24 billion to the UK economy, yet rural crime continues to be ignored and the issue has been sidelined again and again. Why? The Government admit there is a problem, so they therefore admit the entire austerity agenda is flawed.
Although we need to be clear that rural crime predominantly affects farmers and agricultural workers, it is also a question of animal rights. This country has a moral duty to uphold high animal welfare standards. From foxhunting to badger baiting, we are neglecting our responsibility to protect our animals and wildlife. Although foxhunting remains illegal and polling suggests that 85% of the British people are opposed to making it legal again, we know foxhunting is still widely practised in Kent and other areas.
Just last year, shocking online footage showed two fox cubs being taken into a kennel and being brought out dead. This so-called “sport” is a savage exercise in bloodlust, and it must be properly policed. Equally, we see badgers being sold on the black market by criminal groups for as much as £700, often for badger baiting. The chief inspector of the RSPCA special operations unit recently spoke about the effect of this exercise on dogs:
“Because the criminals can’t go to a vet, they self-medicate: they patch the dogs up with drugs bought from the internet. Eventually the flesh of the jaw may fall away. We’ve seen dogs with their faces destroyed by these fights.”
It is clear that badger baiting is not only cruel to the badgers themselves but is detrimental to dogs’ health and wellbeing. Despite the clear brutality, the Government fail to act or police it properly.
Instead of listening to those with expertise in animal welfare and providing funding for police forces to enforce existing laws, the Government lazily abdicate their responsibilities. I suggest they look at Labour’s plan for animal welfare, which pledges to strengthen the Hunting Act 2004 and to look at ways to close existing loopholes that allow for cruel illegal hunting to take place in rural areas.
Rural crime is not just an economic issue of people’s livelihoods; it is a moral issue. I am sure the Government will agree that more action needs to be taken to ensure that rural communities are protected and our animals are not subjected to such terrible cruelty.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) for introducing this debate, the subject of which is important to me and my constituents. In fact, I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on rural crime. Coincidentally, we had a meeting last night at which we discussed a number of topics, such as the theft of heating oil and diesel, the benefit of drones—drones have already saved lives in Lincolnshire and elsewhere—the use of WhatsApp groups in policing rural areas, the theft of rural machinery, the fear of isolation among those living in isolated areas, and the National Police Chiefs Council rural and wildlife crime strategies, as described by the Minister. I invite Opposition Members, as well as any more Conservative Members who wish to join, to come along and join our APPG so we can tackle rural crime together.
One of the main areas of discussion yesterday evening was hare coursing, a cruel crime in which lurcher-style dogs chase after a hare. Often there are bets on which dog will catch the hare first, as part of which gangs of mostly men in 4x4s and other heavy vehicles traipse across farmers’ land in pursuit of the animals to make sure they see which dog catches the hare in order to secure the bet.
Hare coursing is a disgusting crime, and it has a huge impact on farmers that is not well understood. Some who see the tyre tracks going across fields and the torn up crops might not think it important, but it is important. The farmer has invested in those crops, which they have nurtured to provide that year’s income for their family. The crime is essentially the same as going into John Lewis, or a similar store, on Oxford Street and destroying every item of merchandise, and then preventing the shop from restocking for the next 12 months. This is a serious crime, which has a huge impact economically and on a farmer’s lifestyle. I should mention at this point that although I have not been a victim of hare coursing crime, my husband is a farmer.
Hare coursing is not just a criminal pastime, but a pastime of criminals. One thing Lincolnshire’s police and crime commissioner has made clear to me is that the vast majority of the people the police catch for this crime come not from Lincolnshire, but from elsewhere. They have come across county lines to commit crime in Lincolnshire, perhaps because they feel it gives them the best chance of not being caught. It is fear of being caught that will stop them doing these things.
Sir Edward Leigh
There is hope, because our PCC is making huge strides by using drones. It is important in these debates that we are not miserable the whole time. There are technological ways in which we can combat crime with great success.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is right, and I shall come on to discuss that shortly.
The crime of hare coursing also involves a fear of violence, because when farmers catch these people many of them threaten the farmer with violence then and there. Sometimes when the crime is reported to the police the farmer is threatened with having their sheds burned down. In some cases pets or livestock have been injured deliberately to try to frighten farmers into not reporting the crime or not pursuing a prosecution for it. Once prosecution occurs, we encounter an issue with sentencing, as it does not reflect the severity of this crime, with an average fine of £250.
Mr John Hayes
My hon. Friend is making a vigorous and effective case on hare coursing in Lincolnshire. She knows that our PCC, Marc Jones, and our chief constable, Will Skelly, have done pioneering work to counter this activity, with good effect. Will she join me in asking those on the Treasury Bench to examine the whole matter of sentencing, as there is a good case for having a specific offence related to hare coursing, so that once the police do their job, the courts will back them up and encourage them to do still more?
Dr Johnson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. He rightly says that the fines are not proportionate, and indeed our next all-party group meeting will be with the Solicitor General to discuss the impacts of sentencing on rural crime. The dogs themselves can be worth very much more than £250 and some of the bets are for £10,000 or more. My right hon. Friend makes reference to Operation Galileo, a Lincolnshire police initiative masterminded by Bill Skelly and Marc Jones, our Conservative PCC. It has had great success in Lincolnshire, with the number of incidents having gone down from 2,000 to 1,400. The police credit that 600 fall to two initiatives, the first of which is the institution of criminal behaviour orders, whereby people convicted of hare coursing are no longer allowed to be in a vehicle and in possession of a lurcher-style dog, or in the company of others with such an animal, in Lincolnshire. However, Lincolnshire police can catch these people but they can then go to Cambridgeshire or North Yorkshire to do the same thing. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the possibility of allowing courts to impose such an order covering a wider geographical area, so that the Cambridgeshire police do not then have to catch these people, then the North Yorkshire police have to do the same, and so on. These orders could apply in other areas as soon as someone has been caught once.
The main initiative that has brought about the success is the seizing of dogs, because, as I say, the dog is what is valuable to these criminals. Taking the dog from them means they are not able to pursue their crime; these dogs are trained to do what they are doing. Tackling the crime is expensive; we have seen the crime fall in Lincolnshire, but I understand from our PCC that dog kennelling fees have cost £46,000 this year. There is currently no provision in law to reclaim that money from the criminal once they have been prosecuted, so I ask the Minister to consider whether he can add a clause into law that would allow the kennelling fees to be reclaimed from the criminal after their conviction. That would be only fair and reasonable.
In her opening speech, the Minister mentioned that there was no definition of rural crime, but police tell me that intelligence and evidence-based policing is hampered by the fact that they do not have some of the data that they need. I therefore ask her to consider better and more detailed recording of crime—heating oil theft and hare coursing are not always specifically recorded—so that we can identify where these crimes are taking place and target them much more effectively.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) mentioned fear. Nobody should experience fear in their own home. People have a right to feel safe as well as to be safe. In an isolated setting, however, it is perhaps understandable that people do not always feel that way. If a person is attacked in their flat, or if someone comes into their home, or they feel unsafe, they can scream, run outside and seek help relatively quickly. If someone is in an isolated rural farmhouse, more than a mile from the nearest property, it is understandable that the response time from the police and from any member of the public will be much slower. That would leave them feeling much more isolated.
I have great admiration for the work of Lincolnshire police, especially the way that they police a large geographical area, with 6,000 miles of road and a widely dispersed population. It is a credit to them that our crime level is among the lowest in the entire country, but money is an issue. Lincolnshire police has one of the lowest levels of funding in the country. I understand the point that there is only so much money and that it has to be shared out somehow, but we receive the least amount of funding for a service that is more difficult and more expensive to deliver because of the area that the police have to cover. Moreover, a particularly high proportion of our money is funded locally. I agree with my hon. Friends who have said that it is reasonable for some of the money to come from local sources as it is directed back locally, and for some of it to come from central Government grant. However, at the moment, there are areas of the country, particularly urban areas, where the local population is being asked to contribute around 25% of the money that is used for the overall policing budget in their area, and yet in Lincolnshire, it is 43%, and I understand that in North Yorkshire it is closer to 50%. We need greater fairness. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking into how we can make police funding much fairer in the future, and I will be happy to support them in doing so.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the very thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and the other very thoughtful speeches in this debate. I very much welcome the fact that our Opposition Front-Bench team has chosen to hold this debate on rural crime and public services. Those of us who represent rural constituencies welcome the fact that many people view our communities in very glowing terms. We all know about the green and pleasant land, the apple tree in Linden Lea and so on, and our communities are all of those things—plus we also have a good few mountains in North Wales for good measure—but, like every other community, they have problems. They also have problems that are unique because of their rurality.
I was pleased to hear the emphasis in this debate on criminality pure and simple when it comes to animal abuse. These cases are truly horrific—whether it is hare coursing or badger baiting. Let us be absolutely clear on this: this is not some gentle historical relic of the past of some rural sport and the like; it is criminal behaviour pure and simple. The people who perpetuate these evil practices deserve to have the strong arm of the law used against them.
Giles Watling
Would the hon. Lady not include in that abandoning horses in fields to starve? That happens in my area. It is not only criminality, but sheer ignorance as well.
Susan Elan Jones
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman; it is animal abuse, it is cruelty and it needs to be stamped out. The punishment needs to fit the crime in those areas.
A couple of years ago I held an Adjournment debate in this House on rural crime, in which I highlighted the work of a local initiative—a rural crime mapping scheme—in the wards of Esclusham and Ponciau in my own constituency. The Minister then praised the local endeavour in our area, as well as the work of Farm Watch, the intriguingly named OWL—Online Watch Link—and of course the excellent work of the rural crime team of North Wales police, to which I also pay tribute today.
Many Members have spoken about the impact of police cuts. I must report on the situation in north Wales, using January Home Office figures. Five years ago, North Wales police employed 160 officers for neighbourhood policing and 254 police community support officers. Last year that figure fell to 90 police officers and just 148 police community support officers. That is a worry. Now, we know that there is technology and we welcome new technology—none of us is advocating the return to a sort of era of “Dixon of Dock Green”—but we do recognise that neighbourhood policing is vital if we are serious about tackling crime in our rural communities.
There are many aspects to rural crime, but today I will stick to just one: the issue of speeding on our rural roads, which I asked the Minister about earlier. Many of us are very concerned about the extent of speeding now. We need a major clampdown on speeding and, yes, a justice system that is prepared to be serious in its use of driving bans—something that is not happening to the right degree today.
Ruth George
Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of funding for safety measures on our roads is contributing to the increase in speeding? In Derbyshire, for example, an area has to have seen seven personal injury accidents within three years before the authority will even look at considering safety improvements on the road. Does she agree that that is contributing to the problem?
Susan Elan Jones
I agree with every word my hon. Friend said.
Let me give a couple of examples. In north Wales, a biker was recently clocked doing 138 mph on the single-lane carriageway A5. For that he got fines, plus a grand total of a 90-day ban. Chillingly, a newspaper report spoke of photographs of the defendant riding towards a triangular sign warning of a pedestrian crossing 250 yards ahead of him. That is terrifying. In another example on the A5 in north Wales, a so-called supercar—I believe it cost around £70,000 and it could obviously go extremely fast—was clocked doing 122 mph. That is double the speed limit. The driver in that case got fines, which were clearly worth nothing to the tune of his £70,000 car, plus a grand total of a 56-day driving ban.
The Institute of Advanced Motorists has shown that there have been speeds of up to 140 mph on our roads in the last couple of years, so it is small wonder that it has called for an increase in visible policing as an active deterrent to speeding. It has also called for advanced driving and riding tuition, and the continuous development of skills. As a spokesperson from the organisation put it:
“Those guilty of this level of excessive speeding are clearly not being deterred by a short ban or fine. Their minds need to be concentrated to appreciate that they are putting other road users at significant danger by acting in this way.”
We need to be aware that car occupants and motorcyclists are twice as likely to die on a rural road as on an urban one. For cyclists, it is three times as much. The road safety charity Brake found, in a Brake and Digby Brown survey, that 33% of drivers admit to driving too fast on country roads, 19% admit breaking speed limits on country roads, 37% have had a near miss on country roads and 72% support lower speed limits.
I would like to end with a specific plea. More motorcyclists have died in north Wales so far this year—eight people—than in all of 2017. This is a sad feature not just of north Wales but of some other rural areas too. This week, North Wales police released details of an anonymous call where a man’s partner called them and begged them to arrest her speeding biker boyfriend over fears that he would die on the roads. North Wales police released the transcript of this anonymous call. The woman told them:
“My partner is a biker and is visiting north Wales this weekend and already boasting that he will be doing over a ton whenever he can. I know where they are starting from. Please, please try and find and stop them. We have children and I would rather him banned or in jail than dead. I am sorry to put this on you as I know you are already overworked.”
It is time we brought in proper speeding bans, time we funded more police to watch over our rural roads, and time we took the issue of speeding seriously. I really hope that this will become a much bigger issue in years to come and that the Government will act.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
It is vital, as we have heard from colleagues across the House, that we tackle the challenge of crime in rural communities. My constituency is unusual on Teesside in that it is the only one with a significant rural element, in the shape of rural East Cleveland. At my rural club, I have heard eloquent testimony from local farmers and people who run rural businesses on issues such as hare coursing, theft, trespass, and the production of drugs on isolated patches of farmland. There is a very serious problem. Perhaps it does not attract some of the media attention that urban crime, particularly crime in the capital, receives, but that does not mean that it is not very serious.
For example, in the coastal town of Saltburn at Easter, there was a real wave of antisocial behaviour. The Coco & Rum restaurant was attacked. A gang of youths was gathering around the local Sainsbury’s, drawn there by the wi-fi signal. Saltburn may not be a rural community, but it is a coastal community, so it falls into the category of somewhere that is quite difficult to police.
Good local policing makes a huge difference in cracking down on all these problems. I pay great tribute to the work of the Guisborough neighbourhood policing team, who are the main focus of policing in East Cleveland. Led by Inspector Fay Cole, they do a really fantastic job. They do not have large numbers of people. They have a very large area to police—it profiles as somewhere with many of the features of an urban community, just spread out in a more disparate fashion. They do a brilliant job. At the Skelton McDonald’s during the recess, I heard directly from the people there how grateful they were for the work of the local constabulary in cracking down on problems they had had with antisocial behaviour. So it can be done. Considering the resources that are available, the team do an outstanding job.
That brings me to the issue of resources. I will concede that there is funding pressure on our police. That would be my No. 1 priority for additional investment as our national finances stabilise, and I welcome the comments made by the Home Secretary in his Andrew Marr interview at the weekend. However, I find it well-nigh unbelievable that Labour Members show such collective amnesia as to why we are in the current situation regarding our public finances. The ruinous state that we inherited in 2010, which they—[Interruption.] They look down. They look at their phones. They look anywhere other than at the truth of the matter, which is—[Interruption.] The truth of the matter is that it was a shambolic situation, and we are still paying the price for it now. Were they to have the opportunity to put into practice some of the policies that they boast about now, we would very quickly return to that state of affairs.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My hon. Friend is giving an important speech and making his point very well. Is it not right that the cost of the interest we are paying on the debt created by the Labour Government is roughly equivalent to the current policing budget? Had they not created such huge levels of debt, would we not be able to provide a much better service?
Ruth George
I thank the hon. Gentleman. To put the record straight, the debt of which he speaks was less than £1 trillion in 2010. It is now practically £2 trillion. That is where the interest on the debt is coming from. Not only have this Government doubled the country’s debt, but they have decimated our police forces to the lowest level ever and are letting criminals back into our rural communities to run riot.
Mr Clarke
That is the height of economic illiteracy. It fails to distinguish between the debt and the deficit. We inherited an enormous deficit, so of course the debt continued to grow while there was a deficit. We have now virtually closed that deficit on current spending, and all that we now borrow is for investment. That is an absolute calumny in terms of economics, and it is frightening that the hon. Lady believes it.
Mr John Hayes
With respect to my hon. Friend, to return to the issue of policing, it is also true that the problem with the funding of rural policing goes back a long way. I first campaigned on this when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, I took a petition on it to Downing Street when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister and I continued to campaign on it during the coalition Government. We have a fundamental problem across politics of getting the funding for rural policing right, and now we have the opportunity to do so.
Mr Clarke
I agree. How we slice the cake is certainly a topic to which we can return. I find myself in an interesting situation, because part of Cleveland is an urban community and part of it is a rural community. It is certainly important, as a matter of principle, that we have a funding settlement that is fair to all parts of our society.
I want to look at the positive things that are going on, and there are some very positive things going on in Cleveland. I want to congratulate Cleveland police today on opening its recruitment drive. It aims to significantly increase the number of special constables from the current number of about 50 to more than 200. That is a great tribute to our new chief constable, Mike Veale, but it is also a tribute to the police and crime commissioner for allowing it to happen; I welcome, on a cross-party basis, his decision to do so.
I think that lots of people in East Cleveland will want to take up the opportunity to serve as a special constable. I have heard lots of enthusiasm from people who want to serve their communities and who know them well, which means they can establish a bond and will be likely to be able to identify problems before they arise and tackle them decisively. I hope that any constituents listening to the debate will proceed to the Cleveland police website and look at the recruitment process.
A huge amount can also be done through sensible reform. I have met our new chief constable, and he has talked about things such as greater use of technology, so that officers are not obligated to return to station every time there has been an incident and write it up, but can do so while out on the beat, and flattening the force structure. The chief constable has been talking about removing certain ranks from the force structure, to free up more funding for constables who will be out on the beat. It is the sergeants and constables who so often make a real difference on the ground by extending availability of cover. That is an extremely healthy mindset and something that I hope we will see progress on in the years ahead.
There is an opportunity to restore confidence to communities such as Loftus and Brotton. I am holding a series of meetings in those two villages this Friday with the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner precisely to try to identify how, while recognising the financial realities, we can deliver a better balance of policing between the urban and rural areas of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
I represent a constituency in north Wales, which has a number of urban areas but is also significantly rural, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said. We have something like 700,000 people in north Wales, spread over 6,000-plus sq km. It is a drive of 82 miles from one end of north Wales to the other, and it would take me 20 miles by 10 miles to cover my constituency. It is a big rural area represented by Members of Parliament in the House today. We have six counties in the North Wales police force area, and we have two languages—Welsh and English—because of the area’s history.
We have an influx of tourists each year, which doubles the population in the key summer months. That brings its own challenges, as my hon. Friend said, such as increased traffic problems, more deaths on roads and an increase in the number of events that need policing. We have individuals who occasionally drink too much on holiday and cause difficulties, and we have increased crime in the summer months. Those challenges are by no means and by no stretch of the imagination the ones facing central London or the inner cities, but they are interesting challenges that need to be addressed by the Government as part of the rural crime debate. We border the two metropolitan areas of Merseyside and Manchester, which have significant crime challenges, such as the promotion of drug and other criminal activity, which are very often transferred to areas of north Wales. We have to be aware of all those issues.
I approach this debate in the light of those challenges for north Wales. We are an area of moderate or reasonably low crime, but I bring to the House the fact that in the past 12 to 15 months crime has significantly increased. I listened with some interest to Members who have seen crime fall in their area. We must remember that this is against a backdrop of having 20,000 fewer officers across the whole of the United Kingdom since I had the honour of being the police Minister in the Home Office. There has been a 6% drop in police numbers—100 fewer officers—in my North Wales police force area, but over the past 18 months there has been a 13% increase in recorded crime in north Wales. The number of murders is at a seven-year high. Shop theft has risen, and it is estimated that its cost is over £128,000 a year in my constituency. Theft from buildings and properties has risen by 37% in the past year and violent crime is up by 21%, with domestic burglary up by 38% across the board.
I accept that this brings many challenges, and I know for a fact that North Wales police officers are doing a sterling job—they are concerned to drive crime down, and they want to do more—but the chief constable himself has said that we face a £2.1 million cut next year because of reduced funding from central Government. It is all very well to talk, as we did earlier, about taxpayers’ money, but central Government money comes from everybody, with the richest and the poorest in our society paying it through direct taxation, while the rises for local rate payers, who are now the source of funding needed to maintain the police service—we have had a significant 5% rise in north Wales—come from everybody, rich and poor, in north Wales entirely on the basis of their property, even though a council tax increase raises less in our area than it would, for example, here in Westminster. There is a funding issue, and it has been well rehearsed.
I support the proposal made from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) to increase police force numbers by about 10,000. That will not get us back to where we were when I did the job, but it would still be a significant increase and it would help to support the thin blue line in north Wales. There are now 1,300 police officers in north Wales, but we must remember that, although they are at work for eight hours in any one day, they are asleep for eight hours and they are off for eight hours, while some are off sick and some are on holiday so, recognising that as a whole, it is an extremely thin blue line.
Crime in urban areas is very important, and antisocial behaviour and a range of other issues do affect my constituency, but there are specific issues of rural crime, which this debate is about, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one in particular. I congratulate him on his elevation to the Front Bench, where I know he will do a good job. He represents a north-west constituency that has rural areas, and he comes to my constituency on occasion, so he will know it is a rural one. He has it within his gift today to take action, in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in support of the North Wales police rural unit in tackling sheep attacks and sheep worrying.
The Minister needs to know that in north Wales, and I pay tribute to North Wales police for this, we have a specific unit to deal with rural crime. It deals not just with attacks on sheep, but with attacks on birds, badger baiting and the enforcement of the fox hunting and hare coursing legislation, as well as fly-tipping and the rural issues of metal theft, tractor theft and all such crimes. Its officers do so in a specific and targeted way, dealing with the impact of those crimes, but also working to prevent them by visiting agricultural shows, talking to farmers and coming to farmers markets. They provide information to support the prevention of crime, which is a great use of policing time, rather than just dealing with the criminal activity itself.
The head of the unit, Rob Taylor, and its officers have brought to my attention the vital issue of sheep worrying. I want to put it on the Minister’s agenda because he can make a difference today by saying that he will act on it. Sheep worrying in my north Wales constituency has resulted in 648 dead animals in the past year. Farmers have shot 52 dogs because they were sheep worrying. There have been 449 livestock attacks. Damage to sheep and livestock has cost farmers thousands of pounds. Farmers in Lixwm in my constituency have experienced two attacks in 48 hours.
Why do I say that the Minister can take action? There are some clear things he can do, so let me put them on the record. I know those figures because North Wales police have kept a record of those attacks. At present, attacks on livestock in general—not just sheep—are not a recordable offence across the United Kingdom. The Home Office could make that a recordable offence so that we know how many attacks have taken place and where, and the extent of the problem.
The Government also need to address the fact that the police have no powers to seize dogs that undertake attacks. The fine for irresponsible dog owners whose dogs attack sheep is £1,000, but that does not even cover the cost of dead sheep following attacks on some of my constituents’ farms, and no compensation is paid to people who lose sheep as a result of criminal activity. It is very difficult to get sheep insurance if there has already been an attack. Finally, no disqualification order is applied to the owner of a dog that attacks sheep and kills perhaps 10 or 15 of them, as has happened on some of the farms in my constituency.
It is in the gift of the Minister to address those issues. He could make it a recordable offence, increase the fine, give the police powers to seize dogs legally, and give disqualification orders to dog owners whose dogs misbehave in a way that causes carnage, increased costs and damage.
The all-party parliamentary group on animal welfare, ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), has produced an excellent report on those issues which has been submitted to DEFRA. The Minister could indicate today that he will look at the issues. Although that would not increase police numbers or necessarily reduce crime in my urban areas, which is still a severe issue, or prevent murders linked to county line issues and other drug offences, it could help, in a small way, to support the efforts of the North Wales police rural unit to tackle sheep worrying and sheep crime. Many people think it is a frivolous crime, but it comes at a cost.
David Hanson
I was about to finish, but I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Giles Watling
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am sorry for interrupting just as he was finishing. Does he think it might be helpful to reintroduce a form of licensing or registration for dogs so that we know where they are and who owns them?
David Hanson
There are a range of issues and that could certainly be looked at. In the immediate term, however, although my force records the crimes, we do not know how many animal attacks there are against livestock in Essex, for example, because the police are not required to record them. Recording them would be a start, and increasing the fine and allowing the police to disqualify dog owners are other major proposals. Important though I think other issues are, none of those proposals would be a major expenditure item for the police or for DEFRA. I hope they would act as a deterrent and help tackle this particular crime, which has caused mayhem in my constituency. They have the support of North Wales police. If I can have extra police, I will take them, and if we can deal with urban crime, I will take that, but the Minister has it in his gift to address those issues and I hope he will seriously consider doing so today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. If everyone takes around seven minutes, everyone who wishes to speak will have an opportunity to do so. If they do not, I will have to impose a time limit. Let us try to be co-operational.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I might even try to take less time, in the spirit of charity.
As attested to not least by the number of Lincolnshire MPs in the Chamber today, the Lincolnshire police force is a remarkable force. Lincolnshire is a vast rural county—the second biggest in the country, after Yorkshire—yet, although the average level of funding per head in the UK is £104.50, it gets by on £77.90 per head. That is a huge difference. I say gently to the Opposition that it is surprising that their contention is that it costs more to police a rural area than a metropolitan area in some ways. Lincolnshire does not want to take money away from metropolitan areas, but I think we all realise that a fairer share of the cake is important. In that context, though, I think we all also realise that the Metropolitan police’s work on counter-terrorism has a nationwide benefit and that rural police forces benefit from the integrated way in which modern police forces work.
Mr John Hayes
Let me say two things on that matter. First, Lincolnshire is not only rural but sparse, and the sparse nature of the population creates real problems in terms of the police responding to events of the kind that have been described. Secondly, the Metropolitan police’s reach, which my hon. Friend describes, does not mean that Lincolnshire police do not have to be alive to those kind of threats and trained to prepare for them, which is costly, too.
Matt Warman
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for summarising the rest of my speech. He is absolutely right that, although we of course benefit from money that goes to the Metropolitan police and to other police forces, in a county that is a vast place in terms of travelling time as much as distance, the nature of policing is fundamentally different.
We have talked about hare coursing at some length and I do not wish to add much to the excellent contributions we have heard, but let me say two things. First, this is absolutely about the sense of safety that people feel in their own homes and properties. It is a profoundly serious crime that has never had the attention that it deserves in terms of sentencing in the courts. Its victims have struggled to articulate quite how damaging and limiting for their lives it has been not to feel safe in their own homes, knowing how distant they are from anyone else. If nothing else, this debate has been an important contribution on that issue.
Secondly, when I have raised hare coursing in this House and elsewhere, one of my frustrations has been that even people in urban areas in my constituency often accuse those who seek to better fund action on rural crime and hare coursing of not focusing on what they would say are more important urban crimes. We have a job of work to do to explain the damage done by rural crime and hare coursing in particular, not only to our colleagues in the House but even to those who live in market towns just a few miles from where it happens. I absolutely commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and the all-party group on rural crime, particularly on hare coursing, but there is plenty more to do on that front.
Next, I wish to talk about the roads, and particularly the cost to Lincolnshire police of the investigation of accidents and collisions. According to Lincolnshire police, on average, it costs £2 million overall to investigate a collision and £1.84 million per casualty. It is of course a tragedy when anyone dies on our roads, but it is also a huge amount of money for our public services, so we are right to consider what we can do to get the incidence of road fatalities down, not solely for the sake of the families of those in our constituencies but for all taxpayers.
Thankfully, Lincolnshire has seen a significant reduction in the number of road deaths and collisions compared with 10 or 15 years ago, but there is still a huge amount of work to do. We have to bear in mind that the work of special constables in particular has been a very practical way for Lincolnshire to deal with the number of crimes and the number of road safety partnership schemes has increased. That should be commended and it is just one example of Lincolnshire police being creative with that £77.90 per head of population, which, as I said earlier, is some £25 per head below the average for the country.
The police force has worked with the private sector. Lincolnshire colleagues will no doubt be familiar with the imperfection of G4S, shall we say, when it comes to its relationship with the police force, but I would argue that ultimately it has done far more good than harm in terms of value for the taxpayer. When it works, it works very well, so I commend it.
I also commend the use of WhatsApp groups to deal with hare coursing, the use of drones and a whole host of schemes. I commend the work of the police with North Sea Camp prison on fly-tipping, allowing inmates to return, to some extent, to the world of work through the genuine public service of helping to deal with fly-tipping, which in our vast rural county is a real struggle and hard to deal with. It is also the right thing to do for the future life chances of criminals in a category D, so-called open, prison, where it is important they adjust to the future world of work.
I will talk briefly about the issues that have come to the urban areas of my constituency, thanks to the many benefits of being a rural area. Large numbers of people have come to Boston in particular thanks to our agricultural economy and the availability of work. That has, however, caused some social tensions and a number of issues around translation for the police, which cost a great deal of money. Dealing with new communities within a rural constituency often falls to the police. Lincolnshire police do a remarkable job in very challenging circumstances. I commend the work of Marc Jones, the police and crime commissioner, and Bill Skelly.
More than anything, what we have seen from all my Lincolnshire colleagues—and from the Minister on the Front Bench—is an argument that a fairer share of the funding cake is only right for rural constituencies. I hope that the next time we debate the police funding formula, those on the Labour Benches will acknowledge that it would be in all our interests to slice that funding cake, however big it is, more fairly than it is at the moment.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), my constituency neighbour, on his promotion to the Front Bench. I promise to try to be a little more deferential—I can’t commit to it—on the platform of Macclesfield station as we travel down together.
As the Minister will know, rural crime is the same as crime in any other area. In my very rural constituency, we have burglaries, shop thefts, car thefts, domestic abuse, antisocial behaviour, and, most recently, a serious increase in violent crime with the coming of county lines criminals to our isolated towns. The difference between rural crime and urban crime is that there is more isolation: there is more isolation among communities. There are fewer police and they are more isolated, too.
I recently met shop owners in New Mills, a small town in my constituency, who see gangs of youths committing antisocial behaviour, trying to rob stores and present fake money. Those shopkeepers are often solitary, working on their own in their shops. They tell me that they are frightened by the lack of police presence on their streets. In Chapel-en-le-Frith, the capital of the Peak, a beautiful little village nestled in the valleys just down the road from where I live, there are people posting on social media that they are too scared to set foot outside their doors because they are worried about the criminals patrolling the area looking for burglary opportunities. In Derbyshire, we have lost more than 400 police officers in the last seven years, as well as two police stations, one in New Mills and one in Chapel-en-le-Frith, and while the Minister can question the impact of those losses, people in those communities certainly feel less safe.
We have had an increase in our precept of £1 a month for every resident across Derbyshire, which will allow us another 25 officers, but that will in no way make up for the more than 400 we have lost. High Peak is an area of over 200 square miles and 91,000 people. We used to have more than 100 police officers across our four police stations; now there is just half that number. We have seen not only a 26% cut in police funding but huge extra demands on our police forces, particularly from specialist crime, cyber-crime, sexual exploitation, domestic abuse and modern slavery.
Now we have just 50 police officers across two police stations. I pay enormous tribute to Inspector Phil Booth of High Peak police and his team, who work incredibly hard over a wide area—and singlehandedly now that there are not enough of them to cover the whole area with two officers at a time. At most, we have 10 officers patrolling at once, even at the busiest times—the thin blue line is very thin! I saw this when I spent a 12-hour shift with them on a Friday night, driving huge distances, searching for missing persons, dealing with antisocial behaviour, domestic incidents and violence.
Officers often have to attend dangerous incidents singlehanded. Last month, one of our officers responded to a burglar alarm at a warehouse—a fairly common incident. He went out on his own in a police car as usual, but when he got there, three cars sped out of the warehouse straight at him and rammed his police car, deliberately injuring him. Fortunately, after that, they left, but we are seeing increased violence by offenders, because they know our police are on their own.
When I was sitting in the police station with the police officers, a young constable told me that she often had to attend on her own incidents where gangs of youths taunted her and claimed she had no back-up on the way. She has to claim she has support around the corner while knowing from her radio that she does not, that her colleagues might be miles away and that she has to hold the line on her own, and it is scary. Our police officers should not be put in those situations. It happens more in rural areas because the police are so isolated and covering such a wide area. There is a limit to what individual officers can put up with, and unfortunately more are leaving the service from stress and strain. They should not be in danger because of cuts.
On top of all this, we have recently seen county lines criminals come to our quiet area of Derbyshire, bringing violence, cuckooing, the kidnapping of vulnerable people, hard drugs and serious weapons. They come out from Manchester, take over a house in Buxton, Chapel or New Mills and hold inhabitants captive while they supply hard drugs in the area. When our police receive intelligence that a drug supplier is present, they have to request an armed response unit from Ripley, which is over an hour away. If they do not get that intelligence and have to raid the property themselves, they can be faced with knives, guns and—in the latest incident—machetes. They are putting their own safety on the line for us.
Rural crime might be similar to that in urban areas, but rural areas have fewer resources to deal with it. We could have a debate about the reason for that, as the Minister tried to do earlier, but I would rather make some practical suggestions, and I hope that Ministers will take heed. Our local court was closed two years ago, so now offenders have to be transported over an hour away to Manchester or Chesterfield, which ties up police time and resources.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, and we look forward to the elucidation of her arguments, but I was a tad nervous when she talked about the subjects she wanted to go on to discuss, because a number of other Members also wish to contribute, and we must get on to the winding-up speeches as well. I am sure she will treat of these matters in a legendary fashion but also very succinctly.
Ruth George
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Absolutely.
I am sure that the Home Office will be asking Justice Ministers to look into the impact of the next round of court closures on police and Home Office resources.
It takes six months for people in my area to receive drugs treatment. That means not only that those people are suffering, but that the criminals who come out for county lines have a ready-made market. Although hardened drug users are apparently begging for treatment, they cannot get it for six months, and that needs to be looked at.
Finally, our police tell me that they have a serious problem with forensic testing. It takes six months for an illegal substance to be tested. The police can hold suspects on pre-charge bail for a maximum of three months, so they have to let them go and cannot place conditions on them. Those people are then free to intimidate victims and witnesses, thus endangering their trials and the ability to commit them for sentencing.
I look forward to the Minister’s addressing those issues. We all want our police to have the support they need in every area, so that they can do their job of protecting us all.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
Saffron Walden is the largest and most rural constituency in Essex, with almost 400 square miles of beautiful countryside. However, its size means that my constituents face challenges in accessing public services, and in that regard the vast majority of the correspondence that I receive relates to tackling rural crime. Rural crime needs special attention, because it is markedly different from other offences. In some respects our area needs more, not less, policing than other areas. That is because crimes are often committed by certain groups in isolated areas where police response times are inevitably slower.
The Conservatives are the party of law and order, and the Government have done some very positive things, which I acknowledge. In April the Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), announced a review of the powers to deal with unauthorised caravan sites. Similarly, after lobbying efforts by me and a number of colleagues—including my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), who is present—the Essex police precept was increased. The increase will deliver 150 more officers.
I supported that measure wholeheartedly, but it was a short-term solution, and local people cannot always be asked to pay more. Taxpayers are already burdened with the cost of clearing up rural crime—for instance, in the village of Great Canfield, where my constituent Allison Ward wrote to me about fly-tipping, explaining that it had blocked roads and that it could take two or three days for the rubbish to be removed. I have regularly been in contact with farmers who have been threatened, businesses that have been stolen from, shop owners in the market towns who have been burgled, and the many constituents whose lives are blighted by illegal Traveller sites. My constituents Kate Mitchell and Jenny Askew wrote to let me know that, even as we speak, an illegal site is disrupting pupils in the middle of their important exams at Helena Romanes School.
I am speaking today on behalf of all those people, and asking the Government for a fresh look at rural crime with more innovative solutions. For instance, Uttlesford community safety partnership has brilliant outreach schemes. By building networks among farmers, it has enabled them to message one another when an incident requires a rapid response. The partnership is currently lobbying for automatic number plate recognition cameras along an Ml1 link road, the B1383, which would help to trigger alerts when suspected hare coursers enter the area. We would be pleased if that received Government support.
I spent my Easter recess gaining work experience with local police. It was an opportunity for me to engage with what they are seeing on the frontline. I was able to look more closely at how cases are handled on the Athena system and how the police work with Uttlesford Council, and to take part in local and community policing ride-alongs. One day we even had an urgent 999 call—about a naked man running around Saffron Walden. I am only half glad that we did not catch him, as he would have had to sit in the back of the patrol car with me!
What I learned from being with the police is that they feel they spend too much time driving across the area and not enough time policing. They also have concerns that population does not account for as wide an area as Braintree and Uttlesford, so we need more officers because the per capita statistics are not reflective when need is assessed. That is why constituents such as David Kerr wrote to me, quite rightly, to say that police presence is lacking and that is why some criminals feel they can act with impunity.
When I was out on a patrol with PCSO James Graham, whom I pay tribute to for his tireless community engagement, we met farmers who had been affected by hare coursing. Their families had previously been threatened by the coursers. As law-abiding citizens, they have liberty to lose, but those who challenge them on their own land do not. My constituent Tony Rea has often written to me about ways in which the Irish model, where trespass is a criminal and not a civil offence, can be used to stop Travellers trespassing on private land.
What was striking is that due to the major roads and airport infrastructure in the constituency, we suffer from high rates of transient crime, as hare coursers come from outside the county. I have also been told of the bizarre instance of criminals from as far away as Chile coming in via Stansted airport and fleeing before their crimes could be properly investigated.
On my last day with the police, I took part in a multi-agency operation on the Felsted Traveller site to find some wanted individuals. I helped the police patrol the perimeter to ensure that suspects did not successfully flee, and joined the dog unit to microchip the Travellers’ dogs. Shockingly, we uncovered a cannabis factory. This illegal activity on a sanctioned site only fuels drug use in the area and Travellers’ own gambling habits for hare coursing. Despite this, I also heard stories of remarkable bravery, notably where Sergeant Geoff Edwards—only just returning to full duty—challenged seven hare coursers on his own.
I pay tribute to Essex Police and in particular Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh, who recently announced his retirement. The police need more support from us in this House. We can help them by looking again at a strategic view of how best to fight rural crime and introducing innovations as they protect our constituents. I would be most grateful if the Minister shared with the House in this debate, or in the near future, any new proposals or innovations the Government have in this area.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
By participating in this very necessary debate today I wish to put on record my willingness to speak up for the rural communities and farm businesses that this Government have neglected.
I went to Moor farm in my constituency to meet a number of farmers and members of the National Farmers Union. Farmers in my constituency have said that they are unable to sleep peacefully and are having to constantly dig trenches, replace locks and build gates and barriers to barricade themselves in their own farms. Gangs of hare coursers have threatened their families with violence and intimidation; hare coursing itself has become an almost daily and expected occurrence and damages crops, property and the welfare of livestock.
I ask Members to imagine if the context of a criminal episode was changed and it was shown to be one of us smashing through garden fences, driving across flowerbeds, shouting and gesticulating and gesturing abuse, intimidating and threatening witnesses and even actually assaulting someone. Would we be permitted to continue in that way unimpeded time after time? I think not; we all know the answer would be no.
Those who live, work and enjoy the countryside should feel safe, but these crimes result in deep anxiety. These communities are suffering from a chronic lack of investment in public services. Last year, there were 184 incidents of hare coursing in Peterborough and rural theft cost Cambridgeshire £1,732,174. Organised crime gangs steal diesel and tractors and relentlessly target quad bikes. The theft of high-value machinery that cannot be replaced swiftly puts timely agricultural operations at risk.
My constabulary works tirelessly to prevent the intimidation of landowners, walkers and people trying to enjoy the countryside, but cuts have affected the ability of rural forces to provide time-honoured community policing. Fly-tipping and illegal waste dumping are costing farmers tens of thousands of pounds to clear up. What impact does the Minister believe these unprecedented cuts to local authorities are having on the levels of rural fly-tipping? I would be interested to know whether he recognises the connection between his Government’s relentless austerity agenda and the increases in fly-tipping and littering in our countryside. As a result of these cuts to our councils, the cost of clearing fly-tips is increasingly being borne by landowners and farmers.
The situation is totally out of control, and on the rare occasions when criminals are apprehended, it is felt that their acts of criminality are not being dealt with appropriately. When I speak to farmers, they advise me that even when the police are called, they are unable to respond in a timely fashion. Also, as we have heard today, the police can be intimidated by these criminals. They often have to attend a reported crime by themselves without any support, and that has to be looked into. It is inappropriate for them to be alone without support. They need better support, and the victims of crime should not have to pay. Farms are having to become fortresses, as farmers feel as though they are under siege. There has been a blatant failure to address the real issues, and the situation has now reached breaking point. I ask the Minister to look seriously at what can be done to address the issue of rural crime, in order to make those whom we serve feel safe.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
I would like to start by commending my police and crime commissioner, Peter McCall, and the Cumbria constabulary, which has recently been graded as “good” by Her Majesty’s inspectorate. My very rural constituency covers an area of around 500 square miles and has a population of 80,000 people. This brings two challenges. The huge geographical area of Cumbria, with the Lake District mountain range in the middle, means that it takes far longer than one might expect to travel the length and breadth of the county. It also means that we are less able than more densely populated rural areas to generate funds by increasing the precept.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
My hon. Friend describes her rural area, and of course, west Oxfordshire is also rural. We too are afflicted by the horrors of hare coursing, as well as by rural thefts and, more recently, by some well-publicised violent ATM thefts. It occurs to me that, although this is rural crime, it may be committed by people who are coming from elsewhere and that there could therefore be an element of urban crime exporting itself to rural areas. Does she agree that we need not only to encourage police forces to work together, which they will do, but to consider these issues holistically?
Trudy Harrison
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In that context, I also want to commend the Cumbria constabulary for its work on bringing together the Copeland hub, which is a first in the county. It is a multi-agency hub that brings together neighbourhood policing, the council and housing.
The election of police and crime commissioners has given communities, including those in rural areas, a strong voice in determining how police resources should be allocated in order to tackle the crimes that matter most to our communities. However, this is dependent on having a strong economy and a large population to contribute towards the precept. It is true that people living and working in rural areas are less likely to become victims of crime than those in urban areas, but let us not discount the fact that rural crime is estimated to have cost the UK economy more than £39 million since 2016.
The crime and community safety strategic assessment for Cumbria published in November 2017 reports that more than half the residents in Cumbria live rurally. That compares with about 18% across England and Wales. Offences typically include the theft of livestock, quad bikes, machinery and small and mid-sized tractors, as well as older tractors, which are now being stolen to feed the market for spares. Fly-tipping and illegal waste dumping cost landowners tens of thousands of pounds to clear up, and this is becoming an increasing problem for local authorities and the police, as well as for our communities, who take so much pride in where they live.
Cumbria’s economy depends on tourism, which is worth around £2.5 billion. Having secured UNESCO world heritage status for our cultural heritage and stunning scenery, it is surely more important than ever to clamp down on illegal fly-tipping, to safeguard the environment and, of course, to protect farmers and landowners—the very people who created our globally celebrated landscape. Without farmers, we would have nothing. I visit a farm in my constituency each month, and I am increasingly aware of their contribution to our countryside and economy.
I commend Alan Anderson, a Cumbrian shepherd who works closely with the community and police, for raising awareness of sheep rustling, resulting in an overall reduction of 22% in that particular rural crime. I also commend the CLA action plan for combating hare coursing. Despite being illegal, hare coursing is increasing, fuelled by black market gambling. Introducing specific sentencing, ensuring adequate resources for the National Wildlife Crime Unit—I welcome the £301,000 of funding—and allowing police to reclaim the costs of kennelling dogs from offenders will all help. The confiscating of dogs has already resulted in a reduction of lamping in my area, which is of course welcome, but these horrific crimes still go on. Criminals come out at night, trespassing on landowners’ fields, scanning the area with high-powered lamps, allowing their lurchers to outrun the deer and drag them down by the throat. They often return some days later to collect the fatally wounded animal, alleging that they found it. Such people are the thugs of the countryside.
NFU Mutual’s claims data reports that the annual cost of rural crime to Cumbria is around £614,000. That is a decrease of 16.5% compared with the previous year, which is good news, but I urge the Government, and the Home Office in particular, not to be blindsided by this seemingly encouraging statistic. Apathy is all too common in our communities, with too many people failing to report crime or lacking faith in the criminal justice system. The financial cost to Cumbria is less than in many other counties, but the impact on Copeland’s rural communities is significant.
Only last weekend, my uncle was the victim of a rural crime, part of a spate of many vehicles being broken into through the night. The thieves got away with a Hilti hammer drill, a battery drill, a Makita planer and a Makita circular saw. That was not just a theft; it will affect his livelihood as a joiner. While the cost of those tools may run into the thousands of pounds, the impact on his business and livelihood and the subsequent delays to the projects he is working on is considerable. Highly skilled, hard-working, honest people in my community are being blighted by the crimes of low-lifes, which must not go un-investigated and unprosecuted. The perpetrators of these rural crimes must be brought to justice.
I would like to draw to the attention of the House how perpetrators are going about committing such crimes. It is appalling that skeleton keys used to break into transit vans easily can still be purchased online even after a national newspaper slammed an online marketplace for selling them. I fail to see how insurers can adequately protect owners while such keys are so readily available, and I urge Government to act.
In conclusion, I am pleased that crime is on the decrease and that an extra £460 million will be invested through the police and crime commissioners’ precept. The contribution of rural businesses, farmers and tourism plays an enormous role in our economy, and I hope that we ensure that they are protected.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) in this important debate. As a district councillor and long-time resident of Tendring, I know that rural crime is all too common in the Tendring District Council area. To demonstrate that point further, only today I received a telephone call and an email from a couple of local residents who have both recently been the victims of rural crime. In the first incident, a constituent contacted me to report fly-tipping. I hear similar concerns on a weekly basis in my area, and fly-tipping is the most significant rural crime we face locally. It is estimated that my local authority spent over £74,000 last year alone on tackling this issue, which is £74,000 that should have been spent on improving public services for local taxpayers. That is an outrage: taxes should not have to be spent in this way.
Moreover, if the council is spending £74,000, unfortunate private landowners are probably spending much more. I say probably because we have no way of telling how much it costs them to clear up the mess. I am told by my local Essex police district commander, the excellent Paul Wells, that, on the whole, private landowners just get on with it and clear up the mess, so the actual cost to them and to the public is far higher than the headline figures suggest.
We must also consider the potential health risks of fly-tipping, because some people—some builders, et cetera—will just dump stuff that may contain hazardous waste, such as asbestos and the like. Consequently, we must continue to tackle this issue very strongly, and I agree with the Country Land and Business Association that greater penalties are needed. We need to punish offenders, and we need to make sure we use all opportunities for enforcement. Unfortunately, it appears that is not currently happening.
According to figures from the CLA, there were 1,132 incidents of fly-tipping in Tendring in 2016-17, yet no fines were given out, no vehicles were seized and nobody was prosecuted. To put it another way, 1,170 incidents were investigated, at a cost of £38,000 to the public purse, nobody was punished, and no costs were recouped.
Moving away from fly-tipping, an equally important local crime in our rural areas is dog theft, which has not been mentioned this afternoon. I am regularly contacted about this issue. I have previously raised the concerns of local residents in a Westminster Hall debate on the sale of puppies, and I would be grateful for more information from the Minister on what the Government plan to do about that issue.
According to Missing Pets Bureau, as many as 38% of all animals reported lost have been stolen, and as many as 60% of stolen dogs are tragically never recovered. I agree with the 93,557 individuals, and counting, who have signed a petition calling for the theft of a pet to be reclassified as a specific crime in its own right.
Rural crime in Tendring is not all doom and gloom. Our police are doing great work locally, and I thank our long-time rural and heritage crime officer Andy Long and all his Essex police colleagues for their hard work. Thanks to their efforts, the cost of rural crime has fallen by £10 million since 2010, meaning that the true cost of rural crime is now around £39.2 million—that is £39.2 million too much—which shows how effective our local police forces can be and demonstrates that things are moving in the right direction.
That brings me to my final point, because this debate, however focused on rural communities, comes back to a common word used in many debates in this House: enforcement. From knife crime to rural crime, we need bobbies on the beat to act, which is why I am delighted that the campaign I launched last year with fellow Essex MPs, as mentioned earlier, to get more flexibility in the police precept was successful.
Police and crime commissioners are now able to raise precept contributions by up to £1 a month. Together, this will mean force budgets can increase by up to £450 million nationally this year. There will be a welcome boost of £8.8 million across Essex to pay for around 150 new officers. These men and women, while enjoying the rural beauty of our fantastic sunshine coast of Clacton, will find their work cut out for them, yet I am pleased they will have the Government’s support.
I am also pleased that we have 150 extra officers in Essex, because I have just been informed on my mobile device that the police are currently out in my area looking for an escaped ostrich.
Mr Speaker
It is always useful to have a bit of additional information. We are deeply obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Follow that, as they say. We have had a wide-ranging, comprehensive debate, and I wish to thank all colleagues, from both sides of the House, for taking part and bringing their helpful contributions to the Floor. I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for mentioning the all-party group on rural crime, as it is useful for colleagues to know what else is happening in the House that they can take part in when they have an interest in a particular subject. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for raising the important issue of speeding on rural roads. Any of us in a rural community knows that it is a serious issue, particularly in some of our villages. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) drew a vivid picture of the challenges faced by the police in her constituency.
What we have heard today can leave us in no doubt that the Tory Government have simply neglected Britain’s rural communities and have taken so many of our rural constituencies for granted. I represent the Cumbrian seat of Workington, and I join the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) in supporting the important work that our constabulary and PCC do. I thank her for raising that. The constituency I live in covers a huge rural area of the northern Lake district, including the national park, which is now a world heritage site, and the Solway Plain area of outstanding natural beauty. So I am acutely aware of the issues facing people in our small towns, villages and hamlets—I am one of those people.
Anyone with a rural constituency, and anyone who lives in one, knows just how difficult the delivery of high-quality public services is in our communities and how much more expensive they are to deliver. Our local authorities are under intense funding pressures. My local authority, Cumbria County Council, is set to have to make a colossal £33 million in savings over the next 12 months, because of the widespread uncertainty it is facing over its funding for the future. That is £33 million of cuts to vital public services that the authority is being forced into, and we know that that is because funding from central Government has been slashed. Expecting a county such as Cumbria to get its funding from business rates is simply not realistic, as we do not have the necessary level of business or population. It is really important that rural communities have proper funding and that the Government understand that not all formulas work for all areas.
The people set to suffer the most from the cuts to local services are our young people, our elderly, adults who are more vulnerable—those with disabilities—and the people who live in our most rural areas. That is because of the extra cost of delivering to those communities. Unfortunately, it seems that things are set to get even more difficult in Cumbria, as the council also has to find a way to save £70 million by 2022, and that is in addition to the £214 million it has reduced spending by since 2011.
In February, the Government announced an extra £150 million for adult social care, with about £1.5 million of that for Cumbria, but that was described by the council leadership as “crumbs from the table”, and they are absolutely right. As I said, councils need proper funding in place for the requirements they have to deliver and they should not have to rely on ad-hoc tiny handouts from Whitehall to try to keep crucial social services afloat. The County Councils Network estimates that Cumbrian residents will receive £161 of core funding per head this year. As has been mentioned, rural constituents get less money per head. London residents are going to receive £459 per head, which illustrates clearly the problem that we face.
Obviously, the county council has the option to raise council tax. We have heard about precepts being raised and council tax being raised, but what that means is that people who live in rural communities end up paying more per head again and this will continue to build and build. I do not believe that any Minister would consider that this is a fair situation.
I will now turn to the issue of rural crime. It is clear that the Government are failing properly to tackle wildlife crime, rural fly-tipping, sheep worrying and rustling and farm machinery thefts. A recent NFU report, “Combatting Rural Crime”, said that there is, in fact, no proper co-ordinated response from the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) talked about the really serious issue of sheep worrying. Figures obtained by Farmers Weekly on sheep worrying attacks reveal that the problem is endemic. We know that there is a huge number of attacks on sheep and that, on average, one dog is shot every single week. The investigation suggests that there is significant under-reporting by farmers, so we know that this is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. More dog attacks on sheep were recorded in Cumbria last year than in any other English county, so this is an issue that is acutely felt by many of my own constituents. I urge the Minister to listen to what my right hon. Friend has said and take action on this issue.
We have heard that fly-tipping is on the increase, and an increasing amount is being tipped on farmland and in woodland. Farmers are being left to clean up the mess and cover the costs. For example, a Shropshire farmer had a clean-up bill recently of £18,000. Another in Staffordshire, a bill of £6,000, and we have heard of cases where ambulances cannot get through to farms owing to blocked lanes.
On wildlife crime, the latest bird crime report from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds shows that, in 2016, there were no prosecutions at all in the UK for raptor persecution. That was for the first time in more than 30 years, despite the fact that there were 81 recorded instances of persecution. It is simply not good enough. Hen harrier populations are now down by 27%.
There is also concern that the badger cull is fuelling organised badger baiting. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) that badgers are now worth £500 to £700 on the black market. Criminal gangs sell on these badgers for fighting with dogs, an absolutely abhorrent practice that we really need to get on top of and stamp out urgently.
Despite Labour’s 2004 fox hunting ban, we have heard again today about concerns that thousands of animals are being targeted and killed every year by hunts. Campaigners believe trail hunting is being used to cover up the indiscriminate killing of foxes, hares and deer. We have also heard much this afternoon about the problem of hare coursing and the need to clamp down on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya) painted a particularly vivid picture of this.
The National Wildlife Crime Unit was set to be shut down by the Government in 2016, but was awarded four years’ worth of funding at the last minute, and I thank them for that. However, can the Minister confirm whether the unit will continue to receive adequate funding after 2020? The removal of this funding would have serious implications for the detection and accountability of those committing wildlife crimes, such as badger baiting and raptor persecution.
A recent wildlife charity study found a “worrying lack” of prosecutions for wildlife crimes. Almost 1,300 incidents were recorded in just one year, but the records show that there were only 22 prosecutions or convictions. Worryingly, the report also says that the charities’ data is believed to be more comprehensive than Home Office crime statistics, but is still likely to be only the “tip of the iceberg”. It calls on the Government to follow Scotland’s lead. I understand that, in Scotland, there are specific police recording codes that the police use for wildlife crime. As one Member mentioned, it needs to become a reportable offence. The problem at the moment is that if something is recorded as miscellaneous, it is very difficult to build a really clear picture of the extent of the problem. If we want to monitor the situation properly to take the correct action, this is an important step that the Government could take. I ask the Minister to commit to that; if he will not commit to it today, perhaps he could commit to look at whether this is something that could feasibly be done.
I am so pleased that this debate is on the Floor of the House because we need to talk about the real issues that affect rural communities on a daily basis. At the last general election the Conservatives offered nothing for rural voters in Britain, concentrating their efforts on reopening the debate on bringing back foxhunting, instead of improving rural transport, halting bank closures, properly funding local schools, stopping the centralisation of beds away from community hospitals that play such an important role in our communities and, as we have discussed today, resolving the problem of rural crime.
The Labour party would put proper investment into Britain’s public services and infrastructure. This has never been more relevant than it is today to the millions of people living in rural communities across the country, who become so isolated when that infrastructure breaks down. In our 2017 election manifesto, Labour pledged to rural-proof all of our policies, alongside proper investment in rural housing, transport, public services and local authorities, so that they are able to deliver services in areas such as mine, where it costs so much more to do so. We also have policies such as widening of the scope of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, reinstating the seasonal agricultural workers scheme and introducing an agricultural wages board in order to boost the rural economy. The rural economy needs boosting through investment in infrastructure, transport and people such as farmers and food producers. By taking those steps, we can support that economy and, through that, support British farming.
A Labour Government will invest in rural communities and deliver prosperity for towns and villages, because they deserve and need it. Everyone who lives, works and enjoys the countryside has the right to feel safe, understood and secure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (David Rutley)
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), opened the debate by talking about the beauty of the Lincolnshire Wolds. Without wanting to sound competitive in any way, I would like to remind colleagues of the wonders of the Cheshire Peak district—right next door to High Peak, of course—and Cheshire’s beautiful plain. I am grateful to Members on both sides of the House for setting out their views on rural crimes and public services, and I thank the Opposition for securing this important debate.
As the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) said, this has been a wide-ranging debate with contributions from across the United Kingdom, including from Scotland through the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), and from Wales with speeches from the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) and the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson). However, I must confess that I do believe that this debate was over-represented by Members from Lincolnshire, although we recognise that that is another great county.
The Government are committed to bringing sustainable growth to the rural economy, and to supporting and strengthening communities. We have talked a lot about crime. To reassure the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George), my DEFRA responsibilities are purely for a short-term period until my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) returns to her place.
Around 12 million people—19% of the UK population—live in rural areas. Despite some of the challenges we have talked about today, statistics show that most people feel that our rural towns and villages are great places in which to live and work. The fundamental features of rural areas—being more geographically dispersed and more sparsely populated than urban areas—are the key attractions of the UK’s rural towns and villages. We recognise, however, that distance, sparsity and demography can affect the delivery of important services. Rural areas are further away from the main economic centres and can suffer from poorer access to services and facilities that are commonplace in urban areas.
That is why the Government have made a commitment to rural-proof all policies. Much of what Government do has an impact on rural areas. We want these policies and programmes to take account of the specific challenges—and opportunities—for rural businesses and communities. To support this, DEFRA published updated rural-proofing guidance in March 2017. My ministerial colleagues, including Lord Gardiner, have represented the rural voice on taskforces on childcare, housing, and digital. The rural voice is being heard more loudly across Government, as it should be.
As I said, much of this debate has focused on rural crime. I would like to acknowledge the excellent work of our police—in particular, the North Yorkshire and Lincolnshire forces and PCCs who lead nationally on rural crime issues. That said, there have been incredible contributions from Members praising the North Wales and Derbyshire forces, for example. I would like to add my voice in paying tribute to the great work that Cheshire police do on these issues as well. DEFRA and the Home Office work closely with the National Police Chiefs Council’s wildlife crime network and the National Rural Crime Network. I recently went on patrol with Cheshire’s rural and wildlife crime team to see their work at first hand in the Macclesfield area.
It is important to recall that, although crime has a regrettable impact on victims wherever they are based, crime rates in rural areas are generally lower than in urban areas. For example, there were 3.9 vehicle offences per 1,000 population in rural areas compared with 8.5 vehicle offences per 1,000 population in urban areas. However, as we have heard, remoteness and isolation can increase the sense of vulnerability in those rural areas. There are types of crime such as hare coursing, fly-tipping and sheep-worrying that are a particular problem for rural communities, as has been well expressed today.
I recently heard from the Macclesfield branch of the NFU in Cheshire about how distressing livestock-worrying is for farmers and animals, and about how serious the financial repercussions can be for local farmers. I thank the NFU for producing its illuminating and constructive report, “Combatting Rural Crime”. That is an important contribution to this debate, as I think we will all agree on both sides of the House. Earlier this year, DEFRA wrote to all police forces and local authorities to explain the powers and initiatives available to help to tackle irresponsible dog ownership, including in relation to attacks on livestock. This is a real concern to the right hon. Member for Delyn, who made some excellent points. I encourage him to write to me, particularly on recording crimes, and I will follow up on them. We will listen to the points that he made—absolutely.
Hare coursing was raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), and by many other Members. It is another issue raised by the NFU in its excellent report. The Government recognise the problems that hare coursing causes for rural communities—not just around the activity itself but, as we have heard, the associated violence, damage, and sense of intimidation. The Hunting Act 2004 bans all hare coursing in England and Wales. Anyone found guilty of hare coursing under the Act can receive an unlimited fine. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and the hon. Member for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya), among others, raised important points about what can be done further to improve the response to this heinous crime. Again, I ask Members to raise those with me in writing and we can follow them up. Whether it is about recording or other issues, we do need to address this with greater vigour.
The Government recognise the costs that landowners face in dealing with fly-tipping. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) made an important contribution on this, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) and the hon. Member for Peterborough. We are committed to tackling this problem. We have given local authorities the power to issue fixed penalty notices for small-scale fly-tipping and strengthened their powers to seize and crush vehicles of suspected fly-tippers. We will set out further measures to tackle all elements of fly-tipping in our strategic approach to waste crime as part of the resource and waste strategy that DEFRA will publish in the autumn.
DEFRA and the Home Office jointly fund the National Wildlife Crime Unit as part of efforts to prevent and detect wildlife crime. We have provided £301,000 of funding per annum for the next two years. That supports the unit’s important work in intelligence gathering and analysis of wildlife crimes, including some of the crimes mentioned earlier, such as hare coursing, rural poaching and the illegal wildlife trade. We heard more about that important work on Second Reading of the Ivory Bill on Monday.
This debate, however, has not just been about rural crime. It has also touched on public services in rural areas, which I will come on to later, because we must not miss those issues. It is vital that we address other points raised in the debate, including antisocial behaviour in some of our smaller communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) talked about antisocial behaviour in Saltburn. I promise faithfully that my family were not responsible for contributing to that when we went body-boarding there during the recess—in the North sea fog, I hasten to add.
County lines challenges were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the right hon. Member for Delyn and my neighbour, the hon. Member for High Peak. This is a truly worrying and concerning development. The Home Secretary is co-ordinating a response to this scourge by overseeing a county lines working group with other Government Departments and law enforcement agencies to improve the response to drug dealing, the violent crime associated with it and the exploitation of vulnerable people, which includes those in a rural setting.
The hon. Member for Clwyd South and others raised concerns about speeding. It is true that we have some of the safest roads in the world, but we need to do more, and we need to innovate to find ways to reduce speed on these often very difficult roads. We found ways to do that on one of the most notorious roads, the Cat and Fiddle road going from Macclesfield to Buxton, where we significantly reduced traffic accidents as a result. We need to promote more actively the Government’s important THINK! campaign, particularly among younger people.
Much has been said about police funding. That has been dealt with well by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley for the Opposition and by my hon. Friend the Minister. The 2015 spending review protected overall police funding in real terms. We recognise that we need to respond to changing demands on the police. That is why new flexibility has been given to police and crime commissioners so they can raise the income required to tackle specific local challenges. I am pleased that we have increased the overall investment in policing from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion in this financial year.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is also from Lincolnshire, reminded us, we should not always be too gloomy about the challenges we face. Of course they are very real, but we need a greater understanding of and ability to respond to new technology. He talked about the use of drones. We need to be innovative in our approach. In Poynton, a village to the north of Macclesfield, we have an excellent emergency services hub where we bring together fire, ambulance and police services. We can get better at taking forward action by looking at innovation.
This is not just about the crime or policing element. We want to ensure that our public services and rural businesses thrive, to support rural communities and those who live in the countryside. We want this experience to be an opportunity, not a challenge, as we may have painted it today. Britain is blessed with beautiful and iconic countryside, which can provide a good quality of life, but we recognise too the challenges of rural life. We will look to support and encourage innovative solutions in the crime arena and also in other areas, such as community hubs in villages to host libraries, surgeries and outreach services.
DEFRA Ministers will continue to champion the interests of rural communities, working with other Departments, including the Home Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on issues such as broadband and mobile reception, to ensure that rural communities can thrive and realise the very real opportunities that lie ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House is concerned that the level of rural crime remains high; notes research by the National Famers’ Union that rural crime cost the UK economy £42.5 million in 2015; recognises that delivering public services across large, sparsely populated geographical areas can be more costly and challenging than in urban areas; agrees with the National Rural Crime Network that it is vital that the voice of the countryside is heard; calls on the Government to ensure that the personal, social and economic costs of crime and anti-social behaviour in rural areas are fully understood and acted upon; and further calls on the Government to ensure that rural communities are not disadvantaged in the delivery or quality of public services.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek permission to raise a matter arising from comments made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) during Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier today. I have advised the hon. Gentleman of my intention to raise a point of order this evening.
During Question Time, the hon. Gentleman stated that Scottish National party Members of the European Parliament had
“voted to back the European Parliament in an attempt…to keep the UK inside the common fisheries policy”.
The records of the European Parliament Committee on Fisheries and of the plenary session show that on both occasions the SNP’s representatives voted against the proposal mentioned. I also have a letter from Ian Hudghton MEP confirming that on both occasions the vote of SNP Members was contrary to the way described by the hon. Gentleman today.
I absolutely accept that the hon. Gentleman acted in good faith, but given that it is now clearly established that his comments were mistaken, I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, about how the record may be corrected.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chair has no responsibility for what any Member says in the Chamber. He has taken the opportunity to raise what appears to be a genuine mistake on the part of another legislature, in keeping its records, and I am glad that he has informed the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who has unwittingly made a mistake in giving a certain piece of information to the House.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) asks me how he might put the record straight. I would say that he has been wise and clever in using the device of a point of order to make sure that those on the Treasury Bench, the Hansard reporters, everyone else in the Chamber and those paying attention to these proceedings are aware that an error has occurred, and he has now taken this opportunity to put the record straight.
Transport Safety: Blind and Visually Impaired People
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to have secured this debate in the Chamber.
Three weeks ago, I met my constituents Margaret Ambaras and Laurel Holleran on a street in my constituency, together with Linda Oliver from Guide Dogs. All three of them are blind or have a serious visual impairment. Margaret and Laurel had asked me to go and experience the difficulties that blind people face when trying to navigate our streets—difficulties that could mostly be avoided. With some trepidation, but with support, I undertook a blindfolded walk along the street near where we met.
I am sure I am not the first MP to have undertaken this challenge—the Minister may well have undertaken it herself—but what I experienced really shocked me. The street where we met is in a residential area of Dunston without much street furniture and with reasonable pavements, but I found that navigating even for a short distance was fraught with difficulties. On this particular day, the bins were still on the street and most of the cars parked on the pavement were a real problem, particularly where it was not possible to pass the cars without going on to the road. Frankly, it was pretty hairy trying to get past the cars, and to work out where the kerb was and whether any traffic was coming. For part of the walk, I had glasses on that produced the effect of having tunnel vision, really restricting my ability to read the street and the pavement.
For me, the experience may have been scary, but it was at least temporary, and Margaret and Laurel were kind and took me to a busy residential area, rather than one where there are shops and other businesses, or lots of street furniture. As we talked after the event, they explained to me that, although they both now have guide dogs and have completed training through Guide Dogs, their independence is really constrained by pavement parking. Margaret told me that she still feels unable to go to her doctor’s surgery alone, because of cars parked along the narrow path she has to follow, meaning that she and her dog have to walk on a fairly narrow road, into the traffic.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
This is a timely debate, because constituents of mine, like those of a number of other MPs, are in a similar situation to that being described by my hon. Friend. They are asking for something to be done about parking on pavements, because it is a major problem for people with difficulties.
Liz Twist
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Many of us have been approached by constituents about the issue.
As I have said, Margaret faces difficulties going to the doctor. Laurel also told me that she is worried about going out and that she has had problems with the audio announcements on the bus, because they do not always work or are sometimes made in such a jaunty tone by a canny Geordie lass that she just cannot catch what is being said.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady has secured an Adjournment debate on an important subject. Does she agree that, with 250 people a day starting to lose their sight in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is a real need for an increase in the number of specialised public buses and trains for the sight impaired in both rural and urban locations, to ensure that constituents with a sight impairment are not isolated?
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech and I thank her for doing so. A constituent of mine who is blind asked for rail assist at his local station, but their only response was to give him a leaflet, which he could not read. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is wholly inadequate for people with a visual impairment?
Liz Twist
I most certainly agree that that is a real problem. That is an absolutely impossible situation. It is not so much rail assist as not caring about what happens to people with a visual impairment and not thinking it through.
Pavement parking is not just a problem for blind and partially sighted people; it is a real problem for wheelchair users and for parents with prams, buggies or young children in tow, who are often forced on to busy main roads to pass cars. Today, however, I want to focus on Margaret and Laurel and others who are blind. They have worked so hard to gain their independence, but cars parked on the pavement, and other pavement obstructions, are making life difficult for them—and dangerous in some circumstances. As I have said, other forms of transport cause problems, too, so we need to look at bus and rail services as well.
This is not a new problem. It has been talked about many times in this Chamber, but it really is about time that we actually did something to sort it out. I read in Hansard that in 2015 the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) promoted a private Member’s Bill on the issue, but it goes way back beyond that time. That Bill was withdrawn following the Government’s commitment to hold roundtable discussions on the issue of pavement parking in particular, but there has been little or no action.
More recently, Transport Ministers have said that they will look at pavement parking in the context of traffic regulation orders. Over the short time I have been in this House, many hon. Members have questioned Transport Ministers on their plans to tackle pavement parking. The war of attrition seems to be showing modest results, as answers to the questions that I have looked at in Hansard have changed from, “We have no plans to do anything”, to leaving it to local councils to resolve the problem, to now saying, “We will look at how we tackle pavement parking as part of the work on TROs.” But we need faster action and we need more of it, please. We all know and understand the problems—we need to do something about them.
Local authorities can take some actions, such as designating specific areas and streets for no pavement parking, but, to be frank, it is a piecemeal approach to identify streets, go through what can be a long and costly TRO process and then try to enforce TROs at a time when local authorities are very stretched after years of reductions in grant funding. My local authority, Gateshead, has been looking at what it can do to help with the problem but, along with Guide Dogs and many other charities, it has concluded that we need a system like the one that currently operates in London, which allows for a blanket prohibition of pavement parking, but with opt-outs for specific purposes. It is clear and straightforward and does not allow for confusion, but it does give some flexibility when there are genuine reasons why it should be varied.
It will come as no surprise that I have a number of asks of the Minister. I am not going to ask her to sort out the bins—I can do that locally, with the council, thanks—but I have a number of specific asks of the ministerial team. Will the Department for Transport now introduce, as a matter of urgency, a new law on pavement parking, and will it announce a date for the delayed consultation on traffic regulation orders?
Will the Department update the guidance on the use and design of shared spaces? Shared spaces sound like a great idea to get traffic and pedestrians to behave reasonably, recognise each other and consider the needs of all road users, but for blind and visually impaired people they bring real problems, with their lack of kerbs and absence of pedestrian crossings, as the Women and Equalities Committee identified in a report last year.
Will the Department issue statutory guidance to licensing authorities to require that all taxi drivers undertake disability equality training? Margaret and Laurel both told me of situations that they had experienced, one in which a taxi driver had asked for a £25 fee, on top of the fare, to valet his car after the guide dog had been in the vehicle, and others in which drivers had been reluctant to take them with their dog. I know that that is not supposed to happen, but it does.
Will the Department consult on and publish regulations on the accessible information requirement as soon as possible? A Guide Dogs report showed that over a six-month period two thirds of vision-impaired passengers had missed their stop, as Laurel and Margaret have both done. It is really distressing for them and can be dangerous, because they are not sure of where they are or the layout of the area in which they are dropped off. That is really important. The Secretary of State already has the power to make regulations to require bus operators to provide accessible information, including audible and visual information. I understand that a consultation on regulations was planned for early 2017, with a view to the publication of regulations this year, but it has now been delayed and we see no signs of it happening. Can we get that consultation going now, please, so that we can get the regulations in place?
I wish to raise one more issue, which I suspect will be much more contentious. I recently heard about some new train carriages being produced for our railways by Hitachi in Newton Aycliffe that include accessibility features for blind and visually impaired people. That is absolutely great and as it should be, but the Government’s intention to take guards off some train services will compromise the safety of not only blind and partially sighted travellers but other passengers with disabilities. I urge the Government to recognise that point and change their position.
It is well past time that we tackled the problem of pavement parking and other transport issues for blind and visually impaired people, so that I can tell my constituents Margaret and Laurel that we really are addressing their safety on our streets and on public transport.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate on transport safety for blind and visually impaired people, and for sharing her experience of a guided walk and how Margaret and Laurel try to navigate with sight loss.
Delivering a transport system that is truly accessible to all is of great importance to me personally and to the Department for Transport. I hope that the hon. Lady will have seen the Department’s draft accessibility action plan, which was published for consultation last year, as evidence of the Government’s commitment to taking action to safeguard and promote the rights of all disabled passengers. Following the responses to that consultation, the Department is developing an inclusive transport strategy that will build on the draft accessibility action plan by setting out the immediate improvements that can be made to the transport system, as well as our longer-term aspirations.
Ms Ghani
The inclusive transport strategy is due to be published shortly. I am sure the hon. Lady will be very pleased when the report comes out. I cannot highlight the action points—obviously, I cannot divulge them—but she will be pleased when she sees the results considering the issues she has raised today.
The accessibility action plan will set out immediate improvements that can be made to the transport system, as well as our long-term aspirations of supporting the Government’s aim for disabled passengers to have the same access to transport as everyone else, enabling them to travel easily, confidently and without extra cost. The inclusive transport strategy will be published later this year. I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that I am not able to divulge all the details, but she will be very pleased with the outcome. There are some assurances I want to give the House today that are unique for supporting blind and visually impaired people using the transport system.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady undertook the guided walk. I was the chair of the all-party group on sight loss, because my father has a visual impairment. As well as assisting him at home and on transport, I have also spent some time as his carer, so I understand at first hand the particular difficulties for people with sight loss and visual impairment. Since becoming Minister, I have met the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association and the Royal National Institute of Blind People to hear the views of people with sight loss and visual impairment who are engaging with public transport. They raised a number of issues very similar to those raised by the hon. Lady. Let me take them one by one.
The first issue is parking on pavements. My father raises this all the time. I know that the hon. Lady recently wrote on this matter to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), the Minister with responsibility for roads. I appreciate the difficulties caused to blind and visually impaired people by drivers parking on pavements. As the hon. Lady noted in her speech, parking on pavements in London is banned by default and is allowed only in exceptional circumstances. However, it is virtually the reverse outside London, where pavement parking is allowed unless local authorities seek a legal order to prevent it within a certain area.
Jim Shannon
It is not just the parking of vehicles on pavements; shops put tables, chairs and advertising boards out, too. For those of us who have good vision and can see them that is great, but a disabled person will not know they are there at all. It is not just the vehicles; it is what shops are doing as well.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Extra street furniture or clutter inhibits people in confidently navigating their community, especially streets that they know well. One bad experience can set them back, so we need to raise awareness, whether it is among shopkeepers, local authorities or people picking up rubbish and understanding the kind of debris they leave behind. I believe the hon. Gentleman is now the new chair of the all-party group on sight loss and visual health.
Ms Ghani
There are calls for the Government to introduce a law that bans all pavement parking across England, allowing it only in exceptional cases, thereby mirroring the case in London. The Minister with responsibility for roads is keen to make the process as simple as possible. Before seeking new primary legislation, we will evaluate the effectiveness of the current legislation that allows local authorities to take action themselves. We seek to understand the issues that are preventing them from taking action already. The Department will be taking forward that work over the coming months and will look to draw conclusions by the end of the year.
Liz Twist
I thank the Minister for that comment, but I am sure she will understand from her experience the difficulties that many local authorities have in acting on a piecemeal basis. Many are very keen on an overall approach that will make the rules much more clear and consistent. Local authorities can do things, but they are not in a position to do as much as they would like.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Lady raises a very valid point, which is why it is important that we base any legislation on evidence, to make sure that the guidance is absolutely appropriate, accurate, and level in constituencies and councils across the country. We want people to have similarly positive experiences when they navigate their local streets.
I turn now to taxi and private hire drivers who refuse to pick up people with assistance dogs or charge extra for doing so. That attitude and behaviour is just wrong. It is also unlawful. It is against the law to refuse carriage or to attempt to charge a higher fare. A small number of taxi drivers are exempt—for example, there might be a medical reason why they cannot have an assistance dog in their vehicle—but otherwise this practice is unacceptable, and I call on local licensing authorities, including Gateshead, to take action against drivers who break the law. I expect local authorities, as does the hon. Lady no doubt, to investigate complaints fully and pursue criminal prosecutions where appropriate.
Drivers who are convicted can be fined up to £1,000. The hon. Lady mentioned the experience of Margaret and Laurel. I recently spoke to the all-party group on disability, and a lady who came to that meeting had been momentarily denied access to a cab because she had a guide dog with her. It is just wrong. Local authorities have the power to require taxi drivers to attend disability awareness training, and I strongly urge them to make use of this power, as well as the powers to remove licences, investigate cases and impose fines of up to £1,000.
Ms Ghani
I take the hon. Lady’s point and will reflect on her concerns. An independent task and finish group is looking at taxis and private hire vehicles, and we await its report, which I hope will cover this area. I have a concern about this issue as well. There should be very few exemptions—there should be very good reasons why a driver cannot allow a passenger or guide dog into their cab—and we should be absolutely clear about what those are.
I move on now to talking buses. Audible information on buses is key to enabling disabled passengers to take journeys. Disabled people make 10 times as many journeys by bus as by rail, and it is essential that the service provided should be accessible to them. The provision of audible information on all buses will clearly make a huge difference in this regard, but some passengers have raised concerns that there is too much information on buses and that it confuses them even further, so although some bus companies have already introduced talking buses, they will not be required to do so by law until the relevant power in the Bus Services Act 2017 takes effect. We will consult later this year on the regulations that will bring these powers into force.
I accept that some early adopters of talking buses sometimes fail to provide the correct information or information at the right time to enable a blind or visually impaired person to get off at the right stop, and I appreciate entirely the distress this can cause. It only underlines the need to consult ahead of the legal requirement being introduced. We need clear evidence on how much information is needed, at what point in the journey and how often, and we need to factor it into any appropriate regulations. That will allow us to provide clear, evidence-based and legally mandated standards that all bus operators must meet, and that the Office of the Traffic Commissioners will have responsibility to enforce.
I now move to shared spaces, which are a particular concern for people with visual impairments. There is no single definition of “shared space”, but it generally means a space that has different road users, including vehicles and pedestrians, sharing the street. This might be very good for some people with disabilities, especially those in wheelchairs, but kerbs and controlled pedestrian crossings are sometimes removed, which can be particularly difficult for blind or partially sighted people.
The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the Department for Transport’s statutory adviser on accessible travel, has written to me about this to highlight its concerns about shared spaces. In addition, the consultation on the draft accessibility action plan prompted a lot of feedback on this issue. Once again, my father regularly updates me on how such spaces are not working for him. In short, concerns about the safety of shared spaces, particularly for blind or visually impaired people and guide dogs, are coming through loud and clear. In the light of these continuing concerns, the Government are considering what further action might be appropriate and will make this clear when the inclusive transport strategy is published.
We take this issue very seriously, and the strategy will cover most of the issues that the hon. Lady has raised, but whatever action the Government and other authorities take to improve the rights of disabled passengers, it will make a difference only if those rights are effectively enforced. To this end, I recently met the chief executives of transport regulators, including the Office of Rail and Road and the Civil Aviation Authority, and underlined to them their responsibilities for ensuring that disabled passengers receive the services they are entitled to.
Ruth George
I want to make a point about Passenger Assist. My visually impaired constituent was simply given a leaflet that was supposed to enable him to travel. Does the Minister agree that that is not acceptable? Although Passenger Assist is available to wheelchair users in my constituency, there are no taxis that can accommodate passengers with wheelchairs. I am trying to arrange for some disabled constituents to visit the Minister in a couple of weeks, but they are having real problems in accessing any sort of public transport.
Ms Ghani
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The purpose of Passenger Assist is to assist passengers with all kinds of disabilities, and handing out a leaflet is just not on. The role of Passenger Assist is to help passengers to reach their destination with the service for which they have paid. I look forward to meeting the hon. Lady and her constituents to discuss that further.
As I have said, I have met the regulators and reminded them of their responsibilities, and of the work they need to do to ensure that redress is available when things go wrong. That is another issue that we must tackle: when laws and regulations are in place, we must ensure that they are enforced.
I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon again for securing a debate on such an important issue, and I look forward to working with her and Members in all parts of the House to achieve our ambition to improve the travelling experiences of blind and visually impaired people.
Question put and agreed to.
Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2018
Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 2018
(6 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I move the motion. We can all agree that vulnerable people, including torture survivors, should not be in detention.
The Chair
Order. May I stop you, Mr Khan? You need to move the motion that the Committee has considered the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2018. Can you start with that, please?
Afzal Khan
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018, No. 410).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 2018 (S.I. 2018, No. 411).
Afzal Khan
As I said, we can all agree that vulnerable people, including torture survivors, should not be in detention. The Government have recognised that in their adults at risk policy, but current protections are not working and the proposed definition of torture will make the situation worse, so we will vote against these statutory instruments today. More than a torture definition, the subject before us may seem specific and technical, but it speaks—
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
On a point of order, Mrs Moon. Has the shadow Minister actually moved the motion yet?
Afzal Khan
The subject before us may seem specific and technical, but it speaks to something much wider—the punitive hostile environment targeting the wrong people. The Windrush scandal brought to light shocking examples of vulnerable people getting swept up in the Government’s attempts to meet their immigration target. The public were outraged and rightly worry that the Home Office has gone too far. The former and current Home Secretaries recognised that the Home Office has lost sight of the individual and needs to be more humane and fair.
The continued detention of vulnerable people is one of the most extreme instances of Home Office inhumanity and unfairness. The Government now have the chance to get ahead of another Windrush scandal. We know that, with Windrush, warnings were not heeded. I say to the Minister today: “On this issue, you have been warned.” With Windrush, the Government removed legislative protections without scrutiny or debate. When the impact of those changes came to light, there was, rightly, outrage and condemnation of that approach. The current definition of torture was brought in in 2016 without proper consultation or debate. The result was the Home Office losing a legal battle with Medical Justice and detainees.
The Government have now carried out last-minute and very limited consultation. Those they did consult strongly urged the Government not to go ahead with these statutory instruments but to wait until the Shaw review has been published. However, those pleas have been ignored. I say to the Minister today that the Government must wait until the Shaw review has been published and consult on the full range of protections for vulnerable people in detention. Listen to us now and get ahead of the problem.
We object to the torture definition that is being considered today on two grounds. First, it is unworkable. It is too complex to be applied by Home Office staff or doctors. Concepts such as powerlessness are highly complex and nebulous. They require caseworkers to make a subjective judgment, and to go beyond the expertise of doctors being asked to decide these cases. Determining whether someone fits the definition would require doctors to interrogate detainees in a way that far exceeded the purpose of the safeguard. The problem with the previous definition that was being used, and the reason why the Home Office lost in court, was that caseworkers could not correctly apply the policy. They will have the same problem with these changes.
Secondly, it is unnecessary. The Government are attempting to construct a narrow definition of torture. It is not proposed that the definition will define a criminal offence; it is supposed to be an indicator of vulnerability to harm in detention, for use as part of the rule 35 process. As all colleagues will know, rule 35 is the mechanism by which vulnerable detainees can be brought to the attention of those with direct responsibility for authorising, maintaining and reviewing detention. If it is implemented in its current form, even if it is applied perfectly, the definition of torture will exclude victims of severe ill treatment from the rule 35 process, subject to harm in detention. The Secretary of State has the power to create an inclusive category of people to be protected by the adults at risk policy. They should do that as part of a review of detention centre rules and adults at risk guidance.
Despite how the Government would like to spin it, this is not a narrow debate. This is not just about the definition of torture. Rule 35 and the torture definition it uses is just a small part of the wider adults at risk policy—the policy introduced after the Shaw review, which was commissioned by the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary after serious and repeated scandals over the treatment of people in detention. It was supposed to provide better protection for vulnerable people in detention, but since its introduction we have seen the release rate of rule 35 go down dramatically.
In 2016, before the policy was introduced, 39% of those with a rule 35 report were released. In the first quarter of this year, that had fallen to 12.5%. The bar for proving torture has risen, and the burden of proof has been shifted on to the vulnerable individual. Under the old policy, victims of torture only had to show independent evidence of their history of torture to be considered unsuitable for detention. Now they must prove that detention is likely to cause harm. It is, of course, very difficult to prove that detention will cause harm unless someone has been detained, so preventive action is almost impossible.
On top of that, under the previous policy, victims of torture could be detained only under very exceptional circumstances—that is, if they were likely to offend or cause a public safety risk. Now, however, the risk of harm in detention has to outweigh a wide range of immigration factors, such as the risk of absconding, which is widely defined and requires a person effectively to prove a negative. How can someone prove that they will not abscond?
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am listening with considerable care to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is deploying his arguments in his usual thoughtful way. Could he just clarify, if for nobody’s reference other than my own, his party’s position on the use of detention centres per se, as part of the arsenal of immigration control and management? What role does he see detention centres playing? Different Labour spokespeople, at different times, seem to have suggested both that such centres should exist and that they should not.
The Chair
Order. We are not here to discuss the nature of detention centres. We are here to debate the immigration guidance on the detention of vulnerable persons. I am ruling that question out of order.
Afzal Khan
Thank you, Mrs Moon. Clearly, something has gone wrong with the adults at risk policy. It may make it possible to identify vulnerable people, but that is of no value if it is harder for them then to be released. The Shaw review will re-examine the detention of vulnerable people. I urge the Government to wait until that has been published, and to consult on changes to the whole framework.
While we are in this Committee Room, the Home Secretary is in front of the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry on the detention of the Windrush generation. On Windrush, the Home Office failed to pick up on what was clearly a systematic and unjust situation that wrecked the lives of innocent people.
The Home Office is in court today over the right to rent scheme, which is a key tenet of the hostile environment. The Government did not properly consult on right to rent before it was rolled out. There is no evidence that it works to reduce illegal immigration. They are failing to monitor it, despite the fact that internal and independent reports have found that it results in racial and other discrimination. There is a very clear pattern here: the Government fail to consult on a policy; they ignore warnings that it will cause harm to the wrong people; they roll it out anyway; and public outrage and significant media pressure cause high-profile roll-backs, U-turns and damage limitation.
On Sunday, the Home Secretary indicated that the Government would move away from the hostile environment approach and refused to endorse the figure of 100,000. He also said that he was considering opening the tier 2 visa route. The detention of vulnerable people is one of the sharpest parts of the Home Office’s inhumane and unfair approach. I hope the Minister will listen to the arguments that my colleagues and I make today and get out in front of this problem.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Moon. It is not the first time I have done so; I think the first time was in Westminster Hall. I make no apology if I repeat some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton said from the Front Bench, because this matter is of such importance that it bears repeating.
I welcome this opportunity to scrutinise Government policy relating to the welfare of vulnerable people in immigration detention. At the risk of your ire, Mrs Moon, I will say that I do not think any of us has ever said that there is absolutely no place for immigration detention, but legislation and guidance have always referred to exceptional circumstances. Members sitting on a Committee of this importance, where we see a present danger and threat to the health and life of human beings, should know that.
The new Home Secretary, as my hon. Friend said, has pledged to re-evaluate the Government’s hostile environment policy because of the Windrush scandal. I completely agree with my hon. Friend; the adults at risk policy is part of that hostile environment, and I think the court judgment demonstrated that. The issues we are discussing today should be an important part of that review, because the treatment of victims of torture and other vulnerable people in the country’s immigration detention system is nothing short of scandalous. The current safeguards have failed, and the proposed amendments to the detention centre rules and the guidance on the detention of vulnerable persons set out in the statutory instruments will fail to provide adequate protection to vulnerable people.
I prayed against these statutory instruments with the support of Front-Bench colleagues to give the Government an opportunity to break with the errors of past policies. I urge the Minister to withdraw the SIs so that a proper consultation can be carried out on the proposed changes.
The Minister will know that I brought a ten-minute rule Bill before the House last December to make provision about immigration detention safeguards for victims of torture and other vulnerable people—I emphasise “other vulnerable people”. I will come to that point, but I am sure the Minister understands why I emphasise it. Long-standing Home Office policy has required that vulnerable people, including those with independent evidence of torture, should not be detained unless in exceptional circumstances. In practice, however, many are.
Extensive medical evidence has shown that immigration detention can seriously harm the mental health of detainees, particularly those who have previously suffered ill treatment, and the conditions of immigration detention can be appalling. Six court cases in recent years have reported on the inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. Surely we should all be shamed by such reports. In 2017 alone, 11 people died in custody. Detainees in immigration detention are dying at a faster rate than we have seen before. We should all be deeply concerned about that.
In 2016, the then Home Secretary—now Prime Minister—commissioned the former prisons and probation ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, to conduct a review of the welfare of vulnerable persons in detention. His damning report found that the safeguards for vulnerable people were inadequate, and that detention was used too often and for too long. It is not a Labour spokesperson saying that; it is the former prisons and probation ombudsman.
However, the implementation of the Government’s adults at risk policy, which incorporates the detention centre rules and guidance on the detention of vulnerable persons, failed to address Shaw’s recommendations. Far from increasing protection to vulnerable detainees, it increased the risk of harm. In its initial 10 weeks of implementation, the adults at risk policy was applied incorrectly in almost 60% of 340 cases. Between January and September 2017, Freedom from Torture’s medico-legal report service received 101 referrals for suspected torture survivors in immigration detention, and 14 of its treatment clients were detained between January 2016 and November 2017. Torture survivors continue to be detained.
The guidance on the detention of vulnerable persons raised the threshold for a decision not to detain by increasing the evidentiary burden on the vulnerable individual. As a result, the release rate following a rule 35 report—designed to screen torture victims out of detention—has fallen dramatically. In quarter 3 of 2016, before the policy was introduced, 39% of those with a rule 35 report were released. In quarter 1 of 2018, that number fell to 12.5%.
According to the charity Medical Justice, the Home Office policy fundamentally weakened protections for vulnerable detainees, leading to more, rather than fewer, being detained for longer. That analysis was borne out in October 2017 by a ruling of the High Court in a case brought against the Home Office by Medical Justice and seven detainees. It found that the adults at risk policy unlawfully imprisoned hundreds of victims of torture. Do any of us really want to be responsible for that? That was due to the Home Office’s deeply regrettable decision to narrow the definition of torture so that it refers only to violence carried out by state actors, and excludes vulnerable survivors of non-state abuse. We can all think of organisations that might be responsible for non-state abuse. The policy also encourages states—some rogue states—to outsource torture to organisations such as ISIS, the Taliban, Hezbollah to name but a few: I am sure hon. Members can come up with examples of their own.
Let me come to some of the questions I want the Minister to answer today. They echo some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton made, and those that I am sure other hon. Members will make. The Government tabled these statutory instruments in direct response to the High Court’s ruling. Why are the Government proceeding with introducing these statutory instruments in their current form when Medical Justice—the very organisation that brought the successful litigation against the Home Office—has said that these changes will not deliver inclusive, protective and effective detention safeguards for vulnerable people? Why are we going ahead with that? The Government should be paying due respect and attention to the assessment of experts. They should have done that some time ago and saved themselves a High Court judgment. They should most certainly be doing that now.
Instead, to quote Freedom from Torture and Medical Justice,
“The SIs were laid before Parliament following an inadequate and expedited ‘consultation’ with a limited group of NGOs.”
They cautioned against the new torture definition, as set out in SI 2018/411, and said it was unnecessary, inappropriate and too complex for caseworkers and doctors to apply to specific cases. That is the very point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton. They said that,
“even when applied correctly, the definition will exclude a group of victims of severe ill-treatment, who do not fall within the other indicators of risk”.
Their concerns have been ignored by Government.
Why does the Minister think it necessary to produce a new definition of torture when the Government were not ordered to do so by the High Court? Can the Minister explain why the Government rejected the recommendation of Freedom from Torture and Medical Justice that the current categories of torture and victims of sexual or gender-based violence be replaced with a more inclusive category, modelled on the UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ detention guidelines, namely,
“victims of torture or serious physical or psychological, sexual or gender-based violence or ill treatment”?
NGOs stipulated that the new catch-all provision within the revised guidance on detention of vulnerable persons
“does not adequately mitigate the risk of excluding from the protection of the safeguard those who are known to be at risk of harm in detention”.
Their concerns, again, have been ignored by Government. NGOs asked the Home Office to await the publication of Stephen Shaw’s re-review into the welfare of vulnerable people in detention, in order to allow consideration of his findings before laying changes before Parliament. Their concerns have been ignored by Government, as have the concerns of the cross-party group of parliamentarians, including myself, who signed Lord Dubs’ letter to the Minister in March.
I raised this matter with the Minister during our telephone call about these issues on 28 March but was not provided with a satisfactory response. I wondered whether the telephone call was lip service or a tick-box exercise in order to say that consultation had taken place. The High Court judge did not demand that the Home Office respond to the court order before Shaw published. As we now know, Shaw gave the Home Office his report a matter of some weeks before these statutory instruments were tabled in the House.
Caroline Nokes
I would like to provide reassurance on that. I received Mr Shaw’s report at the end of April.
Joan Ryan
I accept what the Minister has said but I will check my notes when I sit down. If necessary, I hope she will let me come back. Whatever the case, the Minister has the Shaw re-review now. Given the considerable resource and expert input expended on the second Shaw review, I consider it deeply ill advised to proceed with these changes before the Government, parliamentarians and expert NGOs have had time to consider Shaw’s latest recommendations.
Let us be clear: as the judge did not ask for this to be done, it was always an option for the Government to go back to before the adults at risk policy and narrowing torture definition that have caused all the problems. They could have gone back to the previous policy while we look at the Shaw re-review, before laying these SIs. Why did the Minister not wait for Shaw to provide his findings before issuing these statutory instruments? It seems inexplicable, and the answers I have seen from her in no way answer that question. Can she explain why she believes that it is more sensible to consider the revised definition of torture and the amended guidance separately from the findings of the Shaw re-review? Given the relevance of Shaw’s re-review to the adults at risk policy, when will his report be made publicly available? Also, given that the Home Office possesses the report, why can we not see it now?
In a written statement on the Windrush scandal, which the Home Secretary submitted to the House on 24 May, he said that it was
“fundamentally important that the lessons from this episode are learned for the future, so that this never happens again.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 53WS.]
It is blindingly obvious that the Government are refusing to learn the important lessons on how to increase the protection of vulnerable detainees. The Government have ignored the expert advice of esteemed organisations, cross-party concerns in Parliament, expressed through questions, letters and early day motions, and a Select Committee inquiry, none of which has been properly addressed. As a consequence, here we are today, discussing statutory instruments that are not fit for purpose.
If there were any doubt about the level of concern, I am sure that the Minister is aware that early-day motion 696 was signed by 131 MPs, making it the eighth most supported early-day motion in the 2017-19 parliamentary Session. We have also had the early-day motions that have prayed against today’s statutory instruments: early-day motion 1200 and early-day motion 1202, which have 115 and 111 signatures respectively. That is a significant level of concern.
As we have heard, the Joint Committee on Human Rights is considering this matter today. The Home Affairs Committee also conducted an inquiry. I have read the transcript of that, and the answers that were given were most unsatisfactory. Next Thursday, we will have a Back-Bench debate in Westminster Hall that was requested by more than 20 MPs. The issue is not going away. Nobody is satisfied; everybody is concerned. I do not understand why the Minister is not paying any attention to what Members of Parliament, Select Committees and experts are saying.
How can the Minister say with confidence that, despite all the concerns that have been raised, the statutory instruments will make the situation better, not worse, for vulnerable people in detention? Is she willing to acknowledge that the Government may be running a real risk of further court action by ploughing on regardless of criticism? I cannot believe that she wants to make the situation worse for vulnerable detainees, so I cannot understand why she will not listen to what is being said to her.
In December 2017, as part of the conclusion to a ten-minute rule Bill speech, I said:
“The UK has a proud history of providing sanctuary to people fleeing violence and persecution. We have both moral and legal obligations to victims of torture and other vulnerable people who seek asylum. The UK must set an example as a country that respects and upholds human rights commitments. The torment faced by many individuals in the Government’s immigration detention system runs counter to this country’s proudest traditions.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 1073.]
We are asking for a policy devised with consideration, care and compassion for victims of torture and other vulnerable people who have come to this country seeking refuge. In order to ensure a more humane approach to immigration detention in general, I also urge the Minister to end indefinite immigration detention, and to introduce a 28-day time limit. I will not pursue that, because it is not the subject of the statutory instruments, but it is obviously a related issue. Will she therefore commit to reviewing that policy too?
The Government must learn the lessons from this episode so we do not end up back in court again. That would not be the worst outcome; the worst outcome would be to harm vulnerable individuals who are detained when they should not be. I urge the Minister to reflect on my concerns and withdraw the regulations. The Government must also engage constructively with parliamentarians and expert non-governmental organisations to ensure we have a policy that works for the good of vulnerable detainees. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my speech and her answers to my questions. I thank Committee members for their patience.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Moon. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I will make just a few comments because there have already been a number of contributions. This is an important debate, and I am convinced that the issue is an important priority for the Minister. I have had experience of it as a Member of Parliament; I have been struck by the importance of having a system based on the values we believe in. Our immigration policy must be fair and humane, and we must treat people in that way when they are in the care of the state.
I want to talk about detainees with mental health issues, such as schizophrenia, because I am concerned that the current safeguards, and proposed amendments to them, do not address that issue. People who have been through difficult or distressing circumstances, have experienced war or terrorism, have been tortured or whose families have been tortured, are at risk of developing mental health conditions.
A case I have raised with the Minister previously—I am writing to her about it—will illustrate why I think the issue should be part of a wider discussion. I was made aware of this case, which is still ongoing, a few years ago. A family fled their country and sought asylum in the UK. Over the course of a few years all the family members, bar one, received asylum and went on to become British citizens. Only the youngest member of the family did not: there was no explanation of why somebody who was a child when they fled Afghanistan for their life, after being a victim of torture, would be suddenly left in limbo. He was detained a few years ago. He had already started to suffer from medical conditions such as schizophrenia, and the uncertainty about his status—he was unable to continue studying or live independently—contributed to them significantly.
It was a harrowing situation. When he was in police detention, his family was not sure where he was to start with, and he did not have his medication. His family did not know how long it would be before he was deported and where he would go. He was taken to a detention centre, where he was not given the right dosage of medication. He was expected to administer the medication himself, but was not in a position to do that. During his detention, his condition worsened considerably, not least due to the anxiety about being there, the uncertainty about where he would go next, and the strain and stress on his family caused by the possibility that he would be sent back to Afghanistan, where he did not have any family members, where he would be at risk, given what had happened before, and where he had not lived since he was a child. His medical condition meant that he needed significant intervention not just from his family but from a range of health services.
It was extremely unfortunate that that triggered some very distressing episodes. His condition is still a huge challenge for him and his family. He has never fully recovered from that episode. What struck me on my visit to the detention centre at the time when he was there was that the staff were not adequately informed or trained to deal with such a difficult and sensitive matter.
None of us wants to be in a position as politicians, whether as Ministers or the Opposition, where we preside over a system in which something like this could happen. It is not someone’s fault if they have a mental health condition. I know from friends and family members that when somebody is suddenly diagnosed in their teenage years or early 20s, it can bring the family a sense of loss for the person they knew; they also have to cope, day in, day out, with the uncertainty that the condition brings and the change that can happen in a person, day to day. They can be fine one week and then an episode can trigger some sort of psychosis, and then they are out and need almost 24-hour care.
How do we address those wider issues, as part of our consideration of adults at risk as a result of what they and their families have been through? How do we make sure, humanely, that those issues are not contributed to? How should we consider in more general terms the issue of people without settled status? I would be grateful if the Minister answered those points. I thank the Committee again for the opportunity to speak.
Caroline Nokes
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Enfield North for prompting today’s debate and for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on these matters. We put significant effort into encouraging individuals to comply with immigration rules and supporting those with no right to remain in the UK to leave voluntarily. Unfortunately, a minority of individuals refuse to comply with the immigration rules and detention may be a necessary and proportionate tool to enforce their return.
Detention is used sparingly and we operate a strong presumption in favour of liberty. At any one time, we are detaining only 5% of those liable to removal, and the number of individuals we detain is decreasing: in the year ending March 2018, 26,541 people entered immigration detention, a reduction of 8% on the previous year.
Each time an individual is detained, there must be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale, and we expect those making detention decisions to consider the likely duration of detention necessary to effect removal. The vast majority are held for very short periods: some 91%, or 25,000, of those leaving detention in the year ending March 2018 were detained for less than four months, and 64% were detained for less than a month.
When it is necessary to detain people in order to remove them, we have a number of safeguards in place, which are a key component of the adults at risk in immigration detention policy. The adults at risk policy was implemented in September 2016 and was a significant part of our response to Stephen Shaw’s review of the welfare of vulnerable people in immigration detention. Under the policy, vulnerable people are detained or their detention is continued only when the immigration considerations in their particular case outweigh the evidence of vulnerability. Decisions are made on the basis of all available evidence. Cases are reviewed regularly, as well as on an ad hoc basis whenever new evidence comes to light in respect of removability and vulnerability.
That brings me to the specifics of the statutory instruments, as they relate directly to the adults at risk policy. The main purpose of the statutory instruments is to amend the definition of torture for the purposes of immigration detention. Torture is one of the 10 indicators of risk in the adults at risk policy, in addition to a further safeguarding provision for any other vulnerability.
I do not dispute the assumption that individuals who have been tortured—along with all others who are vulnerable under the terms of the adults at risk policy—should be considered to be at particular risk of harm if detained, but that does not mean that such individuals should never be detained. The adults at risk policy represents a proportionate and rational way of carefully balancing the vulnerability considerations against immigration considerations. It aims to ensure that when the most vulnerable are detained, it is only for very short periods of time or where there are overriding public protection concerns.
The way in which torture is defined in the context of immigration detention has a long history. The definition in use, the so-called EO definition, was established in case law in 2013. It is a broad definition, which limits the ability of the Home Office and of immigration removal centre health services to focus resources on the most vulnerable. The Home Office therefore introduced the UNCAT definition of torture into the adults at risk policy. As we have heard this afternoon, the High Court has since declared that definition to be unlawful when used for the purposes of immigration detention. We of course accept the High Court’s view.
Contrary to what some have argued, however, the court also declared that the adults at risk policy was inherently sound. It took issue with the EO definition of torture, believing that it did not get to the heart of the imperative of defining torture in terms of the impacts of acts of harm that would be triggered by immigration detention. The court helpfully set out its view on what a rational definition of torture for the purposes of immigration detention should look like, and we used that as the basis of the definition set out in the statutory instruments.
The court also said that the broad safeguarding provision was not effective and that guidance needed to be amended. The SI bringing into force the revised statutory guidance meets that requirement.
Joan Ryan
First, the Minister is correct—I am saying so for the record—about when she received the Shaw re-review. However, she laid the statutory instruments on 27 March, to come into effect on 2 July, so she will have had the Shaw re-review for a couple of months before they come into effect. It does not seem reasonable not to have waited so that we could have taken that important re-review into account.
Secondly, I want to come back on the torture definition. Does the Minister agree that the judge did not order the Home Office to maintain a torture definition? His commentary on the definition was caveated with
“if that indicator is to be retained”.
The mechanism should have a very low threshold for identifying those vulnerable to harm in detention—much lower than that setting out culpability under international law. That does not seem to be where we are. This narrow approach risks excluding others who are no less highly vulnerable and who have suffered serious ill-treatment.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the right hon. Lady for putting on the record that I received Mr Shaw’s re-review at the end of April this year. She will be conscious that we have significant parliamentary timetable issues to get through, not least the summer recess. The High Court judgment was delivered on 10 October last year with an emphasis on timeliness. When I spoke to the right hon. Lady and before we laid the SIs, I did not know exactly when the Shaw re-review would arrive. I was expecting it imminently but, in the event, it came significantly after the date that I had expected it—by a couple of weeks. I was anxious that we should not be in the situation, 12 months on from the judgment, of not having responded and of still not having a new definition on the statute book.
The right hon. Lady spoke about whether there is a need for a definition of torture or, indeed, the other aspects of vulnerability that make up part of our adults at risk policy. However, there are 10 separate elements of indicators of vulnerability, of which torture is only one. We were conscious of the potential for some vulnerability that we had not previously considered, so we included a catch-all category at the end to enable different types of vulnerability that had perhaps had been missed to be considered by health professionals working in the detention estate when considering people’s suitability—or, indeed, by our detention gatekeepers.
Joan Ryan
I thank the Minister for being so generous in giving way. I agree that a catch-all is vital to ensure that unforeseen vulnerabilities can be picked up, but it is not an adequate substitute for known categories of vulnerability. Therefore, will the Home Office merge the existing categories of sexual violence and torture into a more comprehensive category modelled on the UNHCR detention guidelines, to ensure that vulnerable people are identified?
Furthermore, expert non-governmental organisations have said that the catch-all is too vague. The idea that the list is not exhaustive is essentially what the catch-all is, which leaves caseworkers in a difficult position; vulnerable people who should not be detained will be detained.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the right hon. Lady for her view. I disagree with her; it is important to have a catch-all that enables other categories to come forward. I do not want to make our definitions and guidance so restrictive that people may fall through the cracks. I am sure we all agree that that is absolutely the worst thing that could happen.
The view was put forward, as the right hon. Lady said, that the Home Office should not have laid these statutory instruments until Stephen Shaw’s follow-up report is published. I do not accept that; the changes we seek to make through the statutory instruments are to implement the court’s judgment within the reasonable timescale set by the court. The right hon. Lady will have read the judgment; specifically, paragraphs 172 to 177 cover these points in some detail. The Government have been correct to take the necessary action to put in place the new definition of torture within a reasonable timeframe. It is also right that we have made the important amendment to the statutory guidance, to put it beyond doubt that the list of 10 indicators is not exhaustive.
Implementing the court’s judgment is just the first step, and it is the right thing to do now. Stephen Shaw has conducted a wide-ranging re-review and we will consider carefully his recommendations, which have been relatively recently received and will be published, along with our response, towards the end of this month. We will take the recommendations into account and review the operation of the rule 35 reporting mechanism, as part of the wider review of the detention centre rules later this year. That exercise will be subject to consultation.
Until the report is formally published, I will not be in a position to disclose its contents. I can, though, say that my officials informed Mr Shaw’s team of proposals to implement the new definition of torture in parallel with their engagement with NGOs. I have explained to some hon. Members already that we will most certainly take Mr Shaw’s views into account when we review the detention centre rules later in the year. The imperative at present is to ensure that, in the light of the court’s very clearly expressed view, the correct definition of torture is applied without undue delay.
I turn to some of the comments made by right hon. and hon. Members. Please be assured that I have heeded the warning of Mr Shaw’s review and, if it can be regarded as such, the warning in paragraphs 172 to 177 of Mr Justice Ouseley’s judgment of 10 October. As I said, the review of the detention centre rules will come later this year. Adults at risk did form part of Shaw’s review, which will be published at the end of this month. That gives us the opportunity to carefully consider and establish what enhancements can be made to that policy. I regard it as a work in progress and something that we need to make sure we make necessary improvements to, as required.
The right hon. Member for Enfield North mentioned timeliness; the High Court had the benefit of the experts brought before it by Medical Justice. I am sure that she has read the judge’s comments, but I remind her that we had already invited Mr Shaw to carry out his re-review. I feel that there is a time imperative: we should not have allowed parliamentary recesses and delay to mean that we did not have a better definition 12 months after that judgment. We are considering the adults at risk policy in the round and we will publish Shaw’s report and our response later this month.
The right hon. Lady concluded with a comment on the 28-day time limit, which, although not strictly in the terms of these regulations, I regard as an arbitrary time limit that potentially runs the risk of those with no right to be here deliberately frustrating their removal, simply to meet the date at which they might be released.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston made some important points about mental health and the welfare of detainees. I take on board her comments about those with serious mental health conditions. We have worked very hard to introduce the mental health action plan in 2016—it was developed by the Home Office, NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, following research by the Centre for Mental Health.
I am firmly of the view that the provision of mental health care in IRCs is crucial, but it is a matter for NHS England. We must, of course, remember that those with serious mental health conditions are perhaps best looked after under section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and in hospital.
It has been suggested this afternoon that caseworkers and doctors would find the definition of torture set out in the statutory instruments to be too complicated. I do not accept that. As I have said, that is based on guidance provided by the court and has a number of key elements that must be met, but it is not inherently complex. We are in the process of producing detailed guidance for caseworkers who will be making decisions, and have engaged with a range of non-governmental organisations on the guidance.
My officials are currently also involved in running out an extensive training programme for caseworkers and healthcare professionals working in immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities.
Joan Ryan
My understanding is that there was confusion when many of the caseworkers in training were questioned afterwards about the sample cases put before them on whether a person would be classed as vulnerable, should be safeguarded or not be detained. It was very difficult for them to identify who should be detained and who should not. Therefore, there is reason for concern. Medical Justice says that there will be problems applying this definition for medico-legal reports. Why are we not listening to what it says?
Caroline Nokes
We invited NGOs to attend the early sessions as observers and provide feedback. It is important that we evaluate carefully the success of training as part of any process. As I said, we are still in the process of rolling out guidance and the training programme. To date, we are about one fifth of the way through the training programme. It is important that we continue to learn the lessons.
I believe that these are important statutory instruments. As I explained to right hon. and hon. Members, the court clearly indicated that our previous definition was not adequate, so I have no hesitation in commending them to the Committee.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I have no hesitation in joining the opposition to these two draft statutory instruments. I thank the right hon. Member for Enfield North for kicking off the process of challenging them and for securing a debate on the detention of vulnerable migrants next week.
My party’s position is that the large-scale, routine detention of thousands of people, including vulnerable people, in what are essentially private prisons, for indeterminate periods, simply at the discretion of immigration officers, is a scandal. It is a stain on our democracy and an affront to the rule of law.
On the matter of scale, which the Minister always attempts to play down, 26,000 individuals each year—3,000 at any one time—is not something to celebrate. That is an horrendous number and is massive in scale next to comparable countries. It is clear that we are detaining many people whose removal is not imminent—around half are released back into the public.
Detention in those places is a harmful experience for anyone. By its very nature it makes detainees vulnerable. That vulnerability can be exacerbated depending on personal, social and environmental factors. Vulnerability will vary over the period of detention. Stephen Shaw’s first review states:
“Detention in and of itself undermines welfare and contributes to vulnerability.”
As we have heard, it also has atrocious implications for mental health. Nevertheless, the UK continues to detain vulnerable people on a huge scale, including too often people with serious mental illnesses. The detention of people with serious mental illnesses was described by Mr Shaw in his first report as
“an affront to civilised values”.
Torture survivors and victims of serious violence and ill-treatment are particularly vulnerable to harm. Contrary to what the Government claim, organisations such as Freedom from Torture and Medical Justice are concerned that the specific changes proposed in these SIs will undermine the safeguarding of victims of torture and ill-treatment. That is because the changes place an impossible task on detention centre medical practitioners, with a definition of torture that is overly complex because it introduces a concept of powerlessness that has dubious links to vulnerability to harm and will require detailed and excessive interrogation of a vulnerable person.
Victims of severe ill-treatment and violence risk being excluded from the protections offered in the detention centre rules and guidance. The changes also increase the evidentiary burden on torture survivors. No longer will the guidance simply require independent evidence of torture to justify exclusion from detention, but specific evidence will be needed that detention is likely to cause harm. That requires to be seen alongside the fact that the guidance now includes a broader range of immigration factors that can justify detention, even of torture survivors, which explains the plummet in the number of releases following rule 35 reports that we have heard about.
Medical Justice and Freedom from Torture propose that we withdraw these statutory instruments until we see the Shaw review. The arguments for not waiting for Shaw were unconvincing. Going further, they argue that there is no need for a specific definition of torture and that the category of vulnerability should be broadened to include other victims of serious violence and ill-treatment, as recommended in the UNHCR detention guidelines. There should be a presumption, not a burden of proof, that such individuals are vulnerable to harm, and we should make their detention truly exceptional rather than having the Home Office with a further list of excuses for keeping them in detention. That is a sensible way ahead on these statutory instruments.
Afzal Khan
I will be brief. The Opposition believe that these measures are not an appropriate way forward. We know that the current protections are not working and that the proposed definition of torture will make the situation worse. The Minister made an issue about the court order, but that did not demand that the Home Office responds before the Shaw report is published. She has the Shaw report. A better way forward would be for her to publish it and consult on the full range of protections for vulnerable people. In view of that, we will vote against the measures.
Question put.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Fifth sitting)
Wednesday 6th June 2018
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 View all Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 16 May 2018 - (17 May 2018)
The Chair
Before we begin proceedings, I remind Members to turn their electronic devices to silent mode and not to drink tea or coffee during our sittings. If people wish to go outside and have a break, that is a matter for them.
As the Committee cannot consider the clauses of the Bill until the House has agreed a money resolution, I call Afzal Khan to move that the Committee do now adjourn.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.
I thank hon. Members for coming here on this lovely Wednesday morning. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester, who is now Labour’s Front-Bench lead on the Bill. I can only offer my apologies that our time will not be well spent as we are meeting just to adjourn: without a money resolution, we cannot discuss any part of the Bill.
I am determined not to let this rest, as MPs from all parties have made it clear that it is unacceptable that we have not yet had a money resolution. Parliamentary precedent and the will of the House dictate that we should be able to debate the Bill in Committee, and we have only a few weeks before the summer recess.
As the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee said in its report, the Government “cannot be confident” that the House of Commons will support the implementation of the boundary commissions’ proposals when they come before us in the autumn. We all agree that we need new boundaries, and the Bill could be a real alternative to the boundary commissions’ proposals—it would not mean resorting to current boundaries for a 2022 general election. However, if we are to have that, we need to get a move on.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. As you were not in the Chair for our previous sitting, you have the blessing of not having already heard what I am about to say. I want to respond to a couple of points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. First, I cannot think of a better way to spend some time on a Wednesday morning than sitting in a Committee Room with such esteemed colleagues from both sides of the House. It is a great pleasure, and I look forward to doing so for many Wednesdays to come, even if it is only for a short time and not for as long as we would hope.
The Government have made their position clear, and it should not come as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman: they have not ruled out bringing forward a money resolution, but they feel that the House should have the opportunity to consider the boundary commissions’ reports, which are under way. I note what he said about the report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), but we should not prejudge the House’s decision on the boundary commissions’ reports. It is reasonable to wait for the House to see those reports—we have not seen them yet—and for it then to make a decision. We can then come back to this issue. That is a reasonable position, and the Committee may then be in a position to consider the significant detail of the Bill.
If the Labour party is really signed up to having more equal-sized constituencies, and boundaries drawn using electorates more recent than 18 years ago, on which current boundaries are based, it should not keep trying to put blockages in the way. The last time there was a boundary review, Labour worked with the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords to disrupt it and put it off for five years. I am afraid that it is difficult to see this as anything other than an attempt to do the same all over again. None the less, I look forward to seeing the boundary commissions’ reports and the debate we will then have in the House. We can then come back to this issue.
As the Minister has said on numerous occasions, the Government will then be able to reflect on whether to bring forward a money resolution, and then we may be in a position to debate the Bill. I for one love talking about this subject, as the hon. Gentleman will know from studying Hansard when we took the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 through the House. We spent many happy hours on that on the Floor of the House and I look forward to the opportunity to do so again.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton for welcoming me to the Committee. I can inform the Committee that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) has commenced maternity leave. I have no further news than that but it is my great pleasure to substitute for her.
It is also a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, though it is also bitter sweet and rueful, because it seems to me that the pleasure will be denied. Proceedings here will be over all too soon, for no other reason than political manoeuvrings, because the Government have failed to recognise a democratic vote on Second Reading to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee stage. The House made a decision and we should respect that.
The Government have form in talking out private Members’ Bills but I venture the possibility that this is the first time a private Member’s Bill has been blocked by not being talked about. This is the first time for such a Bill not to be talked out but to be simply knocked into the long grass.
Christian Matheson
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean is more experienced in the matter and I always love to hear his view.
Mr Harper
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to an example I gave at the previous sitting of the Committee when the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood was serving on the Front Bench. That was the private Member’s Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) on the European Union referendum, a measure that we now know commanded majority, albeit only a small majority, support in the country.
That Bill did not receive a money resolution, despite the fact that the Prime Minister of the day was in favour of one. There were all sorts of complicated coalition-related reasons for that. This is not the first time that a Bill has not made progress. The Leader of the House, gave several examples in the debate in the House. This is certainly not the first time and probably will not be the last.
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing me in the right direction on that. He talked about reasons within the coalition for not bringing forward a money resolution. I cannot see any reasons why a money resolution should not be brought forward now. At least we could make progress in Committee and then take the Bill back to the House for Report and Third Reading to see whether it still commands support.
I respectfully suggest to the Minister that this really is not a good look. It does not look as though the Government are engaging well in the democratic process. There may be reasons not to introduce a money resolution but the impression it gives is of stifling democracy and ignoring a decision made on the Floor of the House on Second Reading. I am reminded of Oscar Wilde’s famous aphorism:
“There is only one thing in life worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”
That applies very much in the case of this Bill. It might be problematic for the Government to talk about the Bill but it will be even more problematic if they do not, because they will give the impression of running scared of a democratic decision that might not suit their political position.
The Minister’s position seems to be to knock this into the long grass, to see if we can get to recess without a money resolution, and once the House returns after the summer recess, to see if we can get the debate that the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean might have been referring to. That is the debate on the current boundary provisions, which we know are based on an out-of- date register lacking 2 million voters, thus distorting representation.
Mr Harper
It is the case that whenever a boundary review is set in train a line has to be drawn somewhere. I would make two points. First, the current boundary review uses electoral registers that are more up to date than existing constituencies, which are 18 years out of date. Secondly, analysis by Matt Singh of the Number Cruncher Politics website, which I have referred to in the House before, shows that the distribution of those 2 million voters across the country was broadly proportionate to the existing electorate. In other words, contrary to the impression the hon. Gentleman was trying to give, that would not have made a significant difference to the distribution of parliamentary constituencies.
Christian Matheson
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need a boundary review, that the current constituencies are 18 years out of date—that is unacceptable—and that there is a size discrepancy that needs to be addressed. The problem is that when the current boundary review was launched, the Electoral Commission expressed the view that the current electoral registers were deficient. We asked for time to be given to update those registers. The Government did not provide that time, and sure enough, shortly afterwards, as the European referendum came along, those 2 million extra voters suddenly reappeared on the register.
We know that the registers, although they may be less than 18 years out of date, simply are not sufficiently up to date or fit for purpose for the task 18 months or two years ago, so what is going to happen now? It strikes me that the Minister’s job is to knock the Bill into the long grass—to knock the ball away as often as she can between now and the summer recess, or between now and when the boundary review comes back. It is a bit like Geoffrey Boycott at the crease—I know you are a cricket lover, Mr Owen—knocking back every ball.
The Chair
Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. I am indeed a sports lover, and I go by the rules. Under the rules of the Committee, we are debating a motion to adjourn rather than the clauses of the Bill. Will he therefore focus on the matter of adjourning the Committee until 13 June, rather than on the details of the Bill, which we are not allowed to discuss?
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr Owen. My point is that the Minister seems to wish to seek an adjournment now and at future sittings in order to knock back, in Boycott fashion, consideration of the detail of the Bill.
I am reminded of my old mate Michael Atherton and his famous 185 not out to save the test in Johannesburg. The rest of the England batting order collapsed, but Mike managed to save the day. I say to the Minister, however, that that test was not won. Mike Atherton did not succeed in winning the test; he managed only to stave off a decision until the next match. My advice to her, therefore, is that consideration of the Bill may be delayed, but the day of reckoning will come. It would be better for her and for the Government’s reputation if they allowed us to get round to discussing the detail of the Bill, rather than giving the impression that the Bill is not worth discussing, for political reasons as opposed to anything in it.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
What a pleasure it is to be back in the political purgatory that is the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill Committee. I am disappointed that the other Chair, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), is not here, because we could have called it, “I’m in a Public Bill Committee… Get Me Out of Here!” We seem to meet fairly regularly to consider at length the Bill, which the House passed on Second Reading, but of course is being stonewalled in Committee by the Government.
I warmly welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for City of Chester. I am sure that we all wish the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood a very safe delivery of her baby. I myself—well, for reasons of biology, clearly I am not expecting a baby, but my wife is expecting one in the autumn. At this rate, I wonder whether we will have a money resolution by then. It seems bizarre that we may go for nine months before we get one. The Bill received its Second Reading last year, and since then a number of Bills that were behind this one in the queue have been expedited, in the sense of having been given money resolutions.
Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill
Wednesday 6th June 2018
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Act 2018 View all Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 June 2018 - (6 Jun 2018)
The Chair
I do not anticipate that the sitting will be lengthy, but may I remind Members to turn off electronic devices or put them on silent? Also, tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings; no one is transgressing, but it is felt that there is a need for such announcements.
Resolved,
That, if proceedings on the Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill are not completed at this day’s sitting, the Committee shall meet on Wednesdays while the House is sitting at 9.25 am.—(Mr Bone.)
Ordered,
That the Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Clause 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 6, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill.—(Mr Bone.)
Clause 1
National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I welcome the Minister and shadow Minister to the Committee.
The purpose of the Bill is to put on to a statutory footing the office of the National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care, and to promote the provision of advice and guidance about the processing of health and adult social care data in England. It would be remiss of me not to mention the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill): she has worked hard for a long time to establish the position of the National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care, and her perseverance and tenacity have ensured that we are on track to deliver it.
I thank the Minister and shadow Minister for their help and support with the Bill—and special thanks, of course, go to Dame Fiona Caldicott, who has pioneered the work on ensuring that the NHS handles data properly. She has been very helpful to me in the preparation of the Bill.
Clause 1 creates the Office of the National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care, referred to in the Bill as the “Data Guardian”. It makes general provisions about the Data Guardian’s functions and the way in which they are to be carried out. Subsection (2) empowers the Data Guardian to publish guidance about the processing of health and adult social care data in England. I should like to make it clear that it also covers public health data.
Subsection (3) imposes a duty on certain organisations and individuals to have regard to the National Data Guardian’s published guidance. Comment has been made as to why the Secretary of State is not included in the list. However, the Department of Health and Social Care is already included in the definition of those who have to have regard to the National Data Guardian’s advice, so it would be superfluous to include the Secretary of State.
Subsections (4), (5) and (6) cover requirements in relation to the Data Guardian’s published guidance. Those subsections are intended to keep the guidance relevant over time and, if necessary, updated to reflect new evidence. It has been suggested that subsection (5) should add an obligation that organisations and individuals that process health and social care data should provide the Data Guardian with appropriate information. I argue that that would create a duplication of the remit of regulators that already exist in those sectors. The Data Guardian’s role is as an advocate for the patient and the public, to build and maintain public trust. The role is as much about supporting individuals and organisations to get it right first time as it is about commenting, advising and providing guidance. It is not the intention of this Bill to create another regulator, but that the National Data Guardian should work with the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Care Quality Commission.
It has also been suggested that subsection (6) should add a duty that all data controllers and their data processors must publish their response to all advice issued. That would be extremely burdensome on those organisations and individuals, and it would be toothless without sanctions. Accountability should be assessed through actions, not written responses; the existing regulators would be able to assess the adherence to guidance and would cite the National Data Guardian during any investigation.
Clause 1(7) allows the Data Guardian to give informal advice, assistance and information to anyone, as long as it is about or relates to the processing of health and adult social care data in England. Clause 1(8) gives the Data Guardian flexibility in how far any particular piece of advice, assistance, information or guidance may be extended. The effect is to clarify that the Data Guardian can publish guidance and give advice on specific topics or themes, and can target it to certain organisations, individuals or sectors as appropriate. Clause 1(9) provides that the duty to have regard to the Data Guardian’s published guidance applies only in so far as the guidance is relevant to the functions or services of the body or person.
Clause 1(10) introduces schedule 1 to the Bill. As clause 1 and schedule 1 are being debated together, I will make some brief comments on schedule 1. The schedule makes further provision for the establishment, maintenance and operation of the Office of the Data Guardian. It sets out the Data Guardian’s terms of appointment and covers a broad range of matters related to the Office of the Data Guardian. It includes its constitution, its financial and reporting framework, and how members of staff and advisers are reported and remunerated. I draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 15 of schedule 1, which provides that the Secretary of State must pay to the Data Guardian the amount that he considers appropriate for the purpose of enabling the Data Guardian to carry out his or her functions.
The Committee will be aware that there was some debate about the cost during the money resolution debate. I thank hon. Members who are here today and those who took part in the debate. I want to make clear that, although the estimated cost is £725,000 per year, that is only an additional £225,000 per year and relates to putting the Data Guardian on a statutory footing. As the Committee will know, there is already a Data Guardian, which costs £500,000; we are just putting this on a statutory footing and saying it is the right thing to do.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on having got his Bill so far. On the costs, the Data Guardian will basically be indemnified for the costs incurred, yet I see that the Data Guardian will have enormous flexibility to publish and give as much guidance or advice as they wish. Surely the Data Guardian could, by giving a lot more advice and guidance over which there is no control, result in significantly increased costs for the public sector?
Mr Bone
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and the fact that he is on the Committee; I know that all Committees welcome his membership.
The reason why we have a Data Guardian is to provide safeguarding and to make sure that the data is handled properly. Those costs can only be estimated; as my hon. Friend says, they could be more or less, depending on the requirements. That is exactly why we need a guardian. I would like the costs to be minimal, because that means that we are handling the guardian properly. But if there needs to be more, because there is a requirement to do more, there will be more cost.
Sir Christopher Chope
Does my hon. Friend know of any case where a regulator given powers by Parliament has chosen to reduce the amount of powers that are used? Surely, the natural thing is for regulators to increase their activity, using the powers to the maximum and thereby increasing the costs.
Mr Bone
I agree, but what we are not doing today is creating a regulator; I would not be likely to propose a Bill to create a regulator. The Data Guardian already exists and it is not a regulator—I specifically said that in my opening remarks. Although it is probably true that regulators do that, that is not what I expect to happen with the National Data Guardian.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough on his notable success in getting the Bill to this stage, and I thank him for his candour during the debate on the money resolution and for his acknowledgment of his good fortune in getting the Bill to this stage ahead of others.
As I mentioned when we debated the money resolution of the Bill, Labour Members welcome the decision to put the National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care on a statutory footing. On that basis, we agree with the thrust of the Bill. I am sure that colleagues will be relieved that I do not intend to speak for too long, but I have one or two comments and observations about clause 1—and about clause 2, which we will discuss a little later. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough, some of which I was going to make anyway.
I mentioned when the money resolution was debated that although the use of data has the potential to improve our health services and treatments beyond recognition, we know from past experience that use of data in the NHS and in wider society can prove controversial and carries high levels of suspicion among patients. We hope that the establishment of the Data Guardian on a statutory footing can give patients confidence that their medical information will be treated in the correct manner. I note from the comments of the hon. Member for Wellingborough that there seems to be an omission from clause 1 as it stands, as there does not seem to be an opportunity for the National Data Guardian to give advice to the Secretary of State himself, although he considers that duty to be covered elsewhere and that such as an addition would be superfluous.
There seems to be a discrepancy that leaves the Data Guardian in an inferior position to either the existing Confidentiality Advisory Group or the Health Research Authority. I would be grateful to know if that was the intention of the legislation. The power to appoint the Data Guardian rests entirely with the Secretary of State, seemingly without any qualification. Is it envisaged that the Health Committee might get an opportunity to comment on such appointments? Recent appointments in the health sector have proven controversial, so it would be appropriate for the Select Committee to comment.
Our second query relates to public health commissioned through local authorities. Given the heavy use of data in public health, it is surprising that that does not seem to be covered by the Bill. Given all the public health activity undertaken by non-public bodies in recent years, I would welcome comments from the Minister and from the hon. Member for Wellingborough about whether the Bill is intended to cover health in the broader sense.
There is also a query about other forms of data that are more directly within the NHS, such as the cancer registry, which resides in Public Health England. It uses data collected by the NHS that could affect the direct care of patients. I would welcome confirmation of whether the Data Guardian is intended to cover that data, too.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough touched on clause 1 (6), which I would like to explore in a little more detail. Labour Members might have expected it to include an obligation for data controllers not only to have regard to advice, but to publish their response to that advice. That expectation is not unrealistic, given that the responses to question 5 of the Government’s consultation were overwhelmingly supportive of such a provision.
In question 5 of the consultation, the Government propose that
“organisations holding health and care data which could be used to identify individuals should be required to publish all materials demonstrating how they have responded to advice from the national data guardian.”
In their response to the consultation, the Government said:
“Responses were supportive of the proposal that the national data guardian should be given formal advice giving powers.”
That would certainly provide reassurances that the National Data Guardian will have real authority and act as an independent voice for patients, but without such statutory backing it is foreseeable that its independence and authority could be undermined. Without a requirement for organisations that receive advice to provide evidence of their response in a way that can be easily disseminated, there is no way we can be sure that the Data Guardian will be effective in doing the important job required by the Bill.
Members will recognise that the requirement for bodies to “have regard” to advice does not always mean that they take action in respect of that advice. An obvious example of that is, of course, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, which we know CCGs often ignore—seemingly with total impunity. I am sure Members do not want a repeat of that with this Bill, so I ask the hon. Gentleman and the Minister to respond on that point in a little more detail. I take the point that providing such responses might be burdensome on authorities controlling data, but I do not think that that cuts the mustard, given our concern about whether this measure will give the Data Guardian sufficient authority and teeth to deal with the issues under discussion.
My final point on clause 1 relates to data sharing and the lack of a positive obligation for bodies to provide that information. For the National Data Guardian to take a view on a particular data issue, it must first know that there is an issue on which to take a view—an unknown unknown, as we say. Could we have a published register of data sharing arrangements to which NHS bodies could sign up and submit a copy of their agreements? That would provide the Data Guardian with a single point of reference from which it could note any new agreements outwith the norm; that is exactly what the Government committed to doing with the current public service delivery data sharing codes of practice currently laid before Parliament.
There is a danger that the Data Guardian will become involved only after an issue has already reached the public’s attention, and possibly after an inappropriate use of data that might already have affected thousands of patients. A positive obligation to shared data arrangements with the Data Guardian might reduce the risk of such an eventuality. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and the hon. Gentleman on those points.
The Chair
For the sake of our protocols, I should say that I had arranged for the windows to be opened because it is rather warm in this Committee room, but I am perfectly happy if people wish to remove their jackets.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Thank you, Dame Cheryl. I want to raise two small points. The first is slightly to tease the hon. Member for Wellingborough: I cannot imagine another Bill making its way through the House of Commons and the House of Lords about which he would be so casual when it came to the amount it might eventually cost. I normally think of him as the most robust challenger of any public expenditure, but I note that in the order of magnitude he is drifting by about 50%. When there is a Labour Government, I look forward to him applying exactly the same logic to all Labour legislation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, and an absolute pleasure to respond to the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough. I congratulate him on bringing this important reform forward and thank him for working so constructively with the Government to put the National Data Guardian on a statutory footing.
This is an important reform. As the shadow Minister mentioned, the public are rightly concerned about information and data that is held on them and the extent to which that is shared. The new National Data Guardian will do much to reassure people that the environment in which data is held and managed is one that respects their privacy, while at the same time ensuring that appropriate safeguarding can be achieved. Given the culture that exists within our health services, the comfort with which organisations can respond to the advice given by the National Data Guardian will make for a much more effective system to support the public.
I confirm the Government’s support for and commitment to the Bill. We very much wish it to succeed. We see real benefits to all individuals in ensuring that we share health and care data in a safe, secure and legal way. The Bill will go a long way to increasing public trust in the appropriate and effective use of health and care data. The National Data Guardian has already established herself as an independent and authoritative voice for the patient and service user in how their data is used in the health and adult social care system.
Let me address some of the points that have been raised. Clearly, my hon. Friends will be concerned about the potential costs, as we would be as Conservatives. The estimates we have established as a result of the impact assessment provide for some extra expenditure, and that is for additional staffing so that the published guidance has a legal status—that will be a natural outcome of putting the Data Guardian on a legal footing. There will be some additional costs, and we have been generous in our estimates for them.
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about other agencies that might be covered by the Bill, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said, the Bill as drafted covers public health. Provisions in the Bill will extend to local authority functions with respect to adult social care, but not to children because they are covered by a different legal framework.
The hon. Member for Rhondda raised some good points to which we could ask the National Data Guardian to have regard. He is right to say that we as Members of Parliament often take up health and social care issues on behalf of our constituents, and nothing is intended to get in the way of that. Indeed, it could be helpful to us if the National Data Guardian gave instructions to those bodies about their obligation to be open and transparent. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and other hon. Members, have often found that the spirit of openness that we expect when we challenge something is not always respected. In that culture of openness, and with respect for privacy and safety, we support the Bill.
Mr Bone
I am grateful for the support from the Minister and the shadow Minister, and I wish to pick up on a couple of points. The appointment will be down to the Secretary of State, but I absolutely expect it to go to the Health and Social Care Committee—I think that is understood. A point was raised about advice and having written reports on what is being done, but the argument against that is that we want to see action. There is some confusion—the Data Guardian is not a regulator, and therefore that is not its role. All organisations are covered by a regulator and will take into account what the National Data Guardian says. That is why I do not think that such a provision would work.
Justin Madders
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it was clear in the Government consultation, and the response to it, that there was an intention for the body to have a few more teeth. Why did that change course?
Mr Bone
The problem is that we could easily say that we need to have a regulator, but that is not what the Data Guardian does. We do not want to come along afterwards and say what has gone wrong; we want to get this right at the beginning and work with the different holders of data. It is a different approach. The comparison I think of is when I was involved with combating modern-day slavery. We now have a commissioner for that whose job is not to regulate but to expose and say what is going well or badly, and that helps. There could be pressure on an organisation—for instance, if it gets really bad publicity it will do something about it, but equally the commissioner will show where things are going well. We do not want to move towards a regulator or have lots of enforcement powers because that is totally different to what we have already established with Dame Fiona. Each hospital has a Caldicott guardian in it, so we are basically putting something that works on a statutory footing for the future.
I am pleased by the conversion of the hon. Member for Rhondda to concerns about cost, and I shall remind him of that if there is ever a Labour Government in future—
Mr Bone
Well, I am sure there will be a Labour Government sometime in the next century.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point about MPs and data provided by our constituents. Although I do not think it is particularly relevant to this, I do think all Members are wrestling with what the new regulations mean. Medical practitioners have to hold information for a very long time. I have very detailed medical information from some of my constituents, and serious issues might arise if we were forced to destroy such information. Perhaps the National Data Guardian could give some advice on that point. I get very frustrated when I have to deal with the local hospital, if I do not get a consent form. That is clearly a delaying factor and definitely needs to be cleared up.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 2
Interpretation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Bone
We have dealt with the heart of the Bill in clause 1. The subsequent clauses, while important, are not so detailed.
The purpose of clause 2 is to define some of the important terms used in clause 1. For instance, subsection (3) defines “adult social care”. I would clarify that children’s social care data, as has already been mentioned, is not within the scope of the Bill. It is covered via a different legislative framework and that framework has safeguards in place to protect children’s social care data from inappropriate use.
I would also point out that clause 2(7) provides that “processing” has the same meaning as given in section 1(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998. That definition has been used as it is a broad definition that captures a whole range of activity involving data, including obtaining, holding, recording, using and sharing.
Justin Madders
I wish to raise a point on the exclusion of children’s data. I appreciate that hon. Members have referred to it already, but we are slightly concerned that although children’s data may be covered elsewhere, the guardian does not have any ability to write to bodies in that respect. It is perfectly reasonable for that to be included; indeed, I think it was included in the original Bill as drafted. We see it as a safety net, rather than an added complication.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I confirm that the Government support the clause. On the point about children, it is our interpretation that the provisions do not prevent the National Data Guardian from engaging constructively with the Department for Education on adult social care data and its interaction with or effect on children’s data. Clearly, this is something we will monitor, but, bearing in mind that the whole ethos behind the creation of the National Data Guardian is to spread good practice and make representations rather than regulations, the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed is important, but we do not think it will get in the way of sensible engagement.
Chris Bryant
Will the Minister clarify what she understands from clause 2(5)? It states:
“‘The health service’ means the health service continued under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006.”
That obviously includes ambulance services, but does it include those provided by St John Ambulance?
Jackie Doyle-Price
If I may, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on that point. I would say that it would not, but I will confirm in due course.
Mr Bone
The shadow Minister makes a fair point, which goes to the heart of a problem that I have found in the past—that children are looked after by the Department for Education and not the health service. When I dealt with modern-day slavery, I came across exactly the same problem. What the shadow Minister said should be heard loud and clear by the Department for Education.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss that schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Mr Bone
The clause introduces amendments to other legislation as a consequence of the Bill. Schedule 2 lists five Acts to be altered, following parliamentary counsel’s advice. Those are the Public Records Act 1958, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the Equality Act 2010.
Chris Bryant
Why is the hon. Gentleman so keen on disqualifying a Member of the House of Commons from being the Data Guardian?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The consequential amendments introduced are typical for setting up such a body. The Government are content with the clause, as drafted.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 4
Extent
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Bone
The clause sets out the Bill’s territorial extent. The Bill extends to England and Wales only. The Committee will note that clause 1 provides for the Data Guardian to publish guidance and give advice, information and assistance, but that applies only to the processing of health and social care data in England. However, in regard to application, the provisions extend to England and Wales but apply only to England. The provisions do not extend or apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland. I hope that is perfectly clear.
Chris Bryant
Well no, it is not really. In fact, it is a little bit worse than that. We return to clause 2(5), which says:
“‘The health service’ means the health service continued under section 1(1) of the National Health Service Act 2006”,
but that Act states:
“The Secretary of State must continue the promotion in England of a comprehensive health service”
and so on. I therefore do not understand why the Bill extends to England and Wales. Will the provision will have any relevance whatever in Wales? If not, I do not know why it says that it does.
Jackie Doyle-Price
In regard to application, the provisions extend to England and Wales but apply only to England. I have to confess that my knowledge of devolution arrangements is perhaps not as good as it should be, but our view is that the Bill applies only to England. Although the provisions could extend to England and Wales, it would be within the competence of the National Assembly for Wales to appoint a guardian and make such arrangements. That said, the National Data Guardian is an advisory role—it is not a reserved power under devolution arrangements—and as is common in the operation of the health systems in all four nations, I would expect that the advice and guidance given by the National Data Guardian would be heard and, when appropriate, acted on by the health services in the other nations.
Justin Madders
My understanding when preparing for the Committee was that it would apply to England only. I think that is what the Minister has confirmed. Certainly in my part of the world there is quite a lot of movement of patients both ways between England and Wales, because we are quite close to the Welsh border. Can the Minister explain what will happen to patient records in that situation?
Jackie Doyle-Price
Clearly the Bill extends to England, but the purpose of the National Data Guardian is to give advice on the appropriate sharing of data and best practice. I should expect practitioners to have regard to the advice regardless of where they come from, because, notwithstanding the legal framework in which they operate, all health professionals want to behave in a responsible way. We expect the guidance of the National Data Guardian to be good practice. She has been giving advice without statutory powers to do so, and that advice has been respected; I think that that will continue. It is largely through an accident of the current structuring of the health service that the provisions are as they are. The principles under which the Data Guardian will give advice extend way beyond the geography of England.
Sir Christopher Chope
It may well be a standard clause, but such clauses are often abused by the Government. For example, Parliament passed a measure to outlaw exit payments for public sector workers in the Enterprise Act 2016. We are still waiting for the regulations under that primary legislation to be introduced. The Government now say that they will have to consult on them. Effectively, what Parliament thought was happening—the limiting of public sector exit payments—has not happened.
The Bill is supported across the House, as the measure I have mentioned was. I should be grateful for some indication from the Minister of when the Government will implement it. It could be delayed by the Government by means of the regulation-making powers in the clause; or by the Government’s not appointing the Data Guardian. There are other ways in which it could be delayed, and if we take the past as a guide to the future we should be suspicious of the Government when they are not prepared to include in the Bill a commitment for it to commence on a given date.
Chris Bryant
Christchurch and Rhondda speak as one, in a uniting of the Christophers, something that will not, I think, happen very often. It is a serious point; I understand that such clauses are a frequently used means of tidying up the process of a Bill coming into force. However, it adds cost, because the Government must go through an additional process; and frankly there is no reason why we should not just put in a date and tell the Government to get their act together—because everyone supports the measure.
I hope—I am sure—that the Minister will now say, “We intend to do it as soon as practicable after the Bill has been through both Houses,” and all the rest of it; but it would be better for the date to be in the Bill, because then she would not have to do anything later, and, to use a valleys word, it would be tidy. Let us be tidy.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Tempted as I am to engage in debate on the abuse or otherwise of statutory instruments, I prefer not to go down that road. Suffice it to say, we should put provisions into action only once they are tidy, to use the term suggested by the hon. Member for Rhondda. We should be governed by the integrity of the rules we pass rather than by speed, but I can confirm that it is the Government’s desire to implement the Bill, which we fully support, as soon as practicable. Clearly, we already have a National Data Guardian; the Bill would just put it on a statutory footing. It is in all our interests that we do that as soon as possible, so the Government are content with the clause.
Sir Christopher Chope
Will the Minister assure us that she will take personal charge of ensuring that the Bill is brought forward quickly? To go back to the example I quoted earlier, I had a meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and pointed out to her that one of the reasons there was a delay in implementing regulations was that civil servants did not have their heart in it and did not give it sufficient priority. The only way of ensuring that the civil servants in the Minister’s Department deliver on the wishes of the Committee and the House is for her to take charge and deliver. Will she ensure that the Bill is commenced before the end of this calendar year?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I completely agree with everything my hon. Friend says. It is Ministers’ responsibility to ensure that the decisions made by Parliament are actioned as promptly and effectively as possible. I know him well enough to be sure that he will hold me to account on exactly that basis if he does not feel the Bill comes forward quickly enough. I would like to see it commenced by the end of the year, and I will work with my officials to ensure that that is the case. If we cannot achieve that, I will give him an explanation.
Mr Bone
I am grateful for the contributions by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and the hon. Member for Rhondda. I absolutely agree with their general comments. I looked carefully when drafting the Bill at the issue they raised. I could have included a provision that the Bill would come into effect, say, six months after it became law, but I did not because we already have a Data Guardian, so there will not be any gap, and I know how much the Government support the Bill. That is the reason we did not put in a date, but under other circumstances I absolutely would have insisted on one.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Jackie Doyle-Price
The Government are content with the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before I close proceedings, may I thank all Members for taking part in the scrutiny of the Bill, and the Hansard reporters and officials from both the House and the Department who have supported us?
Jackie Doyle-Price
Further to that point of order, Dame Cheryl. I echo the thanks of my hon. Friend and again thank him for his real industry on what will be an important reform. I also thank colleagues who showed up today for their probing questions, which are always important as we scrutinise legislation.
The Chair
I do not think those are points of order for the Chair, but it is good that they have been put on the record.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Employment Rates
(6 years, 6 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
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered recent trends in employment rates.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am delighted to have secured the debate, not least because I missed the last one. I am particularly pleased that hon. Members from both sides of the House have risked coming along this morning for a second time—take two. The debate gives me the opportunity to update the House on the work of the all-party parliamentary group on youth employment, on which I will focus.
However, I will first mention some trends in employment growth as a whole. My speech will not be full of statistics; it would be very dull and boring if it were. However, I must mention some, and having missed the last debate in April, I now have May’s Office for National Statistics figures, which show yet another rise in the employment rate, which is now at 75.6%. Had I turned up on time to that debate, it would have been only 75.4%, so in a way I am delighted to have missed that debate and to have an opportunity to update the House on the latest figures.
The overall unemployment rate is 4.2%. However, in the ONS figures, which are actually fascinating to look at, I always look out for the job vacancies, because quite often they tell a story in themselves. It is always of interest to see 806,000 job vacancies, which is 17,000 more than a year earlier. The largest area in which there are job vacancies is the services sector. Employment growth since 2010 has been called a jobs miracle, and long may it continue.
Let me mention one or two points about businesses. It is sometimes said that the Government create jobs, but I firmly believe that businesses create jobs and that the Government set the framework and create the environment in which businesses can flourish and then take on more employees. In that regard, the Government have cut corporation tax from 30% to 19%. Despite the doom-and-gloom cries about how that would reduce the tax take, the Exchequer has in fact seen an increased tax take as a result. There are 5.7 million businesses, which is an increase of 1.2 million since 2010. I am delighted that the World Economic Forum says that this country is one of the top places to do business.
Turning to youth employment, I am honoured and privileged to chair the APPG, which is a role I took over from my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). Under her leadership, we changed the name of the group from the APPG on youth unemployment to the APPG on youth employment, which is much more positive and actually much more reflective of the facts and the statistics on the grounds.
The secretariat for the group is provided by Youth Employment UK. I pay tribute to its work, and particularly to Laura-Jane Rawlings, who provides the secretariat and support. What the group does particularly well is bring young ambassadors into Parliament. We try to meet on the day the ONS statistics come out, but it is the young ambassadors who really bring our meetings to life. I would be delighted to invite the Minister to come along to one of our meetings, although I must warn him that the young ambassadors can ask some of the trickiest and most ticklish questions, so he will have to be on his mettle.
The ONS recently changed the day on which it releases its labour force survey statistics, from a Wednesday to a Tuesday, which I am told is because it gives MPs more of a chance to examine the figures before Prime Minister’s Question Time. Whether MPs avail themselves of that opportunity I am not sure, but that is the reason given for the change.
Looking at the 16 to 24 age bracket, the headline figure for youth unemployment for May is 12.1%. That is down from a year earlier and is in fact within touching distance of the lowest it has ever been on record, which was 11.6%. The highest, in 2011, was touching 22%. At each and every meeting of our APPG, I still say that it is too high—it is three times the overall unemployment rate of 4%.
We should perhaps not directly compare ourselves with Greece and Spain, where youth unemployment is 45% and 34% respectively. However, other international comparisons include Croatia on 23.5% and Denmark on 10%, but then Germany on 6% and the Czech Republic on 7.2%. We really should aspire to at least halve our youth unemployment rate. Interestingly, the youth claimant count is 3%. However, my view is that youth unemployment is still too high and that we must aim to eradicate it, or certainly to reduce it.
In the time remaining I will touch on our APPG’s most recent report and on what we will be doing in future, and I will then look at an innovative, multi-APPG report on the hospitality sector. Our most recent report, entitled “Those Furthest from the Labour Market”, had quite a wide remit. It looked at the barriers that young people face, from deprivation to disability. It made a number of recommendations, and I invite colleagues, and particularly the Minister, to look at all of them, but I will highlight what in my view are the three key recommendations.
First, we must ensure that all young people in education have access to work experience. That is absolutely key, as it allows them to develop soft skills, as well as to get information, advice and guidance, which must be practical but also inspirational. Secondly, one size does not fit all, as is so often the case in every sector. Education, employment and welfare services must recognise the unique potential of all our young people. Thirdly, we need better cross-departmental working. I would like the Minister to consider this point in due course, although perhaps not today. We need better co-ordination of responsibilities and services, including among the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice. I firmly believe that, through better cross-departmental working, we can truly look at youth unemployment as a whole. Our future reports will include looking at young care leavers entering the workforce and also young ex-offenders looking at education and employment.
I will briefly touch on the hospitality commission that I mentioned a few moments ago. It is a multi-APPG that includes the APPGs for youth employment, for the visitor’s economy, for tourism and hospitality in Wales, for education and the all-party parliamentary beer group. It will look at all aspects of the hospitality sector, including promoting careers, the diversity of the workforce and education and skills. Importantly, it will show that hospitality is not just a stop gap or a temporary job but can actually be career in and of itself. We had our first evidence session and we have two to go. I invite colleagues to look out for that report when it is published.
Finally, I will mention my constituency—it is always nice to be able to do so in this forum—and Dorset Young Chamber. I chaired the steering group when it was set up in 2016. It touches 13 schools, and not just in my constituency but right across Dorset. Ian Girling, the indomitable chairman of the Dorset chamber of commerce and industry, set up Dorset Young Chamber in response to an annual Ofsted report to Parliament in December 2015 that outlined the importance of strong careers advice and guidance and the firm need to improve the link between schools and employers. If we are to ensure that recent trends in employment rates continue, that will be absolutely crucial.
As part of the Dorset Young Chamber scheme, each school has a link with one local business that it can call on to help with careers advice, with an individual talk, or just to be that link between education and employment. The key is so often that young people see the purpose of their academic work and where it will actually lead in the end. I believe that is an invaluable link between education and employment and that that model could and should be adopted across the rest of the country.
I have tried to refrain from using too many statistics, but they are important and show just how far we have come since 2010. When it comes to employment, and especially the lives and job prospects of young people, we of course must not be complacent. We must continue to create the right environment to ensure that businesses expand and grow. I would like the Minister and the Government to keep a laser-like focus on youth employment statistics, not because the statistics are important in and of themselves, but because behind every number is a real person, a young person who is trying to get a job and a good start in life.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on securing this important debate. Sometimes we do not get into the nitty-gritty of the stories behind the statistics, so I would like to focus on that today. In particular, I will focus my remarks, as would be expected of a Plymouth MP, on the experience of Plymouth, which, as we know, is the centre of the world. However, I also want to delve into the statistics and to look at unemployment not in isolation but as part of a basket of measures, because there needs to be greater focus not just on one raw indicator, standing in isolation, but on the broader picture if we are to safeguard the job creation, stability and quality of employment that we all want to see throughout the country.
Unemployment statistics are only one part of the picture, and I am always a bit cautious about Government statistics, whether they were produced under the coalition or the current Government or, indeed, when Labour was in power, because they are designed to tell one part of the story only. Although the overall jobless figures may be falling, which is to be welcomed, in-work poverty, insecure employment and the use of zero-hours contracts are rising. Food bank use is up. The housing crisis continues, and the welfare system continues to be cruel, all too often creating poverty and worry, where it should be achieving the opposite.
Michael Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him so early in his remarks, but I want to take him back to what he said about Government statistics. I agree that we should be cautious and have a healthy scepticism about statistics, but, of course, the statistics under discussion are ONS statistics, not Government statistics, so perhaps we can lend them greater weight than a sceptical public otherwise might.
Luke Pollard
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. How statistics are presented by Government can sometimes devalue some of the credibility that the original source may provide, and I am sure that we can all bring to mind examples of that. On the subject of statistics, I am a great believer in the way inflation is calculated. If hon. Members will indulge me for a few seconds, I will explain. Inflation is calculated by taking a basket of measures, of everyday goods, and calculating the inflation rate based on the real-world experience of many measures, many goods, not just one of them. In that sense, a basket of measures can create a fuller, more thorough illustration of what is actually happening.
The reality gap between individual employment statistics and the lived experiences, especially of young people, would be addressed much more thoroughly by having a basket of measures than by focusing just on the jobless figures or any other singular reality. I suggest that when we look at how we talk about unemployment statistics, employment statistics and debt, we look at a basket of measures, which needs to include employment, wages and wage growth, in-work poverty, child poverty, homelessness and temporary housing, disposable income, the number and penetration of zero-hours contracts and especially their demographic targeting, benefit take-up, sanction levels, household debt and overall personal indebtedness. Perhaps those things could be wrapped up together as a new basket of measures whereby we can look at the lived experience of people in employment, because all too often the fact that someone is in a job and that there is a tick beside that box is what is presented by Governments of all colours. We know that the lived experience of people in work, especially in today’s economy, where simply having a contract does not guarantee that someone will get any wages at the end of the week or month, devalues some of the credibility that the jobless figures or employment figures may have carried in the past, when employment was more secure and long term.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) for initiating the debate. My hon. Friend discusses a basket of measures. Does he agree that one thing that we would want to establish, if it was a business that we were looking at, would be the number of hours being worked by those in work—that is, the number of hours or days available to work? That could be one of the measures showing that we actually have significant under-employment in this country and that, rather than a jobs miracle, we have something of a jobs mirage.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend has a way with words. Looking at the measure to which he refers as part of the basket of measures could well be useful. Indeed, we might also look at the number of jobs that individuals have, because although we have seen a rise in the number of people with contracts, many of those are part-time contracts, and people in Plymouth have certainly been telling me of needing not just one job but two, three or, in some cases, four or five jobs to pay their bills, because of the insecurity of those jobs and the hours they provide. Consideration of all those measures together would make possible a more informed value judgment about the state of the economy.
In recent years, we have seen a rapid shift towards a gig economy, and despite calls for an end to zero-hours contracts, many people are still struggling with the precarious nature of those contracts. There are some people who value zero-hours contracts, but my fear about what has happened with zero-hours contracts is that their utility for that small group of people has been overtaken by employers using them as a way of being more flexible with their workforce or cash flow. As a consequence, the utility of those contracts for a small number of individuals, because of the workplace flexibility they provide, has been eroded because they are being used to devalue secure work.
Before I came to the debate, I posted on my Facebook page—if anyone has not visited it, the address is facebook.com/LukePollard—to ask people what their experience was. I said, “I am going to a debate about employment statistics. Can you tell me your stories?” Normally on my Facebook page, I have a few regular posters, as I am sure other hon. Members do. What struck me about the response to this post was how personal, emotional and honest people were in telling me their experiences. If hon. Members have not done this on their own Facebook page, I encourage them to do so, because it helps to create a fuller picture.
Let me give some examples of what people said. Erin, who is one of my constituents, is a qualified secondary school teacher who has been forced to take zero-hours contracts by an employment agency for the past three years. She told me that, despite years of training, she was struggling to find permanent work, and that that has impacted her ability to pass the tenancy checks required for private renting. The figure for private renters in Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport is 43.5%, which shows just how important that can be. Erin now plans to leave the teaching profession for good and will be retraining in September. She is just one example of someone we need to retain in their role with more secure work.
Melanie is another example. She worked for three years at Royal Mail in Plymouth. She was on a fixed-term, 20-hours contract that was reviewed every six months. As a single parent, she spoke of the stress that the uncertainty of that brought, as she could never be sure that she would still have a job once the end of her contract rolled around. Although Melanie has managed to secure permanent employment elsewhere, her story is not uncommon.
Those types of lived experience are the stories behind the statistics. I am talking about the frequency of needing to go to another interview to get extra hours and then the concern and worry about what happens if an employer wants their hours to coincide with another employer’s hours. Those are concerns that many in this Chamber may not have experienced themselves, but they are genuine worries for many people up and down the country. That situation is adding to the complexity and inequality within our system.
Colleagues will know of the problems that universal credit has brought to the system. Indeed, the House of Commons Library points out that the roll-out of universal credit, which is taking place in part of the area that I represent but not all of it, skews the jobless figures for this period, so looking behind those figures is a little more complex and complicated than it might have been before universal credit was rolled out. I ask the Minister whether there is a way of navigating through that complexity and that added dimension to see what the underlying picture is. The roll-out of UC complicates that and affects our ability to get an accurate sense of where we are.
Universal credit is failing many people. We know the experiences that have been shared in this Chamber and elsewhere. Our benefits system should not allow people to spiral into more debt, and I am concerned about the sustainability of the system in its current form. Concerns around UC and the roll-out on to UC, especially for people in insecure work—although they may not be in the jobless figures that the Government provide—need to be addressed.
We also need to look at in-work poverty. I believe it is fundamental to most people’s reasons for entering politics in the first place—be they on the red team or the blue team—that they want to make the world a better place. The only disagreement I perhaps have with colleagues on the Conservative side is how to do that. In-work poverty should be anathema from the perspective of the Labour party, the Conservative party and other parties as well. We all aspire to help people into work so that they can provide for their families through the hard work of their own labour. If someone is in work and still unable to provide for their family, something is wrong with our economy.
We know that that is the case in Plymouth and elsewhere at the moment, because we are seeing a rise in food bank use. One day I hope that we will no longer need food banks and that the fantastic volunteers who staff them can be redeployed to other endeavours. However, I know that food bank use is going up, and having seen the work of the fantastic soup kitchens and soup runs in Plymouth, I know that demand is increasing among not just rough sleepers, but those in insecure work and temporary accommodation, who cannot make ends meet and who struggle to feed themselves and their families.
I highly recommend that Members of Parliament and those watching at home go out on a soup run. It is an eye-opener in terms of the lived experiences of those in our communities whom we may not see during the day. When they are handed a pasty or a banana from the back of an old Transit van—as happens every now and then in Plymouth—they give back stories and gratitude. It is a really humbling experience to see people who, in many cases, are now in work but still struggling to make ends meet.
We need safeguards to help those who are struggling to break into the job market and permanent employment, as well as to help those who are in the job market by making sure that work can truly pay. That is not where we are at the moment, and that is especially true for those with disabilities. One of my constituents, Jo, who works in the employment sector, told me that the job opportunities advertised for students and graduates often involve temporary contracts in low-skilled roles. Similarly, Mat, from Plymouth, shared his experience of having high-functioning autism and described his job search as “impossible”. That should shame us all. The challenge for us is how and where we present job adverts, what the employment process is and the jobs themselves. I am concerned that the lack of opportunities is impacting people in Plymouth on a personal and economic level, and we must act to contain the ongoing effects of not only unemployment, but under-employment and the impossibility of getting employment in many cases.
Many hon. Members will know of my desire to talk about transport. I occasionally talk about trains in this place. Connectivity for the far south-west is a complicating factor in the economic performance of Plymouth and the wider south-west economy, as it is for many other parts of the country. The investment we need in structural transport, both on road and rail, and bus services within cities, can open up and transform job opportunities.
I want to talk about buses for a moment, because when we look at under-employment, one concern that a number of people tell me about is that, without a car, they are sometimes unable to get to their workplace. That is because there is no public transport available or the buses stop at a certain time. That is especially true of low-wage service work. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole talked about our hospitality sector. Without decent public transport, it is impossible for those people to get to shops, tourist attractions, cafes and restaurants early in the morning to provide sleepless people with their coffee on the way to work. The concern is that that means some people are spending their already low wages on taxis to get to work before the working day has started, eroding the value of that day’s work for them.
There is a lot we need to do to look behind the statistics. I encourage the Minister to look at whether a basket of measures could be more appropriate. To an extent, the debate as to what goes in that basket of measures—just as the debate as to what goes into the inflation measure—tells a story about our modern Britain. For example, when we take a record player out from the basket of inflation measures and put in an MP3 download, we can see the way the economy is changing. That same principle should apply to how we look at employment statistics and the lived experience of people seeking employment or in employment. One day I hope we will be able to take out sanctions and food bank use from that basket of measures. That should be a collective aspiration for all parties. Until the time when they are no longer in use, we should feature those as part of that collective basket of stories—that human lived experience—that sits behind the unemployment statistics. There are many other things we could add into that basket, such as mental health provision, which I have not spoken about, but I hope colleagues might add to the list in the debate.
So I ask the Minister whether the Department has considered a basket of measures in how it presents these stories, and I encourage all hon. Members to do as I did on my Facebook page and to get the lived experiences of constituents, because it is the most powerful and humbling experience.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on bringing this important issue to the attention of Parliament today. Our two constituencies could not be further apart on the map, but listening to his remarks about his own constituency, it is clear that many of his concerns regarding youth employment are similar to my own.
I will focus my brief remarks on an issue that is particularly relevant to my constituency in the Scottish borders, namely the problems surrounding low pay. I want to develop some of the themes touched on by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). My constituency has higher than average levels of employment. Some 2,700 more people are in work now compared to a low of 2,000 in 2010. That represents a rise of 6.5%. We also have significantly lower than average numbers of people claiming out-of-work benefits. We are hovering around an all-time low. The number is now half what it was in 2013. These are undoubtedly significant achievements. More people in my constituency with the security of a pay package and the positive benefits of being in work is certainly a good thing.
Behind the rise in employment, however, there remains a problem in my constituency: low pay. Many more people are in jobs, but too many of these jobs are low-skilled and low-paid. Gross weekly pay in my constituency is £56 a week lower than the Scottish average and £61 a week lower than the United Kingdom average. That means that employees in the borders are taking home nearly £3,000 less in their pay than the Scottish average. Those on hourly pay take home £1 an hour less than the Scottish average and £1.30 an hour less than the UK average.
We have a significantly higher percentage of self-employed people in the Scottish borders and more lower-skilled jobs, which translate to lower than average weekly pay. I am not here to talk down self-employed people or lower-skilled jobs. They are hugely important. Many of the jobs in places such as Johnstons of Elgin in Hawick, in my constituency, may be classified as lower-skilled, but these are incredibly hard-working people, who produce some of the finest products on the worldwide market. Nevertheless, across the United Kingdom, we need to offer a range of employment opportunities, and the borders certainly has fewer higher-paid jobs than other areas of Scotland or across the UK.
What can be done to address this? There are two important points. The first thing is to ensure that unskilled workers are paid a fair wage and take home more of the money that they earn. That is why I absolutely support the Government’s introduction of a living wage and the continued increase in the personal allowance. Someone who used to be on the old minimum wage on a full-time contract took home around £11,100 a year in 2013. This year the same person, now paid the national living wage, would be taking home £2,600 more, thanks to the increase in the lowest wages and the rise in the personal threshold. That is effectively a pay rise of over 20% to those on the lowest incomes.
Secondly, beyond paying people more, in order to bring more highly skilled jobs to places such as those in my constituency, we need to look at why businesses are not basing themselves there at the moment. The main barrier to businesses in the borders is a lack of infrastructure, both physical and digital. I know that the borderlands growth deal will be looking at this as a matter of priority. A lack of decent broadband and transportation links is undoubtedly holding my area back.
I conclude by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole again for securing this debate. I urge all hon. Members to ensure that both the quantity and quality of employment across every part of the United Kingdom is a priority for the Government.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on securing this debate, albeit for the second time.
We can be in no doubt about the progress the Government have made on many fronts, in addition to economic growth, in the last eight years. We should never underestimate the impact that the 2008 financial crash had on our country. By the end of the recession that followed, our employment rate had taken a serious hit. Now, almost 3.5 million more people are in work and the employment rate is at its highest level since records began in the ’70s. That is something we can all be proud of. It is also worthy of note that since 2013, more than 6,000 additional disabled people have gained the dignity and respect of employment, and we can build on that excellent figure through the Disability Confident scheme.
There can be no doubt that it has been a long road, and it has been hard work. The Government have asked the British people to accept some tough choices. The people came with us on an eight-year journey and, like the Government, they can see that that period of hard work and difficult decisions is beginning to bear fruit. Our economy is growing, unemployment is down and we are finally spending within our means.
Of course, there is much more to this debate than simply employment records, as has been said. We must look at the type of work people are undertaking. Are people working part time when they would like full-time hours? Are people being exploited by insecure forms of work? Are wages where we would like them to be? I do not think they are there yet, although the living wage is a help. It is all very well to have record employment, but we must ensure that it is of the right kind.
I do not agree with the Opposition’s overly prescriptive policy of banning zero-hours contracts outright, or of branding all part-time or gig-economy work as bad. It is certainly not, and for many people those contracts work exceptionally well. I have spoken to students who welcome the flexibility of a zero-hours contract and to parents who are perfectly content in part-time positions that allow them to plan their lives around their families—what could be more important in life than family? I have heard from people who enjoy being their own boss, whether they are self-employed, as has been mentioned, or have the backing of an established company in an expanding franchise industry.
Many people have not secured the type of employment they would wish for, so I welcome the fact that the Government have commissioned the Taylor review of modern working practices, and have legislated to ban exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts. Those steps are proportionate and sensible, and offer real protection to people in the labour market, while allowing for individual circumstances, choice and preference. I commend the Ayrshire chamber of commerce for its “Developing the Young Workforce” initiative, which is extremely effective and welcome.
I stand in this debate conflicted. On the one hand, I look at the UK figures and the fantastic levels of employment, and I am proud of how far we have come. On the other hand, as a Member representing a Scottish constituency, I have concerns about how the economy north of the border is performing. Regrettably, the Scottish National party has missed five of its economic targets, which has cost more than £80 billion. That is a failure to grow the economy and to support Scottish businesses.
Since 2010, the UK has made great strides. There is further to go and more to do, but the direction of travel is right. I do not want my constituents to be left behind by a Scottish Government who are distracted.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the macroeconomic levers that would be required to grow the economy to the level that he talks about still rest with Westminster?
Bill Grant
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, but I do not accept what she says. There are plenty of tools in the Scottish Government’s toolbox. There are so many levers that they do not use them, and sometimes they hand them back. The gift of sorting out the economy lies with Holyrood in partnership with the UK Government—not fighting against them, but working with them. That is where future success lies.
We have proven that with hard work, focus and determination, record levels of employment can be achieved and maintained. With progress being made in city deals and growth deals through both Governments working together—that is where the trick is—I am sure that Scotland’s economy will grow over time and that Scotland will, as always, make a significant contribution to the overall UK economy. However, good Governments know that the way to have more money for public services is to expand the economy, not to tax the people.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I commend the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on securing this important debate on employment rates. He was remarkably upbeat in the face of the pending catastrophe of Brexit and its possible effect on future, and indeed current, employment rates in certain sectors.
I commend the hon. Gentleman’s work with young ambassadors. It is important for young people to get involved in such schemes and I am pleased that he is part of that. I also commend his call for better cross-departmental working to address youth employment and unemployment. As I know from serving on the Public Accounts Committee, there are often calls for that sort of cross-departmental, non-silo approach, and we have to keep on at those Departments, because it is so important and it will make a big difference in those areas.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) gave an excellent speech that cautioned against the selective presentation of figures by the Government, by Members of the governing party and by Opposition Members, which is very good advice. He also rightly talked of the need for a basket of measures, and about considering the lived experience of people in work, an idea at which the Government should look carefully.
It was good to hear the figures from the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), which show a rise in employment generally and among young people, and to hear about his contributions in regard to the ongoing problem of low pay.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) point out that the nature of employment needs to be examined, which was part of the Taylor review. We are yet to see the full implementation of that review or what parts the Government will act on, but iniquities in the type of employment that people undertake must be examined as well. However, I must strongly disagree with his presentation of the Scottish economy.
As we have heard from several hon. Members, there is some good news about employment rates across the UK, which I warmly welcome. I am pleased about the record lows in unemployment in Scotland and the increase in employment among women. There is lots more to be done to close not just the gender gap, but the gaps in disabled employment rates, as has been mentioned, and for minority ethnic communities. It is also good that the number of young people who are not in education, training or employment fell to 8% in Scotland last year. The Scottish Government have done a lot of work to create opportunities for young people. They have an excellent, well-established apprenticeship system that the rest of the UK might do well to have a peek at.
My city of Edinburgh has the highest proportion of high-skilled occupations among the major UK cities, including London, and unemployment rates have been lower for the last 10 years. There is a boom in the creative industries and in business start-ups, thanks largely to council and Scottish Government support, as well as the city being such a fantastic place to live. That success brings challenges, but hon. Members should not worry: I am sure we will always find room for friends from the south who are escaping Brexit.
To stay on the positive for a bit longer, it is heart-warming that so many Conservative Members are keen to talk about jobs and employment. What some might see as a Damascene conversion from the days of “Unemployment is a price worth paying” is very much to be welcomed, although I hope it is not just to “drool and drivel they care”, as Margaret Thatcher once said. Reformed and compassionate Conservatives might also want to have a word with their bosses about what I have to describe as the callous approach taken to people who cannot work for whatever reason of cutting cash that puts food on the table, as eloquently referred to by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport.
Bill Grant
Where is that compassionate Government when people in Scotland are taxed far more than people in the rest of the United Kingdom?
Deidre Brock
The hon. Gentleman needs to look at the facts, because that is simply not true. [Interruption.] No, it is not. If he went back and looked at Scottish Government figures, and did not just listen to his party colleagues spinning that point, that would be good.
Returning to jobs, it is not only having a job that matters, but getting fair pay—enough to live on—and decent working conditions. Here, the UK Government are again falling short of the mark. The UK national living wage is not a real living wage. It is not based on the cost of living; it is a con-trick. The scourge of the working poor continues, as wages are frozen and the cost of living rises. More than two thirds of children in poverty have at least one parent in work—that is a shocking statistic—and a fifth of workers earn less than the living wage.
As has been referred to, we continue to see a rise in the use of zero-hours contracts, which were up 100,000 in 2017, compared with the previous year. It is time to sort that out. We have also seen the regressive Trade Union Act 2016, a deliberate attack on the ability of employees to defend their rights. I cannot see the Government sticking up for the rights of workers any time soon. This is a Government that had to be dragged kicking and screaming through the courts to scrap fees for employment tribunals and allow the poor access to justice. Frankly, I shudder to think what is in store for our rights after Brexit, but I imagine that at least the lawyers will be kept busy, as there will be an awful lot more court cases.
The employment regulations so loathed by right wingers are there to protect us—to ensure that work is safe and fair and that we have a voice when things go wrong. If the UK Government decide that fair work is important, and I hope they do, they could certainly do worse than to look to the Scottish Government for some inspiration. For example, they could look at the Fair Work Convention, which is successfully driving forward a very new approach, and recognise that working in partnership is more productive than just putting the boot in.
The UK Government could also support the Scottish Government in their successful drives to boost jobs in sectors such as food and drink, instead of imposing the self-harm of leaving the EU. We have already read of secret plans to sell out the fishing industry—again—and US demands for a deal that could lower food standards, end labelling protections and allow cheap US whisky to flood the market. Trade within the EU protects not only standards but jobs—134,000 in Scotland, according to the Fraser of Allander report on Brexit. Ignoring or denying that real and present threat to the employment trends we are considering today is not good politics. It is not working together; it is working against Scotland’s best interests. We cannot just sit back and let that happen.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on yet again securing this debate, and on his work on youth employment as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on youth employment. We have heard some very interesting contributions today, including from the hon. Gentleman himself, and I really look forward in particular to the group’s work on care leavers and prison leavers, who are a matter of concern; I am sure he shares that concern.
We heard a good contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who quite rightly raised the issues of in-work poverty, insecure contracts and food bank use, all of which have risen, as well as discussing how zero-hours contracts devalue the rights of employees. He also spoke about the importance of looking at a broad range of measures and at the lived experience of work; the testimony he received from his constituency, via his Facebook page, was very interesting.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made a useful intervention about the question of the availability of hours for people in insecure work, and said that rather than looking at a “jobs miracle” we are looking at a “jobs mirage,” which I thought was a pertinent way of describing the situation.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) spoke about the particular issues that rural communities face. He also called for the quality and quantity of work that is available to be a focus for the Government across the board.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) said that he did not agree with banning zero-hours contracts. I have to disagree with him on that, and I remind him that the number of people on zero-hours contracts is heading towards a million, so it really is a significant issue and I will touch on it later in my speech.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) quite rightly called for fair pay—enough for people to live on—and pointed out that the national living wage is not, of course, an actual living wage.
Increases in employment are welcome, but we also need to look beyond the statistics, as many Members have said, to see what the world of work is really like. Average real pay has still not returned to the level it was at before the financial crisis, and although inflation has started to fall, it has nevertheless outstripped wages for almost all of the period since 2010. Public sector workers have been particularly badly hit; they saw their pay frozen for two years, in 2011 and 2012, and since then any increase has been capped at 1% a year, regardless of the rate of inflation.
Then, of course, there is a generation of people who were in their twenties at the time of the financial crisis, so they have spent almost all of their adult life in this period of austerity. They are now in their thirties—an age when many of them will have young children—yet median pay for people in that group is nearly 9% below the level that it was at in April 2008.
The Resolution Foundation predicts that this decade is likely to be the weakest decade for real pay growth in almost two centuries. Some 20% of Britain’s 33 million workers earn £15,000 a year or less, and a recent report by the Centre for Social Justice forecast that the pay of those workers in particular would be squeezed over the next decade, as a result of trends such as the growth of the gig economy, automation and global competition. So can the Minister tell us what action the Government will take to improve the prospects of low-paid workers and what investment they will make in skills?
Around 8 million people are living in poverty in the UK, even though at least one person in such households is in work, and of course many people move in and out of low-paid work. Universal credit was originally aimed at smoothing the transition into work and at making work pay, but the cuts to work allowances announced in the summer Budget of 2015 severely damaged the work incentives that universal credit offers.
Reports by independent organisations such as the Resolution Foundation and the Equality and Human Rights Commission have made it clear that the increase in the national living wage and personal allowance do not compensate for the cuts to social security since 2010 for people on low income, with disabled people and single parents being hit especially hard.
According to a TUC report, the public sector pay cap, coupled with cuts to in-work support, means that the number of children in working families growing up in poverty will be 3.1 million this year, which is 1 million higher than in 2010. Will the Government listen to the call from the TUC and Labour to reverse the cuts to work allowances in universal credit and abolish the pay cap across the public sector, which Labour has committed to doing?
There are deep inequalities in the labour market, on the basis of where people live, ethnic background, gender, age and disability. The Government have repeatedly failed to address those inequalities, despite the Prime Minister’s fine words outside No. 10 Downing Street on coming to power. More than eight out of 10 companies employing more than 250 staff—such companies were required to report on their gender pay gap in April—paid men more than women and three out of 10 of them had a gender pay gap higher than the national median of 18%—in some cases it was over 50%. So now we know about those companies, but they will not face any action as a result, except perhaps reputational damage. Labour would introduce fines for companies that have a high gender pay gap that they have failed to reduce. Are the Government going to act on the gender pay audit, and if not, why not?
According to the Prime Minister’s race disparity audit, around one in 10 adults from a black, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or mixed background are unemployed, compared with one in 25 white British people. There are also significant differences in the kind of work that people do. For example, more than two in five people from a Pakistani or Bangladeshi background work in low-skilled occupations. Audits are important to tell us what the facts are, but we need action to address the issues they raise. How are the Government going to do that?
I turn to the situation for disabled people. Back in November, the Chancellor disgracefully sought to somehow blame disabled people for the UK’s poor productivity record. That was particularly shocking given the Government’s approach to supporting disabled people into work. The Work and Pensions Committee has highlighted that funding for specialist employment support for disabled people will fall substantially, from around £1 billion under Work Choice and the Work programmes to £554 million over the lifetime of the Work and Health programme.
A study by WPI Economics for the Employment Related Services Association estimates that the number of disabled people receiving specialist employment support will drop from around 300,000—the number it was between 2012 and 2015—to only 160,000 between 2017 and 2020. That would be a cut of around 50%, so I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that, as it would not only be clearly detrimental to the lives of many disabled people, but would make no economic sense. Research by Scope suggests that a 10% increase in the number of disabled people in work would increase GDP by £45 billion by 2030 and benefit the Exchequer by £12 billion. If the Chancellor really wants to address the UK’s productivity problems, he might like to give those figures some thought.
The majority of employment support for disabled people will be provided through Jobcentre Plus by general work coaches. If the Government are going to take employment support back in-house, will they look again at providing specialist support, rather than adopting a generalist model for work coaches?
With youth employment, the figures are less rosy. One in eight young people aged 16 to 24 are unemployed, which is much higher than the overall unemployment figure. The number of young people who are economically inactive rose over the past year. That is a matter of real concern. Just over 11% of 16 to 24-year-olds, or 808,000 young people, were not in education, employment or training—NEET—in the final quarter of 2017. Only about two fifths of those young people were registered as unemployed. The rest were economically inactive and hidden from the benefits system. The proportion of certain groups that are not in education, employment or training is shockingly high. Some 30% of disabled young people and 40% of care leavers are NEET, as compared with 9% of other young people. The Children’s Society has made a strong case for there to be a specific marker for care leavers in universal credit, as in legacy benefits, so that we can measure their progress. Will the Minister commit to doing that?
Since April 2017, young people aged 18 to 21 claiming universal credit receive employment support through the youth obligation. After six months of what is supposed to be intensive support, they are required to take up an apprenticeship, training or a work placement. However, organisations such as Centrepoint are concerned that young people who face the greatest challenges in finding work—for example, care leavers—might need longer than six months and more personalised support to get to the point where they can do that. The all-party group has also made that point, stressing the importance of young people with greater challenges being given support in the first instance to develop basic skills. Can the Minister tell us what percentage of young people have found work through the youth obligation so far? Will he look at the case for personalised support for young people on universal credit through specialist work coaches?
The European social fund is a vital source of funding for employment support at the local level for disabled people and young people who are NEET, for example. In the present funding round for 2014 to 2020, the UK is receiving around £500 million a year, but ESF funding is important not only for the direct support it provides, but for attracting funding from other sources. The Government have announced that they will create a shared prosperity fund to replace the ESF, but time is running out to have a successor ready in time. They have said that they will publish a consultation some time later in the year, but no timescale has been announced. Can the Minister tell us when the consultation will take place? Can he tell us what he is doing to ensure that there will be no gap in the provision of employment support when ESF funding comes to an end?
Young people are also more likely to be working part time, in temporary employment or on a zero-hours contract than workers who are older. It is little wonder that the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority warned last year about levels of debt among young people that are built up in just trying to cover basic bills. Women are especially likely to be in part-time or insecure work. Some 55% of people on a zero-hours contract are women, and 45% are men. Similarly, a high proportion of people from some ethnic minority communities are more likely to be in part-time or insecure work. According to the Government’s race disparity audit, more than one in four Pakistani and Bangladeshi workers were employed in distribution or in hotels and restaurants, and one in five were in transport and communications industries, where low-paid, insecure work is common. Around 900,000 people are on zero-hours contracts.
More than half the zero-hours workers in a TUC survey said that they had shifts cancelled at less than 24 hours’ notice. People with caring responsibilities simply cannot afford to take shifts at such short notice. Having made provision for childcare, to then have a shift cancelled is particularly frustrating and expensive. Three quarters of the people responding to the survey said that they had been offered shifts at less than 24 hours’ notice, and a third said that they had been threatened that they would not be given shifts in future if they turned down work. How are people supposed to manage their finances and their lives when they are on zero-hours contracts—when they do not know how much money will be coming in each week and how much childcare they are likely to need? Will the Government ban exploitative zero-hours contracts, as Labour would?
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk spoke of the importance of the work of self-employed people. In evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee in January, the director of universal credit at the Department for Work and Pensions said clearly:
“Self-employment is a cause of in-work poverty.”
We should all be alarmed by that statement. The number of self-employed people has increased. They now make up about 15% of the workforce, or 4.8 million. That figure is for 2017, and compares with 12%, or 3.3 million, in 2001. The design of universal credit means it can fail to protect self-employed people on low income from poverty. Under the minimum income floor, self-employed people claiming universal credit are assumed to be earning the equivalent of 35 hours at the national living wage after a year, even though in many cases their earnings may be much less. That is exactly why they need to claim universal credit.
In February the Office for Budget Responsibility estimated that by 2022-23 more than two thirds of self-employed people claiming universal credit would lose out from the minimum income floor by an average of £3,000 a year. Someone who is self-employed, but on exactly the same annual income as someone who is an employee, can be entitled to less universal credit because it fails to take account of the fluctuating earnings that are a basic characteristic of self-employment.
In conclusion, high rates of employment should be good for those who are employed. They should mean higher wages and more security, but in reality people can face years as agency staff on temporary contracts, and zero-hours workers can have shifts cancelled at less than a day’s notice, with all the insecurity that that brings. It is little wonder that the TUC has reported parents being penalised by employers for asking for flexibility for family reasons, such as for simply wanting to take annual leave when their child is sick. Work should be a route out of poverty, but recent research by the Living Wage Foundation reveals that more than a third of working parents on low incomes have regularly skipped meals because they are short of money, and almost half have fallen behind on household bills. On coming to power, the Prime Minister promised outside Downing Street to be on the side of families who were just about managing, but it is clear that her Government are failing to do that. High employment rates are welcome, but they do not tell the whole truth about most people’s experience of the world of work.
The Minister for Employment (Alok Sharma)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Michael Tomlinson) on securing, for the second time, this important debate on recent trends in employment. He made a fine speech, as did colleagues from all parts of the House. I have time in this debate to respond to a lot of the points that have been raised, and I will aim to do that. I will also come back to some of the points that my hon. Friend raised.
Sir Roger, I think you and I are probably the only Members here who were in the House in 2010, when the Conservative-led Government came into office. One of their first acts was to introduce an emergency Budget. At the time—both during the debate and subsequently—there were many siren voices on the Labour Benches that warned with great conviction that the Government’s policies would lead to a big increase in unemployment. Well, those doom-laden predictions have not come to pass; as Members on both sides have pointed out, we have seen strong jobs growth.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) is no longer in his place, but, frankly, to talk about this jobs miracle as a mirage is insulting. It is insulting to the more than 3 million people who now have a job as a result of the jobs created since 2010. It is also insulting to the employers—the hard-working companies and organisations that have created those jobs.
Margaret Greenwood
Will the Minister comment on the 900,000 people who are on zero-hours contracts and cannot manage their lives? They do not know how much money they are going to earn. They do not know how much childcare they need. It is a state of real insecurity, creating anxiety for a lot of people, and it is not good for the economy either.
Alok Sharma
I will of course come on to discuss precisely those points, because they are important.
The labour market statistics published last month by the independent Office for National Statistics—I point out once again to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) that it is independent—show that employment in the United Kingdom reached a record high in the last quarter of 75.6%. That was the 17th new record employment rate since 2010. Employment is up by more than 3 million since 2010. I place on record my thanks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole did, to all the businesses and organisations across our constituencies that have created those jobs. The unemployment rate has fallen to 4.2%, which is a 40-year low. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are now more than 800,000 vacancies across our economy.
Those who cannot quite accept that positive trend will say that all those jobs are low paid and temporary, but that is absolutely not true. Some 70% of the increase in employment has been in higher skilled occupations that pay higher salaries. Three quarters of them are full time and permanent.
A point was made about where those jobs are created and whether they are all in London and the south-east. I can confirm that 60% of the growth in private sector employment since 2010 has been outside London and the south-east.
Various colleagues, including the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), made a point about zero-hours contracts. Such contracts represent less than 3% of all people in employment. The hon. Lady is right to say that that is around 900,000 people, but the number is down on the year. On average, someone on a zero-hours contract usually works 25.2 hours a week. Again, of those who stated a preference—to be clear, this is in the ONS’s own labour force survey—only 30% of those on a zero-hours contract stated that they wanted to work more hours. So when the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport talks about only a small number of people valuing such flexibility, I have to say that that is not what we see from the independent figures—a point well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant).
Margaret Greenwood
I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. Is he aware of the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace among staff on zero-hours contracts? What advice would he give to a young woman on such a contract who is experiencing that? Where can she go for support? How can she tackle it, and how can she remain employed, but in a safe environment?
Alok Sharma
Frankly, any kind of bullying and any such acts are completely unacceptable, whether someone is on a zero-hours contract or a full-time contract. As the hon. Lady knows, there are avenues open to people, but if she has specific cases, she is welcome to come and talk to me about them. It is important that we have flexibility in work patterns, which is what zero-hours contracts allow, but it is also right that the Government have banned exclusive zero-hours contracts.
We have discussed employment outcomes by groups. If we look at some of the groups that have historically been under-represented in the employment market, we have seen a significant improvement in their participation in the workforce. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) welcomed the record high of 71.2% in the female employment rate, which I of course welcome as well. There are now more than 3.8 million people from ethnic minorities in work—an increase of 1.1 million since 2010. The ethnic minority employment rate currently stands at 65.1 %, which is a record high. However, I completely accept that the employment gap between ethnic minorities and the white population is too high, at 12%, and we are working to address that. If I have time, I will talk about the response to the race disparity audit.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock talked about disabled people. We have seen a welcome rise in the employment of disabled people—600,000 in the past four years—to around 3.5 million people today. He also talked about the Disability Confident scheme. More than 6,000 employers are involved in that and in Access to Work support. That is really important in encouraging everyone in our country who aspires to work to have an opportunity to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole made a powerful opening speech and highlighted the excellent work of the all-party group on youth employment, which he chairs. He has shared with various ministerial colleagues reports from inquiries that the APPG has conducted. Of course, I would be delighted to come to the APPG to discuss its work and to meet the youth ambassadors, who I am sure will ask challenging questions. As my hon. Friend highlighted, we have made progress on youth employment. The employment rate for those not in full-time education stands at 74.9%, and youth unemployment is down by 40% since 2010.
My hon. Friend made international comparisons, some of which I will repeat. The UK youth employment rate is 18.3 percentage points above that of the euro area and more than 16% above the EU average, but of course I agree with him that we need to do more. We therefore have a skills agenda, with a focus on apprenticeships and technical education. Colleagues have talked about the youth obligation support programme, which started in April last year, and about the ability to get work experience. We have also been encouraging work-based academies, which I think have been very successful.
My hon. Friend talked about whether there should be better working across Government on these issues. Of course, many are joined up. I can confirm that we have a number of taskforce initiatives where Ministers work together. He will be pleased to know that straight after this debate I will be having a meeting with the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills to discuss precisely these issues.
The Government are funding lifelong learning pilots, investing in a national retraining scheme, and delivering basic digital skills and careers advice for older workers who need them. We are also ensuring there is support to assist those with a health condition or disability, to make sure they are able to access the support they need to move into work.
On the cost of living, I know that all Members will welcome the fact that the ONS reported last month that salaries are starting to outpace inflation. I certainly want to see that very welcome trend continue. We absolutely recognise that people need additional support with living costs, and we have been providing that support. We have recognised that high childcare costs can affect parents’ decisions to take up paid work or increase their working hours. That is why, by 2019-20, we will be spending around £6 billion a year on childcare support. That includes 30 hours’ free childcare for working parents of three and four-year-olds. Within universal credit, claimants are eligible to claim up to 85% of their childcare costs. The outcome from independent evaluation in areas of early introduction shows that, with increased childcare support, parents are able to work more flexibly and increase their hours. We are championing shared parental leave and have introduced a right to request flexible working.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) welcomed the increase in personal allowances, which means that a typical basic rate taxpayer now pays more than £1,000 less in income tax than in 2010. We also introduced the national living wage in 2016, which increased by 4.4% this April. Thanks to the national living wage, full-time minimum wage workers have had a boost of £2,000 since 2016.
Numerous colleagues, including the hon. Members for Edinburgh North and Leith and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, talked about job quality and the Matthew Taylor review. Although we need to continue to work to maintain high levels of employment, I absolutely agree that we must also address the important issue of job quality. Among its recommendations, last year’s Taylor review asked the Government to focus on the quality of work and to identify a set of measures to evaluate job quality.
A strand of the Government’s industrial strategy has a focus on the creation of good jobs and greater earnings power for all, so the Government have outlined five foundational aspects of good work: overall satisfaction; good pay, which includes perceptions of fairness relative to one’s peers; participation and progression in the workforce, which includes the ability to work flexibly and acquire new skills; wellbeing, safety and security at work; and voice and autonomy in the workplace. It is self-evident that if people feel a sense of control over how they carry out their job, they will generally feel much more positive about it. The Government are working with experts to identify a set of measures against which we can evaluate quality of work, and I certainly look forward to the outcome of that work.
I have time to go through a number of points that colleagues have raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole talked about the hospitality industry, and we absolutely want to see a strong and vibrant hospitality sector. I recently met Brigid Simmonds, chief executive officer of the British Beer & Pub Association, to talk about the hospitality sector. In February this year, the Department for Work and Pensions ran the annual Hospitality Works campaign, which aims to raise awareness of the thousands of great career options that exist in the sector and to showcase some of the key employers we work with.
Luke Pollard
Yesterday, in Question Time, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) raised the issue of introducing a seasonal hospitality workers scheme similar to the agricultural workers scheme. The one thing we know is that, after Brexit, there is a real risk that many roles in the hospitality sector could be eroded by the lack of available labour, which would impact on the domestic market, as well as on incoming tourists. Will the Minister briefly reflect on that?
Alok Sharma
I am, of course, happy to reflect on that. Perhaps it would be useful to have a discussion with the hon. Gentleman after the debate on any thoughts that he may have.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the claimant count, which is down significantly in his constituency from 2010. However, the claimant count is no longer a consistent indicator. The ONS has acknowledged that and removed it from its monthly labour market statistics. As he will know, we have launched a consultation on a new measure, and I hope that he and all colleagues will take part in that. Previously, the claimant count looked at people purely on jobseeker’s allowance, whereas now, with universal credit, which is both an in-work and out-of-work benefit, those numbers are increasing. They do not necessarily have a bearing on what is going on in the labour market, but clearly we need a consistent set of figures. I hope that colleagues will respond to that consultation, which closes on 21 July.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of in-work poverty for working-age adults. Whichever way one looks at it, poverty rates, whether relative or absolute, or before or after housing, are lower than in 2010. Adults in workless families are four times more likely to be in poverty than those in working families, which is why we are keen to see more people move into employment.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned people with disabilities. I have talked about the Disability Confident scheme and the Access to Work scheme. The number of people with disabilities in work has increased significantly over the last four years. That is something that both he and I greatly welcome. He also made a point about having a basket of measures. The Government already use a range of measures to assess labour market performance. We look at not only employment rates, but pay and productivity, security of work, and employment by labour market group—we have already talked about women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds and older workers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk raised the issue of productivity. That is an important point, in the sense that our productivity levels have lagged behind those of some of our peers for a long time. That is why we now have a national £31 billion productivity investment plan, focused on exactly the sort of issues that colleagues have been highlighting, such as housing, physical infrastructure, digital infrastructure and, of course, research and development.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith mentioned the working relationship between Westminster and the Government in Scotland. Actually, I have had a very good set of conversations with the Minister for Employability and Training in Scotland. In fact, when we spoke about Fair Start Scotland in our last conversation, he highlighted that as an example of the UK Government and the Scottish Government working well together. Of course we want to work together, but it requires both parties to come to the table when there are decisions to be made.
The hon. Member for Wirral West talked about the gender pay gap and the race disparity audit. That audit was conducted under a Conservative Government, by a Conservative Prime Minister who cares deeply about the issue. It is the first time that such an audit has happened, and I know the hon. Lady will welcome it. In terms of the plans we have to assist people, we have identified 20 challenge areas where the employment gap between the white population and the black and minority ethnic population is quite large. We are looking at a number of pilot schemes to see what can eventually be rolled out across the country.
The hon. Lady talked about public sector pay. As she will know, the Government ended the 1% pay policy in September last year, and pay review bodies will now come forward with proposals for pay that will be considered by the relevant Ministers. We have already announced that many of the lowest paid NHS workers will see double digit pay rises over the next three years.
I think I have answered many of the points that were raised, so I will conclude by saying that the recent trends in employment are very positive. It is a welcome development that we are starting to see wages outpace inflation, and the Government are enacting measures to help people with the cost of living. We are ensuring that our population, both younger and older workers, are able to upskill for the jobs of the future.
Michael Tomlinson
I am grateful to the Minister and to all colleagues who have contributed to today’s debate. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said that we must look at the stories behind the statistics. I completely agree, and I hope that I gave a sense of that in my speech as well. The Minister has answered the hon. Gentleman’s point about having a basket or range of measures, but I believe that we should perhaps do the same thing more broadly when we look at poverty—we should use a broader range of measures to look at that issue. The hon. Gentleman made a very interesting point.
The Minister responded to the point made by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) about the jobs “mirage”. I do not think that a fair look at the independent statistics bears out the hon. Gentleman’s soundbite, although I was pleased that he was able to make it to the debate, albeit for a short time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) raised a lot of issues that many of us in more rural constituencies will recognise, particularly on infrastructure and the importance of digital infrastructure, which is a vital part of the infrastructure that we need. He also mentioned the importance of getting more high-skilled jobs.
I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) raised the issue of the Disability Confident scheme. We must ensure that we narrow the disability employment gap. Importantly, he mentioned the Matthew Taylor review. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) mentioned zero-hours contracts, but my hon. Friend the Minister made a very good point about cutting down on exclusivity clauses. That point was particularly welcome.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) accused me of perhaps being overly rosy. If I was overly rosy, perhaps she was overly pessimistic, not least about Brexit. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wirral West was also being a little pessimistic in her outlook, but I welcomed some of her thoughts. However, I was pleased that the Minister had time to make some points about zero-hours contracts in his response.
Finally, I was particularly pleased by the Minister’s comments on cross-departmental working. That is a key message, and it is something that must continue in not just this area but all areas. I am pleased that he has accepted the invitation and the challenge to come to the all-party group.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered recent trends in employment rates.
Type 26 Frigates: Base-Porting
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered base-porting of Type 26 frigates.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. As the Member of Parliament for Devonport and its dockyard and naval base, I am proud to be standing here again making the case for ensuring that Devonport—the largest naval base in western Europe—is home to all the Type 26 frigates and, I hope, the Type 31s and the remainder of the Type 23 frigates with tails. As the son of a Devonport-based submariner, I know how important a strong defence is to our city. Plymouth is a proud military city, but it is living under the cloud of possible defence cuts.
We live in uncertain times, with the rise of Russia, new insurgent technologies and tactics destabilising countries across the globe, autonomous warfare, cyber-warfare, piracy and old foes investing in their militaries. I believe that the best deterrent against a rearming and resurgent Russia is a strong Royal Navy. I make no apologies for again making the case that many have heard me make in this Chamber and elsewhere: we need more and more capable frigates, and we must preserve our amphibious capacities and base-port all our new frigates in Devonport.
Given that a decision on base-porting frigates might be imminent in the upcoming modernising defence review, I hope that this debate will help to convince the Minister of the compelling case for basing all the new global combat ships—the Type 26 frigates—in Devonport. I will set out why I believe there is a compelling and convincing case for Devonport and why the Type 26 frigate is a platform we can be proud of. I will also talk about the critical cog in the Royal Navy, the backbone of the senior service—the men and women of the Royal Navy—and why basing them and the frigates in Devonport is the right thing to do. That is not just my view; it is the view of the cross-party Devonport taskforce, co-ordinated by Plymouth City Council. Whether Conservative-run, as it was up to May, or Labour-run, as it has been since May, there is cross-party support, consensus, and determination among all local parties to win these frigates, to protect our amphibious ships and Royal Marines, and to deal with the legacy of the old submarines. I know that the Minister values cross-party campaigning, and I hope we can demonstrate that today.
Devonport is already home to half the nation’s frigates. We are the base for the Royal Navy’s anti-submarine warfare Type 23 frigates. The Type 23s with tails are the frontline of our efforts to counter increased Russian submarine activity in the north Atlantic and protect our northern flank.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
NATO revised its view of the north Atlantic and the High North in the maritime strategy, as the hon. Gentleman has just suggested. I understand his making the case for his own constituency, but is it not sensible to ensure that some of the Type 23s and Type 26s are based in Rosyth, for example, to give us extra cover in the north? We have seen many examples of incursions from Russian ships of late, so it would make strategic sense to base some ships—perhaps not the whole fleet—in Scotland, and particularly in Rosyth.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I disagree with base-porting older frigates there, but the idea of forward-deploying the Type 31e frigates, which I will come to in a moment, and basing them in locations other than just their base port is a good one, and he might want to pick up on that.
Devonport already has the skills and expertise to base the Type 23s. Indeed, it is arguable that we already have Type 26s in Devonport. I say that because HMS Argyll—a Type 23 frigate that is already equipped with much of the tech of a Type 26—is already one of our ships there. The hulls might need renewing, but that Type 23 frigate, which I was very pleased to visit on choppy seas earlier this year, is already carrying the combat systems—the tech and operational control functions—of a Type 26 frigate. Much of the crew of the first Type 26—HMS Glasgow—are already probably serving on Devonport-based Type 23s.
With quick access to the deep water of the north Atlantic, Devonport is ideally suited to counter the threats in the Atlantic and to support the continuous at-sea deterrent and carrier strike. Devonport has another ace up its sleeve: we are home to the world-class Flag Officer Sea Training establishment, under Admiral John Clink, who will retire shortly. Plymouth and navies around the world, including our own, are indebted to his leadership. FOST is the final hurdle that a ship and its crew must clear before being sent on missions around the globe. It is a jewel in the crown of the British armed forces and, like all good things in Plymouth, we rarely tell anyone about it. As a proud janner—someone born in Plymouth who lives in Plymouth—I feel I can say that Plymouth all too often hides its light under a bushel, and then hides the bushel. That has been the case with FOST, and I think we should speak loudly and proudly about its global role. Given the location of FOST, Devonport’s experience of basing anti-submarine warfare frigates, and its geographical position, there is a good case for allied nations using it more as a quick reaction base for surface ships. I encourage the Minister to look creatively at inviting NATO forces to use Devonport’s superb facilities in the months and years ahead.
The people of the Royal Navy are the backbone of the fleet. The crews of the Type 23s with tails have already made Devonport and Plymouth their home. They have found schools for their children and homes, and they have a genuine connection to our city and the areas around Plymouth. Those people will provide the leadership, specialist trades, expertise and crews for the new Type 26 frigates.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the importance of the crew to the local economy—they are very much part of our culture. He is probably aware of a study that either the council or the university—I forget which—did about 10 years ago. It showed that, surprisingly, quite a large proportion of the crew of any ship base-ported in Plymouth—or anywhere else, I imagine—live elsewhere in the UK, but a hard core, or a significant minority, live in Plymouth or the port area. They have a significant role in boosting our local economy and being part of the local social fabric.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. It is really important that we value the people who serve on our ships and, importantly, the people out of uniforms—the civilians—who support the base-porting of the ships and the jobs that result from that.
Many of the warfare and technical specialists who use the combat and operating systems on the Type 23s and Type 26s already live in a PL postcode. As south-west Members know, the PL postcode extends far and wide across the far south-west, as it should do. Preserving those roles and those people in our region is paramount in this basing decision. Confirming Devonport as a long-term naval anti-submarine warfare centre of excellence would support forces families as well as strategic efforts.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I am sure he will recognise that this is about not just the PL postcodes but the TQ postcodes of south Devon. Many of the workers whose skills will be of benefit to the future Type 26 programme live and work there and commute to Devonport every day. To base-port the frigates in Devonport would boost the wider regional economy, not just Plymouth’s.
Luke Pollard
I thank my near-neighbour for that comment. It was foolish of me to forget our friends up the A38, which I hope will soon be the M5.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I too congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. It is important that we in this House acknowledge the very proud service history that he has referred to in his constituency. This is due serious consideration. Having the frigates based there will ensure job security and will send a very clear message that the modern defence strategy incorporates the ability to place ships strategically in strong defence areas. The hon. Gentleman represents one of those areas.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I agree that it is important that we build on the areas of expertise we already have. In Devonport, Plymouth and the wider south-west we have military expertise and a close connection with the armed forces, which aids recruitment.
The context of this debate matters. It is not just frigates that are based at Devonport naval base and serviced in the dockyard, but amphibious ships. When the news of the threats to HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark and the Royal Marines was first mooted last summer, I called for clarity and for Ministers to rule out those cuts. Some said that I was scaremongering, but the threat to those ships was real then and sadly is real today, as is the threat to HMS Ocean, our amphibious helicopter carrier, which will shortly leave Devonport for the last time and join the Brazilian navy as PHM Atlântico. That is when I launched the campaign to fight for more frigates in Devonport. I believed that we needed not just one extra Type 23 with a tail transferred from Portsmouth, but a commitment to make all the Type 26s and Type 31s Devonport-based, too. At the time, I said:
“I’m no longer content with Devonport being on the defensive and today call for all of the new Type 26 and 31 Frigates to be based in Devonport alongside our world class amphibious ships.”
Most of the Type 31e frigates, which will join the Type 26s as part of the replacement for the Type 23s, will be forward-deployed. The Type 26s will not be, so their basing arrangement is perhaps the bigger win for any locality, even if the Type 31e frigates may be with us sooner than 2026 for their larger sister ships. I also believe that the Type 31s should be based in Devonport, even if that is more paper-basing than base-porting in the traditional sense, due to the forward-deployed nature of many of the new lighter frigates.
In January I led a Westminster Hall debate on the Government’s national shipbuilding strategy. I made the case to the Minister for why Devonport is a world-class naval base and why it should be home to the Type 26s. The energy behind the will to base the frigates there also arises from the local community in the far south-west to protect our amphibious warships. The petition that I launched to preserve the amphibious ships and the Royal Marines attracted 30,000 names, the bulk of them from the far south-west, although the Minister will be pleased to hear that 34 people in his constituency also signed it.
Since then, however, we have seen further threats to our city with the confirmation that Stonehouse barracks, the spiritual home of the Royal Marines, is to close, as is the Royal Citadel, both in my constituency. There are also job losses as Babcock restructures.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman may be slightly mistaken. The announcement of the rebasing strategy was in 2015, long before the current process. This is not about party politics, because over the years Governments of all colours have not paid enough attention to Plymouth, but if the rebasing strategy happens and the Type 26s can be base-ported in Plymouth, does he agree that under this Government we shall actually see a growth in the military for the first time in a generation, and that is to be welcomed?
Luke Pollard
We shall actually see replacement of the existing Type 23s with Type 26s, so the risk is that we shall lose ships if we do not get the Type 26 decision, rather than gaining extra ships. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are already losing HMS Ocean, sadly, so our naval base contingent is already one large ship down.
The modernising defence review is a chance to present a new vision for defence in Plymouth to back our jobs and secure our future. The review needs to be used as a positive way of encouraging more people to see their future not only in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, but in the industries that service the ships and our fighting forces. To do that, we need certainty on the future of HMS Albion, HMS Bulwark and the Royal Marines—from the volume and frequency of questions I have asked the Minister over the months since he took up his role, he knows that I feel strongly about that.
However, we must be under no illusion: the new frigates should not be based in Devonport simply as a sop for losing the amphibious ships. We have fought a cross-party campaign across Plymouth on three fronts: frigates; amphibious ships and Royal Marines; and our legacy submarines. We need to win on each of them, and we cannot afford to lose any one element.
The Minister knows that I have had concerns about the Type 31e and how lightly armed it is, but I have no such concerns about the world-class Type 26. It is a ship that our nation should and will be proud of. It is being built in Scotland—
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Saying that, the hon. Gentleman allows me to ask whether he agrees that the fact that the Type 26s are being built on the Clyde shows the importance of Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom, both for UK defence capabilities and for the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde.
Luke Pollard
I agree entirely. The remark about the apprentice who will work on the last of the Type 26 frigates not being born yet shows what a long-term commitment to British shipbuilding the Type 26 programme represents and how important it is for us to secure other shipbuilding contracts, such as that for the fleet solid support ships, so that such ships are built in British shipyards, which many people across the House believe should be the case.
The Type 26 will be a world-class ship. My only concern is that there are too few of them—to be precise, five too few—and that we are not replacing all Type 23s with a Type 26. However, there is no doubt that this ship is world-class, can be put in harm’s way, will have the capabilities of a modern navy, and will be the envy of our allies and a worry to our opponents. Numerically, our fleet is small compared with that of Russia or China, but our capabilities are miles ahead. Indeed, these are ships that our allies may well sail as well.
I hope that Canada chooses the Type 26 platform for its six new frigates and that our cousins down under order nine of them for the Royal Australian Navy’s future frigate programme. There is cross-party support for selling not only the design of the platform but the expertise in the supply chain, because not all the export jobs for the frigates will be in building hulls, but in weapons, combat systems and other support items on the frigate, supplying value to the entire British supply chain.
I do not want to use any time saying why other bases would not work for the Type 26, because Plymouth and Devonport’s case is sufficiently compelling. Portsmouth is a good base for the carriers, the Type 45 destroyers and the OPVs, or offshore patrol vessels. Devonport should be home to frigates, refits and the Royal Navy’s amphibious capabilities—not all the Royal Navy, just the best bits.
Back in June last year, in my maiden speech, I called for more capable frigates, which the capabilities of the Type 26 deliver. Shortly after winning my seat in the general election, I wrote to the then Defence Secretary asking for a new Type 26 to be named after Plymouth. That was a campaign started by my predecessor, Oliver Colvile—formerly the Conservative MP. I supported it as a candidate, and I continue to do so now as an MP. I want to see one of the new city-class ships named after Plymouth, but there is little point naming her after Plymouth if she is to be based in Portsmouth, as I am sure the Minister understands.
With others, I have been working hard to lobby Ministers, making the case for Devonport. This has been a team effort, and our case is strongest in that cross-party spirit. I have also been lobbying colleagues on the Labour Benches. I am really pleased that Labour has backed my campaign, pledging that a Labour Government would base-port all Type 26 frigates in Devonport. Whether that Labour Government is sooner or later, the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), is right when she says that Devonport’s case for the new frigates is “compelling, comprehensive and convincing”. I agree with her on that.
Plymouth’s three Members of Parliament—all present today—the Labour leader of Plymouth City Council and the Conservative leader of the opposition are united in our belief that Devonport is the best place for the new ships. I have called for cross-party working on the issue since I started the campaign last year. Ministers have told me that that is the approach they want to see from Plymouth in the campaign, and I recognise that a strong and united campaign by Plymouth is vital to persuade the Ministry of Defence to decide in Devonport’s favour. We achieve more when we work together and less when we are divided. By the end of this debate I hope that Ministers will have heard from the united voice of Plymouth and the surrounding areas that Devonport is the ideal location for the Type 26 frigates.
From 2026 onwards, I want to see HMS Glasgow and her sister ships in Devonport, together with our world-class amphibious ships. In setting out the case for Devonport, I have also set out the cross-party and cross-Plymouth support that the campaign enjoys. Basing the new frigates in Devonport is the right strategic choice, the right defence choice, the best option for forces’ families, and the right choice for Plymouth, Devonport and our nation. I realise that the Minister has to make many tough decisions in his role—hard decisions, life-and-death decisions—but this is not one of them. This should be a simple decision—an easy choice for him. Devonport is the best location for the Type 26s. I encourage the Minister to make that decision in our favour at the earliest opportunity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Guto Bebb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on his speech, much of which I agree with and subscribe to. I also congratulate the other Members for the city of Plymouth on being present to support the debate. It is right to describe the Plymouth campaign as city-wide, and the campaign is appreciated. It was certainly difficult not to come away from my visit to Plymouth with the strong impression of the support afforded over centuries to the Royal Navy by the people of the city of Plymouth. I appreciate the passion displayed by all hon. Members, the three representing the city in particular, and the Ministry of Defence and I understand the feeling behind the speech.
The decision on the base-porting of the Type 26 is an important one that will have to be taken sooner rather than later. When we take that decision, we shall take into account a number of factors that have to be considered seriously and carefully, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport will understand. We shall be looking at issues of logistics, infrastructure and personnel. On personnel, I echo the tribute he paid to the Royal Navy crews who man the frigates already based in Plymouth and to their support staff, whether military or civilian.
Johnny Mercer
On the timing, does the Ministry of Defence grasp the issue about us needing a commitment not even sooner rather than later, but before the summer recess? We need a decision point that we can look at, and take back to people and say, “Yes, we will get a decision on it,” so that we will have delivered something from the campaign.
Guto Bebb
My hon. Friend tempts me to offer an answer now, but I am sure he understands that it would be remiss of me to make such a commitment now, especially as we are still awaiting the completion of the Modernising Defence Programme. However, I stress again that we are looking at the issues seriously, including training, force generation and cost. We will certainly make an announcement before the end of the year. I anticipate that we might be able to make announcements before then, although I would not want my hon. Friend to come away thinking that the intention is to have an early decision. We are trying to ensure that we make a decision based on the facts of the situation, and I assure my hon. Friend that the support that Plymouth is showing for the campaign is being taken on board. Plymouth’s capability and the capacity as a naval base is also understood by the Ministry of Defence. I hope that gives some reassurance, if not the exact dates that he was looking for.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Has the Minister given any consideration at all, on a slightly longer time scale, to where the new Type 31s may be based?
Guto Bebb
Ultimately, we are looking very carefully at the rebasing; the fact of the matter is that we are building an enhanced Royal Navy. We will have more surface ships in the Royal Navy than we have had for a long time. We have seen the Royal Navy grow for the first time in a long time. All these decisions are under review. That is why it is important to understand that the decision on the Type 26 is not being taken in isolation. We are making decisions in the context of a growing Royal Navy. I suspect that every Member who has spoken in this debate would welcome the fact that the Royal Navy is growing. The reason for that growth is the new challenges that we face and the demand that we respond to them, and some of those were articulated by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport.
We are aware of the long-standing support offered to the Royal Navy by Plymouth and the Devonport base since 1691. There is a 300-year history. It is very difficult to visit Plymouth without being moved by the contribution that the city has made to the prosperity and the protection of this country over 300 years. Clearly, the size of the estate is unique. It is the largest base of its kind in Europe, stretching over 940 acres, and has more than 100 listed buildings and 3.5 miles of waterfront. This is a base that has been providing support for our Royal Navy for a very long time. That history is clear from visiting the city of Plymouth.
The Government’s commitment is clear: to enhance the Royal Navy—the surface fleet and the submarine fleet. It is important to understand the context of this debate, which is the growth in the Royal Navy. We are committed to building our eight anti-submarine warfare Type 26 frigates. The hon. Gentleman’s support for our export campaigns in Australia and Canada is appreciated. We have run a fantastic campaign in Australia and we are running a fantastic campaign in Canada. The capability of the platforms that we are building, with the support of our fantastic shipbuilders on the Clyde, is something that we take very seriously. It is great to see this unified approach to highlighting the capability of the Type 26.
The contract to build the Type 26 was awarded in June 2017. We have already cut steel and are building the first blocks on HMS Glasgow, which is very good news. Some people have claimed that it is nothing more than a paper ship; any hon. Members who have been to the Clyde will be able to say quite categorically that that is not the case. The work is being undertaken and the quality of the work is excellent.
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport highlighted the long-term commitment to shipbuilding on the Clyde that that order represents in his comments about the apprenticeships opportunities. The last of the apprentices who will be involved in the Type 26 programme have not yet been born. The Type 26 programme shows our commitment to long-term shipbuilding. I make no apology about the fact that we are also looking at the Type 31e. It is a case of identifying our capability need and what the Navy needs. The Type 31e is welcome from a procurement point of view. It is a general-purpose frigate being built to a cost limit, but it is also a new way of doing procurement.
When I travel around the world in my role—when the parliamentary arithmetic allows such travel to occur—I find it fascinating to see how closely defence departments in other countries are watching our Type 31 procurement. The capability and the cost of the Type 26 are recognised and have been recognised in the debate. Not many countries have the capability or the financial power to purchase such a high level of capability as the Type 26, but they are interested in what we are trying to achieve with the Type 31. The combined effort is showing a degree of confidence in our shipbuilding strategy, but it is also showing a confidence in our Royal Navy.
It is important to highlight that the Type 23 frigates have been and remain a significant part of the activities in Devonport. The decision to base the eight anti-submarine Type 23s in Devonport was correct. That decision has resulted in more coherence in our basing. I share the hon. Gentleman’s admiration for the crews of the Type 23; I have also flown on to Argyll and have enjoyed Thursday war games with the crew. The professionalism and the commitment of the crew was something to behold.
I take exception to the comments that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made about defence cuts. We have to acknowledge this issue on a cross-party basis, and it needs to be very carefully articulated, because it contributes to a false impression of what is happening in defence. The Government are committed to increasing defence spending. We have a protected budget of £37 billion. That budget is increasing by half a per cent above inflation year in year out for the lifetime of this Parliament. That commitment needs to be understood.
We talk about cuts, but it is important to put that in context. We are increasing defence spending. The challenge is to manage that increased spending. When we casually use the word “cuts”, we are sending a message—often a false message—that is a reassurance to our opponents and that causes distress and concern for some of the people working in our armed forces. I understand the context in which the comment was made, but I want to put it on record that we are expanding and extending our defence capabilities and are spending more on defence. My own equipment budget is £180 billion over the next 10 years, which by any stretch of the imagination is a significant budget. That includes a £63 billion commitment to enhancing the Royal Navy. I am sure that most Members will acknowledge that that is a significant commitment.
Johnny Mercer
I welcome the Minister’s comments. Clearly, we have to conduct the debate from a position of truth. We have a growing defence budget, but in Plymouth we have seen things like the defence rebasing strategy that have put people’s livelihoods and jobs in that city under threat. It has kind of paused; it is not going anywhere. We need the commitment. Will the Minister take back to the Department that we need something firm to deliver for the people of Plymouth in the very near future?
Guto Bebb
At the risk of repeating myself, I think the message has been heard loud and clear from the three Members from Plymouth and from other Members. The Ministry of Defence has heard that message. We have to put things in order, because we have to do things in the context of the Modernising Defence Programme, but I assure my hon. Friend and other colleagues that the message about the importance of this decision for Devonport has been understood.
Wayne David
I thank the Minister for his generosity. He talks about cuts, but I would argue that the position is not quite as he painted. Can I infer from what he has said that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are now safe?
Guto Bebb
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark are safe until 2033 and 2034, which is the current situation. Those are the decommissioning dates for both vessels.
The situation in Plymouth and Devonport is still a significant success story. I acknowledge that there are challenges, but the activities taking place there—the flag officer sea training, Royal Marines Tamar and the commitment for the new oil jetty that has been built at Thanckes—are commitments and expenditure that highlight the fact that there is a very positive future for the base at Devonport. That positive future is not because we owe anything other than the right decision for the people of Plymouth, but that right decision will reflect the history of service and support that has been offered to the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy by the people of Plymouth and the people involved in the bases in Plymouth. We should be very proud of the fact that it is a key component of our defence infrastructure. The continued added investment made by the Ministry of Defence highlights the fact that there is a bright future for the base in Devonport.
I will close by thanking all hon. Members who have contributed to what has been a constructive debate. It is important to put everything into the context of a growing Royal Navy, for the first time in decades—we all welcome that. The context is an enhanced and increasing defence budget, but one that is still challenged, for the reasons that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport highlighted, such as the changing threat environment.
I stress to all hon. Members, especially the three hon. Members representing the city of Plymouth, that we have heard the message very clearly. That message will be conveyed back to the Department. I look forward to the result of the Modernising Defence Programme and, in due course, a decision being made on the basing of the Type 26 frigates, which are a world-class capability.
Question put and agreed to.
Northern Rail Services: Greater Manchester
(6 years, 6 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
Sir David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Northern rail services in Greater Manchester.
It is always a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. When I was elected 21 years ago, in 1997, our railways were still, in effect, publicly owned. The reality then was that the service was rubbish, and it had been rubbish for a very long time. John Major, the then Prime Minister, having starved the railways of investment, privatised them in indecent haste—I think he thought that would be his legacy; perhaps it is—just before he was forcefully expelled from office in the 1997 Labour landslide.
The ensuing Labour Government decided that there were more important priorities, particularly in health and education, than the renationalisation of the rail system. The truth is that we wrongly assumed, as far as public transport was concerned, that things could only get better. In fairness, there has been significant investment in the system in the intervening years, paid for by rail travellers through increased fares and passenger numbers. I am certainly not in favour of returning to the failed services delivered by British Rail in the 1990s, and I do not believe that anyone else is, but the fact is that the present system is broken and was unfit for purpose from the outset. That is clearly demonstrated today and every day in Greater Manchester and the north by the delivery of services by Northern rail.
Northern is the trading name of Arriva Rail North, whose franchise began in April 2016. Provided that it does not walk away, we may suffer it until 2025. Arriva Rail North has been a disaster from day one. It has been in freefall ever since, and it does not deserve to be entrusted with the franchise for another day. The Northern franchise, which is one of the largest in the UK, provides more than 16,000 train services to a population of 15 million people. In Greater Manchester, Northern trains call at 97 stations, which are used every day by a huge number of people, who depend on the service to go to work and education, as well as to enjoy their social and family lives. According to Office of Rail and Road estimates of station usage, there were nearly 81 million passenger entries and exits at Greater Manchester stations in 2016-17.
The quality of those services is essential to the lives of thousands of families and has an enormous effect on the economy of the north. It is a very big deal. We must not allow the political argument about our transport deficiencies to descend into the Government automatically supporting all private transport providers and the Opposition automatically attacking them all. Regardless of our views about nationalisation and privatisation, Northern rail is failing.
When Northern was first awarded the franchise, it promised more than 2,000 additional trains each week, with more frequent, earlier and later trains offering passengers greater choice. It promised a 37% increase in peak-time capacity. It promised 281 new carriages, plus the full refurbishment of the remaining fleet and the removal of all Pacer trains within three years. Yet according to the Office of Rail and Road, the punctuality of Northern’s services in Greater Manchester and Liverpool has plummeted from 90% to 83% since the start of 2017. It must be compelled to do much better, and fair compensation is central to improving its performance.
If we are to remain with a privatised service, franchisees must be answerable to passengers. As the situation stands, they are not. As we would expect from an operation focused on profit, Northern does little to encourage passengers to claim compensation. The Consumers Association, which publishes Which? magazine, has called for improvements in the delivery of compensation. Its research found that only a third of passengers who may have been entitled to compensation made a claim. The two main reasons why people fail to claim are that it is too complex and there is a lack of information about the claims process. The Consumers Association found that unsurprising, as the way train companies award compensation varies widely across the country. It reports that train companies can take up to 20 days to respond to claims, with one in four people needing to prompt the train company about their claim.
Northern’s compensation scheme excludes people with multi-modal tickets, despite Ministers stating that it must include them, and passengers are left waiting for as much as four months for a response to their refund applications. Over the past two months, things have gone from extremely bad to even worse. All that adds up to Northern’s record before the unbelievable timetable transfer.
When things go wrong at Northern—and things are certainly going wrong—the whole of Greater Manchester is in danger of grinding to a halt, because the road alternatives are often close to gridlock. The major problem at the moment is that Northern simply does not employ enough drivers to allow for flexibility. Its model is dependent on drivers working on their rest day. To make matters worse, the company clearly has industrial relations problems, and there has been no rest day working agreement since February. It blames industrial action for its poor performance, but when the Government privatised the system in 1997, they privatised its industrial relations, too. It is just not acceptable to blame the trade unions and no one else. The company must be accountable for disputes with its employees. It must manage its industrial relations. That is its job, not anyone else’s. The sad reality is that most of Northern’s employees despise their employer about as much as most of its passengers do.
In fairness—this is the only time I will say that—Northern’s operational problems have certainly been made much worse by delays to the electrification of the Blackpool to Preston line by Network Rail. Drivers have to undergo safety training before trains can operate on new lines, but Northern’s lack of planning meant that, from 16 April, drivers were pulled away from scheduled services across the network to undergo training. Services were cancelled every day, leaving passengers stranded at stations on their way to work. Northern knew well in advance that that combination of problems would leave it short of drivers to operate the timetable. Those problems should in no way have taken it by surprise, yet they have gone on for weeks and weeks. Sources tell me that on 16 May—a full month after the issues with driver training began and before the timetable fiasco—91 trains were fully cancelled, 140 were part-cancelled and 48 had a reduced number of carriages. Every day is the same, yet Northern buries its head in the sand and acts surprised by its driver shortage.
I have repeatedly asked why no strategy was in place and why there was no set schedule for cancellations so that passengers would know what to expect. Why were there no rail replacement bus services? Northern has provided no explanations for its failures. The restatement of its explanation that cancellations are due to driver shortages is simply not good enough; neither is the promise that things will improve by 2020. Northern, I am sad to say, reminds me very much of the Secretary of State, repeating the mantra, “It’s not our fault. Things will get better.” Ordinary, hard-working people’s jobs are at risk, and family livelihoods depend on the ability to get to work on time, yet Northern, along with the Secretary of State, has taken no action and just looked the other way. If my constituents were to apologise to their employers for being late for work every day, while assuring their bosses that their timekeeping would improve by 2020, they would be out of a job long before 2020—and Northern should be, too.
Unbelievably, when the new timetable began on 21 May, things got very much worse. There was clearly a major change: Northern admitted that 90 % of the new schedule was different from the old one, and services along what is already an overcrowded corridor were greatly reduced. Commuters in my constituency, with their long-term experience of this operator, were braced for a difficult experience that day, but they still expected trains to arrive. What they got was chaos. Right across Greater Manchester, passengers were left stranded on platforms with no trains and no information.
I am told that, on the first Monday of the new timetable, there were 196 cancelled services and 131 part-cancelled services across the Northern network. Forty-two of those cancelled services were due to stop in Bolton. Just over a week later, on 29 May, the number of cancellations had risen to 254, and as of 7.30 this morning there had been 50 cancellations, with 43 trains part-cancelled. Is it any wonder that my constituents are striving to pass their driving tests, buy cars and block up even more of our overcrowded roads? These are people who just want to go out and do a hard day’s work, and it is our responsibility and the Government’s responsibility to help them and encourage more travellers to get on the train.
The week before the new timetable was introduced, passengers were being told by train guards that the drivers’ new work schedule would not be completed in time. Passengers expected chaos, and train guards expected chaos. Only the Secretary of State and his so-called experts were in the dark. Drivers were expected to turn up for work on 21 May as though nothing had changed, even though 90% of services changed in the new timetable. When Northern said that services were cancelled because of staffing issues, they should have said they were cancelled because of management issues and its own incompetence. If it was as good at running trains as it is at making excuses, we would have nothing to complain about, Mr Howarth, and we would not be bothering you with this debate. The fact is, they failed to plan properly for the biggest timetable change in years. These are problems of Northern’s own making, and far too often it leaves Greater Manchester without the basic train service it is entitled to.
Passengers do not really want to know about new ticket machines and wi-fi on the train; they just want to go to the station and catch a train that is on time and that has a seat for them to sit down on. One of my constituents texted me to say she was stood in the toilet of a packed train with three other people she did not know. Let me tell the Minister that wi-fi cannot be used in those circumstances. He will understand my constituent’s concern.
I frequently say that we have an excellent train line in Bolton, which runs right through my constituency. There is potentially a great service—all we need is some trains with enough carriages. It is not rocket science, is it? When a peak-hour train with two carriages—instead of the promised four—arrives at Bromley Cross station in my constituency, an audible groan runs right down the platform, because people expect to have to fight to get on.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
That train then goes to Bolton station, in my constituency, and by that time there is no space for anyone to get on it.
Sir David Crausby
That is right, because nobody gets off in Bolton—they are going to Manchester. People are getting on the train all down the line, so the closer people are to Manchester, the smaller chance they have of getting on at all. Four-carriage trains are essential. That has nothing to do with the timetable issues. Promises on the delivery of extra carriages have been repeatedly broken by Secretaries of State and by the previous Prime Minister, who visited Bolton before the 2015 election and is now long gone down the line. We are fed up with the daily struggle to catch a train.
A seriously disabled passenger who wants to travel to work in Manchester from Bolton might as well give up their job, because catching a train in the peak period from Bolton is a rugby scrum, and people need to be 100% fit to succeed. It is a disgrace. There is no room for prams and no room for bikes, and it is absolutely impossible for anyone with mobility issues. In this country, in the 21st century, that is completely unacceptable. Northern must accept its responsibility and be called to account by the Secretary of State.
Bolton has suffered disproportionately from a terrible service over many years, and our experience is a result of problems that continue within the system. The division of responsibility between rail companies, Network Rail, rolling stock leasing companies and the Government has allowed them all to blame each other for failures, and passengers end up paying for them, sometimes with their jobs. What is wrong with this privatisation model is that passengers cannot vote with their feet and use another provider—and too many train operators know it. If publicly owned monopolies are unsuitable, privately owned monopolies are very much worse.
The ultimate responsibility for this catalogue of failures must lie with the Secretary of State for Transport. If not, what is the point in having a Secretary of State for Transport? I very much doubt that he will sort out these problems, but if he does not do that in the short, medium and long term, there is certainly no point in this Secretary of State for Transport, and he should clear his desk, along with Northern rail.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Sir David Crausby), who I congratulate on securing the debate. It is also a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. However, the residents of Stockport who I represent have been experiencing anything but pleasure from the introduction of Northern rail’s new and chaotic timetable, which came into force a couple of weeks ago.
There are many unacceptable elements to Northern rail’s timetable, but the most pressing for me is the glaring gap that has been created at peak morning rush hour, owing to the removal of the two most popular commuter services, the 7.50 am and the 8.01 am from Hazel Grove to Manchester Piccadilly, which also called at Woodsmoor and Davenport stations. That has meant that all three well-used commuter stations now have a 45-minute gap in trains to Manchester from just after half-past seven until around 8.20 am, and then no services again until 9 am.
That has left hundreds of commuters unable to get to Manchester on time for work, forced to arrive either much too early or too late. It has disrupted pupils’ ability to get to school, as well as having an effect on parents who have to co-ordinate dropping off their children in the morning, sometimes at multiple schools and nurseries. When passengers can get on a train, they are faced with huge overcrowding, with many unable to get seats, and some trains now have two cars rather than four. In one recent case, overcrowding led to a passenger needing medical attention after fainting in the cramped carriages. It is also forcing many commuters to abandon the rail network entirely and to travel by car instead, adding further to the already all-too-congested roads, including the A6.
It is not just the morning rush-hour services that are affected; Sunday evening services out of Manchester have also been cut or brought forward. For example, the last train back from Manchester to Romiley and other nearby stations is now at 9.45 pm, meaning that people who want to spend the evening in Manchester have to cut their time there short.
These timetable changes are having a damaging and hurtful impact on both the family and professional lives of my constituents. I have not even attempted to calculate the economic cost of the hours of lost productivity. Sadly, I hear consistently from residents about their impression that the rail industry as a whole does not care about passengers. There is extreme anger. The two words that have appeared most often in the dozens of letters and emails that I have had on this subject are “ridiculous” and “unacceptable”, and I must agree entirely with those descriptions. The sad fact is that this timetabling nightmare is overshadowing what should be welcome news of upgrades to infrastructure, more trains overall and new or refurbished rolling stock.
During my Adjournment debate on the last day before recess, I highlighted in detail how the issue affected my own constituency. However, it has become clear in the days that followed, as the stories shared by hon. Members across the House illustrate, that this is not just a case of a few hiccups of implementation on a few lines or services, but a systemic and structural shortcoming of the whole Northern rail timetable.
Much of the blame for this bungle falls at the feet of Network Rail. Its catalogue of delays relating to the electrification project from Manchester to Preston via Bolton, which the hon. Member for Bolton North East alluded to in his speech and which is now apparently two years overdue, has meant that train operators faced uncertainty over the state of the available infrastructure. That had a knock-on effect on their ability to plan an effective timetable. Also, they are unable to use the electric engines on that line and so are reliant on old diesel engines to make up for the shortage of rolling stock. That in turn caused Northern rail to put its timetable bids in late, by which time many of its required platform slots had been taken up by other operators. It has been a perfect storm of delayed rail upgrades leading to delayed timetable planning, leading to delayed or even missing trains.
While I have had some positive dealings with regional representatives of Network Rail, this whole debacle is a symptom of Network Rail’s aloofness, unaccountability and, at times, sheer arrogance in failing to communicate with either train operators or passengers, let alone Members of Parliament. When its chief executive Mark Carne, who does not readily reply to my letters, leaves later this year, I am sure he will not be missed by passengers—and certainly not by me.
However, while it may be justifiable to heap a large portion of the blame for the delays and their consequences on Network Rail, relevant questions must be asked of others, including the Government, given their ultimate control of Network Rail. What were the reasons for the further delay to the Bolton electrification project, which has caused this mess-up of the timetabling process? What assurance can be given that the work will not be subject to further delay? When the delays on the Bolton line upgrades came to light, why did Northern rail say it would still be able to manage, and why did it not flag up the depth of the problems that that would cause? Did the Department for Transport not know that the infrastructure delays would scupper the timetable? Why did rail experts advise Transport Ministers that it would all be fine? What searching questions did Ministers ask to verify what they were being told?
What passengers really want to know is what is being done to get us out of this mess. On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me in the Chamber that he would bang heads together to sort out the 45-minute gap in morning peak-time services that is affecting my constituents so badly. Yesterday evening I met with him again to reiterate those concerns. Furthermore, this morning I met with both Network Rail and Northern rail, who gave assurances that the Bolton electrification project would definitely be completed this year and that that would enable Northern to plug the unacceptable gaps in the current timetable. I will have to hold somebody to account for that statement.
Questions still remain for passengers faced with a whole summer of disruption. Will Transport for the North, the regional transport body, conduct a formal assessment as to whether Northern rail is in breach of its performance targets as set out in its franchise agreements? If it is, what action will be taken? Transport for the North is currently co-running the rail franchise in the north, but is not using the full extent of its powers. Will the Department for Transport ensure that it uses those powers? Finally, do passengers really have to wait for the six-month timetable review, or will the Minister do all he can to get things moving more speedily? I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister. He is in an unenviable position, but I am sure he will appreciate the anger of my constituents and those of hon. Members across the House, and do his very best by them.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Sir David Crausby) on securing a debate that is important to all our constituents in Greater Manchester.
As I said in the Chamber on Monday when the Secretary of State made a statement to the House, the problems my constituents are experiencing are not new. They have endured months of misery, beginning well before the botched introduction of last month’s new timetable and well before the delays in completing the infrastructure improvements. In fact, my constituents have been used for far too many years to an unreliable, infrequent service on clapped-out old Pacer trains, which are still running on the line despite promises of replacements to come, and they are frankly fed up with what they have had to put up with.
Although performance has not been good for a very long time on the line through my constituency between Liverpool Lime Street and Manchester Oxford Road, the performance in recent months has been particularly abysmal. Day after day, constituents have been in touch with me about delayed, cancelled or overcrowded trains; trains that have only two carriages when they should have four; trains not stopping at all at scheduled station stops because they are too full for anyone else to get on, meaning that people who need to alight at those stations cannot do so and are taken well out of their way; huge gaps between services as not one, not two, but sometimes three consecutive rush-hour trains are cancelled, meaning people cannot get home from work to see their families in the evening; and a dearth of information for passengers, with information switching at the last minute from, “The train’s on time,” or, “The train’s two minutes away,” to, “The train’s 15 minutes delayed,” or, “It’s not coming at all.”
It is absolutely impossible for passengers in those circumstances to have any confidence in the service they need to rely on. No wonder that they are thoroughly fed up and furious. No wonder, as other hon. Members have said this afternoon, that they have started to drive to work or to other engagements, although many would prefer to take the train, because they know they cannot trust the service. As my hon. Friend alluded to, it is also no wonder that staff morale is so poor when drivers, conductors and other staff find themselves delivering a service that they know is substandard and for which they take the brunt of passenger anger. I have no doubt that that is contributing to the already difficult employment situation that my hon. Friend mentioned, with Northern itself acknowledging to me that absence rates are on the rise.
Passengers in my constituency do not really care whether it is Network Rail, Northern rail, Rail North or other train operators that are actually responsible for this mess and they do not really care about this passing the parcel of blame. They want someone to take responsibility for the whole system’s functioning, in order to fix the service and to make it reliable now. That is why I will put three particular questions to the Minister this afternoon.
First of all, we need a reliable, credible, up-to-date information system for passengers that tells them what is going to happen, and for that to then happen. My constituents have been relying on the now notorious hashtag on Twitter, #NorthernFail, to tell them what is going on; indeed, that has been my best source of information about what is happening to my constituents too. If #NorthernFail can give us up-to-date, real-time information about what is going on with the rail service, why on earth can Northern rail not?
It should not be too hard to give passengers reliable and accurate information that allows them to have faith that a service will run, rather than the situation they are in now, in which they do not know if a train will run or not. If that does not change, many of them will vote with their feet and simply not use the service at all. Will the Minister say what is being done to improve the quality and reliability of information to passengers, so that we can win back passenger confidence in the service and ensure that they can use it confidently in future?
Secondly, my hon. Friend talked about the compensation scheme that is in place, which I would also like the Minister to address. I was very pleased to hear the Secretary of State for Transport say in the Chamber on Monday that the compensation offered will be equivalent to that provided to Southern Rail users, who have suffered similar levels of disruption in recent years. It is absolutely clear that the current system is simply not adequate to compensate passengers for the level of inconvenience that they have suffered. The delay repay system does not address the persistent pattern of delay, cancellation, uncertainty and inconvenience.
That limited system has been exacerbated by passengers being frankly insulted by long delays in getting their compensation, by being refused for petty reasons and by being offered quite derisory amounts. Passengers have told me of compensation of £1 or £1.12, which is hardly worth the effort of asking for. What more can the Minister say to us about a proper, appropriate and fair compensation scheme that will recognise this persistent inconvenience? When will it be in place, how will passengers access it and what can they do to gain redress if they are not satisfied with the compensation they have had so far?
Thirdly, what will the Minister and his Department do going forward to monitor and enforce a Northern rail performance that complies with its contractual obligations under its current franchise, and what will he do to drive improvement? Passengers have been telling us for months that the service is dire, so I am at a loss to understand why it has taken so long for the Secretary of State to act. As my hon. Friend pointed out, this fragmented system is clearly not delivering for passengers, because Network Rail, Northern, the different train operators and numerous oversight and governance bodies all seem to stir the pot but do not actually take responsibility for putting things right.
Will the Minister describe exactly who is responsible at every level in this chain of command, from the operating companies to the infrastructure companies, to the oversight companies, and to the Department for Transport and Ministers themselves? I am not clear to whom the different demands and challenges should be directed, and I am tired, as are my constituents, of seeing blame passed all the way around.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to these questions, but my constituents look forward most to assurances that a service that they have endured for too long will now finally see real improvements.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to see you in the Chair, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Sir David Crausby) on his comprehensive and historical analysis of the failings of the transport network, and particularly of Northern rail in its delivery of services to so many of our constituents.
I will focus specifically on the recent timetable changes and how they came about, and what I think the Government should have done to address these problems before they actually happened. I also have some specific questions about compensation and contingency arrangements. I was promised by the Secretary of State that things would improve by today, but I am afraid that the information I have so far is that there has been no improvement at all.
As colleagues have mentioned, there have been many issues with the new timetable, including a shortage of properly trained and available drivers who are qualified to run the new services, as described in last year’s Gibb report, and, as my hon. Friend mentioned, the overrunning of engineering works—specifically, the electrification of the Manchester-Bolton-Preston line. Those issues meant that the proposed new timetable had to be overwritten, delaying its launch and the driver training for the new routes. Network Rail’s planners were unable to confirm routes and times until a matter of weeks before the revamp, rather than the normal three to six months for a routine change. Will the Minister explain why the timetable changes were not deferred once these multiple problems became clear?
We have heard words of remorse from the Transport Secretary, Network Rail and others, but in addition to many constituents asking me to raise the matter with the Transport Secretary last November, many rail experts also raised these issues. They have been proven right. Why were they not listened to? How could this have gone so horribly wrong, and why was there no delay in implementing the new timetable?
The Transport Secretary said in the Chamber on Monday that
“both Northern and GTR were not sufficiently prepared to manage a timetable change of this scale… Neither Northern nor GTR had a clear fall-back plan.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 50.]
If that was the case, why were Ministers and officials within the Department not aware of it beforehand? Surely, given the sheer scale of the changes being introduced, they should have been closely monitoring this.
In Oldham East and Saddleworth there has been deep concern from passengers at Greenfield station for many months about the proposed new timetable, with a reduced service and capacity at peak hours, destinations changing from Manchester Victoria to Manchester Piccadilly and poor connection times via Stalybridge, as well as ongoing accessibility issues at Greenfield. I wrote to the Secretary of State about these issues last November, and in response the then Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), said the new timetable would deliver “significant reliability benefits”. The evidence has shown that response to be completely wrong. Given that “significant reliability benefits” have not been delivered, will the Minister ensure that future timetable planning now underway for the December changes will actively involve rail users and not ignore their concerns?
The impact of the timetable changes on people’s lives cannot be underestimated, particularly on those with caring responsibilities. Parents who were previously able to drop their children off at school before getting their morning train into Manchester now struggle to do so if they are to get into Manchester for 9 am. The changes to the timetable mean that there is a 44-minute gap between 7.45 am and 8.30 am, which is the time that they are able to do so after dropping their children off. Their return journeys are equally fraught, with not just too few trains between 5 pm and 6 pm, but the timings of these trains being at 5.17 pm and 6 pm.
We realised that the new timetable was going to play havoc with the lives of working people using Greenfield station in particular, but the chaos since 20 May has been far worse than we feared. Both Northern and TransPennine Express trains have frequently been cancelled and have too often been late as well. The TPE delays significantly impact on constituents interchanging at Stalybridge and have a knock-on effect on their arrival at work
As I told the Transport Secretary following his statement in the Commons, on Monday there were five cancellations at Greenfield station alone, and that was before the evening peak. That was under the new emergency timetable that was meant to address these issues, but made things worse. Such a level of incompetence from TPE and Northern is unacceptable and my constituents deserve much better.
The Government must ensure that appropriate compensation is paid to season ticket holders and that there is a reduction in general ticket prices. The announcement that there will be a special compensation scheme for passengers on affected routes on Northern is to be welcomed, but passengers affected by disruption to TPE services must also be included. The Government also need to look at wider compensation for people who may have had their wages docked or even worse. We have heard of cases where people are on final warnings and have been threatened with losing their jobs.
What details can the Minister provide on how passengers will receive appropriate redress for the disruption and other hardship that they have experienced since 20 May? My constituent’s children were under intolerable stress on their way to exams and experienced delays, which adds to their stress.
Kate Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the situation faced by constituents trying to travel to exams. I know of exactly the same situation. Even more shockingly, when a taxi had to be used and the cost was claimed back from Northern rail, it said that such expense would not be covered by the compensation system.
Debbie Abrahams
Clearly that is absolutely unacceptable. I hope the Minister will reassure us that that will not be the case and that he will take that up with Northern.
We need timescales, eligibility requirements, details of how passengers can claim, and confirmation that entitlements will be similar to those conferred by last year’s Southern passenger compensation scheme, as mentioned by the Transport Secretary on Monday. Will the Minister confirm that compensation for poor service will be measured against the original timetable proposed, not the slimmed-down one now on offer? Will Northern tickets be able to be used on other operators and modes of transport, as called for by my colleague, the Greater Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham?
Northern’s action to set a unilateral timetable should not go unchallenged. I repeat my earlier point: passengers must be engaged with and consulted on the timetable. What discussions has the Minister had with Northern on customer consultation on the timetable? The Transport Secretary assured me and my hon. Friends the Members for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) on Monday evening that the emergency timetable will deliver significant improvements by today. I have mentioned what we have found out so far, but I will hold the Secretary of State to that.
What contingency arrangements are in place to remove the franchise from Northern if services do not rapidly improve for passengers across Greater Manchester? I would expect the contingency arrangements to be in place already. Finally, will the Department look to give Transport for the North the necessary policy and financial powers to ensure oversight of all suburban and regional services and work in tandem with Network Rail?
It is clear from this fiasco that our railways cannot be cared for properly from London, and the failure to fairly fund transport in the north exacerbates the problems we face, with deferred electrification and poor-quality, ageing rolling stock. The Minister will be aware that local and regional newspapers yesterday joined together under the banner #onenorth to fight for the north and called on the Government to prove their commitment to our region. I hope that his response will show that commitment.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Sir David Crausby) on securing this timely debate, coming as it does with the fiasco of the timetable chaos. I will not repeat what my colleagues have said. Hon. Members have dealt with the issues and challenges and with the main problems with the transport system in the north, and they have also mentioned solutions.
I want to talk about the experience of people using transport in the north, and particularly my personal experience. I will declare an interest here: I am a regular traveller on the trains from Bolton to Manchester and then onwards. Most of the time, I never find a seat to sit on, and we are always crammed in like sardines. At peak times, many of us cannot get on the train at all because it is already fully crowded. I am not talking just about problems with people occupying seats or people standing; we are literally pressed against each other. As a result, some people cannot even get on the train, which means they miss that train. The next one is about 20 or 25 minutes later, which means people miss connecting trains. Students are delayed getting to universities, colleges and schools. Most of the people who work, especially in the early hours of the morning, often get to work late. I am not exaggerating when I say that I have had constituents write to me to say they have lost their jobs because they have been turning up late day in, day out. That is not an exaggeration—it is the complete truth.
On Monday I received an email from Mrs Dearden, who wrote:
“I’m writing to ask you to seek some responsibility and accountability from Northern Rail, and the Government, to sort out the sorry state of rail travel around Greater Manchester. I just wanted to add to your portfolio another tale of the family stress this is causing. My daughter-in-law, a solicitor, travels to work, in Preston, from Bolton every day. She also needs to take and collect her son to and from nursery. For the past few weeks the...unpredictable service that Northern Rail has been providing has meant that she has been faced with the ‘choice’ of getting to work later each day and leaving work earlier in order to collect her son from nursery. As you can understand, this doesn’t amount to a normal working week from her employer’s point of view, nor to her colleagues. It leaves her child, and his nursery, with uncertainty.”
She is not alone, and her case is not exceptional. Many thousands of people in similar situations are suffering extreme disruption to their family life and are being put under stress from a service that they, as customers, pay for. It is not a free service, but something they pay for.
The situation is not new. It has been going on for years. In February 2014 I met senior managers from Northern Rail, Transport for Greater Manchester and First TransPennine Express to discuss the problems with our rail services, and on 5 March 2014 I went to see the then Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), to present a petition to him and to lobby for improved rail services. I have had frequent discussions with Northern and correspondence with subsequent Transport Ministers, but nothing has changed. It is clear that rail in the north is being discriminated against in favour of the train system in the south. I have nothing against people in the south having a great transport network, but I would like to see that in the north as well.
I want to thank and acknowledge those involved in the strong campaign that has been run by newspapers in the north, including The Bolton News and Manchester Evening News. All we want is a decent, safe, reliable rail service. I would like the Minister to ask the Prime Minister—clearly, the Secretary of State seems not to have dealt with this matter properly—to summon transport chiefs and business leaders to 10 Downing Street this week for an emergency summit to devise an action plan to get the region moving again, to announce a special compensation scheme for the passengers most affected by the delays and disruption, and to give Transport for the North the necessary policy and financial powers so that it can have full oversight of all local, suburban and regional services and work in tandem with Network Rail. It is quite clear, as has been pointed out, that our railways cannot be cared for properly from London.
The Government must commit themselves to a full and fundamental review of rail franchising. The Northern fiasco is just another example of franchisees over-promising and under-delivering. Will the Government also demonstrate a commitment to fair transport funding for the north, with a pledge to give the planned high-speed line across the Pennines equal priority with Crossrail 2 in London?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Howarth. I appreciate that many of your constituents in Knowsley have been frustrated in the past couple of weeks, whether travelling in the region or across the country. We heard about the issue in Monday’s urgent statement, of course. It was unprecedented: for 90 minutes 65 MPs of all parties relayed to the House the pain that passengers throughout the country were experiencing, including anxious students not able to get to college to sit vital exams, children late for school, adults late for work and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) has said today, people who have lost their jobs. Family life has been disrupted and childcare made impossible; people do not know when they are going to get home of a night, and businesses struggle when staff do not arrive. In the heart of the tourist season there is the fiasco of trains being cancelled at peak times in the Lake district—we stand with the businesses there.
I was struck by the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who talked on Monday—column 63 in Hansard—about people who were fasting during Ramadan standing for five hours in blistering heat. Trains have been cancelled and delayed; they do not stop. People have been failed—“Northern fail” is the expression that comes to mind. The situation is not just in the north, but across the country. I know that passengers in the south-east in particular have also had years of that pain. We have a broken railway system.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Sir David Crausby), who eloquently highlighted the pain of his constituents, particularly the pain caused by Arriva Rail North. Electric trains in his area should have been running from Manchester via Bolton to Preston last year, but it will be lucky if they do so by the end of this year. Northern provides a poor service to passengers and they now have their worst punctuality rating in eight years. As we heard, only 83% of their trains arrived within 10 minutes of the scheduled time. Of course, in the past week things have got worse, with trains often being cancelled altogether at weekends.
The story for passengers in Bolton is one of broken promises, within a completely deficient system, and they are of course dependent on a completely deficient compensation scheme. As we have heard, it is far too complex for passengers to engage with, and it does not work for multimodal transportation, so fewer people claim on it. We have heard that disabled people and parents with prams have no chance of using the railway. At certain points on the line the trains are already packed, as there are too few carriages to meet the need. In the new upgraded rail system there is still a need to install the overhead gantries for the power lines at places such as Chorley, Bolton and Salford. However, because of poor ground conditions due to uncharted shallow mines around those locations, a third of the foundations were unsuccessful at the first attempt. All that work was outsourced to the failed company Carillion.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate—the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), who put some pertinent questions to the Minister, and my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Bolton South-east, and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams)—for sharing the impact of the rail meltdown on their constituents. The upset, anger and frustration that have been heard in the House this week are nothing compared with the actual pain that we have heard about directly from the public. Despite all that, the Secretary of State could not find it in himself to apologise for the part that he played. The only reason he remains in his post this afternoon is that the Prime Minister is too weak to sack him. All that we got was his belief that he was clever in apportioning blame to everyone but himself. Others are to blame—I grant him that; but the person in charge, at the heart of it all, is the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister will offer an apology on his behalf for the fact that he has utterly failed the British public.
So what do we know? Network Rail ran into serious trouble during control period 5, not completing many of the planned infrastructure projects, including promised electrification upgrades. Did the Secretary of State know? Yes; he personally intervened, cancelling many electrification projects. Hon. Members will remember that that was the day after the House rose last summer—presumably to avoid questioning of the kind that happened on Monday. The right hon. Gentleman announced that trains that do not even exist would run in the future, and said they would replace the planned new electric rolling stock as on the TransPennine Express route.
It is deeply offensive that new trains that cannot accommodate wheelchair users have been put on that line. We heard how Network Rail failed to complete its timetabling programme and how the Secretary of State, despite initial denial, knew that that was coming over the horizon. He said on Monday that he took calls weeks before the new timetable was due to be introduced, but in his statement he failed to mention that, with regard to a company limited by guarantee, he was the one person in charge—allegedly. Therefore he is fully to blame. If he neglected or negated his responsibilities he should resign.
People in the industry whom I have talked to have told me that the crisis was long predicted. When the company moved the timetabling function to Milton Keynes a significant proportion of the very skilled timetabling staff were lost, so there were not the personnel to do the work required. I have also been told that the process of rescheduling an entire timetable normally takes the best part of a year, and at least nine months. Given that the project commenced in earnest in February, it was not likely to meet its own timetable, to be stress tested and to be sure to work.
The glaring absence is the fact that the Secretary of State did not at any stage intervene and postpone the new timetable—and we learned why. He is, it now appears, the only person on both sides of an apparent Chinese wall dividing his Department. On a wing and a prayer he ordered that the timetable change should go ahead. There was a threat that the operators—the private, fragmented companies that he always defends—would sue him or the Department if the timetable was withdrawn. They had received promises from him on the new timetabling: that in May they would be able to run their new trains, on new infrastructure and at new times. Their financial structures, including how they would afford to pay their levies to the Department and how they would pay their shareholders, could not be delivered unless all the new slots ran on the promised terms in the new timetable, as set out in the franchises.
I think that we can expect law suits to come flooding in now. After all, those private companies’ sole reason for existing is to drive profit out of the state. Those rail companies had hired their new trains for the new electrified lines and expanded timetables. I remind Members that they do not own their rolling stock, but lease it by contract at an exorbitant rate from consortia of investment companies and fund managers. These private profit companies exist to drive profit out of the train operating companies, which in turn drive profit out of the state, taxpayers and passengers. They have disposed of their old rolling stock and moved it on to their next customers, while the new rolling stock cannot operate on the de-electrified lines—you could not make it up, Mr Howarth.
Then there are the train operating companies, and today we have heard much about Northern rail and its failure. It went ahead and signed contracts, demanding that services be run down to the bone. We heard how it cut the number of crucial staff to maximise its financial gain, and it failed to maintain or recruit sufficient staff to run on the new timetable. It knew what was coming over the horizon, and it failed. It is also trying to get rid of train guards, the very people at the heart of looking after the needs of passengers. We have ended up with not enough trains or staff to meet the needs of a rushed and untested timetable, although I must say that the staff have been phenomenal across the rail network, and we salute them for all that they have had to contend with over the past few weeks.
Only the Secretary of State and his Ministers sit at the top table and the interface of track, timetable and train. He knew about these challenges but did nothing. He let this chaos happen, either through sheer incompetence or by hoping that it would be the least worst option. He is the head of every decision, which is why either he must resign or the Prime Minister should sack him.
One subject that was not mentioned on Monday was how much all this will cost the public or passengers through future ticket increases. The money has to come from somewhere. I am sure the TOCs will call for compensation—they always do—and we also have the compensation scheme, and a commitment to a new compensation regime, which fellow MPs are already saying will be insufficient and that more will be required. Will students who were not able to sit their crucial exams, or businesses that could not open their doors because their staff had not arrived, be able to claim compensation? How much will all this chaos cost? I put that point specifically to the Minister, because ultimately taxpayers or passengers will pay, and they need to know how much it will cost.
This story will not end happily ever after. First we get a revised timetable that, as we have heard, has in many places been much worse than the original one. Then we get the mass cancellations across the service. We have heard that whatever timetable is applied, the chaos will run for months and months into the summer. What has the Secretary of State offered? An inquiry that will report at the end of the year. Thank goodness the Transport Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), will provide answers long before then through its own inquiry. The Secretary of State’s inquiry will not report until after the next set of timetable changes have been put in place in December, although I have heard that those changes have fallen behind schedule.
This chaos has forced passengers off trains and into their cars—a modal shift. We talk a lot about a modal shift across our railway system, but we aspire to it going the other way. When rail services do not work and fail the public, people jump back into their cars because they have no other option. That leads to more congestion on our roads, more frustration and more pollution to exacerbate our poor air quality. I am sure that the rail companies will challenge the Government about that fall in patronage.
The great British public have been completely let down by this Government and their failed rail model, and they are right to be furiously angry at the Secretary of State, who blames everybody else—the bosses at Northern rail, for example—while forgetting that he is in charge. That simply could not happen under Labour’s proposals for a new model of public ownership. We will scrap the juggling of multiple private company interests and have one rail service that works together in the interests of passengers. The Secretary of State could make a start by moving towards that model—that would massively satisfy passengers across the north—and he could take the contract away from Northern rail, and use his powers to start providing reparations for this complete disaster on our railways.
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I gently remind him that it is customary to leave enough time for the mover of the motion to respond briefly to the debate.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Sir David Crausby) on securing this important debate and giving us another opportunity to discuss the disruption on Northern rail services.
The Department is focused on ensuring, as rapidly as possible, that the industry restores reliability for passengers to acceptable levels. I assure passengers who have been affected that I share their frustration, and we have heard from hon. Members across the House about how their constituents have been affected in a number of completely unacceptable ways. I echo my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s words of sympathy on Monday, as well as the apology that he gave to the House. That mirrored the apologies from the chief executives of Northern rail and Network Rail, as well as from train operators in other parts of the country, for everything that has gone wrong and for all the difficulties that have been caused to people in the north of England and other parts of the country.
The new timetable was introduced on 20 May, and as a number of Members have acknowledged, this episode has overshadowed what should have been a positive story for our railways and the economy as a whole. The May 2018 timetable change was planned to deliver more services up and down the country as part of the biggest modernisation of the railway since Victorian times, taking into account the great growth in passenger numbers in recent years. As we have heard, for Northern rail, which is co-managed through the Rail North Partnership on behalf of Transport for the North and the Department for Transport, that timetable change unfortunately resulted in significant disruption and inconvenience for passengers and the travelling public as a whole.
Northern’s new timetable was planned to improve services for passengers across the north, and it was intended to increase services by 1,300 a week. It was designed to give passengers the benefits of the unprecedented investment that we are making, including an expanded train fleet. It was also intended to take advantage of big infrastructure projects such as the Ordsall Chord, which has linked Manchester’s three main train stations for the first time, as well as the upgrade of Liverpool Lime Street and of tracks between Manchester and Liverpool. Further investment will deliver faster and more frequent services, with more seats, by 2020. That includes upgrading the route between Manchester and Blackpool via Bolton and upgrades to the Calder Valley routes, ahead of significant improvements to the transpennine route from next year. By 2020, all Northern and TransPennine Express trains will be new or refurbished, with—finally—the Pacer trains entirely gone.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the regional disparity in funding, which they indicated was part of an underlying problem. Going forward, we want to ensure that any disparity that there may have been in the past gets comprehensively addressed. I hope hon. Members will find it comforting that the Infrastructure and Projects Authority analysis of planned central Government transport investment shows that, over the next four years, the north will receive more investment on a per-person basis, at £1,039, than the south, at £1,029.
I want to go into more detail about what went wrong and answer the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) about who knew what, when, and about why there was not adequate intervention if that was indeed the case. I will need to backtrack on the sequence of events. After the decision was taken in the summer of 2017 to de-risk the potential delay of infrastructure from the major timetable change in December 2017, Northern planned to introduce changes in two phases, in December 2017 and in May 2018, with the May 2018 change, recasting services around Manchester, being most significant. The planned changes for May were underpinned by planned line speed improvements and electrification of the route between Manchester and Preston via Bolton. As hon. Members have noted, that would enable Northern to operate electric rolling stock, freeing up diesel units to provide additional capacity on other parts of Northern’s route.
In line with normal industry deadlines, Northern submitted its proposed timetable for May 2018 to Network Rail in August 2017, and Network Rail agreed it in November 2017. Network Rail had expected to complete the work that would facilitate that timetable change before May 2018, but faced significant complexities based on the interconnectivity of the network and the planning by all operators, and in January 2018 it acknowledged that it was unable to complete the work as expected. Those delays were further exacerbated by the disruption caused by Storm Emma and the severe cold spell—the beast from the east.
After it became apparent that the Manchester to Preston electrification was not going to be completed for May 2018, Northern took on the task of wholesale replanning of rolling stock, staff rostering and driver training to accommodate the lack of wiring on that route. As hon. Members will know, that is because drivers have to undergo essential safety-related route training before trains can operate on new lines. For Blackpool, that meant retraining 400-plus drivers from all the depots that operate that route.
Debbie Abrahams
Were not some of the delays, and the causes of the delays, predictable? Surely there should have been contingencies in the upgrading process and plans that would have accounted for that. If that was not the case, what is the Minister doing on, for example, penalties in relation to the franchise so that he is able to claw back from the providers?
Joseph Johnson
That is a good question, and one of the things that Stephen Glaister’s review will be looking at very carefully. It will look at all the processes that went into the creation of the May timetable and all the planning and preparation around it, to answer those kinds of questions and to see what lessons can be learned for future timetable changes, including the December timetable change. I will come on to compensation, if the hon. Lady hangs on for a second; I want to ensure that I complete the account of how we got to the May timetable change and what lessons we can learn from that.
I was talking about the training of drivers. Some drivers have been unavailable for their normal train-driving duties while they were and are undergoing that training. To make a difficult situation worse, Northern was unable to ask its drivers to work on their rest days for the last three months of this period, because, as hon. Members will know, ASLEF declined to extend the rest day working agreement that ended in February. That meant that Northern has not been able to absorb those exceptional or last-minute training needs and provide the additional flexibility for the train driver rosters that it needed to.
Let me turn to the questions about who knew what, when, and about where the DFT was in all this. In January, Network Rail informed the Department that it would not complete its upgrade of the Manchester to Preston route in time for the May timetable change. In response, Northern developed a new timetable in a compressed period and briefed stakeholders on the reasons why that was required. Following that, the late completion of the Blackpool to Preston blockade in mid-April meant that Northern had less time to complete those plans and its driver training. Northern then did not finalise its plan for the timetable until three days prior to its introduction. Industry readiness boards assured the Department and the Secretary of State that the timetable was ready for introduction, and the Department was not made aware of any expectations of high levels of cancellations.
Hon. Members have asked about compensation to reflect the significant inconvenience experienced by passengers. There is no doubt, and the Department accepts, that Northern passengers have faced totally unsatisfactory levels of service. I have met with many colleagues in the House, and I have also heard directly many stories from the travelling public of how the disruptions have impacted the lives of all those constituents.
It is entirely right for all those affected by the disruption to be properly compensated. I encourage passengers, in the first instance, to continue to use Northern’s Delay Repay compensation mechanism for affected journeys. Northern operates the Delay Repay compensation system for all its passengers. Under that scheme, as hon. Members will know, passengers are entitled to claim compensation for each delay of 30 minutes or more that they experience, whatever the cause of the delay. There are no exclusions for weather or other delays outside the control of the rail industry.
The Office of Rail and Road guidelines require train operators to respond to claims within 20 days of their receipt. Northern has assured the Department that it is working hard to respond to all claims within industry standards. I acknowledge the complaints that the hon. Member for Bolton North East has made about various aspects of the Delay Repay scheme. The Department is discussing with Northern ways in which we expect it to reduce its processing time for Delay Repay claims.
In his statement on Monday, the Secretary of State announced that, in addition to the standard Delay Repay compensation mechanisms, there would be a special compensation scheme for Northern passengers, subject to agreement by the board of Transport for the North. It is to be funded by the rail industry and will ensure that regular rail customers receive appropriate redress for the disruption that they have experienced. The industry will imminently set out more detail of the eligibility requirements and how season ticket holders can claim. However, the Secretary of State has already indicated, at a high level, that he expects that the scheme should offer Northern passengers who have experienced protracted disruption of this kind similar entitlements to those under Southern’s passenger compensation scheme last year.
Rachael Maskell
Can the Minister set out exactly who he means by “the rail industry”? Clearly, we are talking about Network Rail, which is culpable for some of the issues, as well as the Department for Transport and the operators themselves.
Joseph Johnson
I want to allow us a few days to refine the details of how the compensation scheme will work. We are working carefully with all players in the industry to ensure that a fair scheme is put forward that adequately provides redress to passengers. The Secretary of State has been clear that this will be funded by the industry. We will be bringing forward further details imminently, which I hope will answer the hon. Lady’s question.
What are we doing concretely to fix the problems that have occurred? Acting through the Rail North Partnership, the Department for Transport has put in place an action plan with Northern, which includes improving driver rostering to get more trains running now, increasing driver training on new routes, additional contingency drivers and management presence at key locations in Manchester, and putting extra peak services in the timetable along the Bolton corridor. Northern has also announced that, until the end of July, it will run fewer services than were originally planned, per the May timetable, to give passengers greater certainty and to increase opportunities for driver training. I believe that this temporary measure is necessary to stabilise the service, enabling improvements to be introduced gradually. Northern will then get back to a full timetable service.
The interim timetable, rolled out on Monday, will see an approximately 6% reduction in the number of train services—about 165 out of the normal 2,800 daily services. Northern is expecting to start to see significant improvements this week, from today, as their drivers are fully rostered on to the new interim timetable. The timings for today, as of 10.35 am or so, saw Northern achieve 86% on the public performance measure. With 665 or so trains operated, 2% were very late or cancelled, which is about 15 trains. There is positive progress here. This is Northern’s best weekday morning performance since the timetable changed. That 86% compares with weekday out-turns of between 60% and 70% for the first two weeks following the introduction of the May timetable.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I have not heard an explanation of why Northern could not suspend bringing in the new timetable. The Minister has just outlined that the new interim timetable has made a difference. Why could it not have thought about bringing in an interim timetable in the middle of May, instead of the new changed timetable?
Joseph Johnson
The May timetable is a big timetable change. It is roughly four times larger than any previous change over recent years of such timetables. It was a six-monthly timetable change. It was a very big change that reflected the massive investment that has been going into the rail system and all the opportunities to create new services across the country. In those circumstances, the timetable change did not just affect Northern and Thameslink, it affected every train operation in the country. All those other train services around the country had interlinkages with the train services being run by Northern, Thameslink and other Govia Thameslink Railway services.
As a consequence, simply suspending the timetable was not possible, because all the other train operators had put in place their own driver rosters and driver training programmes for all the other services running across the rest of the country. Not introducing the May timetable at that point would have been a far worse and more disruptive solution. This is progress. We recognise that there is significantly more to be done. We want to get back to where we were meant to get to, which was the full introduction of the May timetable, as soon as we can, but we want to do that gradually and to reintroduce services as soon as we can, once the appropriate driver training has taken place.
How can we ensure this does not happen again? As I have mentioned, work has begun to set up the independent inquiry into the timetable, implementation and deliverability of future timetable changes. That will be chaired by an independent transport expert, the chair of the current independent regulator, the Office of Rail and Road, Professor Stephen Glaister. In parallel to the inquiry, the Department for Transport is assessing whether Northern met its contractual obligation—a subject which a number of hon. Members asked about—in the planning and delivery of this timetable change. We will carefully assess Northern rail’s planning, risk assessment and resilience in preparing for the May timetable change.
We are currently reviewing whether Northern is in contravention of the franchise agreement. If it is found to be so, it would be referred to the Department’s enforcement advisory panel. The purpose of that panel is to review any contraventions of the franchise agreement fairly and consistently across all franchises. It will seek to respond in a consistent manner where different train operators commit similar contraventions, taking account of the Department’s enforcement policy and previous enforcement decisions, and will recommend the appropriate response, including any remedial plan or enforcement action, if required.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister set out a timetable for that? I think passengers have a real interest in knowing what timetable that scrutiny will cover.
Joseph Johnson
Work has been underway over the last few weeks on this question, and we expect to come to a conclusion as soon as is reasonably possible.
In assessing whether Northern has breached its franchise agreement, it is important to bear in mind that there are other players in this story and Network Rail is an important one. While bearing in mind Network Rail’s failure to deliver the infrastructure I mentioned on time, I want hon. Members to be assured that we will hold the operator to the terms of its contractual obligations.
I want to give the hon. Member for Bolton North East a chance to wind up at the end. I thank all colleagues for their contributions. I remind them that once this phase has been completed, passengers on Northern will benefit from 1,300 extra services a week. Rail users of Northern have much to be hopeful about in the future of their rail services. Brand-new trains will soon be introduced, building on the improvement to timetables and stations already made in recent years. We are working closely with train companies to drive down cancellations and will support Network Rail and the wider industry in delivering these significant improvements.
Sir David Crausby
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) raised the question of promises. Let me tell him that I have had enough promises to fill a small filing cabinet from Northern rail. When I last met Northern rail and it made further promises, I said, “I’ll put them with the rest of them and believe it when I see it.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) talked about winning back confidence and the issue of compensation. It occurs to me that compensation is absolutely vital, because nothing will focus the mind of an operator such as Northern rail more than money. Not only must we ensure that passengers are compensated; the operator must be deterred from delivering such a poor service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talked about timetable issues and the question of removing the franchise. I did not hear the Minister talk about removing the franchise, but I was pleased to hear that it is at least being looked at. It does need to be seriously looked at, and certainly a little more than it has in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) talked about family stress and the devolution of power to the north. I can tell the Minister that there is a perception in the north that if this had happened in London and the south-east, the Army would have been called in, Northern would have had the franchise removed and the Secretary of State would have been sacked already. Whether that is fair or not, that is how people in the north feel. There is an important job to do to ensure that that is not how people see it.
In conclusion, I want to see a better service that is fit for local people. That is something that we should all have in common, so that we can move forward without any political prejudice.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Northern services in Greater Manchester.
Hezbollah’s Rocket Arsenal: Southern Lebanon
(6 years, 6 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 (Kettering) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal in southern Lebanon.
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, and I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister to his place to listen and respond. I called the debate because on the northern border of one of our closest allies, Israel, there is a rocket arsenal of up to 150,000 missiles aimed at all its major towns and cities, and something should be done about that. In the debate, I will rely heavily on a superb report by the High Level Military Group, “Hizballah’s terror army: how to prevent a third Lebanon war”, which was published in October.
The High Level Military Group is a group of distinguished international senior military figures, including our own General Lord Richard Dannatt and Colonel Richard Kemp, which has looked into the issue thoroughly. The report gives us a stark warning:
“The last war between Hizballah and Israel in 2006 was a severe blow to the terrorist group. But since then, Hizballah has been able to recover militarily, amassing a huge stockpile of weapons, developing and fielding new and more precise and lethal systems, and gaining combat experience fighting for Iran and…in Syria.”
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
On the subject of Hezbollah being a terrorist organisation, does my hon. Friend share my view that the distinction that we choose to make on our side—that there is a military and a civil wing to Hezbollah—is entirely artificial and that Hezbollah sees itself as a unified terrorist military organisation?
Mr Hollobone
Yes. Not only do my right hon. Friend and I agree that there is no distinction, but so does Hezbollah. In October 2012 its Deputy Secretary General, Sheikh Naim Qassem, said:
“We don’t have a military wing and a political one; we don’t have Hezbollah on one hand and the resistance party on the other… Every element of Hezbollah, from commanders to members as well as our various capabilities, are in the service of the resistance, and we have nothing but the resistance as a priority.”
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
To follow up on that point, at a protest outside the Israeli embassy in Kensington in July, Israeli flags were burned and Hezbollah flags were waved with impunity. Does my hon. Friend agree that that sends a signal of lauding a terrorist organisation that should infuriate all British people?
Mr Hollobone
I agree with my hon. Friend. We will probably see more flag burning this Sunday at the al-Quds demonstration in London. I deplore all flag burning. As British Members of Parliament, we have probably seen the Union Jack burned more often than most other flags. It is frankly a disgrace that Hezbollah can parade on the streets of London. Let us remember that its flag has a raised machine gun on it, which demonstrates its belief in violent resistance.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
My hon. Friend has mentioned the al-Quds march in London. One of the reasons why the distinction that our right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) sets out is a problem is that that is how Hezbollah gets away with flying those flags. When it is challenged about being a proscribed military organisation, it effectively has some small print at the bottom of the flag that says it is the civilian wing, and the police are then not empowered to do anything about the march. Does my hon. Friend think that issue should be tackled?
Mr Hollobone
Yes, I absolutely agree, and I hope that the Minister will relay to the Home Office the concerns that have been raised about that here. As we have discussed, Hezbollah does not see a difference between a military and a political wing. Very distinguished international bodies have banned Hezbollah outright and have proscribed it as a terrorist organisation, including the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council. Frankly, we should join them.
Before I took those three helpful interventions from distinguished colleagues, I was in the middle of quoting the High Level Military Group report, which continues:
“There is nothing predetermined in strategic life, but the new configuration of forces in the region could lead to a new war that, because of the regional dynamics and new security imperatives, will be much more violent and destructive than the previous ones.”
We have been warned.
In case I get distracted during the rest of my contribution, I will go on to the solutions that the High Level Military Group outlines. Having extensively researched the subject, including through visits on the ground, it states that
“our assessment is that a new and grave conflict is only a matter of time, and the international community must act to help prevent it.”
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend in mid-flow, but by drawing attention to the financial backers of Hezbollah and Hamas—the Iranians—whose mission seems to be to create mayhem, chaos and murder in the middle east, should we not send a message, as strongly as possible, that Iran’s malign and wicked influence in the region is a threat to peace and we will not tolerate it?
Mr Hollobone
I agree with my hon. Friend. Iran is the bully in the playground. According to the High Level Military Group, Hezbollah is
“an Iranian creation that sits as the crown jewel in Iran’s regional strategy of jihadi revolutionary warfare”.
In short, it is
“the most powerful non-state armed actor in the world.”
It is potentially more lethal than ISIS, and it is all backed and funded by Iran.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that support for terrorist proxies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, poses a serious threat to Israel and its borders? Does he also agree that a massive failing in the Iran nuclear deal was the immediate lifting of sanctions, which allowed Iran to plough millions into proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas?
Mr Hollobone
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that sanctions relief funds the jihadi revolutionary network driven by Iran. It is not just Israel that is under threat, but Saudi Arabia. Iran is effectively establishing rocket arsenals in southern Lebanon with Hezbollah, in Gaza with Hamas and now in Yemen against Saudi Arabia with the Houthi rebels. We should call that out.
That excellent report continues:
“Urgent steps are required to contain Hizballah and de-escalate the tensions on the border between Israel and Lebanon.”
The first point for the Minister is that there must be
“a clear recognition of the geopolitical ambitions of Iran,”
which we have just discussed,
“its religiously motivated imperialism and its pursuit of Israel’s annihilation as the core driver of the danger…The international community must take actions to curtail Iran’s activities, raise the cost of its behaviour and engage in efforts at deterrence.”
Apparently, with our new relationship with Iran, we were meant to be able to dissuade it from engaging in that sort of activity, but it seems that since the nuclear deal was agreed, if anything, Iran has stepped up the pace.
The report’s second recommendation is that
“the more specific problem of Hizballah must be addressed from multiple angles. Within Lebanon itself, the political cost of the integration of this terrorist organization into the fabric of the state must be raised. Thus, European nations should legally proscribe Hizballah as a whole, ending the fraudulent distinction between ostensible political and terrorist wings of the organization. Similarly, donor nations to Lebanon, led by the U.S., should make new investments conditional on a plan to strip Hizballah of its de facto status as the leading force in the country… The full implementation of UNSC”—
United Nations Security Council—
“resolutions 1559 and 1701, enforced by an expanded mandate for UNIFIL”—
the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon—
“and the requisite political pressure, should be a central part of such an effort.”
The third recommendation is that
“the West should strongly support Israel in its efforts to de-escalate the tensions. There is no plausible legitimate explanation for Hizballah’s efforts to arm itself and threaten Israel other than the explicit religiously motivated Iranian drive to destroy Israel.”
Again, in the clearest possible terms, the report sends us a serious warning that war is very likely in the short term in southern Lebanon.
Hezbollah is Arabic for “Party of God”—that is what the name means—and it is a radical Shi’a Islamist terror group based largely in southern Lebanon. It was founded in 1982, with Iranian support, after the first Lebanese war. Hezbollah takes all of its ideological inspiration from the Iranian revolution and the teachings of the late fundamentalist Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Khomeini. Hezbollah seeks to violently impose its totalitarian ideology on Muslims and forge a radical, Iranian-style Islamic state in Lebanon in its determination to destroy Israel and drive out western and other non-Islamic influences from the Muslim world.
The Hezbollah leader is known for his venomous, anti-Semitic rhetoric and has called repeatedly for the destruction of the state of Israel. Hezbollah is linked to a history of international terror attacks. It now has de facto control of Lebanon’s Government and boasts the country’s largest military infrastructure, including up to an estimated 150,000 Iranian-supplied rockets capable of striking anywhere in Israel. Iran provides financial support for Hezbollah, with weapons, technology and salaries for its tens of thousands of fighters.
At the time of the last Lebanon war, in 2006, it was estimated that Hezbollah had between 10,000 and 15,000 rockets, and about 10,000 fighters. Now, in 2018, the rocket arsenal has increased tenfold, to up to 150,000 rockets, and Hezbollah has as many as 45,000 fighters, many of whom are battle-hardened from experience in Syria. As well as having a military footprint on the ground, Hezbollah is also involved in drugs and arms smuggling, money laundering and document fraud.
Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal has only one purpose and that is to threaten Israel. Israel has no territorial ambitions in southern Lebanon at all. Moreover, Hezbollah has not only imported weapons from Iran but it now has the capability to manufacture such weapons itself in at least two rocket factories located in Lebanon.
The rocket arsenal includes everything from Katyusha rockets at one end, which have a small payload and a very limited range, all the way up to Syrian B302 missiles, Zelzal-2 missiles, M600 missiles and Scud B missiles at the other end, which can reach anywhere in Israel. Although Israel has anti-missile capability, with its anti-missile batteries, taking out 150,000 rockets that are all fired basically at the same time would be impossible for any military force to achieve.
Another problem is that this rocket arsenal is not all lined up on the border, so that everyone can see it; it is embedded in more or less every Shi’ite village located in southern Lebanon. Effectively, therefore, Hezbollah is using the population of southern Lebanon as a human shield for the development of its weapons systems. What is rather more serious is that Hezbollah is not only using the Lebanese civilian population as a human shield, but effectively using UNIFIL as a shield for its activities as well.
At the end of the second Lebanese war, Israel withdrew under the terms of UN resolution 1701. One of the clauses in that resolution said that UNIFIL should disarm military actors in southern Lebanon. Members do not need just to believe me, because the report states:
“UNSC Resolution 1701 mandates that UNIFIL monitor the cessation of hostilities, accompany and support the Lebanese armed forces as they deploy throughout the south, and to take ‘steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line”—
the border with Israel—
“and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area’.”
It is clear to me and to the High Level Military Group that UNIFIL has completely failed in this part of its mandate and that it has effectively allowed a tenfold increase in the rocket arsenal that Hezbollah can deploy against Israel.
My big ask to the Minister is that we need to use our good offices in the United Nations to strengthen UNIFIL’s mandate, so that it can proactively disarm Hezbollah’s rocket arsenal. Otherwise, what is the point of UNIFIL? I would even go so far as to say that, although there has not been any major outbreak of fighting in southern Lebanon since 2006, it is not clear to me that that has anything to do with UNIFIL’s presence on the ground there. If anything, UNIFIL’s being there has effectively allowed Hezbollah the space and cover it needed to build up its rocket arsenal, which would not have happened if UNIFIL had not been there in the first place.
We can also play a part, as many right hon. and hon. Friends have said, by banning Hezbollah in its entirety and proscribing it as a terrorist organisation, because it entirely meets the criteria for full proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. The Home Office guidance to that legislation states:
“Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation: commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism)”—
we will see that “unlawful glorification” on the streets of London this Sunday during the al-Quds march—
“or is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.
Hezbollah is the most destabilising factor within Lebanon itself. It has now become a state within a state, and it has built up a massive rocket arsenal that threatens one of our closest allies. The evidence is there for all to see, especially by those in the Foreign Office, and it is now time for Her Majesty’s Government to take action.
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
Thank you, Sir Christopher, for calling me to speak and, as always, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate, and other colleagues on their interventions and other contributions. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on the thoughtful and detailed way in which he set out the concerns, based on the report, “Hizballah’s terror army: how to prevent a third Lebanon war”, by the High Level Military Group.
According to sources in the region, Hezbollah’s military capability has grown significantly since the start of the Syrian civil war. I do not have precise figures to respond to my hon. Friend with, but reports suggest that Hezbollah could now indeed have as many as 100,000 rockets, including hundreds of advanced rockets with a range of up to 300 km. That is deeply concerning and a clear threat to the stability of the region. The premise of my hon. Friend’s debate is entirely correct and fully well founded.
In addition, Hezbollah is also in direct violation of UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701, which my hon. Friend mentioned and which stated that there should be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than those of the Lebanese state and that only the Government of Lebanon were permitted to authorise the sale or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon. I will say more about our detailed support for Lebanon in a moment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate—I also apologise to him for not being here earlier to hear his full speech.
The Minister mentioned the 130,000 to 150,000 rockets. Is he also aware of the 50,000 soldiers, including reservists, that Hezbollah has? Does he agree that Israelis are entitled to be concerned about the relationship between Lebanon and the Hezbollah terrorists? Quite clearly, there is a connection between the two at this moment in time, so Israel has every right to have fears.
Alistair Burt
Yes, Mr Speaker—sorry, Sir Christopher. I am giving you an elevation there—in due course.
In response to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, yes, the premise of the debate is correct; there is no argument about that here. Hezbollah is a dangerous and destabilising force. It sits on the northern border of Israel. Israel has every right to be concerned and to seek support in relation to dealing with that. That is what I would like to explain in terms of the United Kingdom’s relationship here.
I confirmed the United Kingdom’s support for the position in UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701 when I was at the International Support Group for Lebanon meeting in Paris last December and at the Rome II ministerial conference on support to the Lebanese security forces in March. The joint statements that followed those meetings, which were agreed by a large cross-section of the international community, emphasised the role of the Lebanese armed forces as the sole legitimate armed force of Lebanon. I should add that Israeli overflights of Lebanon also violate UN Security Council resolution 1701 and contribute to increased tension in the area. The activity by Hezbollah risks triggering a conflict between Hezbollah and Israel on a scale far beyond that seen during the 2006 war. That could devastate Lebanon and further destabilise an already vulnerable region.
The UK has made clear our concern at Hezbollah’s destabilising actions in Lebanon and the region. We operate a policy of no contact with the entire organisation, and we have repeatedly condemned the group’s support for President Assad’s brutal regime in Syria.
Stephen Crabb
I am listening to the Minister with great interest, as I always do. Just a moment ago, was he drawing an equivalence between Israeli overflights of Lebanese territory and Hezbollah’s stockpile of 150,000 rockets?
Alistair Burt
No, not at all, and I would not seek to do so. I was saying that when people are looking for violations of resolution 1701 in the region, as they do, that is an issue that comes up. Clearly, the risk of the missiles is far beyond that of Israeli overflights. I mentioned it simply because if people are going to take note of the resolutions, then everyone should do so, but I fully understand the context in which the overflights take place.
The UK proscribed Hezbollah’s external security organisation in 2001. In light of Hezbollah’s support for militant groups such as Jaysh al-Mahdi, which was responsible for attacks on British troops in Iraq, we extended the proscription in 2008 to include Hezbollah’s military wing, including its jihad council and all units reporting to it.
We are working with our European partners to challenge Hezbollah’s malign activities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering set out. We are a key player in international efforts to strengthen the global response to money laundering, terrorism financing and crime. The UK is a founding member of the Financial Action Task Force. We spend significant resource on strengthening that global network, working with it and the Financial Action Task Force regional body for the middle east and north Africa. We fund and deliver a significant amount of technical capacity-building, including in the middle east. We also designate certain individuals linked to Hezbollah under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010.
Mr Harper
I hope the Minister will forgive me if he is about to cover this point in his remarks, but I was listening very carefully a few moments ago when he said that the British Government have no contact with any part of Hezbollah. I welcome that, but I genuinely do not understand why we make the distinction in the way we do between the military arm and the non-military arm. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) said, the organisation does not make that distinction in that way.
Alistair Burt
The distinction has been drawn for some time. We recognise Hezbollah as a political entity in Lebanon in an exceptionally complex Government structure that I am sure all colleagues are aware of. That does not mean we do not keep all its activities under careful monitoring. We have no contact with any part of the organisation, but it is not Government policy to discuss organisations that are not on the proscribed list, including speculation as to whether an organisation is or is not under consideration for proscription. Beyond that, I cannot say anything further. What I want to spend time in the debate doing is illustrating the work that the United Kingdom undertakes to undermine the criminal and terrorist activities of Hezbollah and what we do to strengthen Lebanon in relation to its response to Hezbollah.
Ross Thomson
Just before my right hon. Friend moves on to that important part of his remarks, would he not accept that the UK Government should judge Hezbollah by the totality of its actions in terms of criminality, drugs smuggling, terrorism and militant activities? By proscribing Hezbollah, we would send the strongest possible message that the UK abhors terrorism in all its forms.
Alistair Burt
I have no need to express our view on terrorism any more forcefully than my hon. Friend has, as what he said is the policy of the United Kingdom. I have already said what we are doing to try to mitigate the effects of Hezbollah, but I have also said I will not be drawn down the line of proscription, because we do not discuss organisations and whether proscription is possible. If he will forgive me, I would like to say what we are doing to strengthen Lebanon and fulfil some of the obligations of those UN Security Council resolutions, which are crucial.
We maintain that the best way for the UK to help to tackle Hezbollah and its weapons and to support Israel is threefold. The first part is to support UNIFIL, which is important, and I will come on to that point later. The second is to support the defence of the state of Israel, and I do not think anyone queries whether the United Kingdom does just that—we do so in a number of different ways. The third is to strengthen and empower the Lebanese state, which should not be seen as a bit-part player; it is crucial, but all too often it is left out of discussions. It is important we do what we can to protect Lebanon from wider instability in the region.
John Howell
I hear what the Minister is saying, and I would like to concentrate on his third point. I support him in trying to support Lebanon’s many moderates, but does the existence of Hezbollah not make that a difficult thing for us to achieve?
Alistair Burt
The region is mostly difficult. Many difficult characters fill Government positions and political positions throughout the region, not all of whom would be elected to our parish and town councils, because of their backgrounds. That is the reality of life. We draw careful distinctions, as we are right to do. It does not make life impossible, because it should not. If I may, I will explain how we try to deal with that.
Lebanon’s security services have a vital role to play in ensuring the country’s stability, security and sovereignty. That is why we promote their role as Lebanon’s sole guarantors of security. Power must be in the hands of the state, not the hands of non-state actors beholden to external forces. With an accountable and professional military in place, the Lebanese people would have less cause to turn to others for their security. That is why we have been working with the Lebanese armed forces since 2012 on a £61 million project to help secure the Lebanon-Syria border. Once complete, the Lebanese armed forces will have secured the entire Lebanon-Syria border for the first time in Lebanese history.
With our support, and the support of other key donors, the Lebanese armed forces have developed and modernised over the past 10 years, to become a respected, professional army capable of protecting Lebanon. I was pleased to meet them and see some of our work there last autumn when I went to Lebanon. The Lebanese forces demonstrated that progress in August last year by defeating Daesh on the Lebanon-Syria border in an operation involving UK-trained troops and border positions constructed with UK assistance. We want to help maintain that success. That is why, at the Rome II conference, I announced an additional £10 million of security support for Lebanon.
However, that security support from the international community will not be sufficient on its own to ensure a stable and secure Lebanon. It is vital that Lebanon’s next Government make clear political progress to strengthen the Lebanese state. We welcome Lebanon’s first parliamentary elections since 2009. We now hope to see the swift formation of a new Government addressing crucial issues. Lebanon cannot afford to be a factor for conflict in the middle east, because that will attract instability to itself.
The next Lebanese Government will have the important task of protecting Lebanon’s stability and security. They must do so by robustly implementing the policy of disassociation from regional conflict, by abiding by the provisions of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions—in particular 1559 and 1701—and by ensuring that the state’s legitimate security institutions hold the monopoly on the use of force. While the UK wants to continue to support Lebanon, I fear that the international community will find it increasingly difficult to do so if the next Government do not take concrete steps on those crucial issues. It is imperative that we see progress.
To conclude, Hezbollah’s actions and the reported size of its weapons arsenal are deeply concerning to the United Kingdom and a threat to stability in an already fragile region. The best way to tackle both those things is a secure and stable Lebanon with strong institutions, a professional army that inspires the trust of its people, and a Government who protect Lebanon from wider instability. We stand ready to support Lebanon in upholding these values and addressing the challenges it faces and to support those threatened by Hezbollah. We will continue to help them in relation to this difficult situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Voter ID Pilot Schemes
(6 years, 6 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
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered voter ID pilot schemes.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The voter identity pilot scheme that was used in five local authority areas in this year’s local elections signals one of the most disproportionate and ill-thought-out changes to our electoral system in recent years. As the only Labour Member of Parliament representing an area used in the pilot scheme, I feel compelled to give the other side to the story that is being given by those merely repeating buzzwords and top lines on behalf of the Government.
The foundations for the pilot are well known and, arguably, well intentioned. It is true that at election times there is the potential for cases of fraud or voter impersonation. I do not dispute the fact that any attempt at fraud or voter impersonation is wrong, should be thoroughly investigated and, if appropriate, prosecuted. Electoral fraud is a serious crime, but to suggest that it is a widespread problem is gross hyperbole, and the introduction of voter ID schemes is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
In Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland, where they have their own arrangements, there were 21 cases of alleged impersonation in polling stations in 2014, and 26 cases in 2015, amounting to 0.000051% of overall votes cast. In 2016 there was one successful prosecution and three cautions. In 2017 there were just 28 allegations of impersonation and one prosecution, equating to 0.000063% of overall votes cast.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate; she is making an excellent speech. On the point that she has just raised, is that not precisely why the respected and independent Electoral Reform Society is opposed to the scheme? The Equality and Human Rights Commission also warned the Government that a voter ID scheme would have a disproportionate impact on protected characteristic voters, such as those from ethnic minorities, older people, trans people and people with disabilities. That is precisely why the scheme should not have gone ahead.
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right that the Electoral Reform Society has criticised the scheme, stating that electoral fraud at the ballot box
“is an incredibly rare crime because it is such a slow, clunky way to steal an election—and requires levels of organisation that would be easy to spot and prevent.”
I will talk about protected characteristics later in my speech.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I rise to speak only because the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) mentioned the Electoral Reform Society. It is worth putting it on the record that after the election the Electoral Reform Society alleged, early in the day, that 4,000 people had been turned away from voting. It turns out that that number was massively overstated; the real number was actually, at most, 340. That was beautifully demolished by the Radio 4 programme “More or Less”. It is worth putting it on the record that the ERS was not very accurate in its analysis.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those points, but the reality is that it is very difficult to monitor how many people were disenfranchised, because some people did not turn out to vote or left the queues. That was certainly the experience in my constituency, which I will talk about later. I expect that the figure probably is quite a lot higher than the 300 that has been quoted.
The introduction of voter ID laws would make no difference to allegations of fraud with postal votes, proxy votes, breaches of secrecy, tampering with ballot papers, bribery, undue influence or electoral expenditure, which are arguably the areas where most electoral offences occur. Let me repeat: any attempted voter fraud or impersonation is wrong and should be thoroughly investigated, but the figures relating to alleged fraud at polling stations do not point to any widespread issue or problem relating to impersonation. An overhaul of the voting procedure by introducing identification requirements has been a step too far.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentioned Northern Ireland a moment ago. Given what she says, presumably there is evidence of marginalised groups being discriminated against in Northern Ireland. As I understand it, voter identification has taken place there simply and effectively for many years. What is the evidence of discrimination?
Ellie Reeves
There has certainly been clear evidence of people being disenfranchised in my constituency, which was part of the pilot. In fact, in Bromley, the area I represent, prior to the scheme being launched an impact assessment said that the scheme was likely to have an adverse impact on older people and trans people. That is evidence from Bromley’s risk assessment.
Ellie Reeves
I want to make some progress. I have big concerns about the potential disenfranchisement of voters in areas where people who are legally entitled to vote may not have identification in line with the requirements. Even before discussing the concept of voter ID, the requirements across the pilot schemes were wide ranging and different, meaning that aggregated findings or comparative analysis will both be questionable in any Government evaluation. Bromley, Gosport and Woking required ID documents, whereas Swindon and Watford required only a poll card. Interestingly, none of the trial areas had a significantly poorer or more ethnically diverse population than the national average, or any recent historical examples of voter fraud or voter impersonation.
As I said, Bromley Council’s impact assessment stated that there would be a noticeable effect on the elderly and trans people. It highlighted concerns that voters in those categories would be less likely to have up-to-date documentation in line with the requirements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said, prior to the roll-out the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned the Government that voter ID schemes would have a disproportionate impact on voters with protected characteristics, particularly those from ethnic minority communities, older people, trans people and people with disabilities.
Before committing to any further changes to the way in which citizens vote, we should look at the experience of other countries that have rolled out identification checks at elections. Experience from the United States has shown that voter ID schemes disproportionately affected marginalised groups, because those who could not afford to drive or go on holiday often did not have the specified documentation. Figures from the last census, recorded in 2011, show that 9 million people in the UK do not hold a driving licence and 9.5 million do not hold a passport. To put that in perspective, figures from the Electoral Commission show that 24% of the electorate do not have access to a passport or photographic driving licence.
Furthermore, 3.5 million people in Great Britain— 7.5% of the electorate—do not have access to any form of photo ID whatsoever. If voters live in shared accommodation or often move, they are also less likely to have bills or paperwork in their name. With regard to the groups highlighted in the various equality impact assessments, we must consider the impact on those unlikely to have up-to-date ID. The recent Windrush scandal has shown that even those who are legitimate citizens and voters have struggled to access services to which they are entitled. Further expansion of voter ID schemes could see the Windrush generation denied their democratic rights, adding further insult to injury.
Notwithstanding those points, it has also been reported today in The Guardian that two barristers have called into question the legality of the pilot, given that it made voting harder, casting further doubt on a scheme that might have unlawfully denied people their right to vote.
Mr Lord
The hon. Lady speaks about passports and driving licences, yet even Woking, which was an ID pilot area, allowed lots of different forms of photographic identification—I think 10% of those who voted had a senior bus pass, and various student cards were also admitted. She talks about millions of people being disenfranchised. In Woking only a tiny percentage of people did not hold any of the forms of strict ID—and, of course, such people could always apply for a free elector card.
Ellie Reeves
I will go on to talk about the experience in Bromley, where people were turned away. A number of different forms of ID could be taken to the polling station, but nevertheless people were disenfranchised, and I will speak about that in a moment. Unlike in Swindon and Watford, where voters were required only to bring their polling cards, in Bromley, Gosport and Woking, where formal ID was required, voter turnout was marginally down compared with the 2014 local elections. The scheme took place in five areas, but I can speak specifically, and with first-hand experience, about the impact of the trial in Bromley. Reports on polling day from the Bromley wards within my constituency highlighted numerous cases of voters being turned away and prevented from rightly casting their vote. The council’s figures suggest that 154 people in Bromley were unable to cast their ballot on 3 May. When I was out campaigning on the doorstep, I was told of a significant number of people telling activists that they would not be voting because they did not agree with the principle of being asked for ID. Although that is direct evidence of voter disenfranchisement, it is unfortunately incredibly hard to measure.
On polling day, four polling stations in the Crystal Palace ward in my constituency had already turned away multiple people by 10.30 am for not having the correct ID. When I went to vote at 8.45 am at my polling station, I was told of two people who had already been turned away. In addition, the increased time that it takes to do ID checks puts a strain on the rate at which polling stations can process voters. In the morning on polling day there were reports of queues in Bromley due to the extra processing time, and of voters leaving before casting their ballots because, understandably, people do not necessarily have the extra time to wait while also juggling family and work responsibilities.
I also heard reports of polling station staff not being fully briefed on what ID was acceptable. In one case, a voter with a bank card was initially refused, but subsequently showed the polling staff the guidance that stated it was a valid form of ID. How many people might they have turned away before being shown the correct guidance? Another case involved a voter with a utility bill on their phone, who was told by staff to go home and print the document out. The polling station staff clearly had not been given guidance on whether a digital copy was sufficient. Such examples suggest that polling stations across Bromley were not adequately prepared for the trial and that Bromley’s measurements of 154 voters being turned away are far from exact. I believe that many more people might have been turned off from voting.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate on an important issue. She is quite rightly highlighting some of the challenges that voters might face when we introduce a new system. Would she also accept that this was a pilot scheme, and that we aim to learn from pilots? Is she, in principle, supportive of the idea that voters should prove who they are when they go to the polls?
Ellie Reeves
No. For the reasons I have already set out and will continue to set out, I do not, in principle, support the changes because, as the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Reform Society have identified, it is likely to lead to widespread disenfranchisement. I say that 154 people being disenfranchised in Bromley is 154 too many.
Ellie Reeves
I agree that the scheme seems to disenfranchise certain groups, and that is something we should all be very worried about. The Labour party has been clear, repeatedly, that we believe the pilot to be misguided. I understand that more than 40 campaign groups that share our view have contacted the Cabinet Office, calling on the Government to drop any further roll-out.
Mr Harper
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I promise that I will not intervene again. She mentions the Labour party. Why is it that she does not think people should have to prove their ID when they are voting in public elections, yet my understanding is—although I am obviously not an expert—that the Labour party in internal party elections, such as those for selecting candidates, insists that people have to show ID to prove who they are? Is that not a little hypocritical?
Ellie Reeves
It is right when people vote in internal Labour party elections that they can demonstrate that they are a Labour party member. That is completely different from someone exercising their democratic and fundamental right to vote in elections for their representatives in local government or in Parliament. The analogy is misguided and wrong.
When the issue of the pilot schemes was recently raised at Cabinet Office questions, the Minister suggested that the pilot was deemed by the Department to be a success. However, there is no doubt that voters were denied votes and that voters were put off—disproportionately so, in comparison with previous reports of voter fraud. Can a flagrant disregard for disenfranchising voters really be regarded as a success? In the year of celebrations marking the centenary of the Representation of the People Act 1918 and women being entitled to vote, do we really think it is appropriate to advocate a scheme that has irrefutably excluded some voters?
Turnout at general elections has faltered over the past 25 years and it was encouraging to see a 2.5% increase in votes cast at the 2017 snap election. I am concerned that, were the scheme to be rolled out further, we would see greater issues at the next general election.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. I wonder whether she shares my concern about vulnerable groups. None of the five trial areas had significantly older, poorer or ethnically diverse populations. How can we be sure that a large number of such voters would not be disenfranchised?
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. I have very real concerns that if the scheme were to be rolled out in inner-city London constituencies or Manchester constituencies, for example, where there are much larger ethnic minority communities, swathes of the electorate could be disenfranchised. In my view, swathes of voters could be turned away if this scheme was rolled out country-wide at a general election. Voter ID does little to instil confidence in our electoral system or encourage greater participation—in fact, quite the opposite.
On current data, figures and analysis, we have a pilot scheme that risks disenfranchising many and creating issues that did not previously exist. The 2017 figure that 0.000063% of overall votes cast were allegedly fraudulent is set against data that shows that 7.5% of the electorate do not hold any photographic ID, which means the number of those at risk of disenfranchisement outweighs the number of allegations of voter fraud by a factor of more than 119,000. I have previously used the analogy of a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but I am no longer confident that that is a sufficient metaphor to describe the utterly disproportionate methods we have seen trialled this year.
Although the schemes will now be evaluated by the Government and the Electoral Commission will prepare its own report, I am concerned that the schemes will be clumsily rolled out across the country through secondary legislation without due care and attention, as exhibited in the run-up to the pilot, and we could find ourselves with a cumbersome, ill-thought-out electoral process that leaves thousands of legitimate voters without their democratic voice. At the moment the Government find themselves patting each other on the back, congratulating themselves on a job well done, but I must tell the Minister that the pilot cannot be regarded as a success. I have voiced legitimate concerns on behalf of my constituents who took part in the pilot, and their opinion and experiences must be taken on board. If not, this Government will have voter disenfranchisement added to their ever-growing charge sheet on alienating the public. It is surely time to think again.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) for securing this debate. It is really important that the House has the opportunity to discuss voter ID.
Some Members may be aware that I laid a ten-minute rule Bill to discuss voter ID before the House. Since I presented that Bill, many constituents and others from around the country have raised the subject with me, expressing their enthusiasm for the scheme. Many people find it incredible that they do not have to show ID when they go to a polling station. They have to show ID when they collect a package from Royal Mail, and in so many other parts of life—it is a common and accepted thing. Why, when engaging in such an important matter as democracy, is the threshold for participation so low? A minimum threshold of proving who you are to engage in democracy is quite reasonable.
Mr Harper
As my hon. Friend says, it is important for someone to be able to show their identity. Does he welcome the fact that a range of different mechanisms were tried in the different pilot areas? Is he also aware of the fact that in Northern Ireland, where they have had this system in place for many years—a system that was legislated for by a Labour Government—any voter can have an ID card free of charge to use specifically to prove their identity in an election, and that that does not seem to have caused particular problems?
Chris Green
That is of great importance, and I agree entirely. A range of forms of identification were checked in these schemes, and a variety of options could be used. Northern Ireland, where there is excellent participation, is a role model for how the scheme can be implemented in the rest of the country.
Mr Dhesi
Northern Ireland has invested millions of pounds over a considerable period to put that scheme in place. Such a scheme would have to be rolled out across the whole of England, but in these austere times we are led to believe that we do not have the money for our NHS. If we have the money for this pilot scheme, surely money should also be spent on much worthier causes, such as our NHS and our education system.
Chris Green
I think we have a different point of view. I hope that my constituents regard our democracy as very important and worth investing in. Northern Ireland is a role model for how this can be delivered. It is interesting that there has been no evidence forthcoming from Northern Ireland about people with protected identities being disadvantaged. I would have thought that Opposition Members might focus a bit more on the evidence from the United Kingdom, rather than referring to the United States of America, which has a very different system.
People expect to show ID. In fact, people often think they are disenfranchised because they have lost their voter card. It is posted out weeks before the election, and if people lose it they think, “I don’t have my card, so I can’t vote. I’m disenfranchised.” If we use forms of ID that people carry daily, they will feel more confident attending the polling station, presenting their ID, voting and participating in our democracy. As was highlighted previously, that is no less than the Labour party expects.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman rightly stated that the democratic right that we enjoy should be protected, but is he concerned that this measure has been introduced without an Act of Parliament?
Chris Green
At the moment, we are just looking at trial schemes. It is important to have evidence from trials before we roll out the scheme across the country. There were five pilots around the country for checking voter ID.
My constituents are also concerned about postal voter fraud, and there was a postal vote trial in Peterborough, Slough and Tower Hamlets. When people think about voter fraud and corruption of the political system, they think of Tower Hamlets. It was not the Mayor of London but a Mayor in London who was kicked out of office because of irregularities in the voting system in Tower Hamlets. Statistics such as 0.000-whatever per cent are not very relevant when a Mayor in London has been kicked out of office. I welcome these pilots, and I hope the Minister will give some indication of when the scheme can be rolled out across the country, because my constituents would welcome that.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I am delighted to follow my fellow five-a-side footballer, the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green). I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), who passionately outlined her position, but as the hon. Member for Bolton West just outlined, although Tower Hamlets was not in the voter ID pilot, we were a postal voter pilot, so we have some experience of this. I will speak briefly, because other colleagues want to contribute.
I support the Government’s efforts to protect our democracy. I am not persuaded by the argument that people have been deterred, and especially not by the argument about pensioners not having passports or driving licences. Every pensioner in London has got a freedom pass. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the freedom pass, which is photographic ID—I do not know any pensioner in London who does not have such a card, which allows them to take advantage of free travel—is an appropriate document for the trials.
The hon. Member for Bolton West mentioned Tower Hamlets. We have had allegations of fraud in every single domestic election except 1997, including of personation, intimidation and postal vote manipulation. The ID proposals should deal with personation. Intimidation has been dealt with by establishing sterile areas outside every polling station, which are policed by the Metropolitan police at every election. I think postal voting is still far too lax, which is why I am glad Tower Hamlets participated in the pilot. Every political party has been spending far too much time harvesting postal votes from its supporters. Anyone can sign up for a postal vote, which is to the parties’ advantage, but I think that devalues postal voting and lightens the democratic burden on the citizen to participate in our democracy.
The final paragraph of the Tower Hamlets briefing that I sought for this debate, which was very superficial, says:
“On completion of the two stages the data compiled was extracted and forwarded to the Electoral Commission for analysis in accordance with the requirements of the order. Once analysed by the Commission all stakeholders—namely the Commission, Cabinet Office and Tower Hamlets Returning Officer—will meet to compare the data extracted, review the process and explore the merits of these pilots and any further schemes that may be considered necessary in the future.”
My question to the Minister is, is there a timeframe for when we might hear what the conclusion of that analysis was?
Postal voting is far too easy. I had a look at the briefings from the House of Commons Library, the Electoral Commission and the Electoral Reform Society. I had to chuckle at the briefing from the Electoral Reform Society, because one of the frequently asked questions it attached to its response is:
“Don’t you need ID to vote in Europe?”
It says:
“Nearly all European countries have mandatory ID card schemes with either free or low-cost cards. As the ID cards are mandatory all voters have ID cards, so no groups of voters are discriminated against.”
I am very disappointed that, when the Labour Government proposed ID cards, we were beaten back by the liberal left, the libertarian right and the media, which said, “This is outrageous and too expensive.” It not only would have dealt with voter fraud and personation but would have improved security, dealt with NHS tourism and helped to deal with benefit fraud, but the proposals were defeated.
Voters welcome the opportunity to defend their right to vote. That is a precious privilege that we need to defend—I do not think that that view is something that is under attack. I will be listening to the Minister, because I think these pilots are important. Serious questions are rightly being asked of the pilots, and the Government will have to defend their conclusions, but I am not opposed to the fact that the pilots took place, as we need to defend our democracy as best we possibly can.
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
My constituency of Woking was one of the areas that had a voter ID pilot, and I think it is fair to say that it was the strictest of them all. It demanded a specific item of photographic voter ID or an elector card, which could be applied for before 5 pm on Wednesday—the day before polling day. Woking Borough Council has already submitted an interim report, which states:
“Voters across the Borough were required to show one of a number of approved forms of photographic identification before they were issued with their ballot paper at the polling station. Where electors did not have one of the approved forms of identification, there was the option to obtain a free Local Elector Card, with 57 of these cards issued during the trial.
Figures demonstrate that out of 18,851 voters who attended a polling station, 99.73% of electors provided the right form of photographic ID. In total, 51 people (0.27%) brought the wrong ID or attended with no ID and were not issued with a ballot paper. The report indicates that overall turnout to the election was unaffected by the trial, comparing favourably to previous elections at 37.75% compared to 37.71% in 2017 and 35.81% in 2012 (when the last Borough only election was held)”.
That is a pretty remarkable result.
Ray Morgan, Woking Borough Council’s chief executive and returning officer, expressed satisfaction with the trial:
“Given that 99.73% of voters brought a correct form of ID and engaged positively with the pilot and only 0.27% did not, I think we can call this trial a great success. I would like to thank Woking’s electorate for their cooperation and understanding throughout the trial. I would also like to acknowledge the hard work of all members of polling station staff and Council officers in the lead up to the election, and on the day, to make the new process such a success.”
I would like to add my personal thanks. Mr Morgan continued:
“Following our experiences in the polling stations on 3 May, I see no reason why bringing ID to vote cannot be embedded in our democratic process and have already expressed my desire to the Cabinet Office that Woking continues to participate in any future trials.”
We have heard some good speeches on both sides of this debate, but I remind those who seem to have set their face against voter ID for local and parliamentary elections that only a handful of votes can be crucial. In one of the 10 wards up for election in Woking this summer, one of the candidates won by just 10 votes and another by just 16 votes. Indeed, in recent years in Woking we have had single-figure majorities in different wards.
Chris Green
Given the numerous different ways to determine a draw, whether tossing a coin, drawing a straw or pulling a card, would it not be advantageous in the event of a dead heat in an election for voters to know that every one of the votes cast had been genuine? The election may be for a town council, borough council or a Member of Parliament, and at a time of minority Governments, as we have now, that could determine the Government of the country.
Mr Lord
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and important point. In the 2017 general election, as we all know, the constituency of North East Fife was won by the Scottish National party candidate by only two votes. Further parliamentary seats were won by fewer than 100 votes, such as Perth and North Perthshire with 21 votes, Newcastle-under-Lyme with 30 votes, Southampton, Itchen with 31 votes, Richmond with 45 votes, Crewe and Nantwich with 48 votes, Glasgow South West with 60 votes, Glasgow East with 75 votes and Arfon with 92 votes. A small number of votes can swing seats at a parliamentary election and therefore determine who are the Government of the day.
Jim McMahon
The percentage of people turned away in Woking was about 0.2%, but 45 million people voted in 2017, and if 0.2% had been turned away, that would be 90,000 people. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that is proportionate?
Mr Lord
I would make two points in response to that. First, one should not necessarily accept that all those who were refused the right to vote were genuine voters. Everyone received several reminders about voter ID and had the opportunity, if without the right ID, to get a local elector card. It is important to note that people must come to the polling station with the correct ID, as they do in Northern Ireland. Woking went out of its way to publicise that. This was effectively the first time ever that people were asked to present voter ID at the polling station, and personally I think that the number of refusals was remarkably small. For a pilot area, a one-off, I do not think that anyone would expect anything else.
Furthermore, as I have said already, the turnout increased by comparison with the most equivalent elections. If we extrapolate from that, that is hundreds of thousands of voters across the nation in a general election.
Jim McMahon
I do not want to explore this cyclical argument too much, but let us say that we learn from this experience and voters become used to it, so that instead of 0.2% the figure falls to 0.1%. Does the hon. Gentleman believe, even so, that it is proportionate for 45,000 people to potentially be excluded, when only 28 allegations of voter fraud were made in the last general election?
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. Before we hear the answer to that intervention, I must say that we shall start the wind-ups at 10 minutes past 5, and I would very much like to get another speaker in.
Mr Lord
Of course, Sir Christopher. In response to the intervention, I would say a couple of things. First, the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) said when introducing the debate that none of the pilot areas had a history of voter fraud. I am afraid that that is not the case in Woking: there is a history of voter fraud, in one ward in particular. When Opposition Members talk about the very few accusations of and convictions for personation, that is a vast underestimate of the potential level of fraud.
Anecdotally, I am afraid to say, where postal voter fraud has happened in the past, lots of personation was almost certainly going on as well. I have heard horror stories from various parts of the country, including Woking, because personation is so easy. All that is needed is to know that someone is going on holiday, and anyone of the right sex can simply turn up at the polling station giving that name and address. That is all that is required, so in a marginal ward with a history of voter fraud, it is ridiculous to suggest that personation has not been taking place. Furthermore, we know from our history that personation in Northern Ireland did take place.
To sum up, it is well past time for us to have voter ID for our British elections. It has worked in Northern Ireland and worked remarkably well in our pilot areas, and I urge the Minister and the House to adopt it expeditiously.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) on securing this debate, but I have to state clearly that I cannot support her point of view. I shall speak from a Northern Ireland perspective and explain in a short time—a very short time, as it turns out—exactly what we have done.
The Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland is the returning officer and has responsibility for electoral registration, compiling the electoral roll and managing all elections in Northern Ireland. By and large, that has worked pretty well. Before the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, the head of household was required to register all residents who were eligible to vote. The 2002 Act changed the registration procedure, introducing individual electoral registration and requiring eligible voters to provide the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland with their signature, date of birth, national insurance number and current residence. The Act also required voters to present photographic identity.
Many people in Northern Ireland therefore acquired an ID card, first, for purposes of electoral identification and, secondly, because when travelling from Northern Ireland to the mainland, photographic evidence has to be provided. The ID card was a method of doing so. People could get an ID card for the price of two photographs, whereas applying for a passport cost £68, or £40 for an Irish passport. That was how it was done, so people saved money.
Over the years, we have encouraged our constituents to apply for ID cards, and many have done just that. ID cards were introduced to counter a lack of public confidence in the electoral process in Northern Ireland. By and large, the Act changed that. There are still some issues with proxy and postal votes, but those can be looked at and changes made. A voter ID card scheme is one that I would support fully.
I will give a quick example of where frustrations can arise. My parliamentary aide’s sister came into my office one election to say that she had moved house. Having completed the sale on the day that registration closed, she thought her vote would stay with the house, but the person who bought it registered there and she lost her vote. That is an example of where people need to be sharp. By the way, that was not illegal—it was the system running as it should, and there is nothing wrong with that. The fact that I may have lost two votes is only part of it; the rules were being enforced.
I will conclude, Sir Christopher, because you have been clear on your timescales. There must be reform here on the mainland and there must be further reform in Northern Ireland to address proxy votes and postal votes. It is essential that we encourage more people to get on the register and use their vote, but also that we are as confident as possible that the vote returned reflects the will of the electorate and is not a result of fraud or scamming. That is what we need to do, and I would encourage the Minister to do that in England as well. Let us do it everywhere, right now.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
We have a real problem in this country with democratic participation and engagement. At the last general election, 14.6 million people who were registered and entitled to vote did not do so. In all parts of the country, at every local election we do not have a majority of those who are entitled to vote taking part in the election. In other words, our democracy hangs by these very shoogly nails, and we all ought to be extremely concerned about the situation. It therefore bewilders me that in the midst of all the things we need to do, the Government are committing so much concern and energy to this particular issue, which as far I can see has not been demonstrated to be a problem at all.
As others have said, we are talking about 28 alleged cases of personation last year—one case for every 1.6 million people who voted.
Tommy Sheppard
I am afraid I do not have time.
That seems to be a problem so marginal as not to require Government attention. We also know that the public are not concerned: a survey released today by the Electoral Reform Society showed electoral fraud at the very bottom of a list of potential concerns the public have about the voting system
Tommy Sheppard
I am sorry, but I will not take interventions because we are short on time.
Unlike in Northern Ireland, where there was a serious problem, the instances alleged appear to be sporadic and individual rather than as a result of any organised campaign to scam an election—I have yet to see any evidence that the latter is the case. Given that, why are the Government so concerned and being egged on by some members of the governing party, for whom this seems to have become something of an obsession? Indeed, I note that someone recently put in a freedom of information request to the Human Tissue Authority, which regulates dead bodies, to ask what information it has about electoral fraud, as if we are looking at zombie voters coming to influence the situation.
As the evidence is not there that this is a huge problem that needs to be tackled, there is a case in what the Opposition are saying. In fact, the motivation is party political, with people seeking a party advantage. It is the case, is it not, that photo identification is less likely to be held by people who are unemployed, people who earn low incomes, black and minority ethnic groups, people with disabilities and migrant communities? All of those people have one thing in common: they are less likely to vote for the Conservative party. It seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) said, potentially very few votes influence the outcome of an election, if photo ID achieves the suppression of participation by voters in those categories—
Tommy Sheppard
I am sorry, but I have only 60 seconds left.
There is a severe problem here. We need to look seriously at the results of the pilot. I would like the Minister to respond. It will not be good enough if all the Electoral Commission does is speak to the returning officers in those five areas and finds out who voted and who was turned away; we need to know much more than that. We need the breakdown of who was turned away and what their characteristics are, to see whether there are any particular trends. More importantly, we need to know not just who was turned away but who never turned up in the first place. People have suggested that there was no effect on turnout, but surely that was in part because there was a publicity campaign in those five areas, so people will have known that if they did not have photo ID, there probably was not much point in going to the polling station. Clear scientific research needs to be undertaken to find out whether that was the case before there is a further roll-out.
I plead with the Cabinet Office and the Minister to understand that there are much greater priorities in improving our electoral system than this. It is surely time, in the 21st century, that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote. It is surely time to have automatic registration. And it is surely time that we piloted online voting, where there would be absolute security in who votes and absolute guarantees against personation and fraud.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) on securing the debate. I very much echo the concerns she raised.
It is deeply concerning that voters, some of whom have voted their entire lives, were denied a voice in last month’s local elections as a direct result of discriminatory policies introduced by this Government. The Government present voter identification as a solution to tackle the specific issue of voter impersonation in polling stations. Electoral fraud is a serious crime and every allegation must be investigated fully. Indeed, isolated incidents of electoral fraud have taken place and it is vital that the police have the resources they need to prosecute.
However, the proposals outlined by the Government are clearly disproportionate. In 2017 there were 28 allegations of impersonation out of nearly 45 million votes cast—one case for every 1.6 million votes cast. Of those 28 allegations, one case resulted in a conviction. None of the five English boroughs that took part in the pilots has experienced a single instance of impersonation in the past decade. The scale of electoral fraud in this country has caused many, including Dr Stuart Wilks-Heeg, head of politics at the University of Liverpool, to describe voter ID as
“a solution in search of a problem”.
Does the Minister agree with that assessment?
The Government clearly recognise the flaws in their argument. When pushed, they claim that voter identification is designed to tackle the perception of electoral fraud. However, new research published today by the Electoral Reform Society shows that mandatory ID in polling stations is one of voters’ lowest concerns—just 4% of voters believe ID is the most important priority for our democracy. The top issues for voters were: ensuring that elections are free from the influence of large financial donations, an accurate voting register and balanced media coverage. That shows just how out of touch the Tories really are. To quote Professor Toby James from the University of East Anglia:
“Concerns more often arise from accusations of fraud made by politicians in the media, rather than concrete cases.”
A concern shared by Opposition Members is that restrictive voter ID requirements could disenfranchise voters. Approximately 3.5 million electors do not have any photo ID, and 1.7 million lack even a bank account. That makes mandatory voter ID with no free provision a barrier to many people exercising their right to vote. There is also a significant financial barrier to obtaining ID. Only recently the Government pushed through unpopular proposals to increase the cost of adult passports from £72.50 to a whopping £85. In this context, it is deeply concerning to read a comment posted by Islington Conservatives on Twitter the day after the local election that, “Voting is not compulsory so ID doesn’t need to be free”. Will the Minister condemn the statement made by her colleagues in Islington?
Article 3 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which was incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998, protects our right to free elections, including the right to vote. Under the law, voting is a right, not a privilege, and voting rights are closely linked to the rights to freedom of expression and to freedom of assembly. It is therefore extremely misleading for the Government to argue that voting is like picking up a parcel from the post office, where some ID is required.
The European convention on human rights outlines that the right to vote is not absolute—conditions can be imposed, which is why it is lawful to have residency or minimum age requirements. However, these conditions must pursue a legitimate aim, be proportionate and not prevent free expression in choosing the legislature. As I said, the measures piloted last month are clearly disproportionate to the amount of voter impersonation in England, and therefore do not fulfil the legal requirement.
Laura Smith
I have no time.
I would also be interested to hear the Minister’s response to today’s intervention by Blackstone Chambers. According to Anthony Peto QC, the joint head of Blackstone, and fellow barrister Natasha Simonsen, schemes
“that restrict or discourage voting, or that inhibit voters,”
are beyond the scope of the Representation of the People Act 2000. Those leading barristers concluded that the pilots were illegal because they were incorrectly imposed by ministerial diktat rather than through Parliament. The Conservative party appears to have completely disregarded the rule of law. Does the Minister agree that, following that intervention, it is impossible for her Government to justify their undemocratic and unlawful plans?
The Windrush scandal demonstrated that it can be difficult for some communities to provide official documentation. This is the same hostile environment all over again, and it is shutting our fellow citizens out of public life. The Government were also warned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and more than 40 leading charities and academics in two separate interventions that voter ID requirements have a disproportionate impact on ethnic minority communities, older people, trans people and people with disabilities.
I have to start winding up, because I am running out of time.
Laura Smith
I will wind up really quickly.
Does the Minister seriously believe that the Government are making voting accessible for everyone? The Labour party believes in a democracy for the many, not the few. We want everyone’s voice to be heard, no matter what their background, which is why we call on the Government to abandon their dangerous plans.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
May I first thank the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) for requesting the debate, and everyone who has taken part in it?
Haven’t we heard some big words from Opposition Members? We have heard “disenfranchised,” “discriminatory” and “voter suppression” bandied about. Last time I looked in the dictionary, disenfranchisement meant not having the right to vote. We have one of the largest electoral registers this country has ever seen. Having every opportunity to cast a vote, with carefully designed safeguards and a safety net, is not disenfranchisement, it is not voter suppression and it is not discriminatory. Let me get that out of the way at the start.
The success of the pilots highlights that a reasonable and proportionate measure was taken. Voter turnout remained steady in all the trial areas—indeed, in one area there was a notable increase. The overwhelming majority of people cast their vote without a problem. I pay credit to the returning officers in the pilot areas, who were undeterred by some ill-informed and regrettable scaremongering in the run-up to polling day. They delivered successful awareness-raising campaigns to ensure that voters knew the requirements in their area. It is of course returning officers’ duty to ensure that registers are as accurate and complete as possible, and it is absolutely their duty—and it is in everyone’s interest—to get people on the register and get them out to vote.
While I am on the subject of legal duties, let me answer a point made by the hon. Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith). The powers to make such pilot schemes are contained in section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 2000. The hon. Gentleman, perhaps mistakenly, suggested that no Act defined such a scheme. That is simply wrong; it is in the Representation of the People Act, which enables changes to be made to the rules regarding the conduct of elections. That Act was of course fully debated and passed by Parliament.
As we have heard, the estimates by the Electoral Reform Society, which is a political lobby group, of the number of people who were turned away from polling stations were wildly exaggerated. I really wonder why hon. Members should trust the survey that the society published today when the facts so clearly speak against its record. Data from returning officers in all five participating local authorities show that 340 electors who were asked to return to the polling station with the correct ID did not return. That represents just 0.06% of the electorate and 0.14% of votes cast. I have of course put those data in the Library.
The experience in Northern Ireland, where paper ID has been required since 1985, and photo ID since 2003, shows that once that requirement has become established, voters find it easy to be part of that reasonable idea. Indeed, the responsible Minister at the time—a Labour Minister—was clear that no one would be disenfranchised by those measures.
Despite repeated claims by the Opposition, many of the people I spoke to about the pilots before the elections, as others will have done, thought they were a common-sense approach. Some—particularly people from Austria, Canada, the Netherlands and the many other countries where showing ID is a normal part of the voting process—were surprised that we did not already need to take ID to the polling station. It is clear to me that people value their vote individually and want collective confidence, which is what the scheme is about.
I read what the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge wrote in some recent articles about electoral fraud, and about voter ID in particular. I am shocked that she does not seem to think that electoral fraud of this type could influence elections. Do those stolen votes not count? Do they not undermine confidence in the very process that puts us in this place and gives us the privilege of being here? Does not any type of electoral fraud threaten the resilience and integrity of a democratic system and the confidence that people have in it? What level of fraud would be palatable? How many voters is it okay to silence and have robbed of their vote? Electoral fraud is real. By definition, it is difficult to detect if it is done effectively.
Chloe Smith
I will not. I have to conclude, and the hon. Gentleman and others have had their chance to contribute.
Voter ID is of course just one element of efforts, which I hope command cross-party support, to protect and sustain the electoral system, which should be precious to us all. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) for coming along to express his support for voter ID. Indeed, he explained that he would go further and do more to protect the voting system. That is why we at the Cabinet Office, in partnership with the independent Electoral Commission and Crimestoppers, are working to ensure that people feel encouraged to report electoral fraud if they see it. I marvel at how the rest of the Labour party cannot bring themselves to support such efforts.
At the moment, it is easier to vote in someone else’s name than to collect a parcel at the post office, so doing nothing would be wrong. We cannot allow a crime to happen until it reaches a certain level. It is doubly unfortunate that the Labour party continues its scaremongering, especially given that the previous Labour Government introduced photo ID at polling stations across Northern Ireland in 2003. Although today’s Labour party might not think doing that is an acceptable step to protect our voting system, constituency Labour parties think it is good enough for them, as they routinely insist on ID. Doing one thing and saying another seems unprincipled to me. On top of that, Opposition Members came here to quibble about the numbers. This is not about statistics; it is about the principle. Why do they disagree with the principle of tackling electoral fraud?
Electoral fraud is not a victimless crime. The Electoral Commission stated in its 2013 review:
“The majority of people in communities affected by electoral fraud are victims rather than offenders. The people who are likely to be the victims of electoral fraud can be described as vulnerable.”
In his report on electoral fraud, Sir Eric Pickles explained clearly that it was
“local residents who lost out from the crooked politicians who bullied them and wasted their money. The law must be applied equally and fairly to everyone.”
I remain committed to ensuring that equality is integral to everything we do in elections policy. I met the EHRC earlier today, and we share common ground on ensuring that whatever we do has the rights of electors and the fairness, equality and inclusivity of our electoral system at its heart.
The hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge made repeated reference to photographic ID. I think she knows that was not helpful. That is not what the pilots required. Let me put on the record that no one needed to purchase ID documents to be able to vote in the pilots. Local authorities provided alternative methods free of charge, to ensure that everyone who was registered had the opportunity to vote.
The Government will reflect on the voter ID evaluation that the Electoral Commission publishes in July. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) will find that the Electoral Commission has published the list of the data that it will use in that evaluation. We will use that as an opportunity to review, among other things, how the awareness-raising campaigns operated and what could be improved.
I say again to the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge that I am grateful to her for bringing forward the points she made and for staying in touch with residents in one of the important pilot areas, but her arguments are not convincing. This really is a simple matter of principle: do we or do we not believe in stamping out electoral fraud? I do.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Ellie Reeves, you have 10 seconds if you want them.
Ellie Reeves
I thank everyone who took part in the debate. Let me point out a couple of things: 7.5% of the electorate do not have any form of photo ID, and a system that left 154 people in Bromley unable to vote is a clear example of disenfranchisement.
Written Statements
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign Affairs Council
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 28 May. 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 Brussels.
Foreign Affairs Council
Current affairs
The HRVP updated Ministers on EU activity on DPRK, Yemen, the Somalia partnership forum with Sweden on 25-26 June and the recent AU-EU College meeting. Ministers were briefed on the outcome of the MH17 investigation.
Iran
The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) discussed Iran. Ministers underlined the importance of preserving the JCPoA and welcomed the steps already taken by the European Commission to protect European companies that have engaged with Iran following the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions. The FAC commended all efforts, notably those of the HRVP and the E3 Foreign Ministers (France, Germany and the UK) to ensure that Iran continues implementing the agreement. Ministers also discussed the EU’s concerns around Iran’s ballistic missiles programme, its role in regional conflicts, and the human rights situation. Ministers stressed the need to continue engaging with the US, a long-standing partner and ally, on all issues, including Iran.
Venezuela
Ministers exchanged views on Venezuela, following the recent elections and adopted conclusions setting out the EU’s concerns.
Gaza
Over lunch, Ministers discussed the situation in Gaza and the US embassy in Israel’s move to Jerusalem. Ministers agreed on the need to act immediately to avoid further loss of life, including by improving humanitarian access. They also stressed the importance of a political process, and re-confirmed the united EU position on the need to find a two-state solution, with Jerusalem as the capital of both states.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Council discussed the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Ministers stressed the importance of a credible, legitimate, consensual and inclusive electoral process leading to elections in December 2018. Ministers agreed that a smooth handover of power was crucial and co-operation with the region was critical. Ministers also expressed their concern over the dire humanitarian situation, in the light of the recent Ebola outbreak.
Post Cotonou agreement
Ministers reviewed work on the Council decision authorising the Commission to open negotiations on the future partnership between the EU and the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries (post-Cotonou agreement). The Council asked EU Ambassadors to continue work on finalising and adopting the negotiating mandate under the leadership of the Bulgarian presidency.
Chemical Weapons
Under any other business, Ministers were updated on the international partnership against impunity for the use of chemical weapons meeting in Paris. Ministers supported the UK proposal for an extraordinary meeting of the conference of state parties.
Members agreed a number of measures without discussion:
The Council approved an extension of EU restrictive measures against the Syrian regime until 1 June 2019;
The Council adopted conclusions on enhanced EU security co-operation in and with Asia;
The Council adopted conclusions on strengthening civilian common security and defence policy (CSDP);
The Council adopted the EU’s annual report on human rights and democracy 2017 and the European Court of Auditors report on election observation missions;
The Council agreed to opening a European Union delegation to Panama;
The Council adopted conclusions on an EU position on combating the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons (SALW).
[HCWS738]
EU Transport Council
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I will attend the only formal Transport Council under the Bulgarian presidency (the presidency) taking place in Luxembourg on 7 June.
The Council is expected to reach a general approach on a proposal to revise the current regulation on safeguarding connectivity and competition in international air transport, which is intended to provide protection against subsidisation and unfair pricing practices in the supply of air services from non-EU countries. The Government places great importance on effective competition and liberalisation as a key enabler of international connectivity and considers that the proposed general approach is satisfactory.
Following this, the Council will be considering a general approach on a proposed directive on port reception facilities. The proposal aims to achieve a higher level of protection of the marine environment by reducing waste discharges at sea, as well as improved efficiency of maritime operations in port by reducing the administrative burden and by updating the regulatory framework. In negotiations, the UK has been generally supportive of the aims of the proposal but required clarification and consideration of the impacts to ensure that the final directive does not disproportionality impose additional or unnecessary burdens. We have also been successful in securing compromise and flexibility within the proposal, to ensure that the improvements to the directive do not unduly burden small ports and small ships.
Next, the Council will consider a number of files in phase one of the mobility package (published in May 2017). Firstly, the presidency will give a progress report focusing on proposals designed to improve the clarity and enforcement of the EU road transport market (the ‘market pillar’), and proposals on the application of social legislation in road transport (the ‘social pillar’).
The Council is expected to reach general approaches on two of the proposals in the Package. The first of these is a proposal to revise the current directive on the European electronic road tolling service (‘EETS’). The UK views the proposals for a revised EETS directive favourably. the proposal contains provisions that will assist the enforcement of toll and road user charge collection. The second is a proposal on goods vehicles hired without drivers, which is intended to make it easier for undertakings to hire vehicles registered in a member state other than that where the undertaking is established. This is not a matter with significant practical implications for the UK given the relative rarity of operators hiring goods vehicles in this way in the UK. We are content for both of these general approaches to be agreed.
Following this, the presidency has prepared two progress reports on proposals from phase two of the mobility package (published November 2017). The presidency will provide an update on the state of play thus far on proposals to amend the current directive on combined transport, which aims to encourage and facilitate modal shift away from the roads and on to alternative means of transport and reduce congestion, and the proposal to broaden the scope of the current directive on clean and energy efficient vehicles, where the UK is leading the transition to cleaner road transport.
Next, there will be a progress report on the proposed revision to the regulation on rail passengers’ rights and obligations. The UK shares the commission’s objective of strengthening the rights of rail passengers. We therefore support in principle the proposal’s aim of standardising and improving passenger rights, including by improving access for people with disabilities or reduced mobility.
Under any other business, the commission will present phase three of the mobility package (published May 2018), followed by information on the action plan for military mobility, and an update on the implementation of the EU cycling strategy. The delegations from Sweden and Greece will then provide information on automated and connected driving and functioning of the fair competition framework in the aviation sector within the EU, respectively. The commission will then provide information on the state of play for EU summer-time arrangements, and finally, the Austrian delegation will present the transport work programme of their forthcoming presidency of the Council of the European Union.
[HCWS737]
Contingent Liability
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing a contingent liability relating to a blight agreement between me, as Secretary of State for Transport, and Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL).
If the proposed airports national policy statement is designated, land in the location identified as potentially suitable for the development of the north-west runway scheme becomes blighted. Owners of qualifying land (predominately owner-occupiers of private housing) within that location would be able to serve a blight notice on the Secretary of State, which if valid would, in effect, both authorise and oblige the Secretary of State to purchase the land.
In order to avoid my department having to cover the cost of blight claims I, as Secretary of State, have entered into an agreement with HAL under which HAL assume the financial liability for successful claims. In the event the proposed NPS is designated, the cost of meeting blight claims will need to be met by my Department if the agreement were for some reason ineffective to transfer liability.
The maximum estimated contingent liability for the blight claims is £160 million, though actual gross liability is likely to be much lower, c. £5 million to £20 million, as most owners of qualifying property are thought likely to wait for the more generous offer of 125% from HAL, available following the granting of any development consent.
The Treasury approved this liability and the chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Transport Committee were notified of this contingent liability by letter of 16 May due to the confidential nature of the contingent liability at that time. A period of fourteen sitting days beginning on 21 May has been provided for issues or objections to be raised, and final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS739]
House of Lords
Immigration: “Right to Rent” Scheme
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact and effectiveness of the “right to rent” scheme following the most recent report of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration into their “hostile environment” measures, An Inspection of the “Right to Rent” Scheme.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have undertaken to reconvene the landlords consultative panel and to work with it to monitor the operation and impact of the scheme. We continue to raise awareness in this sector to promote compliance and in the past year the right to rent guidance has been viewed online nearly 450,000 times.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, that is welcome news and it is also welcome that the Government are reviewing their hostile/compliant environment regime, though it is not clear to what extent that will include a proper, thorough review of right to rent schemes. In view of the inspector’s damning observations that hitherto there has been no attempt to measure its impact and that it has yet to demonstrate its worth, plus evidence from the Residential Landlords Association and others of discriminatory consequences, will the Government now suspend the scheme until they have conducted this proper, thorough evaluation that the inspector and others have called for?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government have no intention of scrapping the scheme. The first phase of the scheme, in the West Midlands, was subject to evaluation by Home Office Analysis and Insight to test its impact on discrimination, vulnerable groups and homelessness, as well as its impact on the sector and local authorities. The Home Office report published on 20 October 2015 found no evidence that the scheme was having any adverse impact on any of these. It is important that noble Lords note that the right to rent scheme is relatively new. It should not be seen in isolation but as one of a number of provisions that deter illegal immigration and restrict the number of illegal migrants establishing a settled life in the UK.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the chief inspector’s report calls for monitoring and evaluation of the right to rent measures in terms of racial and other discrimination. He, like many in this House when the issue was debated, is concerned that risk-averse landlords could refuse to rent to black and minority ethnic tenants or those who have foreign-sounding names. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government are monitoring racial and other discrimination, and what baseline data they are using to determine whether discrimination has increased as a result of the right to rent scheme?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I said to the noble Baroness, an evaluation by the Home Office found no evidence of discrimination. We have found no levels of discrimination to date but we intend to reconvene the panel and monitor the effects of the scheme, as we do with any legislation.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given the difficulties of removing what might be up to 1 million illegal immigrants, it makes good sense to try to bring in measures that would encourage them to leave of their own accord? Is she aware that recent opinion polls have shown that between 70% and 80% of the public agree with the measures that the Government are taking?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Lord that if someone is here illegally, they should leave of their own accord. He is absolutely right that the public support that approach. It is also important to note that in 1997, as part of the “compliant environment” measures, the then Labour Government introduced the right-to-work proposals. To date those have worked well. Nobody should be in this country if they are not legally entitled to be.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, when the Bill went through this House, a number of us warned that the Government were turning landlords into unpaid and unqualified immigration officers as they now had to check on the immigration status of tenants or face penalties. As a landlord, I quite understand why landlords want to play it safe and rent only to people with bona fide UK passports, thus discriminating against the 17% of UK citizens who do not have a passport and those people who have a perfectly legal right to rent in this country but do not have proper paperwork. Is it right that landlords such as myself should be treated as unpaid immigration officers?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government do not expect landlords to be immigration experts. They are asked to carry out checks based on checks that were previously carried out in the sector. Landlords and agents are reminded in a code of practice of the need to conduct checks against all prospective tenants in a consistent manner. I understand my noble friend’s concerns but I say to him that the list of acceptable documents is broad and it is clear that the checks are not based solely on the examination of passports or immigration documents.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, recommendation 3 of the independent inspector’s report called on the Government to establish,
“a new ‘Right to Rent Consultative Panel’”,
with a remit to tackle the very issues the noble Earl raised in his question. Why have the Government not agreed to that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we have agreed to that and we are planning to reconvene the landlords consultative panel this year, in response to the noble Earl’s question.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as the co-chair of the consultative panel on right to rent at the Home Office. I am delighted to hear today that we are to be called together again; it has been 18 months since we last met. Looking at this report from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, does the Minister share my disappointment that, regarding the hostile environment we hoped would be created for rogue landlords, who willingly and knowingly take in illegal immigrants and then exploit them because they know no one will ever complain—whatever the rent and however awful the conditions—the report indicates that in fact very little has happened in that regard?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am glad that the noble Lord has brought up rogue landlords because during the housing Bill—a period of our lives we will never forget—we discussed this at length. To date, 400 rogue landlords have been fined. I hope the noble Lord is on the reconvened consultative panel—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Because he brings such great expertise in this area.
Courts: Modernisation
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beith
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when legislation to modernise the courts system will be introduced, as set out in the Queen’s Speech.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government introduced the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill into the House of Lords on Wednesday 23 May of this year. This legislation is the first step in implementing the wider reform package and the Government remain committed to implementing further court reform legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, it was nice to have such a quick response after tabling my Question but it really is a little mouse of a Bill. It has some useful provisions but why has it been stripped of almost all the court modernisation measures which were promised in the Queen’s Speech? How is it that halfway through a two-year parliamentary Session the Government have not found time for urgently needed and relatively uncontroversial provisions to enable the courts to modernise and speed up processes which cause delay and distress to court users, and which cost money that could be better spent improving access to justice?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this is a mouse that roared. It may be a small Bill but it has extensive implications for the operation of our court system. Splitting the legislation originally set out in the Prison and Courts Bill will allow the Government to progress these vital reforms utilising the time available in both Houses.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, one matter that the Bill does not deal with is what was addressed in Clause 37 of the Prison and Courts Bill. It provided for rules for an online procedure in courts and tribunals in appropriate cases. The Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, has recently stated the urgent need for such procedures. When will the Government act on this much-needed reform?
Lord Keen of Elie
As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, we intend to bring forward all of the reforms anticipated in the original Bill, which fell at the time of the general election, and we will do so as and when parliamentary time allows.
Baroness Couttie (Con)
My Lords, the Federation of Small Businesses is concerned that, with the online court system that has just been mentioned, there will be several disputes that small businesses will not be able to use the system to resolve. I would like to understand what the Government are doing for the offline dispute system to ensure that it is speedy, effective and cost effective in resolving some of these more difficult disputes.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, first, with regard to the online system, which is being piloted in a number of areas, over 16,000 people have already engaged with the pilots relating to online matters such as divorce and minor pleas in road traffic cases. In addition, we have the online system with regard to payment claims. We appreciate that there are those who will continue to have to engage with the offline systems and we are of course concerned to ensure that we make further progress with regard to court reform. But as I indicated earlier, that will be brought forward as and when parliamentary time allows.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, what we need is accessibility: a set of proposals, properly financed, for court staff, in person and over the phone, court documents and online resources all to be committed to helping court users, particularly litigants in person, to navigate their way through the litigation process. This will mean court officers changing their traditional position that they are not there to give advice. What proposals do the Government have along these lines?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, there is no reason why reallocated court staff will not be in a position to provide advice as they have in the past. We are at the commencement of an extensive reform of our court processes. Indeed, I quote the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals:
“While there is still much work to do, the introduction of this Bill is a positive first step in legislation to deliver reform”.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Carlile’s inquiry into youth justice were, in particular, to use youth courts, not adult courts, for young people, and more problem-solving courts. Does the Minister agree that we need to be more effective in dealing with young people in the courts so that we stop the revolving door into custody?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I entirely agree with the observations of the noble Earl.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s concept of modernisation of the court system seems to include court closures up and down the country and a reduction in the availability of legal aid, which has led to a growth in the number of litigants in person, causing great delays in the courts. In the circumstances, is it not the Government’s duty to ensure that any modernisation of the system is reflected in securing access to justice as opposed to making some fairly minor financial savings?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, of course what is paramount in the context of this reform is access to justice. As the reform programme progresses, we expect that we will need fewer courts and we will continue to review our estate to make sure that it is able to maximise the benefits of the reformed courts and tribunal service.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, there is an associated problem: the high cost of litigation. With lawyers’ fees running at around £575 an hour and barristers’ fees at more than £1,000 an hour, people are priced out of justice. Is it not time that this cabal against the public is looked at and examined by the Competition Commission?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I cannot accept the estimates of counsels’ fees that have been advanced at either the lower end or the higher end. Of course we are taking steps to contain the cost of access to justice, and it is important that we do so.
Brexit: Negotiations
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they expect to reach a full agreement with European Union negotiators on the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union before the European Council meeting in October.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, we have made significant progress on a withdrawal agreement, reaching agreement on more than three-quarters of the legal text and locking down the full chapters on citizens’ rights, the implementation period and the financial settlement. We are continuing to work hard and at pace to reach a final agreement by October.
Lord Dykes (CB)
I think the whole House appreciates that the Minister has been working hard to reassure Members of this House about these complicated matters. However, are the Government aware of the looming catastrophe they face, not least because the end-June meeting of the European Council is most unlikely to bail them out of their own mistakes? Is not, therefore, the moment of truth approaching—when the single market and the customs union will be the only practical options?
Lord Callanan
No, we have been very clear that we are leaving the single market and the customs union, and we remain optimistic, like the EU, that we should be able to reach an agreement by October.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this is rather a shambles, is it not? In fact, we are reading on the Channel 4 website that tempers within the Government are “fraying”. That is hardly surprising. The White Paper that David Davis said would be the,
“most significant publication on the EU since the referendum”,
is not appearing. I do not know whether the fact that the White Paper has not come out is worse for Parliament and the people here or for our negotiating partners in Brussels. Either way, we need to know what is going on. Will the Minister talk to his bit of the usual channels if I talk to mine and ensure that we have a proper debate on these negotiations immediately after the June summit?
Lord Callanan
When the noble Baroness said it was a shambles, I assumed she was referring to the Labour Party’s position on the EU, which, given the statements yesterday and by Keir Hardie on the radio this morning, is a disgraceful shambles—
Lord Callanan
It would indeed be impressive if Keir Hardie had gone on the radio this morning. I am sorry, I was of course referring to Keir Starmer.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Will the Government be advising citizens to stock up on dried, tinned and frozen food, jerry cans of fuel and their prescription medicines, given that it was reported at the weekend that Whitehall is planning for the port of Dover to collapse on day one of a crash-out no-deal Brexit, leading to a critical shortage of supplies? Will the Government share this planning with the public?
Lord Callanan
The claims that the noble Baroness refers to are completely false. A significant amount of work and decision-making has gone into our no-deal plans. We hope there will not be a no-deal situation but, as a responsible Government, we need to plan accordingly.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, setting aside both Cassandra and Keir Hardie, when is the White Paper due to be published?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, when will the Government see that they hold all the best cards in these negotiations? Why do they not offer Brussels continuing security, mutual residence and free trade—all of which are much more in the interests of the real people of Europe than they are of ours—and then tell the Eurocrats how much cash we will give their failing project, which will depend on how they have behaved with all of the above? Why should that take more than a month?
Lord Callanan
As the noble Lord is aware, we have offered the EU unconditional security guarantees, as is right and proper, and we are negotiating in good faith to achieve the free-trade relationship that he talked about.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, a moment ago the Minister made reference to the Government’s no-deal plan. Will he therefore confirm that the Government are seriously confronting the likelihood of leaving without a deal?
Lord Callanan
As I also said, we hope there will be a deal. We are working towards a deal and negotiating in good faith, as we believe our European partners are. However, as a responsible Government, it is important that we plan for all eventualities.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that if indeed we are in the unfortunate position of leaving without a deal, we will not be paying the £40 billion to the EU?
Lord Callanan
If there is no deal then there will be no withdrawal agreement, and that bill would be included in the withdrawal agreement so the noble Lord is correct.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
The Minister said we are negotiating in good faith. I thought the White Paper was supposed to be our negotiating plan. If the Government have a plan and we cannot see it, when are we going to see it? If they cannot see it either, what are they negotiating about?
Lord Callanan
We are negotiating on the issues that we discussed in the first round. We have reached agreement on citizens’ rights and the financial settlement, and we are discussing the Northern Ireland border. Of course what we want to do is get on to discussing the free-trade agreement and all the other settlement issues, which we will do in due course. We will publish a White Paper setting out our position in detail when it is ready.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, have the Government done enough to ensure that they carry domestic public opinion, including the right-wing press, with the deal that they eventually strike? I see announcements from the Government that we are going to continue to respect the decisions of the European Court of Justice in a number of areas, and clearly we are going to continue to contribute to a large number of European financial arrangements, according to the proposals that have been put out in the slide shows that were slipped out over the last two or three weekends. This is going to arouse a lot of anger on the Back Benches of the Conservative Party and in the Mail and the Telegraph. Should the Government not be preparing domestic public opinion for the necessary compromises that they are already beginning to propose to their European counterparts?
Lord Callanan
I am not sure that I would accept the scenario outlined by the noble Lord. We have always been clear that where there are areas in which we can co-operate with our European partners, in some small areas, we will make an appropriate contribution to the costs, but we have also been clear that the days of making vast contributions to the European budget are at an end.
Lord Spicer (Con)
Where does the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, get his forecasts of doom and gloom from? I hope it is not the Bank of England.
Lord Spicer
My Lords, where does the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, get all his forecasts of doom and gloom from? I hope it is not the Bank of England.
Lord Callanan
I do not presume to assume where the noble Lord gets his predictions of doom and gloom from, but they are probably wrong.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I must leave it to noble Lords on the Labour Benches to observe the courtesies of the House.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, the security of Europe is critical for the security of our nation. Seventy-four years ago today, we and the Americans invaded Normandy and ensured the safety of Europe. Do we now have agreements with the EU in the defence and security arena, because that is crucial for us?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord is of course correct about our proud history of contributing to the defence of Europe, and we should remember the sacrifices that were made on this historic day. We do not yet have agreement on security matters, but our offer of security guarantees is unconditional and, I think, very generous.
Abortion
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the result of the referendum to repeal the eighth amendment of the constitution of the Republic of Ireland, what assessment they have made of its impact on the ongoing criminalisation of women seeking access to abortions across the United Kingdom.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as the chair of the All- Party Parliamentary Group on Sexual and Reproductive Health.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, under existing arrangements women across the United Kingdom have access to high-quality, safe abortion services. Parliament decided the circumstances under which abortion can be legally undertaken. It is accepted parliamentary practice that proposals to change the law on abortion come from Back-Bench Members and that decisions are made on the basis of free votes.
Baroness Barker
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Do the Government not think it is wrong that women in Northern Ireland can be coerced to continue with a pregnancy under legislation passed in 1861 by MPs, all of whom were men elected solely by men? Does he not agree that to overturn Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act would enable the men and women of Wales, Northern Ireland and England to determine under what circumstances women should be able to access safe, legal abortion?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
It has been the position of successive Governments that abortion policy and law is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland, to be decided by elected politicians in Northern Ireland on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. That is our position: they should be the group that makes the decision.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
Can the Minister confirm, given the decision by a majority of the democratically elected Northern Ireland Assembly made in February 2016—an Assembly elected by the men and women of Northern Ireland—that it does not wish to change abortion law, and given that it has been recognised since the Government of John Major that Westminster would not impose abortion on Northern Ireland, that if the Government move to decriminalise abortion in England and Wales or to direct rule in Northern Ireland, they will not impose any change in abortion law on the people of Northern Ireland, particularly at this most difficult and sensitive time?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Our intention—that of the Government and the Northern Ireland Office—is to restore a power-sharing agreement and arrangement in Northern Ireland so that it will be up to the people of Northern Ireland and their elected officials to decide on abortion policy.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the Northern Ireland Assembly is not meeting at the moment. This matter, which is the issue of the Question put by the noble Baroness, is not a devolved matter. Could the Minister give the House an indication of the Government’s response to the debate led by my honourable friend Stella Creasy in the Commons yesterday? A cross-party amendment will be tabled to the upcoming Domestic Violence Bill that will seek to decriminalise abortion across England, Wales and Northern Ireland through the repeal of Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. That is not a devolved matter.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I merely reiterate the point that abortion policy is a devolved matter. Indeed, that has been the policy of successive Governments of all hues. Of course, it is ultimately up to Parliament to make a decision, and any move that came from Parliament would emanate from within Parliament, from the Back Benches, on the basis of a free vote, as I set out in my first Answer.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, would the Minister agree with me that if, in fact, Westminster legislates on this matter, effectively devolution has been put off for a long time? Does he accept that this is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland and its elected representatives? Incidentally, the DUP is ready to go back into the Assembly tomorrow morning.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I agree with the noble Lord that it is and should be a decision for the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. As anyone who watched or read the transcript of the debate in the Commons yesterday will know, there is a profound disagreement about what the implications would be of repealing Sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act. If that were brought forward, there would be a discussion in Parliament on the consequences of that and on its interaction with the devolution settlement.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, following yesterday’s debate in another place, the Minister for Women and Equalities said:
“With authority comes responsibility. Message from NI Secretary of State today: NI should take that responsibility. Message from the House of Commons: if you don’t, we will”.
Does my noble friend agree?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The position of the Government is that this ought to be a decision for the elected representatives of Northern Ireland representing the people of Northern Ireland, which is why we are determined to restore power-sharing agreements and arrangements as soon as possible—so they can make that decision.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
If the Supreme Court rules tomorrow that Northern Ireland’s abortion laws are in contravention of human rights laws, will the Minister confirm that the Government will move to repeal sections of the 1861 Act and decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland set out in her statement yesterday in the debate, we are aware of the decision coming imminently tomorrow and that both we and the Northern Ireland Executive will consider that judgment carefully.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister agree that the caricature of the people of Northern Ireland as living in some antediluvian society has to be measured against a law that has led in Great Britain to some 9 million abortions—that is one every three minutes, 20 every single hour and 600 every working day, with one in five pregnancies now ended by abortion, and abortion up to and even during birth in the case of babies with disabilities, leading to 90% of all babies with Down’s syndrome being aborted? Is that something that we have a right to export to Northern Ireland, or do we not have a belief in devolution and the right of people in Northern Ireland to make up their mind on that issue for themselves?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I would not presume to make a caricature of the people of Northern Ireland in one way or another. What this debate has demonstrated is that there are deeply held beliefs in this area and, of course, there are significant consequences of decisions on abortion law in one regard or another. It has emphasised that those decisions, which are incredibly significant, ought to be made by the people whom they affect, via the elected representatives whom they put in power.
Rape Trials
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morris of Aberavon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in light of the statement given by the Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday that between January and mid-February this year there were 47 cases where the CPS failed to disclose vital evidence before a rape trial, what action the Government intend to take to ensure that this does not happen in the future.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are clear that ensuring disclosure requirements are met is vital for a fair trial and public confidence. The Attorney-General is leading a wide-ranging review of disclosure practices and aims to report by the summer. The findings of the review of rape and serious sexual offence cases, published by the Director of Public Prosecutions yesterday, will feed into a wider operational response to delivering necessary improvements in the system.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
My Lords, the disclosure of unused material that assists the defence or undermines the prosecution is vital to a fair trial. Does the noble and learned Lord still stand by his earlier reply that we have not gone backwards? Would he like to comment on yesterday’s evidence by the Director of Public Prosecutions, which differs wholly from her bold assertion in January that she did not think disclosure failings would have led to people being wrongly jailed? Where is the failure to grip the situation: the police or the CPS?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the review that was undertaken involved consideration of 3,637 cases in the period between 1 January and 13 February this year. In respect of those cases, 47 were identified where there were concerns about the management of disclosure. However, that does not mean that this was the reason for the discontinuance of the prosecution in each and every one of those cases. There is of course concern that disclosure should be carried out fully and properly pursuant to the legal requirements of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. That obligation lies not only on the police and Crown Prosecution Service but on the defence, which is required within a certain period—28 days—to give a defence statement. That, in itself, indicates where there may or may not be room for further investigation of material that could pertain to the prosecution case or assist the defence. It is necessary for all parties involved in this process to engage in order that it can be properly discharged.
As I indicated earlier, further work is being undertaken by the Attorney-General to deal with this question, which we hope to report upon by the summer. I do not accept that we are going backwards. Technology is going forward, and very quickly indeed. We now live in an environment in which there are vast quantities of social media apps—Instagram, Facebook and the like—that can be contained on one or two mobile devices and which make demands upon the police service, the Crown Prosecution Service and indeed the defence. They did not exist 10 years ago. We are seeking to meet those demands; it is important that we do so.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the number of recent cases collapsing following late disclosure—many of them well publicised—is frankly a disgrace. It is made even worse because it has often happened when defendants have been remanded in custody pending their trial. The Director of Public Prosecutions says that the prosecution is disclosing relevant evidence to the defence in the vast majority of cases, but it needs to be—so far as it can be achieved—invariable. I hear endless anecdotal reports from criminal lawyers that these failings are widespread and attributable largely to a lack of resources, often to download and go through smartphone records—as the noble and learned Lord’s last answer implicitly recognised. We accept that trawling through records harvested from confiscated smartphones is time-consuming and expensive, but fairness and justice require it. Can the noble and learned Lord guarantee that the Government will respond to recent failures by giving all necessary resources to be devoted to this work to ensure that we achieve full disclosure of relevant material to the defence?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we must always aspire to full disclosure in circumstances when material could otherwise undermine a prosecution or assist the defence to a criminal charge. No one would doubt that for a moment. As I understand it, there has been no complaint to date about a lack of resources as regards the police and the CPS. I go back to the point I made earlier, that these obligations with regard to disclosure extend beyond the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to the defence as well. I am not in the business of giving guarantees, but we will look clearly, unambiguously and carefully at the findings of the Attorney-General’s investigation in the summer and will respond appropriately to its conclusions.
Lord Judge (CB)
How can the obligations imposed on the defence by the 1996 Act excuse or explain failures by the prosecution to disclose relevant material?
Lord Keen of Elie
They do not necessarily explain such a situation. However, in circumstances where the defence actually obtempers its obligation to provide a defence statement, it is possible to identify further areas of inquiry for the disclosure of material. For example, if the defence statement discloses that that there was a pre-existing relationship between a complainer and the defendant, it will be possible to make further inquiries to ensure that material that might otherwise have gone unnoticed is disclosed to the defence. Therefore these matters are connected.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble and learned friend clarify his comments on social media and the extent to which, in cases where the prosecution has information that is available on social media, it is disclosed to the defence counsel?
Lord Keen of Elie
In circumstances where it has been possible to download material that involves communications either between a complainer and the accused or between the complainer and third parties, that material will be analysed and all relevant material will be taken and disclosed to the defence. Of course, it is not always possible to access this material. We now live in an environment of encryption and of WhatsApp and Instagram, where sometimes this material is simply not accessible.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
What about those cases where men have been found guilty and are in prison, and there was inadequate disclosure during the course of their trial, whereas if there had been full disclosure they would have been found innocent? Are they simply to be left in prison and not have their cases reviewed?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am not aware of any such cases. However, clearly, we have a series of filter mechanisms in our criminal justice system that includes the criminal cases review operation where there has already been a conviction and material comes to light.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has referred several times to the obligations placed on the defence by the 1996 Act. Is he suggesting or is he aware of any evidence which indicates that some of these cases that have collapsed have done so as a result of a failure by the defence to meet its obligations under that Act?
Lord Keen of Elie
Recent inquiries indicated that in something like 25% of cases a defence statement was not produced or not produced timeously.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that he had not heard that a lack of resources was to blame for these failures. He may not have heard my noble friend the former Director of Public Prosecutions say on “Newsnight” last night that he felt that it was as a result of a 25% reduction in funding for the CPS and the loss of hundreds of lawyers—and, I add to that, the loss of thousands of police officers and an ongoing 25% reduction in their resources could be to blame.
Lord Keen of Elie
I note the noble Lord’s careful use of “could”. That is why we will await the outcome of the present inquiries and investigations before we draw any conclusions.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, did my noble and learned friend see that rather disturbing programme about the Criminal Cases Review Commission? He referred to that commission. Is he entirely satisfied that it is working in a proper and seemly way?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am not a regular viewer of the television and I am not aware of the programme to which my noble friend refers. However, at present there are no indications that the criminal cases review operation is not operating in accordance with its remit or that it is not capable of discharging its functions.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, the chief constable of Surrey has described the situation as having had a “catastrophic effect”. It is two years since warnings were first given about this problem. Will the Government now ensure that further inquiries are made for the period before that time to see whether other cases need to be dealt with? Will he also ensure that a view will be taken not just in relation to sex offences, which have been the subject of the present findings, but across the field of criminal offences? Clearly, there is a risk that we will see the same kind of failings affecting other offences.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, a joint justice systems inspectorate investigation on disclosure issues took place in 2016 and the report was published in July 2017. We were in the process of implementing a series of recommendations when a number of further cases arose in early 2018, and that is what has given rise to the Attorney-General’s determination that there should be a review. We will await the outcome of that review before taking further decisions with regard to disclosure. However, disclosure is not of course limited to cases of rape or other sexual assault. We appreciate that this issue has to be addressed across the board so far as the criminal justice system is concerned.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Wednesday 6th June 2018
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 View all Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 103-I Motion for consideration of Commons amendment in lieu (PDF, 67KB) - (5 Jun 2018)
Lord Henley
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 3A in lieu.
“Request for continuation of existing arrangements
(1) The Secretary of State must make a relevant request to the European Council if neither of conditions 1 and 2 is met at the beginning of the period of 28 days ending with exit day.
(2) Condition 1 is that all of the principal international agreements have been signed.
(3) Condition 2 is that—
(a) one or more of the principal international agreements have not been signed, but
(b) in respect of each agreement that has not been signed, arrangements for the corresponding Euratom arrangements to have effect in relation to the United Kingdom after exit day—
(i) have been made, or
(ii) will, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, have been made before exit day.
(4) A “relevant request” is a request, in relation to each principal international agreement that has not been signed and in respect of which subsection (3)(b) does not apply, for the corresponding Euratom arrangements to continue to have effect in relation to the United Kingdom after exit day until—
(a) the principal international agreement comes into force, or
(b) arrangements have been made for the corresponding Euratom arrangements to have effect in relation to the United Kingdom until further notice.
(5) The “principal international agreements” are—
(a) agreements relating to nuclear safeguards to which only the United Kingdom and the International Atomic Energy Agency are parties;
(b) agreements relating to nuclear safeguards to which the United Kingdom is a party with, respectively, the governments of Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States of America (and for this purpose “agreement” includes an agreement or other arrangement that modifies or supplements an existing agreement).
(6) A reference in this section to “the corresponding Euratom arrangements” is a reference—
(a) in the case of an agreement referred to in subsection (5)(a), to whichever of the Safeguards Agreement and the Additional Protocol corresponds to the agreement;
(b) in the case of an agreement referred to in subsection (5)(b), to whichever of the agreements to which Euratom is a party with the government of Australia, Canada, Japan or the United States of America corresponds to the agreement (and for this purpose the reference to an agreement to which Euratom is a party includes any agreement or other arrangement that modifies or supplements the agreement).
(7) In this section—
“exit day” has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (and references to before or after exit day are to be read accordingly);
“the Safeguards Agreement” and “the Additional Protocol” have the same meaning as in the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2000;
“signed”, in relation to a principal international agreement, means signed by both parties to the agreement.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, as the House is aware, the amendment in lieu was proposed by the Government in the House of Commons in response to Amendment 3 made on Report in this House. Although the Government opposed Amendment 3 on Report, my honourable friend Richard Harrington and I have listened very carefully to the arguments and concerns put forward in both this House and another place about ensuring continuity for the nuclear industry. I hope that this amendment in lieu exemplifies the commitment to compromise and to engaging with Parliament that I believe the Government have demonstrated throughout the passage of the Bill.
Amendment 3 would have required that, where particular agreements relating to nuclear safeguards were not in place on 1 March 2019, the Government would have to request that the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom be suspended until those agreements, or continuation arrangements, were in place. This amendment in lieu would, like Amendment 3, apply 28 days before exit day, on 1 March 2019. Under this amendment, if any principal international agreement were not signed and no other equivalent arrangements in respect of unsigned agreements had been made or would be made before exit day, the Secretary of State would have to ask the EU for,
“corresponding Euratom arrangements to continue to have effect”,
in place of the unsigned agreements. The relevant agreements are those on safeguards between the United Kingdom and the International Atomic Energy Agency—the voluntary offer agreement and the additional protocol—and the four priority nuclear co-operation agreements with the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia.
Although the Government were not able to agree to Amendment 3, the House of Commons has made this amendment in lieu, which I hope the House will agree addresses its concerns on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, as one whose name was on Amendment 3, it gives me pleasure to support the replacement of that amendment with Commons Amendment 3A. The Commons amendment supports the basic proposals that we put forward in the Lords amendment but is more detailed and will better ensure that, if adequate agreements are not in place 28 days before exit day, the Secretary of State must request the continuation of the present Euratom arrangements. Amendment 3A more tightly defines the request that the Secretary of State must make and the relevant principal international agreements, and seeks to eliminate other possible ambiguities.
I would also like to say how much I welcome the Government’s acceptance of other Lords amendments, particularly the one that specifically points out that civil nuclear activities for peaceful purposes include production, processing or storage activities, electricity generation, decommissioning, research and development—a particular interest of mine—and any other peaceful nuclear activities.
Overall, I observe that the way this Bill has been handled is an excellent example of what can be achieved when there is constructive collaboration between the political parties, we Cross-Benchers and even between the Lords and the other place. Our parliamentary system has really worked well in this instance and it is my sincere, if naive, hope that this admirable spirit of collaboration continues throughout the consideration of all of the other Brexit-related Bills.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am also very pleased that we have come to a suitable arrangement. I support this amendment and reflect the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Broers. However, the challenges in achieving this are still major. We know from the leak from the risk assessment of the Office for Nuclear Regulation that we have an IT system that has only just been commissioned and timescales are very short for that £100,000 programme. We know that training has not been fast or easy in terms of recruitment or giving skills to those people to ensure that we have the right number of people in the Office for Nuclear Regulation. We have already had a concession that the standards that can be met by Brexit day are best international, rather than the Euratom standards the Government originally wished for.
Also, I understand that we have not yet had ratification of any of those nuclear co-operation agreements. Although I recognise and welcome the fact that we have agreement with the United States, agreement is not ratification. As the Minister himself said in a Written Answer to me:
“Ratification in the US requires the agreement to remain in Congress for 90 joint sitting days, whereby the US Senate and House of Representatives both sit, and the consent of two-thirds of the US Senate. Congress also has the option of adopting either a joint resolution of approval, with or without conditions, or standalone legislation that could approve the agreement. UK officials have held detailed discussions with the US and both sides are satisfied that this process can be completed ahead of the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom”.
I am glad to hear that optimism, but I still believe that that is a very difficult timetable to meet. I will be interested to hear from the Minister where we are on the other three nuclear co-operation agreements as well.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, as another who took part in the earlier stages of this debate, my eye joined with my noble friend Lord Broers in expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for listening to the arguments that were made earlier, and to the Government for showing that the dynamic relationship that sometimes exists between your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons actually improves Bills, even in the febrile context of Brexit. I hope that this result today on Motion A, which I certainly support, will be a clear message to those who are given to say glibly that your Lordships’ House is merely trying to wreck Brexit. That is just not true. What is happening this afternoon is clear evidence, which the Government should cite, that there can be constructive work between the two Houses to improve even the legislation on this very difficult issue.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, one of the features of this provision is that it does not mention the exact question of finance. Clearly, we are working on some large and expensive programmes, particularly on fusion. In replying, will the Minister comment on whether new budgets will have to be created for the new arrangements, or will they fit within the existing budgets?
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest that I share with my noble friend the Minister: we are both Cumbrians. Obviously, Cumbria is deeply affected by the nuclear sector, which is potentially very hazardous both to those who are engaged with it and to those living close to it. Therefore, having the strongest possible safeguards in place, which I believe that this amendment will help to bring about, is a great reassurance to those who would be affected should anything go wrong.
Just as my noble friend the Minister is absolutely certain that his house is not going to burn down, I am sure that that has not stopped him taking out an insurance policy. Equally, the Government, who are convinced that Brexit will take place, should recognise nevertheless that there is a possibility that, for various reasons, something may not happen as they hope. Having the strongest form of reassurance in the Bill in this regard is important because it is something to which those who might be affected were something to go wrong will be able to turn.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, to be frank, I wish that we could have just stayed in Euratom, which would be the simplest and most straightforward answer to nuclear safeguards, but I am relieved that the Government have listened to the concerns expressed on all sides of the House during the passage of the Bill, and I am very grateful that an amendment has been laid with which we can all agree. It is an important point that addresses any potential disaster, such as what if bilateral agreements were not in place, and avoids the cliff edge that we, like the Government, hope will never be reached. However, as the noble Lord opposite has just said, an insurance policy is a good thing and we now have that.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, it is a moment to be enjoyed when a Government Minister brings back to your Lordships’ House an amendment that all sides can resoundingly support. This amendment in lieu is in essence the amendment agreed on Report—admittedly, more deftly drafted—to ensure a responsible, less risky and more certain transition from the Euratom-monitored safeguarding regime to a uniquely robust regime operated by the ONR to full international recognition. The final version of the Bill is a vindication of the work of your Lordships’ House and the Government are to be congratulated on finally getting the legislation correct in the other place. While some noble Lords would contend that the Government had no need to trigger withdrawal from Euratom, given the difficulties around the notification letter and the Article 50 Bill, the House was right to focus this Bill on securing that the withdrawal from Euratom should proceed on a sound basis, satisfying all the contingencies that could arise during the process. This amendment in lieu allows the House to reflect on the fact that it has fulfilled its role successfully. Let us examine that in detail.
First, the Bill strengthens Parliament’s oversight and improves transparency by putting the Government’s reporting commitments on a statutory basis. Secondly, on the recommendations of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Bill puts a further definition of “civil activities” on the face of the Bill and sets a time limit on the Government’s use of so-called Henry VIII powers. Thirdly, the Bill provides further information to the report that the Government will be making periodically. It may include arrangements with Euratom relating to nuclear research and development, as well as the import and export of qualifying nuclear material such as medical isotopes. The facility at Culham and the JET programme will be pleased with this outcome.
Finally, in this amendment in lieu the Government are agreeing that the practical realities of the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom will need to be recognised. The Euratom arrangements will cover all the conditions and standards to allow a continuation of trade and non-proliferation certification without disruption, interruption or dilution. At all times, whether phased or not, the UK’s withdrawal will not be put at risk and will not jeopardise the present status of operating within fully recognised international IAEA standards in place. The implementation period is still to be fully agreed and put on a statutory basis. It will qualify under Section 3(b) as a corresponding Euratom arrangement. This will allow a further period in which the Government can recruit and train inspectors. In addition, from exit day, we are satisfied that, where needed, the amendment would cover the six vital agreements necessary to maintain the status quo. Two of them cover agreements with the IAEA and there is one for each of the four countries with nuclear co-operation agreements: namely, the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia.
I am grateful to the Minister for his letter following our meeting to discuss the amendment. Together with the Minister in the other place, Richard Harrington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, he has put considerable effort into recognising and addressing valid concerns in both Houses throughout this process. I thank him and his team for co-operating with us on the Bill. The nuclear industry can be reassured that it may not need to face a cliff-edge moment and that the UK will continue to work constructively with Euratom. All sides recognise that the UK still has some way to go, yet we now have the right framework to bring that about.
In conclusion, I thank the House for its support and those who have participated so persistently and decisively in the Bill, namely the noble Lords, Lord Broers, Lord Warner, Lord O’Neill, Lord Carlile, Lord Teverson, Lord Hutton and Lord Fox, the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I certainly cannot forget my noble friend Lord Hunt on the Front Bench, with the expert assistance of Grace Wright in Labour’s support team. This Bill has been a fusion of all the talents: it is a job well done.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Broers, for both his support for the amendment and for setting such a good and welcoming tone for the debate. I thank all other speakers for their positive remarks—although I accept that there are still challenges ahead, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, put it. As I made clear during the passage of the Bill, I want to continue to provide information to the House as we proceed to make sure that everyone is happy with what we are doing to ensure that the right arrangements—or the appropriate insurance policy, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, put it—are in place.
The House will be aware that the passing of this Bill is just one of the steps needed to establish new nuclear safeguards arrangements for the United Kingdom. It is only one aspect of the Government’s efforts to maintain close and effective arrangements on civil nuclear co-operation, safeguards and safety with Euratom and the rest of the world. To that end, we have made good progress both at home and abroad. The Office for Nuclear Regulation has enhanced its organisational capacity and capability to deliver the future safeguards regime. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we have increased its available funding to £10 million, which includes the procurement of the new IT system. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that we will do all that we can to make sure that the system is appropriate. We are also recruiting and training a large number of new inspectors and strengthening the institutional capacity to deliver the project within budget.
We will soon consult on nuclear safeguards regulations. An early draft of that was provided to this House. The department and the Office for Nuclear Regulation will continue to engage stakeholders individually and through wider events. I assure the House that only this morning, in Vienna, the IAEA board of governors formally approved new bilateral international safeguards agreements with the United Kingdom to replace the current agreements, which include Euratom. We expect that they will be signed tomorrow. The conclusion of these agreements, which will take effect once Euratom arrangements cease to apply to the UK, once again demonstrates this Government’s sustained commitment to the civil nuclear sector, international safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation.
I can further reassure the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that on 4 May, as I think he is aware, the Government signed a new nuclear co-operation agreement with the United States of America. That will be ratified by Congress and laid before Parliament before ratification in the UK. Again, I will make sure that the House is kept informed of that process. On further NCAs, good progress continues to be made to put in place respective arrangements with Australia, Canada and Japan ahead of March 2019. Again, I will inform the House when that happens.
As part of EU exit negotiations the UK and the EU have agreed the terms of an implementation period, as the House will be well aware, running until the end of December 2020. That means that existing Euratom arrangements, including international agreements, would continue during this period.
I hope that I have given all appropriate assurances to noble Lords who have taken part in the short debate on this Motion. I beg to move.
Airports National Policy Statement
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made yesterday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“I would like to make a Statement about the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport. This Government have a clear vision—to build a Britain that is fit for the future: a Britain with a prosperous jobs market and an economy that works for everyone. That is why I come to this House to mark an historic moment. Today I am laying before Parliament our final proposal for an Airports National Policy Statement, which signals our commitment to securing global connectivity, creating tens of thousands of local jobs and apprenticeships, and boosting our economy for future generations by expanding Heathrow Airport. It is an example of how this Government are taking forward their industrial strategy.
Mr Speaker, you know that taking such a decision is never easy. This issue has been debated for half a century. My department has met with local residents and fully understands their strength of feeling, but this is a decision taken in the national interest and based on detailed evidence. In 2015, the independent Airports Commission concluded that a new north-west runway at Heathrow was the best scheme to deliver additional capacity and in October 2016 we agreed. We ran two national consultations during 2017 and received more than 80,000 responses. All the points raised have been carefully considered, and today we are publishing the Government’s response.
To ensure fairness and transparency, we appointed an independent consultation adviser, the former Court of Appeal judge Sir Jeremy Sullivan. Our draft NPS was scrutinised by the Transport Committee and I would very much like to thank the chair of the committee and her team on that committee for all the work they did and the thoroughness of that work. I am very pleased that they, like me and my colleagues in government, accepted the case for expansion and concluded that we are right to pursue development through an additional runway at Heathrow. We welcome and have acted upon 24 out of 25 of their recommendations. Our response to the committee is also being published today.
This country has one of the largest aviation sectors in the world, contributing £22 billion to our GDP, supporting half a million jobs, servicing 285 million passengers and transporting 2.6 million tonnes of freight last year. The time for action is now. Heathrow is already full and the evidence shows the remaining London airports will not be far behind. Despite being the busiest two-runway airport in the world, Heathrow’s capacity constraints mean it is falling behind its global competitors, impacting the UK’s economy and global trading opportunities.
Expansion at Heathrow will bring real benefits across the country, including a boost of up to £74 billion to passengers and the wider economy, providing better connections to growing world markets, and increasing flights to more long-haul destinations. Heathrow is a nationally significant freight hub, carrying more freight by value than all other UK airports combined. A third runway would enable it nearly to double its current freight capacity.
In addition—and this is crucial—this project has benefits that reach far beyond London. We expect and intend up to 15% of slots from a new runway to facilitate domestic connections across the United Kingdom, spreading the benefits of expansion to our great nations and regions. As well as new routes, I expect there to be increased competition on existing routes, giving greater choice to passengers. I say clearly that regional connectivity is a key reason for the decision that we have taken.
I recognise the strong convictions that many Members of this House and their constituents have on this issue, and the impacts on those living in the local area. It is for this reason that we have included strong mitigations in the NPS to limit such impacts. Communities will be supported by up to £2.6 billion towards compensation, noise insulation and improvements to public amenities— 10 times bigger than under the 2009 third runway proposal. This package is comparable with some of the most generous in the world and includes £700 million for noise insulation for homes and £40 million to insulate schools and community buildings. The airport has offered 125% of the full market value for homes in the compulsory and voluntary purchase zones, plus stamp duty, moving costs and legal fees, as well as a legally binding noise envelope and more predictable periods of respite.
For the first time ever, we expect a six-and-a-half-hour ban on scheduled night flights. But my ambitions do not stop there. If this House agrees, the NPS is designated and the scheme progresses, I shall encourage Heathrow and airlines to work with local communities to propose longer periods of respite during a further consultation on night flight restrictions.
We will grant development consent only if we are satisfied that a new runway would not have an impact on the UK’s compliance with air quality obligations. Advances in technology also mean that new planes are cleaner, greener and quieter than those they replace. Earlier this year, a community engagement board was established and appointed Rachel Cerfontyne as its independent chair. It will focus on building relations between Heathrow and its communities, considering the design of the community compensation fund—which could be worth up to £50 million a year—and holding the airport to account when it comes to delivering on its commitments today and into the future.
There has been much debate about the cost of this scheme. Our position on this could not be clearer: expansion will be privately financed. Again crucially, expansion must also remain affordable to consumers. We took a firm step when I asked the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, to ensure that the scheme remains affordable while meeting the needs of current and future passengers. This process has already borne fruit, with the identification of potential savings of up to £2.5 billion. I am confident that the process can and should continue, that further cost savings can be identified and that the design of expansion can continue to evolve to better reflect the needs of consumers. That is why I have recommissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to continue to work with industry to deliver the ambition I set out in 2016 to keep landing charges at or close to current levels. This will include gateway reviews, independent scrutiny and benchmarking of proposals, which I know are of paramount importance to British Airways, Virgin and the wider airline community.
I want now to talk about scheme delivery and ownership. The north-west runway scheme put forward by Heathrow was selected by the Government following a rigorous process. Since then, Heathrow has continued to make strong progress, having already consulted on its scheme design and airspace principles earlier this year. Some stakeholders have suggested that we should look again at who delivers expansion. While I will always retain an open mind, my current assessment is that caution is needed at this stage. Heathrow is an operational airport under a single management, and I am clear that it is currently the only credible promoter who could deliver this transformational scheme in its entirety.
I welcome the Civil Aviation Authority’s April consultation, which expects Heathrow to engage in good faith with third parties to ensure expansion is delivered in a way which benefits the consumer. However, this needs to be balanced against the need for timely delivery, and that is why my department will work closely with Heathrow to enable delivery of the new runway by the current target date of 2026.
Heathrow is already Britain’s best-connected airport by road and rail, and this will be further strengthened by future improvements to the Piccadilly line, new links to Heathrow through Crossrail, connections to HS2 via an interchange at Old Oak Common and plans for western and southern rail access to the airport. On 24 May, I met the industry and financial backers who can potentially come forward with plans to deliver the new southern rail access to the airport.
Even with today’s announcement, a new operational runway at Heathrow is still a number of years away. The Airports Commission recommended that there would also be a need for other airports to make more intensive use of their existing infrastructure and we consulted on this in the aviation strategy call for evidence last year. So I can confirm today that, apart from Heathrow, the Government are supportive of other airports making best use of their existing runways. However, we recognise that the development of airports can have negative as well as positive local impacts, including on noise levels. We therefore consider that any proposals should be judged on their individual merits by the appropriate planning authority, taking careful account of all relevant considerations, particularly economic and environmental impacts.
Furthermore, in April we set out our next steps, which will see us work closely with industry, business, consumer and environmental groups to develop an aviation strategy that sets out the long-term policy direction for aviation to 2050 and beyond, while addressing the changing needs and expectations of passengers. It will set out a framework for future sustainable growth across the UK, how we plan to modernise our congested airspace and use innovative technology to deliver cleaner, quieter, quicker journeys for the benefit of passengers and communities. Airspace modernisation has to be taken forward irrespective of the decision on the proposed new runway, and to do so we expect multiple airports across the south of England to bring forward consultations on their own proposals on how to manage the airspace around them.
Returning to Heathrow, the planning system involves two separate processes: one to set the policy effectively outlining planning consent, which is our NPS; and then, if this House votes in favour of it and it is then designated, a second process for securing the detailed development consent that the airport will require. The next step would therefore be for Heathrow to develop its plans, including details of the scheme design and airspace change, and hold a further consultation to allow the public a further say on the next phase of Heathrow’s plans and additional opportunities to have their voices heard. Any application for development consent will, of course, be considered carefully and with an open mind, based on the evidence provided. The process includes a public examination by the independent planning inspectorate before any final decision is made.
Alongside the NPS today, I have published a comprehensive package of materials that I hope and believe will enable Members of this House to make an informed decision ahead of the vote. It is a very comprehensive package that I hope will provide answers to the questions that Members will have. I hope that the House will feel that this scheme is crucial to our national interest and that we need to work together to deliver it, in order to create what I believe is an absolutely vital legacy for the future of this country. I hope that Members across the House will get behind this plan and support this nationally strategically important project. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for providing the extensive documentation that went with it. Labour’s position on Heathrow was set out by my honourable friend Andy McDonald MP in the other place yesterday:
“Labour will consider proposed expansion through the framework of our well-established four tests: expansion should happen only if it can effectively deliver on the capacity demands; if noise and air quality issues are fully addressed; if the UK’s climate change obligations are met in their entirety; and if growth across the country is supported”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 172.]
Labour’s decision will emerge in due course.
The Statement says:
“To ensure fairness and transparency we appointed an independent consultation adviser, the former Court of Appeal judge, Sir Jeremy Sullivan”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 169.]
I invite the Minister to set out in a little more depth what the role of that individual was and whether it will continue into the future.
I turn to the Government’s response to the Transport Committee’s report. Recommendation 2 of that report says:
“We recommend that both Houses of Parliament allow the planning process to move to the next stage by approving the Airports National Policy Statement, provided the concerns we have identified later in our Report are addressed by the Government in the final NPS it lays before Parliament”.
Does that mean that we will have a debate in this House on a divisible Motion?
Turning back to the Statement, it says:
“Our draft NPS was scrutinised by the Transport Committee, and I thank the Chair of the Committee and her team for the thoroughness of their work. I was pleased that they, like me and my colleagues in the Government, accepted the case for expansion and concluded that we are right to pursue development through an additional runway at Heathrow. We welcome and have acted on 24 out of 25 of its recommendations. Our response to the Committee is also being published today”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 169.]
For the avoidance of doubt, I will tell your Lordships that the 25th recommendation was recommendation 22, which was about an incinerator. Does “acted upon” mean “We have agreed with the recommendation”? Clearly, it does not. The committee’s recommendation 19 is that there should be a seven-hour noise ban at night and the Government have responded by saying, “No, you will get only six and a half”. I have done my best to try to understand the response to the committee, which is vague and, at times, woolly.
On capacity, the Statement says:
“Expansion at Heathrow will bring real benefits across the country including a boost of up to £74 billion to passengers and the wider economy, providing better connections to growing world markets, and increasing flights to more long haul destinations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 169.]
That makes it sound like thousands. In fact, the committee’s report says:
“The NPS states that the NWR scheme is ‘expected to lead to more long-haul flights and connections to fast-growing economies’. The DfT’s forecasts show that, at the UK level, the NWR scheme will offer one more destination overall to emerging and fast-growing economies when compared with no expansion”.
One seems a rather modest number.
The Statement touches on savings. It says:
“We took a firm step when I asked the industry regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority, to ensure the scheme remains affordable while meeting the needs of current and future passengers. This process has already borne fruit, with the identification of potential savings of up to £2.5 billion”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 170.]
Is this saving coming from the mooted scheme, which I believe Heathrow is consulting on, to reduce the length of the third runway from 3.5 kilometres to 3.2 kilometres? If it does, will there be any significant operational impact of that reduction? When, many years ago, I was privileged to be a co-pilot on 747s, 2,500 metres seemed enough, and certainly many of the operations presently at Heathrow require nothing like 3,500 metres. Given how expensive the M25 issue is to this scheme, are further reductions to the runway length being considered?
We increasingly appreciate the importance of air quality, as well as its fatal consequences. What is the commitment on air quality? There is a commitment in the Statement but there was another in the Government’s response to the Transport Committee, which said very solidly:
“No scheme would be allowed to proceed if it did not comply with air quality obligations”.
Can the Minister flesh out what those air quality obligations are?
On noise, once again the Statement is fairly bullish. It says:
“Communities will be supported by up to £2.6 billion towards compensation, noise insulation and improvements to public amenities—10 times bigger than under the 2009 third runway proposal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 170.]
That may be, but Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd has recently proposed a cap of £3,000 on any insulation project. Anybody who has their house insulated against noise knows that that is a trivial sum. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no cap and that Heathrow will pay what it takes to achieve the appropriate levels of noise insulation?
It is a shame to see that the references to the community came right at the end of the document. It is the community that will be very impacted by this scheme. Towards the end of the Statement the Secretary of State said:
“Earlier this year a community engagement board was established, and we appointed Rachel Cerfontyne as its independent chair. It will focus on building relations between Heathrow and its communities, considering the design of the community compensation fund, which could be worth up to £50 million a year, and holding the airport to account when it comes to delivering on its commitments today and into the future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 170.]
Can the Minister set out what powers the independent chair will have? Will she in fact be acting as something like a tribunal and able to direct Heathrow in disputes to provide the appropriate money?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this Statement has an air of Alice in Wonderland about it. Governments have been considering this problem for 20 years but I am afraid that the question is out of date, and so is the answer. Hub airports are no longer the growth area in aviation; the growth area is now in direct long-haul flights. The idea of concentrating ever more development in the overcrowded south-east will, the Government say, benefit other parts of the UK as well. Yet the report by the New Economics Foundation, Flying Low, shows that a new runway at Heathrow will cost regional airports 14 million passengers a year. It will harm them, not benefit them.
The first lack of reality is on the timescale, since 2026 is ridiculously optimistic. The idea that you are going to build a runway as well as demolishing 800 houses, moving an incinerator and dealing with the public inquiry, with development consent and—I am fairly certain—with challenges in the courts from local councils suggests to me that the Government do not have realistic expectations in that regard. This is important because it will have a big impact on the ability for any airport development to help our trade situation. There is also a level of fictional economics, which is that the Government have assigned this a zero cost by saying that it is a private development. Can the Minister clarify her attitude to Transport for London’s estimate of a £6 billion cost to the public purse for public transport? Who will pay for the cost of the disruption to the M25 and M4?
I greatly regret that there is a very brief paragraph on air quality. We were hardly aware of emissions issues when this problem was first investigated. Can the Minister provide us with more detail on how this development will enable the Government’s compliance with international obligations? Will she particularly address the issue of surface transport access and surface transport within the airport?
This is supposed to be a national statement yet there is only one brief paragraph in it referring to anywhere other than the south-east of England. How do the Government intend to achieve their promise of supporting other airports to make best use of their runways? Is that a concrete promise of support or is it simply wishing them well in the process? Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should be using airport development as a springboard for the development and prosperity of the north and the Midlands. They should be spreading prosperity across the whole country.
Finally, I warn everyone who is interested in this to look carefully at the wording in the Statement, especially that on page two. All the reassurances are couched in weasel words.
“We expect up to 15% of slots”,
will “facilitate domestic connections”. What does that promise to other parts of the UK? The Government expect,
“up to £2.6 billion … compensation”,
to be paid. They expect not at least £2.6 billion, but up to that figure. They,
“expect … a six-and-a-half hour ban on scheduled night flights”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 170.]
What exactly are the guarantees, not the Government’s expectations, on compensation and night flight bans?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I will attempt to get through all the questions, but if I do not I will follow up in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the consultation adviser Sir Jeremy Sullivan. He reviewed the Government’s consultation process and provided challenge to Ministers and officials to ensure that it was of a high standard, and produced two reports, which have been published. However, the role was on the government consultation, so it has now been completed.
On the Transport Select Committee comment on approval of the NPS, noble Lords debated the draft NPS on 15 March and the formal scrutiny period ended on 23 March. The proposed airports NPS needs approval by resolution of the House of Commons before it can be designated. This House has an agreed process for national policy statements, which is laid out in the Companion, and that is what we are following. Any further debate in this House will, of course, be a matter for my noble friend the Chief Whip.
On the Transport Select Committee’s recommendations, as the noble Lord pointed out, we agree with what it is seeking to achieve in 24 of the recommendations. Several of those recommendations will be addressed at a later stage through the development consent order, for example, or by other means, such as the regulatory framework. We have published a detailed response setting out our approach for each of those recommendations.
The noble Lord was right to point out that for long-haul flights there are net additional emerging market destinations by 2050, and emerging markets are a subset of the long-haul group. It is often more helpful to consider destinations served on at least a daily basis, as that frequency is especially important to business passengers. The north-west runway scheme would lead to an additional 14 long-haul designations being served daily by 2040.
Our analysis demonstrates that the scheme can be delivered without impacting on the UK’s compliance with limits set out in the EU ambient air quality directive. However, it is not for the NPS to set out the legal obligations in detail.
On community compensation, particularly for noise insulation, the current public commitment is to contribute up to £3,000 for noise insulation. That commitment will be examined during any planning process which follows the designation, if it happens, of the NPS. The NPS makes it clear that the Secretary of State will consider whether the applicant has put the correct mitigations in place, at least to the level committed to in the Heathrow Airport public commitments, before finally agreeing.
On community engagement, Rachel Cerfontyne has been appointed to the Heathrow community engagement board. She was previously at the Independent Police Complaints Commission—the chair has no powers, per se. The role is as more of an advocate. Although independent, she will obviously have connections with senior levels at DfT and will help to influence where necessary. I met her recently, and I believe she will do an excellent job of holding Heathrow to account.
I turn to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. On the question of hub status, we think it gives us the best of both worlds. A large hub airport can compete for transport passengers to provide the connectivity that the UK needs while at the same time enabling growth for other airports around the UK. On timing, obviously we will be working closely with the developer should the NPS be designated. We have had the timing independently and expertly appraised, and as things progress we will be working very closely on that. On costs for surface access, the applicant would pay in full the cost of any surface access required purely for airport expansion. If there are other benefits, the question of how those schemes are funded will be discussed.
To return to air quality, we have always been clear that development consent will be granted only if the air quality obligations are met. The environmental assessment and mitigations proposed by the airport will be carefully scrutinised, independently and in public, before any decision is made on whether to grant the development consents. The NPS outlines some of the measures that Heathrow may adopt to demonstrate these requirements, including the potential emissions-based access charge, the use of zero-emission or low-emission vehicles and an increase in public modes shared by passengers and employees.
On domestic connectivity, one of the reasons why the Government chose the north-west runway is that we fully recognise the importance of air services to everyone across the UK. The Secretary of State set out his ambition for 15% of slots from the new runway to be used for domestic routes, and we expect the majority of those domestic routes to be commercially viable. I know Heathrow is already in discussions with many airports across the country on that. We think that in the first instance it is a commercial decision for airlines, and we will hold the airport operator to account on how it has worked constructively with airlines and regional airports to protect and strengthen the domestic connections. Heathrow Airport Limited has already set out a number of pledges to support domestic connectivity, including financial support for the new routes, but if those measures do not meet our expectations, the Government can take action where appropriate to secure routes through the public service obligations.
I hope I have got to every point. If I have not, I will follow up in writing. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred to the Labour Party’s four tests: meeting climate change obligations, protecting air quality, supporting growth across the country and addressing noise issues. I hope the noble Lord and his party, once they have read through the documents, will agree that the revised NPS meets them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government on finally making this decision. As one of my noble friend’s predecessors, albeit 26 years ago, I can confirm the remark that the issue has been debated for half a century. I was not there for all that half a century, although my noble friend Lord Spicer was there for part of it. The decision is the correct one. Heathrow is the only answer. It is all very well talking about putting other runways elsewhere but you need the hub connectivity that Heathrow will give. Whatever the noble Baroness on the Liberal Benches says about hubs, they are absolutely essential: a proper hub gives people in this country the ability to fly to more destinations around the world, and this will do much to enhance that, so I commend the Government on having made this decision.
I have a question for the Minister about the night ban. I declare an interest as someone who lives in west London underneath the flight path into Heathrow. I live slightly further away than I did before but I am still affected by it. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, queried the word “expect” with regard to a six and a half hour ban. I hope we will be getting such a ban, if not a longer one, and that it really will be a ban. At the moment you are not allowed to fly within certain hours, except that there can be half a dozen or so in the morning. When they start coming in at 5 am, that is what becomes really irritating. I hope my noble friend can confirm that this will be a real ban and that there will be no flights, even emergency flights, between those hours.
Baroness Sugg
I thank my noble friend for his support on this decision. As he said, he is a predecessor of mine, and I am sure that he was discussing it then, so it is great to take this step of laying the final national policy statement. We need to act now. Our latest analysis shows that all five London airports will be full by the mid-2030s, and we are losing ground to our competitor hubs in Europe and the Middle East.
The night flight ban will be at least a six and a half hour ban on all scheduled flights. It could be more than that, with predictable respite. Once designated, that will go to further consultation with local communities to agree the exact detail.
Lord Soley (Lab)
My 20-year campaign to expand Heathrow covered the period when I was a Member of Parliament for two west London constituencies. Of course, some people are vocally against it. I have to say that they are frequently the people who fly more often, which came out in a number of constituency meetings that I did in the area. An awful lot of people who do not speak out clearly are desperately in favour because of high-quality jobs. When I spoke in schools in the area, teachers were often against it, for understandable reasons—because of the noise—but when you asked the children how many of them had family or friends who worked at the airport or in an airport-associated job, nearly all of them did. Please ensure that we take account of the needs of those local people, too.
The regions are incredibly important. We cannot expect the regions of England to do well unless they are linked into the hub airport. If all the other countries have hub airports and are developing them, there is a common-sense question: why is that? The common-sense answer is because you need interchange—interchange for Scotland, Wales, and the south-west of England, which is often underestimated. They need links too. Please will the Minister pursue this and take into account the crucial importance of jobs in south-west London and related areas?
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord for his supportive comments. This expansion will absolutely deliver jobs for the local area: I think that the latest figure is 114,000 and 5,000 apprenticeships, which will obviously be welcome for young people. We have not underestimated the potential impact of this decision on local communities, or the importance of listening to them and doing it in the right way. I personally met some of the local groups which have been campaigning hard on this issue and saw at first-hand their strength of feeling. The NPS commits up to £2.6 billion towards compensation, noise insulation and improvements to public communities but, as the noble Lord said, expansion has support from local communities as well as opposition.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest, in that I live under the flight path and belong to many of the community organisations that the Minister will have met. I am appalled by this proposal, as will be the majority of the community where I live and the surrounding communities. Will the Minister confirm that it is clear in the report that daytime respite periods will be shorter under this plan? It says in parenthesis that they will be cut. Perhaps she will confirm that. That matters because there may be money for insulation, but that is not very useful for children who want to play outside or for people who want to walk outside or sit in a garden. Perhaps she will tell us the number of hours of peace that we are about to lose every day.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, airlines will be permitted to run a full service from 5.30 in the morning under the new plan. The night-time ban is six and a half hours: 11 pm to 5.30 in the morning. Currently, they cannot run a full service until 6 am. That is done because Asian Governments are concerned that their residents are being disturbed by departures, so instead our local residents are to be disturbed by arrivals.
Will the Minister confirm what is clear to me from the report: that the required noise level that the airport has to achieve is that in existence in 2013, giving up five years of improvement? All the surface transport mitigations listed are those under way or in place to deal with current congestion, current overcrowding, the air quality problems of the current airport, and the forecast growth in demand in the local community. There is no additionality to deal with 41 million people, a doubling of freight and no indication of who will pay.
On air quality, there are just vague aspirations without any guarantees, clarity or targets. Will the Minister confirm that?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, on the respite periods, the final flight paths obviously have not been confirmed yet, and I understand why there is frustration about that. The proposals to change airspace design have to follow the new airspace change process, which will be done in the coming years, in close consultation with the community.
On the 6.5 hour ban, it has not been decided between periods of 11 pm and 5.30 am exactly where that will go. As I say, that will also be done in consultation with local communities. We think that there could be more respite than that, and predictable respite too. Obviously, with a third runway, there will be more aircraft movements in the sky, so I acknowledge that there will be more noise. We have set out a comprehensive package of compensation, which includes noise insulation and improvements to public amenities.
On the surface access point, there is lots of investment to come on that. I would mention Crossrail, HS2 and Southern Rail and western rail access. There are clear commitments to 50% of public transport use by 2030 and 55% by 2040. Where that is directly to deal with expansion, it will be paid for by the developer.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which talks about ensuring timely delivery. One aspect of this will be a large number of legal challenges. What powers do the Government have, if any, to ensure after due process that this very expensive and ambitious programme will continue and be completed on time?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord is quite right to point out that there may well be judicial reviews around this. Obviously, we are expecting that. The Airports Commission asks that the runway is delivered by 2030. As I said, Heathrow is working to 2026, and we have independent appraisals on that and will work closely with it. We will of course follow correct judicial processes on this, but we will work with Heathrow to get this delivered for 2026, as I say.
Lord Swinfen (Con)
My Lords, what consideration is being given to using Manston Airport on the Isle of Thanet, particularly for freight, to relieve both Heathrow and Gatwick? I know that it is some way from London, but it is easily reached by road and rail, both of which run alongside the airport, which has the longest runway in Europe. Aircraft can go straight out over the North Sea and down the Dover Strait and into the English Channel.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I know that there are some very interesting proposals around Manston Airport. One of the reasons why we chose Heathrow was because of its freight capacity and the expansion will deliver doubling of freight on that. Alongside that, we are already full at Heathrow, and expect to be full at other airports very soon. Alongside the laying of the final NPS, we announced the policy on making best use of existing capacity to ensure that other airports can do that.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, it is extremely good news that this project is finally going to go ahead but I fear that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said—and I think that the Minister has already acknowledged the point—we may run into quite a lot of obstacles and sources of delay. If we do, I hope that the Government will consider proceeding by some accelerated legislative process to carry this through without undue delay. Undue delays in infrastructure projects are surely a great national economic handicap which we have had for some time, but will the Minister agree that this is a particularly egregious case? We have had delays of at least eight years, due to indecision, vacillation and the setting up of quite otiose inquiries, when their results were already known in advance, merely to delay the outbreak of conflict within the Conservative Party and disputes between that party and the House of Commons. That is a very bad example. I think that future generations and the international world as a whole would have noticed that. Does she accept that, had the last Labour Government won the 2010 general election—I declare my interest: I served in that Government, but I had nothing whatever to do with civil aviation or airports—this new runway would have already been built?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s welcoming of the NPS. He is quite right to point out that this has taken some time and has been the subject of many conversations, which is why we were so pleased to be able to lay the final NPS yesterday. We absolutely need to get on with this. As to whether this would have happened should the Labour Government have won in 2010, I am sure a lot of things would be different, but I am not sure whether the runway would now be built.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, there is considerable appetite to ask questions; can I make a plea for shorter questions?
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, what is the future for RAF Northolt as this project goes ahead?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I do not think that this project will affect RAF Northolt; it obviously is a long-standing RAF airport and the laying of the NPS and the future designations should not affect that.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)
My Lords, at the end of the terminal 5 public inquiry, in which I was involved, we were promised that there would be no further expansion of Heathrow Airport, and especially not a third runway there. In view of the fact that the Minister has just told us that there will be huge expansion of capacity at Heathrow, can she tell us how long we have to wait before there will be plans for a terminal 6 or even a terminal 7 at Heathrow? Will there be any end to the expansion there? Finally, can she relay a message to the Foreign Secretary that I am very willing to lay down with him at any time, providing it is in front of a bulldozer?
Baroness Sugg
On further expansion at Heathrow, I acknowledge that the third runway has been talked about for some time. The Conservative manifesto in 2017 set out our support of it and that we look to proceed on it. I will pass that message on to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have mixed feelings about this decision? Having been the House bore on the subject for many years, of course I am pleased that we have moved with greater certainty towards a final decision on this matter, but it has come very late. When I was Minister for Aviation in the 1980s, Heathrow was by far and away the busiest international airport in the world, whereas now it is well down the pecking order. My noble friend has today used the words “Heathrow is full” and then, when having to be asked what we do about that, rather mumbled, I am afraid, that we will look at other airports. The fact is that if we are to have enough capacity in the late 2020s in this country, we have to build a runway of the size of those at Heathrow at every single one of our London-based airports over the next 10 years. This has not even barely begun to strike us. The decision is good news in so far as it is happening, but it is terribly late and we will have to do a lot of catching up now.
Baroness Sugg
I thank my noble friend for his support. I again acknowledge that this has taken some time, but we have now laid the final NPS. On other airports and reaching capacity, demand for flights is growing and will continue to grow. That is why, alongside the NPS, we also made the announcement of other airports being able to make best use of their existing capacity.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement. It has been a long time coming, and of course there is a long way to go yet; even if the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is not right about the timescale, the development control order will not be completed until the early 2020s, according to the Statement, and by the time it is actually built it will probably coincide with us moving back into this place. I particularly support the encouragement of other airports, and in doing so I declare my interest as a board member of London Luton Airport. I think the Minister is aware that Luton is already seeking to make best use of its runways and to build additional capacity. I will ask about the planning system, because all this is putting a great deal of pressure on certain bodies, whether it is PINS or local planning authorities, and this Statement will exacerbate that. What assessment have the Government made of the capacity of the system to cope expeditiously with all the good stuff that could come from this?
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord for his support. I was pleased to visit Luton Airport recently and hear about its exciting plans for its development. On the planning process, we absolutely believe that there is capacity to do this. The scheme promoter will consult on the proposals before submitting its application, which will give people a further opportunity to have their voices heard, and then, after the development consent application, the Secretary of State will consider it. However, we are satisfied that there is capacity to do that.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, the Statement makes clear to us that the airport will be built with private capital. Will the compensation package be met by the airport, and will the other infrastructure improvements which are necessary be met by the Government or by the promoters?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I am happy to confirm that all those costs will be met by the developer: the compensation package and the cost of the development will all be privately financed. The provision of on-surface access and anything which is needed for the airport to expand will be met by the developer.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
What discussions are the Government having with the devolved Administration in Cardiff as to the likely consequence for the land and nation of Wales of this massive development?
Baroness Sugg
I am happy to confirm that I spoke to my opposite number in Wales yesterday, who absolutely welcomed this proposal. They are excited about it and are keen to see it go ahead, and I will visit him soon to discuss it further.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, how many more M25s, M42s, M6s and so on will we need to be built alongside this expanded Heathrow Airport just to get the passengers to the airport or from it?
Baroness Sugg
My noble friend is right to point out that work on the roads will be needed, and there is some information out there already with the details of that. As I said before, where it is needed for airport expansion, the developer will pay for it. I also mentioned earlier the targets of increased public transport for people travelling to the airport. We have many investments in that already, and we expect that to increase.
Brexit: The Future of Financial Regulation and Supervision (European Union Committee Report)
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Brexit: The Future of Financial Regulation and Supervision (11th Report, HL Paper 66).
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the EU Sub-Committee on Financial Affairs, I am delighted to introduce this EU Committee report, Brexit: The Future of Financial Regulation and Supervision. Our inquiry was undertaken between September and December 2017, and subsequently, four members have left the committee. They are the noble Lords, Lord Haskins, Lord Skidelsky, Lord Woolmer and Lord Fraser of Corriegarth. I wish to acknowledge their contribution to this inquiry and to the overall work of the committee.
The already small secretariat of our committee became smaller during the course of the inquiry, but we were served by an outstanding policy analyst, Dr Holly Snaith, who left us for the Bank of England. However, we did a nearly direct swap, as we were joined in turn by Matthew Manning, the current clerk to the committee, who is with us today. We are enormously grateful to them both for their work on this report, particularly in light of the challenging circumstances in which the committee has operated in the last seven or eight months.
As noble Lords will be aware, the financial services sector is a vital and thriving part of the UK economy, and questions about our access to the single market in financial services are a highly contentious component of discussions about the UK’s future relationship with the EU. In undertaking this inquiry, we were conscious of the position of the United Kingdom as the pre-eminent financial services centre and the threat that Brexit poses to this very special ecosystem. Therefore, in assessing the future of financial services in the UK, regulation and supervision seemed to us to be key. Although we recognise that the UK will start its future relationship with full regulatory alignment, the nature and extent of maintaining that alignment and managing divergence to the extent that it might occur are vital to the UK’s interests.
In our inquiry we heard evidence from a range of academic experts, industry practitioners and the UK regulatory authorities. Given the EU’s decision to designate Michel Barnier as the sole negotiator, we were unable to take evidence from EU institutions directly. However, we are particularly grateful to Brussels-based economic and financial think tanks, which recognise, perhaps more perceptively than the Commission, that dialogue will need to be an essential element of future co-operation and which therefore freely offered us their insights into some of these issues and challenges. I particularly want to put on the record our thanks to the Centre for European Policy Studies, whose CEO, Dr Karel Lannoo, travelled to London to give us evidence—but of course we are grateful to all those who contributed to the inquiry.
Almost immediately, the agreement of a transition period emerged as an urgent priority. We considered the matter to be of such importance that we chose to write to the Chancellor part way through the inquiry, in November 2017, to emphasise that any agreed transition period was, in his own words, a “wasting asset”—in other words, a delayed agreement would be scarcely better than no agreement at all. Andrew Bailey, chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, put it even more bluntly when he told us that an agreement needed to be reached “PDQ”. I think that that needs no interpretation. Catherine McGuinness of the City of London Corporation told us that financial services firms need three things: certainty, stability and proportionality for business.
During our inquiry and in the period since, we have repeatedly been promised a White Paper on financial services by, not least, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. It is therefore disappointing that this has yet again been postponed. This is surely a first and, frankly, minimal step towards providing the industry with an indication of what the Government will seek in a future relationship.
Returning to the transition period, we are pleased that the Bank of England has had the foresight to allow firms to plan on the assumption that a temporary permissions regime will be put in place in the event of there being no deal. However, without an equivalent assurance from the EU authorities that UK firms passporting into the EU 27 can plan on the assumption of a withdrawal agreement being in place, it appears that firms based in the UK passporting into other member states are indeed having to plan on a no-deal scenario. So transition offers little, if any, comfort at the moment. This puts firms in the unfortunate position of implementing costly plans that may be economically and strategically irreversible at the point at which any agreement is reached, thereby negating much of the value of such an agreement.
Another important consideration emerged during the inquiry—that of contractual continuity. In many cases, firms have written contracts that may entail liabilities extending potentially for decades. This is a special concern for the insurance industry. For that industry, agreeing a transition period merely postpones the problem. If firms cannot maintain or service their contracts because they are legally prevented from carrying out licensed activity in another member state, individuals and businesses both stand to lose.
Mr Sam Woods, deputy governor of the Bank of England, told us that the maximum penalty for UK firms conducting a regulated activity without a licence under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 was a two-year prison sentence or an unlimited fine. As he put it,
“boards may have some appetite for legal risk, but I do not think many are going to have that kind of appetite”.
Contractual continuity is not just a problem for large, cross-border conglomerates. Consumers, pensioners, drivers and travellers all face the risk of being effectively uninsured. Moreover, the problem of how to treat existing cross-border business overall cannot truly be resolved except within the context of an agreement on a future relationship. Otherwise, firms will remain exposed to risks on their books that they might not be able to mitigate on a continuing basis. Mr John McFarlane, chairman of Barclays, was clear that,
“transitioning is most valuable if it is to somewhere worthwhile at the end”.
Our witnesses were also clear that the effects of no agreement on mutual market access would be negative for both the UK and the EU. The UK is, after all, the single biggest provider of financial services to EU member states. The market fragmentation that would result from a loss of access would harm EU businesses and consumers as well as those in the UK. Indeed, market fragmentation will likely increase financial instability, reversing the improvements put in place as a result of the post-crisis regulatory developments of the last decade.
One key finding emphasised by many of our witnesses was the inadequacy of the EU’s current equivalence framework—that the process of granting equivalence status is political and capable of being unilaterally withdrawn by the Commission at very short notice. The recent experience of Switzerland is telling in that regard. Switzerland negotiated over a considerable period for an open-ended equivalence ruling from the Commission similar to that given to Australia and the US. At the 11th hour, it was granted a single year until the end of 2018. The UK’s vast financial services industry, with the plethora of services that it offers, cannot depend on such a tenuous, politically driven and insecure form of access. An agreement to base market access on a bespoke and genuinely mutual equivalence agreement is far preferable.
In that regard, we took evidence from the International Regulatory Strategy Group comprising senior financial services leadership in the United Kingdom. It recommended that the most suitable form of relationship between the UK and the EU was mutual regulatory recognition. We understand that this is now the Government’s own position, which is why we would have wished to have seen some detail on how they expect the negotiation to proceed.
Until it is clear what form of access the UK and EU will agree on, it is impossible to say with any certainty what opportunities will arise for regulators and firms. Many witnesses were keen to emphasise the considerable resources that they had devoted to complying with EU requirements, however onerous they might have been, and were therefore not necessarily in favour of making changes to the regulatory regime post Brexit. That was especially the case where regulatory divergences might endanger market access. Nevertheless, we heard from some witnesses about possibilities to tailor and strengthen the UK’s regulatory framework once we had exited the EU. Those possibilities must be explored against the background of international standards developed by organisations such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the International Organization of Securities Commissions.
Indeed, the EU’s regulations are to a large extent merely the European implementation of these internationally agreed standards, and the UK has played an outsize role in their development. This has depended on a deep pool of exceptional talent within the UK regulators. As Andrew Bailey pointed out,
“the work that has been done by the G20 and the Financial Stability Board which Mark Carney”
the Governor of the Bank of England—
“chairs, has been fundamental in putting stronger global standards in place”.
As the UK leaves the EU, it must continue to play an active role in these organisations. Can the Minister tell us what conversations he is having with UK regulators to ensure that their pre-eminent role is maintained?
Some areas where change might be targeted include those where the EU has gone beyond international standards. We heard evidence from witnesses such as Mr Stephen Barclay, the now former City Minister, that the EU has done so in applying prudential requirements to all firms, not just the large cross-border institutions that Basel has traditionally focused on. We believe that there is scope to apply a more proportionate and risk-based prudential framework to smaller domestically focused firms. Indeed, this may encourage the competitiveness that has always been the UK’s strength. It may need to be accompanied by a reconsideration of the regulator’s mandate, but that will be dependent on future developments.
The primary instrument of the offshoring process, the withdrawal Bill, has now been debated by this House. The complexities of transposing the aspects of the acquis relevant to financial services into UK law were raised by many witnesses but not really addressed in the Bill. The sheer volume of statutory instruments that will need parliamentary scrutiny is enormous and we await the detail of how that work will be done. This only highlights the importance of finalising a transition period as a no-deal scenario would place enormous burdens on Parliament’s ability to pass the necessary legislation.
There are also questions about the Government’s proposed approach, specifically to financial services. Several witnesses highlighted the inappropriateness of transposing level 1 EU legislation into primary and secondary legislation. Some of the rules are technical and should, we thought, be left for regulators to make, because they possess the necessary expertise to ensure that they are fit for purpose. Amending them at the speed necessary to keep the UK’s framework adaptive and responsive to change is incompatible with the timescale of parliamentary processes.
In conclusion, I want to highlight that a productive and fruitful relationship between the UK and the EU based on mutual market access is to the benefit of both sides. Without this, financial instability will increase and we will jeopardise the UK’s economy, financial stability and global leadership. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, as a member of the committee I am delighted to follow our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. In doing so, I echo her thanks to our excellent clerk and to our then policy analyst, who sadly is no longer with us. I should also take this opportunity to commend the noble Baroness as our chairman. She has been very effective at chairing us as members and indeed the many witnesses with whom we have engaged over the course of preparing this report.
I want to highlight two important issues raised in the report, both of which were anticipated by the noble Baroness in her speech. They are challenges, but equally they should be seen as opportunities. The first relates to what the final Brexit deal needs to achieve in respect of the future regulation of the financial services sector in the United Kingdom. The challenge as I see it is as follows. Without exception, all the witnesses we heard from, along with the submissions we received, agreed on the continuing need post Brexit for the United Kingdom to have a robust and internationally trusted regulatory framework to promote financial stability and underpin confidence in our financial services sector. Equally, all agreed that the processes of our departure from the EU and the nature of the post-Brexit regulatory arrangements must not compromise the UK’s continued participation with international standards and the globalised financial system that this country has been so instrumental in shaping. Fragmentation should be avoided as it is likely to undermine financial stability and increase costs.
Our witnesses and the evidence also agreed that the UK and the EU should seek a post-Brexit outcome that allows mutual market access in financial services between the UK and the EU 27, underpinned by broad and deep supervisory co-operation between the UK and the EU. At the same time—here lies the challenge—none of our witnesses and none of the evidence submitted could envisage that a post-Brexit outcome based on the EU’s current equivalence framework would be reliable or realistic, as the noble Baroness said. None wanted an outcome that sees the UK as no more than a passive rule-taker, given that aspects of future EU financial regulation may not be appropriate to the needs of either the United Kingdom or the global client base—including customers in the EU 27 served by the UK financial services sector.
Furthermore, our witnesses saw the merit of the United Kingdom having the ability to tailor and evolve the regulatory framework post Brexit as an important opportunity. They saw it as enabling, where appropriate, the UK to improve the design or detail of former EU regulations so that they are more efficient and effective and better aligned with UK circumstances and international standards, better adhere to the UK’s well-developed principles of better regulation and, importantly, are fit for the future in anticipating the regulatory requirements of the fast-developing fintech industry and other areas of innovation.
The challenge is squaring the post-Brexit circle between the United Kingdom’s ability to evolve its own regulatory framework at its own discretion and the parallel need to maintain mutual recognition, trust and market access with the EU. To a number of our witnesses, the challenge can be resolved if the Brexit negotiations are clear-headed and arrive at an arrangement that would serve both UK and EU interests. We summarised this opportunity in the last paragraph of the summary at the start of our report:
“Furthermore, international standards could provide a bridge between the UK and the EU in defining a future relationship based on shared outcomes, rather than the literal interpretation of rulebooks. We believe that a future relationship can be secured that is to the benefit of both the UK and EU, provided that a mutual commitment to effective regulation and supervision is maintained”.
The opportunity to achieve such an eminently satisfactory and desirable relationship should obviously be the objective of the UK Government and our Brexit negotiators. Common sense suggests that it should also be an objective of the EU negotiators. The continuing importance of London and the UK financial services sector to customers and clients across the EU 27 suggests that they should have as much of an incentive to achieve that outcome as us.
Likewise, the second issue I want to raise is both a challenge and an opportunity: whether the United Kingdom has in place the right regulatory architecture and processes, the right checks and balances and the right accountability and parliamentary oversight for financial regulation post Brexit. This question falls not just to the Government and regulators—although they are key in leading the discussion and consideration —but to Parliament, the industry and its stakeholders. Underlying this issue is the need, as we have heard, for the UK to transpose the EU’s body of law relating to financial regulation into UK law. Careful and intelligent judgment is needed on how that transposition is best achieved between primary legislation, secondary legislation, regulators’ rulebooks and binding guidance. As we say in our report:
“The Government will need to adopt a nuanced approach towards the translation of EU regulation into domestic law”.
Flowing from this transposition is the devolution of significant powers from the EU to our domestic regulators, namely the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. Pre-Brexit, those powers have been defined and overseen by the EC, various EU bodies, a relatively well-resourced European Parliament and a very strong committee structure. Should additional and better-resourced parliamentary oversight be developed in the UK post Brexit to avoid what our report refers to as,
“an unintended deficit in democratic scrutiny and accountability”?
The committee believes the answer to that question is yes and it makes three recommendations in the report to this end. In doing so, it anticipates not only the significant increase in the powers of UK regulators but the need for future changes to financial regulation in the UK to be subject to the appropriate scrutiny. The committee acknowledges that the much greater flexibility that the UK will have post Brexit to revise and reform financial regulation, regulators’ rulebooks and so forth, including regulatory enforcement, is an opportunity that none the less needs the appropriate checks and balances.
The committee was not alone in recognising this need. It was also the conclusion of a recent report from the IRSG—the International Regulatory Strategy Group, which the noble Baroness mentioned—produced with Linklaters in December 2017, just as our committee was finishing its report. At the launch of its report, The Architecture for Regulating Finance after Brexit, the IRSG stated that,
“Brexit will require the UK to update its regulatory structure for financial services, creating new checks and balances to ensure the system remains proportionate, coherent and fit for purpose”.
It is an interesting report. It sets out five principles for an effective regulatory framework and makes some useful recommendations for consideration. These recommendations cover powers, resources, responsibilities, scrutiny and oversight of UK regulators; the legislative and regulatory process; consultation and review mechanisms; and, importantly, it includes proposed checks and balances that should apply where regulatory change in the UK would produce material divergence from the EU 27.
The challenge that both our committee and the IRSG report recognise is that while the current regulatory landscape may have served the UK effectively in a pre-Brexit world, it will need to be reformed to be fit for purpose in a post-Brexit world. However, as the IRSG states in the foreword to its report:
“There is … an opportunity for targeted reform following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU in order to maintain and enhance the UK’s position as an international financial centre underpinned by a trusted and globally leading regulatory system, that delivers the best possible outcomes for customers and clients”.
Updating the United Kingdom’s regulatory landscape in anticipation of Brexit is an opportunity that the Government, regulators, Parliament, the industry and others must be thinking about now. Any necessary reforms ought to be put in place for when they are needed, not thereafter.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the clerks of the committee and to our distinguished policy adviser, who was so good that she was pinched by one of the people giving evidence to us. That is a sign of the excellence of the background briefing we received. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for her chairmanship of the committee, her great technical knowledge, her commitment and her discipline in getting us through what is a complex and technical piece of work.
As we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, there are a lot of technical conclusions that have come out of our deliberations. However, it is important to stress that there was unanimity on the committee on the conclusions that we arrived at—cross-party, including the Cross-Benchers—and so the committee did not look at these issues in a partisan way.
Although this is very much a technical piece of work, as I have said, we must not lose sight of the fact that some 1 million people in this country work in the financial services industry. Now, lots of people may think of “financial services” as meaning bankers in Mayfair, but that is not the true picture of British financial services. There are financial services companies throughout the country, certainly in the great historic centres such as in the City and in Edinburgh and, more recently, in Canary Wharf, but there are also thriving financial centres in Glasgow, Leeds, Bristol and other places.
What we are talking about here is not just academic issues of regulation but how we create an industry that will protect, and magnify, those jobs into the future. They are good jobs; they are, by and large, well-paid jobs; and they have become very much a cornerstone of our economy, creating a surplus of £60 billion. I cannot think of any other industry that can create a surplus such as that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, pointed out, our financial services industry is a global asset, which we must be very careful to protect. It has not happened by accident; it has happened because of innovative ideas, sound regulation and ambition, and we must make sure that we do not destroy that.
I am concerned at the extent to which many of our witnesses, especially those from the industry, exhibited real frustration. There was a sense that no one was listening to them or taking them into their counsels. The decisions that are being taken at the moment will have an impact on the industry, and indeed on the country, for generations to come. We cannot allow a situation to continue where such a key industry feels that it is out in the cold. Any well-run business—and there are some very distinguished businesspeople in your Lordships’ House—can cope with change; in fact, they make their money out of the ability to cope with change. What they cannot cope with is uncertainty, and that is what we have seen again and again.
When we began our inquiry, the business leaders were telling us in public and in private that, if they had some idea of what was going to happen by the autumn, they could start planning. Then we were told it would be by Christmas. And then we were told it would be by the end of March. None of that has happened. Instead, the Prudential Regulation Authority has now asked the major businesses to prepare their plans for the worst possible outcome. Those plans are all done now, and increasingly it is becoming obvious to us that businesses are considering what to do with them. Now, regulated businesses do not have a choice. Regulated businesses have to ensure that they are operating within an environment that is regulatorily sound and where they can continue to do business. Here we are with a real global asset, where we have been global rule setters, and we seem to be in a state of stasis. That is not good enough.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, we were expecting a White Paper, but we have been told that it has been delayed yet again. There is a general White Paper due, but there is also supposed to be a financial services White Paper due. People need these answers, not because they just want to make mischief but because they need them to do their day-to-day work. Crucial decisions need to be taken now, and there seems to be little realisation within the Government—and, indeed, within the Commission as well—about the necessity to ensure that these decisions are taken.
Few people realise the scale and complexity of the issues. I commend the report for going into the scale and complexity involved, much of which I did not know—and I have spent a fair amount of my life kicking about in City circles as a Minister and otherwise. This is complex. The Brexiteers may not like it, but the UK has played a key role, in many cases a pivotal role, in establishing the strength of EU regulation and in putting in place the kinds of structures that allowed us to come through the 2008 financial crisis.
As one of our witnesses, Karel Lannoo of the Centre for European Policy Studies—the noble Baroness has already referred to him—said, the growth of the single market is in almost direct correlation with the growth of the City. It is impossible to overstate the need for the UK to ensure that we continue to have pre-eminence in shaping standards. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England have said that we must be rule makers and not rule takers. I would love the Minister to explain how we can maintain our role as rule makers. Not only has that been for the good of this country but Britain has been in the lead when it comes to the personnel involved in global negotiations. Global negotiations are even more important than EU negotiations because they set the framework and parameters within which UK companies can trade around the world. I have seen some of our negotiators work in intense international situations. One concern I have is that so much is down to the talent of the people who do that negotiation. We must ensure both that their talent continues to be heard and that we grow the next generation, as this is an issue not just for our generation but for the next one as well. The emphasis must be on good standard-setting and we have to ensure robust democratic accountability.
The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, talked about the urgent need for us to revisit how we deal with the regulatory and legislative framework as a consequence of our exiting the European Union. It will not be simple; it will be extremely complex. We need to ensure that no one drops the ball between the day we leave and the day we start doing it for ourselves again. We must be rigorous; we must also be competitive.
A seat at the table is essential for all that. I see no indicators that a mechanism has been put in place to ensure that we retain that seat. Sir Jon Cunliffe, an outstanding negotiator of ours over many years and now Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, has said that,
“we need the strongest international governance relationships”.
That needs to be a priority. There are those in the industry who are equally concerned about us losing our international clout. We need to give signals as to where our thoughts are and in what direction we are about to move.
I turn to a slightly more contentious issue. In the past few days we have seen business leaders meeting the Prime Minister and saying that they are losing faith in the handling of Brexit. We cannot afford that to continue. The clock is ticking. We have less than a year until exit day. There is a need for us to come together to ensure an open and credible discussion about where we go from here. The situation that we are in at the moment is tantamount to coming to the edge of a cliff and saying, “Let’s take one step forward”. We cannot afford to do that. International business leaders have already made it clear that they will not invest in Britain as long as Brexit-driven uncertainty exists. I cannot put it any more strongly. The clock is ticking, as I say. I ask the Minister to make representations on our behalf in the strongest possible terms. Whenever the Government responded to our paper they did so in a very positive way and the Minister expressed his satisfaction that a transition period had now been agreed. However, as John McFarlane of Barclays pointed out when he met us, a transition period is of value only if you know what you are transitioning to and how long it is going to take to transition there. All that needs to be sorted out.
A lot of people have great hope for a free trade agreement. There was one recently with Canada. There have been three free trade agreements recently: one with South Korea, one with Ukraine and one with Canada. Only one, with Canada, had any element of financial services in it. It was only a very small reference and, frankly, it is not much better than—in fact, it is not even as good as—what WTO rules would be. There is not a history of including financial services in free trade agreements. We find ourselves in a situation where we have to show our interest and our vigour in ensuring that we remain world leaders. There is no short cut to this. If the Government are not prepared to share with your Lordships’ House or with the wider community where their thoughts are going, please share it with the leaders of the industry, take their advice and listen to what is feasible and possible.
I thoroughly enjoyed working on this report. I became depressed on quite a few occasions, as noble Lords may have gathered, but it is an intensely interesting piece of work. We have all seen our financial services industry take a kicking in the past few years, but there is little doubt that we lead the world in our integrity, our sense of responsibility and our regulation. It is the Government’s job—indeed, it is our job—to ensure that we continue that.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I am also a member of the sub-committee and I echo the complimentary opening words of my noble friend Lord Lindsay about those who run us and those who help us. It is the responsibility of the regulators and supervisors to regulate and supervise, so that the financial services markets are safe and fair for those who participate in them and, in particular, for those who rely on them. This is a country with a reputation as a safe place for investors and retail banking customers that predates our membership of the EU. Indeed, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Falkner and Lady Liddell, said, our experts have taken a disproportionately large part in designing the EU regulatory and supervisory framework precisely because of their experience and fine reputation.
I think I can safely say that our meetings with the Bank of England and others did more than enough to convince us that our regulators and supervisors are capable of designing and operating systems to maintain the stability of our financial system and investment markets. However, there is an opportunity here, perhaps in the medium to longer term, for systems which are purpose-designed for the United Kingdom. We would benefit from systems which, while keeping our investors and retail bank customers safe, at the same time avoid a bureaucracy that stifles the appropriate risk-taking we need if we are to benefit from new technology, new opportunities and new potential trading partners.
Our report covered a number of important matters, all of great complexity and all of which require a great deal of work and a co-operative attitude on both sides of the channel to achieve them. I acknowledge that the negotiations under way will need both sides to compromise if we are ultimately to agree. I also acknowledge the issues raised in the debate so far by other noble Lords, but I want to focus on where we discovered scope for the United Kingdom to regulate our financial services sector better and more appropriately than the EU currently regulates it. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay referred to this.
Our report provides examples of where EU regulation and supervision, which of necessity has to cater for widely differing markets, fall short. In paragraph 189, for example, we say:
“Some areas of the EU’s current regulatory framework have proved problematic in the UK context. The EU, according to UK Finance, ‘has always faced the challenge of regulating a market with an exceptionally diverse set of financial services businesses’, resulting in compromise solutions on legislation that are not always coherent when applied to domestic markets. Lloyd’s accordingly concluded that ‘the process of arriving at a level playing field can have disadvantages .... Brexit may, therefore, present an opportunity for the UK to amend its regime in order to make it more fit for purpose’”.
In paragraph 39 we say:
“Furthermore, Professor Moloney stated that by virtue of its decision-making process, the EU’s policies may not always be optimal. One benefit of Brexit may be ‘a breakaway from groupthink about financial regulation. The EU is a monolith and it has big structures designed to produce compromise positions. That is not necessarily good for the global financial governance system’”.
Looking at specific areas of business within financial services, I will take investment management first. In paragraph 35 we say:
“TheCityUK criticised asset segregation rules in the Alternative Investment Fund Manager Directive (AIFMD) and Undertakings for Collective Investment in Transferable Securities (UCITS), and the Short Selling Regulation (SSR) on trading practices, as areas where the EU has taken unwelcome action, commenting that ‘the overlap of these pieces of legislation are a central cause of the reduced liquidity in the market but critically are not based on international standards’”.
On insurance, we say in paragraph 194:
“There are areas of the UK regime that have incorporated EU standards in ways that may have been detrimental to the UK’s domestic market … Julian Adams of Prudential told us: ‘There are a number of aspects of Solvency II that not just the industry but the regulator does not think work appropriately’”.
On fintech, an area where the UK has taken an early lead, in paragraph 42 we mention that the regulatory sandbox had,
“demonstrated the FCA’s greater commitment to flexibility and supporting innovation compared to other regulators”.
In paragraph 209 we say:
“The UK’s innovative approaches to FinTech regulation have served as a model for other regulators. In the words of Charlotte Crosswell, the sandbox ‘has been successfully copied across the world’”.
But in paragraph 43 we say:
“While the UK currently possesses a degree of autonomy in FinTech, which it uses to put in place innovative supervisory practices, there is the potential for EU intervention. Karel Lannoo, Chief Executive of the Centre for European Policy Studies, told us that ‘The EU is now working on a regulatory approach to FinTech. Is it needed?’”.
Turning to the mainstream business of banking itself, in paragraph 32 we say:
“Deloitte’s written evidence argued that the EU’s proposals for the CRD ‘demonstrated a growing willingness to depart from implementing global post-crisis banking rules’, in particular by discounting risk weights derived from the fundamental review of the trading book … by 35% for the first three years of application’. The EMIR review is, as we have noted, a matter of concern for the clearing industry”.
In paragraph 38 we point to some of the risks of membership of the EU:
“The Financial Services Consumer Panel made a related point, suggesting that a ‘weakness of the EU regime has been a lack of consistent supervision across Member States. Regulatory expertise and resources across the EU28 vary greatly’, which in turn ‘creates risks for all consumers and undermines trust in the market, especially for passported products’”.
As we say in paragraph 201:
“The second aspect of the UK’s current regime, as derived from EU regulation, that was cited as problematic was the regulatory treatment of smaller firms operating domestically rather than internationally. As the ICAEW”—
the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales; I declare an interest as a fellow—
“pointed out, this has been especially problematic in the context of prudential standards, as ‘the approach to bank capital is an area where there have been differences between the international and EU approaches’. They explained: ‘The Basel Accord was originally intended for internationally active diversified banks. In the EU (CRD IV, CRR) we have elected to apply the same Basel rules to all banking and investment firms. The US, in contrast, has not. It applies the Basel rules only to its international banks’”.
It is often said, with truth, that one of the benefits of membership of the EU is that we can influence it from within. But in paragraph 46 we say:
“There have, though, been a few failures of UK influence at the EU level. One of the most notorious concerned remuneration rules in CRD IV, which impose a bonus cap for bankers. Deloitte noted that the UK had opposed this measure, on the grounds that it ‘fails to link risk-taking with variable remuneration, increases fixed pay at banks and consequently makes those banks less able to reduce their salary costs in times of stress, potentially contributing to financial stability risks’”.
In paragraph 186, we also say:
“However, proposals to demand the relocation of systemic CCPs within the eurozone will not achieve the Commission’s objectives of bolstering financial stability”.
While no one should be under any illusions that this is going to be easy, it could in the long term also present opportunities for us. I hope my noble friend the Minister will tell us that the Government intend to grasp these opportunities, to the benefit of businesses in the financial services sector and, in particular, to the benefit of their customers.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, this is another excellent report from one of our EU sub-committees. It owes a lot to the quality of the clerks, and the quality of the chair and other members of the committee. However, I want to make one central point about the report which greatly worries me. I think it takes for granted the Government’s present commitment to withdraw from the single market and not to seek membership of the European Economic Area. For the City, that will have pretty awful consequences. I do not really agree with the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, on that.
Let me make three broad points. First, services are our economic future. This is where we have a trade surplus and are very strong. The City has benefited enormously from being the financial centre of the European single market. I am very worried about the way that the debate is going on Brexit. As evidenced by the piece by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in the Financial Times on Monday, the argument is, “Let’s have regulatory alignment in goods but let’s go our own way in services”. This could do grave damage to the service sector in Britain, which I regard as a key part of our economic future. When we had the report on non-financial services, virtually all the people from all the different parts of the service sector—from broadcasting, the law, accounting and architecture—said that the three fundamentals of the single market were fundamental to their business model. They are: the freedom of establishment, which we lose when we leave; the mutual recognition of qualifications, which we may just about manage to hold on to; and, most important of all, free movement of labour, which is absolutely fundamental to service businesses including the City.
My second main point is about the hope that we can negotiate a mutual recognition arrangement through a free trade agreement, which is basically what we will be doing if we are not in the single market. The idea that this is possible is very misplaced. I can tell your Lordships about it in EU terms. I worked in the Commission for three years and the EU will see us as a third country. You cannot have mutual recognition with a third country but that is the position we are putting ourselves in. That is not the EU being dogmatic and difficult but a question of where we have chosen to put ourselves. Think about mutual recognition and the contribution it made to the start of the deepening of the single market—for example, in the Cassis de Dijon decision. That was because people were in a common regulatory area governed by a single court, the European Court of Justice. How can you have a system of mutual recognition when you have a separate system of adjudication, apart from the European system? That is the fundamental logical flaw in this position.
My third point is that I have grave doubts about the position that the Bank of England is taking: that there are no circumstances in which, in financial services, Britain could be a rule taker. This could be very damaging to our national interest in the long run because it implies that if we are not to be part of the EEA, we will go our own way and there will be gradual divergence between the City and the EU. The very fragmentation of the financial services market that we are trying to avoid will actually start to take place. That is based on a misjudgment about how much influence Britain could have as a member of the EEA in various areas. True, we would not have a vote but I believe that we would have influence. We would certainly have influence on questions of free movement and I think that we would also have influence over the future of the City which, if we remained in the EEA, would be seen by our continental partners as a vital asset to them. Once we leave, that mutuality of interest disappears. I have very serious concerns about the way that this whole debate is going.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the committee, I too thank my noble friend Lady Falkner for the way that she chaired it and for her succinct opening speech, summarising both the report and its recommendations. I think we all acknowledge the staff who contributed to it in really quite difficult circumstances. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that I very much take many of his points but the committee took the view that we were taking evidence from the City on the proposition that we are leaving. How were we to explore how we leave and what we do? However, I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, that in the evidence we got month after month of no clarity, no sense of purpose or destination. We still do not have that and it is a matter of great concern.
In this House and the other place, but certainly across the wider community, there may not be much sympathy for a sector which many people thought brought the house down, took reckless risks with other people’s money and rewarded itself handsomely. It is therefore easy to say, “Who cares about the financial services sector?” But the answer is that we all have to care, and also to hope with some justification that lessons have been learned—although probably not all of them. To put it in a positive framework, we first need to recognise that financial services are a crucial part of our economy. At 7.2% of the economy, it has over 1 million jobs and a £60 billion trade surplus in a country that has the biggest balance of payments deficit in recorded history. It is the biggest contributor to minimising that and we are about to undermine it. It also delivers £24.4 billion in tax revenue each year. I do not suggest for a minute that, because of Brexit, all that will disappear but there is a lot of confusion and uncertainty. Much of the sector will migrate. The question is: how much?
The second important thing is that even if people are sceptical about the value of the industry in its own right, it is important. I echo the point about the dispersal of the jobs as I think there are 160,000 people employed in Scotland in financial services, which is more by a significant margin than are employed in the oil and gas industry. Much more importantly, it is also the lubricant of the entire economy and, when it works well, partly the lubricant of an international economy. Many people complain that the City or the financial services tend to think big, so it is much easier to raise £100 million than £100,000. The reality is that a lot of this business is for small businesses and individuals managing their savings and pensions, and creating the liquidity for investment at home and abroad. We know that domestic investment and inward investment have collapsed. The money has got to go somewhere, so it is going to leave the country. That is a matter of grave concern if we do not get it right.
We also heard consistent concerns about the future of contracts—insurance contracts and others—if there is no continuity agreement. The Bank of England Financial Policy Committee report stated that insurance contracts representing £55 billion of liabilities, involving 38 million policyholders across the EEA and with bilateral derivatives of £26 trillion and cleared derivatives of £70 trillion could all be affected. These are phenomenal numbers, even beyond telephone numbers, for which there is no clear contractual future as of the end of next March. I find it mindboggling that people calmly contemplate this and say, “It’ll be all right. It’ll be fine”, when we have absolutely no sense of progress. When people say we could be heading for a cliff edge we are told, as I have been told in a few cases, that we are fine. Nothing has happened. The economy is still functioning. We have to keep saying to people that we have not left and that we are still a member of the European Union until the end of March. That is when the cliff edge is approaching, not now. It is amazing how many people think we left the day after the referendum because they do not engage in the detail. Why would they? They have got lives to live, unlike us here who have to engage in the detail.
If we get to that situation, rule taker or rule maker becomes purely academic because we are either completely shut out of the European Union or we have to take its rules. There is nothing in between if we do not have an agreement, and there is no history of a financial services agreement. We know that mutual recognition is not going to be acceptable, and we know that all the alternatives fall far short of what is needed. The irony is that the financial regulatory arrangements of the EU have substantially been driven by the United Kingdom over the past 25 years to the benefit of both the European Union and the United Kingdom, yet in nine months’ time it will lose our expertise and we will lose its protection and access to its services if we do not get an agreement. That is the “if”, but many people will be forgiven for assuming that we may not get an agreement, given that two years down the road we have no inkling in any kind of detail of what kind of transitional arrangement we will get and when it will finish. Witness after witness said that they had no alternative but to do what the Bank of England has asked them to do, which is to assume that at the end of March next year we will be outside the European Union with no agreement, and that they were planning on that basis.
We know that jobs are going, investment is going, offices are being rented and people are being served notice. All this is happening. Companies will not put out press releases about this; they will just do it because they have businesses to run. They will get on and do it, as they are doing. That makes me concerned that it is worse than the maxim that people talk about—nothing is agreed until everything is agreed—because it is “nothing is agreed because nothing is agreed and nothing is going to be agreed”. I wonder when people will realise when we have fallen off the cliff. Will it be two-thirds of the way down—so far, so good—or will it be when we hit the rocks at the bottom?
The Government have not delivered the White Paper, but they have seen this report based on extensive evidence from all the senior players in this sector who have calmly and clearly told us of their concerns and their needs but who have heard nothing significant back from the Government in terms of outcomes. On a positive note, they all say that they believe that civil servants and everybody engaged in the sector know what can be done and that it could be done, but they do not know whether the Government will do it or are capable of doing it. One very senior player in the sector said to us, “We believe there is a basis from which we can manage the future of our financial services sector and maintain a connection with the EU and our international pre-eminence. We could negotiate this. We think we know how we could do it. Our only problem is that we do not know whether the Government think we are more or less important than the fishing industry”. That is a pretty savage indictment of the relationship in practical terms between the Government and this crucial sector.
I found how the financial services sector is regulated through Parliament interesting. Our sub-committee is part of the process for the UK. Obviously the Treasury Committee and the European Affairs Committee in the House of Commons are part of the process. The role of the European Parliament is also interesting. It has far more resources, in terms of people, money and powers, to shape the regulations and the legislation, as it has done over many years. It is way beyond anything that the UK Parliament provides, needed to provide or needs to provide as long as we are a member of the European Union. We are, after all, participants in the European Parliament, although I am told that British MEPs are now relegated to the back row along with supplicants and are no longer treated as if they are Members of the European Parliament. Be that as it may, the UK is still a member of the European Parliament. Once we are not, we will not have the benefits of scrutiny by a European Parliament which has an obligation to us, as well as the other 27 members.
The Government should understand that the industry has given us quite detailed evidence, without being too prescriptive, that there are decisions that will need to be made by the regulators, there will be some decisions that might need to be made, particularly in the short term, directly by Ministers, but there are many other decisions, particularly in terms of legislative or regulatory changes, which will need to be made by a proper parliamentary process that will require resources far beyond anything that has been provided to our Parliament in the past. That is something the Government should take on board, not least because it is in the Minister’s interests, I would have thought, to have a parliamentary dimension to a sector which is so complicated and so wide reaching in its impact.
I plead with the Government to recognise that if we leave the EU—I notice that Gordon Brown said yesterday that he thought we probably will not and that if we did we would be applying to rejoin immediately afterwards—we not only need to negotiate a working agreement and to have a clear idea of how we manage regulation but we need to demonstrate and understand that Parliament has to have a much more substantial role in protecting our interests.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, has summarised our report with her usual dynamism and clarity. She has been a skilled and dedicated chairman and I echo the warm words from fellow members of the committee. I also warmly thank our clerk Matthew Manning, his assistant Claire Coast-Smith and our former policy analyst Holly Snaith, whom I wish very well in her career at the Bank of England. I take this opportunity to express particular regret that the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer of Leeds, is now leaving the committee. He is a wise owl. He helped me a lot in my first year on the committee, and we have benefited greatly from his contributions.
Much of the ground in the report has been covered. I think I am more in the school of my noble friend Lord De Mauley than the school of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. I am very concerned by the risk-taker/vassal state implications of the EEA option. It is one of the key reasons why the Swiss voted against being in the EEA all those years ago, despite them having a strong financial services industry, as we do.
I am going to focus on two issues: the impact of the changes that the fintech revolution is ushering in and the future of international co-operation on standards and stability. I believe that fintech—that is, business providing financial services by making use of software and other modern technologies such as AI and blockchain—is becoming ever more important. It was pioneered by a number of small and rapidly growing firms, but is now changing the way that traditional financial institutions operate. In my view, this revolution could be more important than Brexit to the future of the sector, so we need to continue the positive climate that the UK has provided for such innovation. There is also a competitive threat: a growing fintech dynamism in the United States and indeed in Asia, especially in Singapore. We need to ensure that the UK companies retain their edge and remain at the heart of this important revolution.
So what do we need to achieve that? First, we need the right regulatory regime, as witness Andrew Bailey, chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, told the committee, in paragraph 42 of our report:
“FinTech, interestingly, is very little subject to regulation at the moment, and that is a good thing”.
His own contribution on fintech has been important and the FCA’s regulatory sandbox has been widely praised, as my noble friend Lord De Mauley emphasised. However, as he also said, there is a risk that EU plans to take more control in this area could change things for the worse. In particular, if we were to become a rule-taker of new controls on fintech under any Brexit deal with the EU, that would bring risks to our vibrant industry here. Perversely, the rich tech entrepreneurs would probably move outside the EU and European competitiveness would be eroded.
Secondly, fintech also needs access to talent. The biggest concern of tech entrepreneurs is to continue to attract top people. It is now clear that existing employees can stay, but a smooth and efficient Home Office system for future talent will be vital. The sector may also need to improve apprenticeships and training for locals. That is something that it should already do.
Thirdly, it needs access to capital. The majority of capital for businesses of this kind is raised privately or by venture capitalists in London. They themselves are a source of innovative finance, such as peer-to-peer lending. However, there will no longer be access to ECB funds and the British Business Bank will have to fill the gap. This was recognised in a very good session with the then City Minister, Stephen Barclay MP, who was immediately promoted. I am glad to say that the move to the British Business Bank is now the subject of forthcoming work by our committee.
Lastly, fintech needs to be able to export and to grow outside the UK. Many UK companies in the sector have set up or are setting up in Dublin, Amsterdam, Paris or Berlin. They may need a bit more government support in a post-Brexit world. More importantly, the Government’s post-Brexit focus on global Britain and on international investment is good news for fintech. Their leaders now form a significant part of overseas delegations, as I saw for myself on a visit to India last year when I was Commercial Secretary. However, the UK also has fintech agreements with Singapore, South Korea and China.
The second area that I want to highlight is the future of international co-operation on standards, stability and supervision. As our report says:
“UK regulators have been highly influential at both technical and political levels within the international standards-setting bodies”.
Indeed, I would say that this has continued throughout the history of financial services. However, the future will be different. The UK will at best have some sort of observer status in the various EU financial bodies and, given the economic importance and interconnectivity of financial services, we must hope that any free trade agreement includes arrangements for deep ongoing co-operation between the UK and the EU 27. This must include parliamentary relations, which, as I know from my own experience, have the long-term benefit of involving politicians of all parties.
The Chancellor will not be present at ECOFIN, and Mark Carney’s chairmanship of the Financial Stability Board is coming to an end. Unless his successor as chairman is also the successful candidate to succeed him as governor next year, which is unlikely, we will see a serious decline in influence. What can we do about this? I shall build on my noble friend Lord Lindsay’s comments by posing some questions. Do the Government have a plan for influencing internationally in these much less favourable circumstances? Should we second more key people to the international financial institutions that we list in the committee’s report—not only the FSB but the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the International Organization of Securities Commissions, the International Association of Insurance Supervisors and the International Accounting Standards Board? All are important, but perhaps most important of all is the question of whether we can use the opportunities of the G7, the G20 and the OECD to better effect in the financial standards and supervision area. We will be in a different world where new forms of influence will be important. Several of us have expressed concern on this vital issue, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us some reassurance about what is planned and indeed about resourcing, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
This is an important month for the Government, and I wish the Prime Minister great success at the European Council. Britain has great strengths, including some that I have touched on in financial services. We have a stronger hand than we sometimes realise, and we should be ready to use it.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I served on this committee in the last Parliament and I was delighted to do so. I was not at all surprised that the noble Baroness who chairs the committee has received all these compliments from the current members because she really was a formidable chairman in my time and I am sure she has remained so. I do not think I have ever seen a chairman of a committee in either House who does his or her homework quite so thoroughly, and that starts the committee off on exactly the right foot because everyone else feels they have to live up to that kind of example, which probably none of us did. Her direction and leadership were always stimulating and sometimes very demanding. As the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, also knows, I am very blunt, and I am going to be quite blunt about this report. I hope I shall be forgiven by colleagues but I think it is important to have a frank debate on these occasions so that we expose different perspectives to any members of the public who might be interested in our proceedings or our views on these subjects, rather than just the perspective that is enshrined in the report.
The report contains a lot of very good work. I found most interesting the examination of the costs to us of Brexit in the financial services area, which I think is in appendix 4 of the report and is something that should be widely read. However, I have three problems with it. First, on the whole it tends to be too kind to people. I was very amused to see that Prudential apparently got away with arguing that it left the annuity market because of Solvency II. It is nothing to do with that; it is because the fall in interest rates means that annuities are an even worse deal than they ever were in the past. People are better advised now anyway, thank God, so a much lower number of people have been inclined to put their savings into that particular form, and very happily so. Solvency II has actually been a considerable success; the general insurance field is not complaining about it. Both the companies and the Lloyd’s market are generally overcapitalised in terms of Solvency II. It would not make any sense at all to revise the Solvency II criteria as the committee has suggested.
Secondly, and more significantly, I thought the report was far too kind, dangerously so, to the financial regulators in this country. It said what a wonderful reputation we have and that our financial regulators are respected worldwide and so on—I paraphrase because I do not have the exact words in front of me, but they occur several times in different contexts in the report. Historically, that was probably true, but sadly that reputation was eroded about 20 years ago by a series of banking scandals such as Barings and BCCI, and there is very little left of it at all after what happened during the Lehman Brothers collapse, when we had the notable collapses of banks that obviously had not been properly supervised either on the liabilities side of their balance sheet, like Northern Rock, or on the assets side of their balance sheet, like RBS and Lloyds.
What happened in the RBS case was an appalling failure of elementary supervision. Mr Hector Sants at the FSA had all the power required to stop the AMRO transaction. He never used it: he was out to lunch. How he has managed to make a continuing career for himself in the field of financial supervision and regulation, I do not know. That itself worries me, and is not a commendation of the British financial supervisory and regulatory system. One needs sometimes to be quite harsh in examining our treasured institutions in the hope that they will, over the long term, improve their performance. They certainly need to in this respect in this country.
What a contrast between us and France. The British love to run the French down, but BNP Paribas, Société Générale and other big continental banks—German banks and Spanish banks such as Santander—sailed through the crisis. We literally had the worst record of anyone. That is my first problem with the report.
My second problem with the report is that a fundamental contradiction runs through it. At times, it says that it is in the self-interest of the continentals to accommodate us, to have mutual recognition, and so forth; at other moments, that it is in their selfish interest—but I suppose that that is the same thing as self-interest—not to accommodate us but to keep us out. We must make up our mind what is in the mind of the people who we are dealing with.
I will give my answer to that question. I think there are two fundamental motivating views on the part of our counterparties in these negotiations. One is the sense that if you have a club and someone wants to leave it, that is fine: they leave it. If they want to leave it, remain fully engaged but somehow juridically leave, that is problematic but something that you can talk about. If they want to leave it but actually want to keep all the benefits but not have any of the disciplines or costs and have special new rules crafted for them, that is insufferable. That is ridiculous. I think that we would react that way if the boot was on the other foot.
The second thing which has not come out in the report, which I think is the major motivating factor on the other side of the table, so it is important to consider it, is the issue of financial stability. If, as a banking regulator or supervisor, you are concerned about financial stability, as you must be, you want to be in control. You want to decide who is a fit and proper person to be dealing in your markets. If you have a crisis, you need to give orders to people and tell them to change their behaviour rapidly. You cannot have people who operate in your market, creating assets, lending money or whatever—perhaps contributing to the crisis, who knows?—who suddenly put their hands up and say, “We’re British. We have special rules. We have a different adjudication procedure. We do not have to obey your demands”. That is a hopeless situation. If you were Mario Draghi, I think that you would reasonably not want to accept it.
I come to my third difficulty with the report, which is most fundamental. It is far too optimistic and sanguine. It starts off by saying, “We need to continue to do our financial services business”. Quite right: of course we do. “Equivalence is certainly not sufficient for our needs”. Quite right: I totally agree. “Therefore we need mutual recognition”. But it never says that mutual recognition is fairyland, cloud cuckoo land—what other cliché can I use? It is absurd. It will not happen. I am happy to put money on that if any Member of the House on either side wants to take me up on it. We are not going to get passports unless we stay in the single market, when of course the whole range of activities will be open to us.
Of course it is true that during the transition period, we continue to have full access, as we do today. That is not that much of a help, you know. What does it mean? It means that until the end of 2020, we can carry on with the false—self-deceiving—situation in which we think everything is all right and nothing will change. It means that we postpone the so-called cliff edge for 12 or 18 months, or whatever. Perhaps we can negotiate a longer period. It now looks as though we will go into this transition period not knowing what its terminal date will be.
Europhiles such as me would be happy for it to go on indefinitely, if we cannot go back fully and juridically into the European Union, which I would like to do and which is far and away the best solution. Of course the Eurosceptics in the Tory party will fight like cats about that and threaten to overthrow Mrs May if she does that, so what she will do if she is running into the deadline of next March and does not have an agreement on the terms of transition nor the period of the transition, heaven only knows. When the period of the transition is known, we are heading for another cliff edge, and the uncertainty which businesses in the City are complaining about now, which is well recorded in the report, will simply be carried forward for a little longer. That is unhelpful. We will have had a major structural uncertainty in this country for three, four or five years. That is not a very clever thing to do. I think that that is my understatement of the evening.
I am worried, because I fear that anyone reading the report will get a false impression of the situation into which we are headed. Barnier is quoted as saying that we cannot get financial passports unless we stay in the single market—and if people do not listen to Barnier, they are unlikely to listen to Quentin Davies; I quite understand that. It is no consolation when you think that we are walking into potential disaster that we have a blindfold over our eyes for the time being.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, if I may I will speak in the gap. I am a member of the committee but, by some muddle, my name does not appear on the list. I join everyone else in thanking our chairman for her excellent work—and our staff. I shall concentrate on one thing, because the report has been summarised very well by my fellow committee members. We all agree that the City is not only a great contributor to our economy but one of the best financial centres in the world. There is no doubt about that. We also know that access to the City is of great benefit to EU countries. But I say to my noble friend Lord Liddle that we could not write a report on any assumption other than that Brexit will happen. We had to work that out. If it does not happen, who knows what will happen—but we had to do that.
My doubt is this: yes, it is a fact that we are a very good financial centre, we make a great contribution to European prosperity and Europe needs us. In a world of rational, self-interest pursuing agents, it would be recognised by both sides that it is in our mutual interest to arrive at a good agreement—be it equivalence, mutual recognition or whatever. My fear is that we do not live in that world in this context. Given the way that the Brexit negotiations have gone, I increasingly suspect that neither side really wants to pursue rational self-interest. Indeed, had we wanted to pursue rational self-interest, we would not have got into this in the first place.
Given that we are champions in the financial industry, it of course makes sense for the other side to use what in the old days we used to call import substitution to keep us out as far as possible—because their industry can develop only if ours is stopped from competing in their market. This is the history of all developing countries and, if you are a financial centre such as Frankfurt or Paris, you look forward to the time when you can make it difficult, if not impossible, for the City of London to compete.
My conclusion from this is rather pessimistic, but I think it agrees with a lot of what our witnesses said. Assume the worst. That is the only ground on which you can plan the future. It is most likely, unless we are very lucky, that we will not get a good agreement in finite time and that we will have to adjust to a situation after Brexit when we will have to use our ingenuity and innovation to do better elsewhere.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the committee and my noble friend Lady Falkner on what is a very meaty report—I fully accept that. But I am afraid that I find myself in the camp of the noble Lords, Lord Davies, Lord Liddle and Lord Desai, and my noble friend Lord Bruce in this debate.
I start by trying to find at least a little bit of common ground. We can all agree that the financial services industry is absolutely crucial to this country. My noble friend Lord Bruce quoted the number of employees and the tax that it generates, and 30% of that is generated from an EU client base—the client base within the 27. A very significant part of the financial services industry that we have here and which underpins so much of our economy is essentially generated out of the 27. We access that, as others have described, through a very diverse set of regulations and directives, from direct passporting for the banking industry and much of the insurance industry, and rights of delegation for asset management. The reason why we can have the London Stock Exchange acting as the global foremost CCP which clears virtually all euro-denominated derivatives as well as many in other currencies is because of liquidity provided by the European Central Bank and underpinned by a location policy. Many of the fintechs that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, talked about survive because they were pan-European from the day when they were born and function across borders through the e-commerce directive. Many of them have based their future plans and what they expect and hope for on the single digital market. So we are deeply embedded in this process.
There are two other big issues for our financial services industry. I am not going to address them here, but let me mention them by title. There is freedom of movement. So many of the staff—one-third of all those in our fintech operations, for example—come from continental Europe. They are not going to come here under visa terms, because why should they live with those restrictions when they can live without them elsewhere. Then there is the whole issue of data exchange.
I want to go back and pick up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Desai, made. The British-to-British conversation that takes place all the time, about how we manage to keep financial services thriving at the current level and growing in a post-Brexit world, comes without any recognition of where the European Union is coming from—and positions that we ourselves would take if we were in its position. I hear so often, “They need us more than we need them”. You hear that almost on a continuous basis. But there is a lack of capacity in the rest of Europe. Over the last 10 or 20 years, nearly all financial services capacity has been sucked into London. It has thrived in London and has come to this financial centre, particularly with regard to the wholesale markets. That is where things are today. If you are sitting in the EU, you recognise that as a reality, but it is a reality for now. Five years or 10 years from now, why should that continue to be so? Surely, you look for an arrangement, when the UK decides that it is going to step out of the club, leave the EU and become a third country, and you look for an opportunity to bring that business back into the EU, perhaps salami slice by salami slice, and build capacity gradually.
We often hear from the British the threat that, “If the business doesn’t thrive in London, it will move to New York”. That is just from one third country to another third country—perhaps a less attractive third country, and perhaps one where the time difference is more of a problem. But it is frankly not a major issue, if you are sitting within the EU and what you are looking to do is to over time build that capacity. To think that the EU 27, which by purchasing power is the second largest economic bloc on the globe, would allow its crucial financial centre to be outside its supervision and control, is fairly extraordinary. We would have to make an exceptional case to argue that that should happen. I do not think that any of that is recognised in the discussions that we constantly have about the solution that we would like.
That leads me to the issue of what is often called bespoke dynamic mutual recognition. We will have mechanisms where we recognise them as acceptable players and they recognise us as acceptable players, but when we dig beneath that we find that it requires fundamental change in the EU to achieve it. This is an organisation that lives in a rules-based society and has a legal framework structured through the ECJ, and all that would have to be reconfigured to meet the requirements of mutual recognition. New institutions would have to be created, staffed and funded, and the EU would fundamentally have to change how it operates. Why would it do that?
I am afraid that the very unsatisfactory third-country equivalence that is on offer—and I agree that it is very unsatisfactory—works perfectly well for the EU. Nobody in the UK is going to stop them coming to use London markets and say, “No, you can’t come here and have access, we’re going to take it away from you”. We need their business. It is perfectly acceptable for them to work on a basis whereby, essentially, on 29 days’ notice the European authorities can simply remove the business or set in place new requirements or new rules—and it works very well with that strategy of moving attractive pieces of business salami slice by salami slice back to continental Europe as the capacity develops and as it is capable. We delude ourselves in thinking that the EU is going to go through extraordinary contortions and change its fundamental way of working to accommodate a mutual recognition framework, even though we think that for us that would be ideal.
The same thing could be said of a free trade agreement. I would love to see a free trade agreement that contained services. I was at an event today at the City of London where the speaker said, “If the EU wishes to prove itself to be the leading free trader in the world, it would be an excellent opportunity to create the template to include financial services in a free trade agreement”. I just do not see that that is where the EU is at this moment in time. It is not on its priority list to identify itself as the leading free trader and start to create a framework that redefines global trade and WTO rules. If it does have that ambition, it is certainly not going to be doing it in the next 12 months or two years. That is the kind of thing that you might develop over five or 10 years. It would be long and tough and, obviously, it would have to be framed as an arrangement that has served not just an arrangement with the UK but with all the other various financial centres around the globe. So it is not something that is going to be immediately available, which drives us back to this very unsatisfactory arrangement of—I am now losing the terminology. What is the word that I want? It begins with “e”.
Baroness Kramer
Equivalence. I do have this problem.
The other issue that I have heard discussed here and which bothers me hugely is the discussion about how, after we leave, we can reframe our rules to allow more risk-taking. To pick up exactly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, picked up, if you were sitting in the European Union and looking at the UK in 2008, you saw a financial crisis to some significant degree attributable to light-touch regulation—and how we touted light-touch regulation and told everyone that it was the way to go. It is exactly a return to that language of light-touch regulation. We have mistrust within our own country—people mistrust the industry and the regulators, so it is wrong to suggest that in the European Union they are going to say, “No, no, no—these people have changed completely. When they talk about reducing regulation it will be in the context of being absolutely safe”. It is not—it is in order to create competitive advantage.
As noble Lords know, Barney Reynolds is a great promoter of that particular approach. I took some quotes from the report that he submitted, where he talks about a “market-friendly” financial services framework. That sounds very good, if you believe that market forces are the answer, but not if you believe that market forces ran rampant and out of control in 2008. International competitiveness should be a “statutory objective” for all our UK financial service regulators—that is the kind of language. That is a race to the bottom. This is precisely the accusation that is being levied: international competitiveness means that you always have the least-regulated structure. We are seeing in the United States, again, that a lot of the regulation that was put in place following the 2008 crisis is now being pulled back. That creates an added level of discomfort with this kind of Anglo-Saxon approach and framework. I do not think that we should underestimate how much we are caught in that particular view.
I also have to say that, when I ask those at any financial services entity, “Where are you looking for a change in regulation?”—the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, hit on it exactly—they say that it is on remuneration: lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses. If ever there were an example that inspires mistrust and a sense that we are returning to the bad old days, it is that. It is always represented as the key and most important regulation that the financial service industry would like to see lifted.
I am desperate to keep the financial services industry here to the extent that we can, but I think we have to be realistic. A lot of it has already left. As my noble friend Lord Bruce said, this is not done with press releases and open discussion; no company wants to create concern among its customers, suppliers or regulators by saying, “We are at risk if we stay within the UK”, but these companies are very quietly moving and we are beginning to see a series of announcements. It was also an iconic moment when Lloyd’s of London dropped “London” from its title. It is now established in Brussels. It has 600 staff in London; 100 of them are moving to the Brussels office—it is just the beginning. Insurance companies, because of the reasons of contractual continuance that have been raised here, have all been moving over the last 24 months. I just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the fintechs are moving as well. I have talked to so many of them that are applying or have applied for a licence in Dublin—but the real risk is Paris. She spoke about the innovative approach that we have to regulation of the fintech industry, and I agree, but it has spread rapidly and she perhaps does not know that the Paris equivalent has an MoU with the FCA to make sure that it takes an equivalent approach to regulation and sandbox to Paris. It is to Paris that a lot of the fintechs are moving; it is an attractive lifestyle and many of them are fans of Macron. They see a future there and there is real competition for that particular industry.
What do we do under these circumstances? I, like others, think that the only route we can take that leaves us with something other than this unsatisfactory third-country equivalence is, frankly, to stay within the single market one way or another. Without that, it seems to me that we will be on the outside. If we are going to be on the outside and trapped within just equivalence, our whole negotiation has to be focused on trying to make sure we have a voice at the table. I do not see the Government doing that; I see them going down the mutual recognition route, basically with pages of demands that require the European Union to restructure the way that it works, to change everything that it does, to shift its principles and to have 27 countries operate under a rules-based system and the 28th without that. If we can get the Government to pull back from that and to pursue an opportunity—I would prefer it to be in the single market but it has to be an equivalent to try to get us a voice at the table through some mechanism or other—we might have some possibility and some hope. The complexity around this industry more than illustrates the fact that there are only downsides to Brexit. One can find a few upsides but, my goodness, weigh them on the scale and they are very small.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the committee on its report, under the obviously effective chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. I congratulate her on her speech, too, because she spent a great deal of time accurately depicting what the report contained but also added some reservations of her own, which might just have passed us all by, had not some of those themes been developed later in the debate. For instance, she emphasised the problems with the insurance industry and the limited progress that has been made. She also mentioned the concept of equivalence, which, as we all recognise, is an easy term to use but a very difficult one to realise when making decisions.
No one doubts the significance of securing the right framework for the crucial sector of financial services. The opening paragraph of the report emphasises the level of interdependence that must not be lost as the UK leaves the EU. The problem, of course, as identified in the report, is the range of issues where it is so easy to lose that concept of interdependence. My noble friend Lord Liddle indicated that, when we are talking about technical issues, we also have to work out who is in fact taking the decisions. It is a great weakness for the UK if, instead of being the rule-maker—which we have been used to in so many areas of financial services—we become a rule-taker. Yet, as the report indicates, the UK has so much to offer, as well as to benefit from, the European Union, particularly in the field of financial services, where we have considerable expertise. My admiration for the report lies in the clarity with which it identifies areas of real difficulty that the Government need to address—the difficult negotiations, and the difficult decisions to be taken. We cannot be too optimistic about progress so far.
Of course, my party made some progress in this debate only yesterday in tabling a fresh amendment to the withdrawal Bill, seeking for us to continue in the single market. That will not please many Members on the other side of the House. They should not worry: it will not please my noble friend Lord Liddle either, because he wants full membership of the EEA, and what was offered yesterday is much more marginal than that. But such developments as this are bound to put this report into a developing context; that is the problem. The committee had to report as it saw things at that time. We are all too well aware of the march of time and of crucial periods ending. The report certainly succeeds in identifying the key issues that require resolution, and we should greatly appreciate the work of the committee for that clarity. But how often does the report refer to difficult issues? How often does it present the challenge of what is to be done, rather than the solution?
I am not critical of the report for that; we live in an age of great uncertainty. It is clear that the Government contribute to that uncertainty by not contributing much at all in the way of substantial advance. Quite a long time ago, we thought that certain crucial, fundamental blocks had been agreed by the Government. Can one recall how many months ago it was that the Irish border issue was “under control” and had been resolved? And what have we had subsequently? Almost continuous anxiety about the Irish border issue— it colours a great deal of the whole debate. The Government’s record is therefore somewhat less than encouraging when it comes to negotiations.
The report warns of the fragmentation that would result from ending passporting, which would clearly increase costs for companies and firms and reduce financial stability. The relocation of clearing activities to the EU would increase those risks. The report sees no reason why they should diverge from EU standards; the answer should be regulatory alignment. How far have we got with any fulfilment of that objective? I do not blame the report for analysing a problem and saying what the solution should be; it is in the hands of others to make progress towards a solution, but progress seems to be very limited indeed. There is clearly a need for international standards to be enhanced, and the UK can make a substantial contribution to that. However, that means that the UK has to stay in a significant position with regard to these issues.
The report emphasises the significance of the financial services industry, which makes up 7.2% of our economy, the jobs involved and its contribution to the Exchequer, which is not likely to be ignored by the government Front Bench. But the great danger is the prolonged uncertainty. Almost every speech this evening indicated less than certainty about where we are going—not defining what is going to happen, but expressing what needs to happen against a background where nothing is certain. The great danger is that this prolonged uncertainty will cause firms to take the only action they can. They will take decisions to relocate within the European Union—not with bombast, advertising the fact, but quietly going about the process of safeguarding their interests as they see power drift away from London towards other parts of the present European Union.
No one has mentioned this in the debate, but we should all have responded to the fact that the report spends quite a bit of time talking about the burdens Parliament will carry and the challenges it will face. The report does not pull any punches on this. It describes the legislative load upon Parliament to transpose the European Union body of law—the acquis communautaire—into British law. Clearly, that is an absolutely massive task that will fall upon this Parliament. In addition, the powers of British institutions are bound to increase, because they will no longer be part of the more general regulatory framework but will be the sole regulatory framework in crucial areas. That means that Parliament will have to take a much keener interest in the key regulatory bodies in this country. I will come on to the reason why that is necessary in just a moment.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, referred to fintech. After all, that is a crucial success story for the UK financial services. The report pays particular attention to the fintech industry, in which the UK has played such a leading role. The report says that those concerned with the development of fintech must be in crucial positions to ensure that international standards are of the highest as it develops. But how? In which capacity will they be able to fulfil that role? The report is optimistic about certain opportunities, although it goes on to identify the difficulties facing the Government.
There have been several contributions in this debate with undertones of anxieties and reservations about our position, and concern about the limited progress we have made so far—from my noble friends Lord Davies and Lord Desai but also from other speakers, and certainly from the noble Baroness who spoke just before me. Are British regulatory systems fit for the situation we face, with its fresh challenges? I have heard today, and in this report too, many congratulations on certain aspects of our regulatory control. However, can we just recognise that we have 29 overlapping regulatory authorities at present? There are doubts about all of the four big accountancy firms because of the role they played in the colossal financial crash of 2008, or in more recent debacles; one thinks only of Carillion, for example, and the role the accountants played in that. How good will our institutions be at fulfilling this role, when they are going to take on so much more? It is clear that public institutions such as the Bank of England and the PRA will need extra resources to carry out the significant roles that will be imposed on them.
We have one success from the Government—I may be able to think of two if I try hard, but one will do for the moment. They have succeeded in negotiating a transition period, which gives a little more breathing space—but not much. We have no time to waste. The successful negotiation to create a transition period takes us only to December 2020 to resolve many of these issues. What is more, the reason why we need to resolve them as quickly as possible is that those outside, whose interests are affected, are bound to act from their perspective. If the Government do not achieve solutions to these problems, they will have to make the judgment that they will not succeed and will have such a limited relationship with the European Union that everything will fall upon the commercial and economic interests involved.
There is still time for the Government perhaps even to produce a White Paper, but we may be beyond the White Paper stage. We need a pretty clear indication—I am sure that the Minister is bound to give it—of just how much progress has been made in meeting the issues that have been raised in this report and by almost everyone who has spoken in the debate this evening, and we need him to reassure us that great progress has been made.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for this report. I came in, having read the report, thinking that it was an outstanding piece of research and teamwork, that the level of support that had been secured was outstanding and that its conclusions were clear, as were its questions. As the Economic Secretary, John Glen, made clear in his 18-page response to the report on 19 April, it has been extremely helpful. However, when I heard what I will call the varying views of the committee that have been articulated during the course of this debate, I grew in admiration for the noble Baroness and the way in which she had managed to corral these views into such a concise and clear report.
I am also conscious that this is the second report that the sub-committee has produced on this issue. I was delighted that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was able to take part in this debate, because she responded to the debate on the previous report in February last year. I am not sure whether the analogy should be poacher cum gamekeeper or gamekeeper cum poacher—
Lord Bates
I will not go there, as my noble friend Lord Hunt urges—I always follow his advice.
It has been an extraordinarily good debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, led us off by looking at the regulatory and supervisory architecture. My noble friend Lord Lindsay then looked at market mutual access and spelled out how it was in the UK’s and EU’s interests that that should continue. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, reminded us that the financial services industry extends way beyond the City of London and that Edinburgh is a major centre, as is Leeds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer recently visited both those cities and met people involved in financial services. It also extends into places such as Bristol, Norfolk and Bournemouth. The industry really is a focus of strength for the whole UK.
My noble friend Lord De Mauley pointed out that regulatory challenges can also be opportunities, and he cited developments such as the adoption of the FCA regulatory sandbox. I felt that at points the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, dragged us back to a Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and I got deeply—no, perhaps I will not say what I felt about that. However, I want to focus on a point on which we do agree, which is the vital importance of the industry, with the £60 billion trade surplus in financial services and the mutual benefit that it brings. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised a very important point about the continuation of existing contracts which many consumers rely on, and I will come back to that later.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe talked about international co-operation and reminded us that the global architecture extends well beyond the EU. Of course, we can play a major role in the G7, the G20 and the OECD. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, talked about issues such as Solvency II and passporting, which, in his view, had been working particularly well, but his challenges to the report’s conclusions were heard. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, pondered whether rational self-interest would have a determining effect and questioned whether EU negotiators would recognise the importance to the EU of the City of London as a venture. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, talked about the potential challenges for the continuation of financial services and regulatory supervision. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, concluded by reminding us of the burdens which taking back these regulatory powers will have on Parliament and how that regulation will be undertaken. I will come back to some of the questions that were raised, but it has been an extremely helpful debate.
The UK is home to the world’s pre-eminent global financial and professional services centre, in part because of smart regulation and supervision that have tread a careful line between allowing businesses to flourish, and protecting consumers and financial stability. In the latest iteration of the Z/Yen Global Financial Centres Index, produced in March 2018, London again ranked first. That was not pre but post the referendum and post the triggering of Article 50. No other European city was in the top five. We want to preserve the world-leading position of our regulatory architecture and of our regulators. We are committed to high regulatory standards, and Brexit will never mean ripping up the rule book or a race to the bottom.
To sustain the level of cross-border activity between our firms and Europe’s businesses and consumers, we need a relationship that is robust enough to give confidence to those on both sides. We cannot rely on the EU’s existing equivalence framework, as has been mentioned. It is unilateral, piecemeal and unlikely to preserve and deliver much regulatory comparability over time. We need to agree a more comprehensive and stable bilateral deal that recognises the unique nature of the UK-EU future relationship. Paris and Frankfurt will not be the winners of market fragmentation; the winners will be centres such as New York and Singapore. We are aiming to shape a regime to manage future regulatory change that ensures that, although our rule systems might evolve separately, we deliver fully equivalent regulatory outcomes, maintaining commitments to support open markets and fair competition.
The Chancellor has set out a clear vision for our future relationship with the EU on financial services. This has been well received by the industry, and we are beginning to hear voices within the EU recognise the value of our proposition. Our vision is grounded in mutual recognition of equivalent regulation, with a dialogue on setting regulatory requirements and having supervisory co-operation arrangements that are reciprocal and reliable, and an independent arbitration mechanism to provide durable dispute resolution. Reaching agreement on this does not need to be a challenging objective—our rule books are already aligned and our markets are already deeply interconnected. We continue to ensure that our exit from the EU will be smooth and orderly. We made a big step forward in agreeing the legal text on the implementation period, which will keep market access on existing terms for firms and consumers.
Looking to the future, as the report notes, there are opportunities for the financial services sector to become more outward facing. The UK already has world-leading positions in the markets of the future, including fintech, for which we have developed what we call fintech bridges to other jurisdictions—most recently Australia. A recent report cited the prime centres for fintech around the world as Silicon Valley, Shanghai and the City of London, again underscoring the strength of our position.
We are world leaders in green and sustainable finance, or rupee and renminbi products, and we are committed to strengthening that position further. That also means expanding our bilateral relationships with key partners around the globe, including our economic and financial dialogues with China, India, Brazil, Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan. There are enormous growth opportunities for the future.
I shall now turn to some of the questions raised during the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe referred to international bodies and standards. The Government remain committed to the full, timely and consistent implementation of agreed international standards. The UK is an active member of several international standard-setters, including the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Board. The Government believe that continued participation in these organisations is essential to ensure the consistent adoption of international regulatory standards.
My noble friend Lord Lindsay and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, made a point about rule-taking or rule-making. Because of the size of the UK’s financial services market, the complexity of the products traded on it and the consequent risks to our taxpayers, we cannot sign up to accept automatically as yet unknown future rule changes. We must have the ability, if necessary, to deliver an equivalent outcome by different means while protecting UK taxpayers from potentially unacceptable risks. The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe talked about continued access for skilled workers. We have repeatedly made it clear that we do not regard the referendum result as a vote for the UK to pull up the drawbridge. On the contrary, the UK will remain an open and tolerant country—one that recognises the valuable contribution that migrants have made to our society, especially in the realm of financial services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, asked about the transition period. We have now reached an agreement on the implementation period. This agreement and the statements made by the Bank of England and the FCA give business confidence about the future arrangements that will apply immediately after the UK’s exit.
Furthermore, our regulators have announced that they are prepared to act to enable firms accessing the UK from the EU to continue to operate in the UK without having to apply for UK authorisations for the duration of the implementation period. But we cannot provide full reassurance to firms on our own; we need a bilateral solution with the EU to resolve hugely important issues such as continuity of contracts.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, raised particular points on contracts. The Financial Policy Committee estimates that 10 million UK policyholders and 38 million EEA policyholders could be affected by these changes. There is a shared interest for both the UK and the EU in ensuring that we avoid outcomes that impose unnecessary costs and disruption on individuals and businesses. That is why we are focused on agreeing a deep and special future partnership with the EU. But of course, as a responsible Government, we continue to plan for all scenarios. It is vital that we work with our EU partners to put technical arrangements in place to avoid market disruption. Furthermore, the Treasury announced on 20 December 2017 that it would legislate if necessary to ensure that contractual obligations of EU firms with UK-based customers, such as those in insurance contracts, can continue to be met.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, questioned whether it was unrealistic to include financial services in a free trade agreement. All the EU’s recent free trade agreements make provision for financial services, from CETA to Japan, and the need for a close relationship is even more important for two markets as intertwined as ours. In the TTIP negotiations, the EU even pitched a relationship based on mutual recognition of regulations and a dialogue on aligning future regulation.
Financial services firms across the UK have confidence that the Government are committed to leaving the EU in a way that underpins prosperity and avoids unnecessary disruption and dangerous cliff edges for businesses across the UK. We are making significant progress, and this has been well received by the industry. Since December we have reached agreement with the EU on the implementation period. We have agreed a technical dialogue on cliff-edge risks, to be led by the Bank of England and the European Central Bank, and the Chancellor has set out a clear vision for our future relationship with the EU on financial services. These measures have been well received by the industry in the UK. We continue to work closely with businesses located throughout the United Kingdom to ensure that they are prepared for a smooth and orderly withdrawal from the EU. We will continue to do that and remain grateful for the quality and contribution of this report to that effort.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this debate. Naturally, noble Lords would expect me to be extremely grateful to members of the sub-committee who spoke, but I am also particularly grateful to noble Lords who are no longer members of the sub-committee and to those who have never been members. Their remarks are truly the important ones. I also know that there is another debate and many noble Lords have been sitting here patiently waiting for that to commence, so I will restrict my closing remarks to non-members of the sub-committee —and I will keep them brief.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, was extremely critical. I think he is no longer in his place but I will continue.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord apologised that unavoidably he had to leave the Chamber.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
For the record, the noble Lord was critical that we took for granted single market withdrawal. All I would say is that he should read our 2016 report, Brexit: Financial Services, chapter 2, where we cover all the alternative arrangements. So in that case he was shooting the messenger unnecessarily.
The noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Davies of Stamford, and my noble friend Lady Kramer did not at all like our identification of mutual recognition as a solution that had been raised by our witnesses, not least by the IRSG and several others. They, too, are shooting the messenger. If they had glanced at paragraphs 60 to 63, they would have seen that we have our own reservations about achieving that. We say, in terms, that we need more detail and decisions from the Government on how they intend to proceed—if in fact that is the Government’s position. With his usual objectivity and fairness, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, acknowledged that.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, warned us that he was extremely blunt. He knows me well enough to know that I will reciprocate, although rather more softly. I will pick up two points that he made. He said that we were too kind to our regulators as they were tainted by scandals. In the examples that he gave, he omitted to mention that they took place under mainly the watch of a Government whom I believe he was a part of until 2010. They persistently seemed to believe in light-touch regulation. Our belief is that the old tripartite system that has now been replaced by the twin peaks of dual regulation by the FCA and the PRA is rather more robust and resilient. But that is not to say that I believe that banks will never fail. All I am confident of is that the new system will prevent wholesale contagion and a risk to the UK economy overall in terms of the risk to financial stability. In that respect, we should be much more confident of our new system.
Indeed, I know that Members of this House who served on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards helped to create the new system. I believe that my noble friend Lady Kramer was a member of that. So let us have a little more confidence in the new architecture that we have put in place. It has been going for some years and we took our evidence in light of the current framework, not the framework that existed before 2010.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and my noble friend Lady Kramer commented on how UK institutions were somehow worse than others in terms of the UK institutions’ lack of probity and prudence. I did a quick Google check and I will not detain the House with my findings—we can have a bilateral meeting outside the Chamber. But I can say to the noble Lord rather confidently that Société Générale and BNP Paribas, to mention just two—I am leaving aside Deutsche and all the others—have had whopping fines imposed on them in the period since. So let us not just call out our own institutions. Let us accept that a financial system under a capitalist model will always carry some risk. Let us try to see where regulation can be improved and where it needs to be more resilient and sustained. That is what we were trying to do in this report, in looking forward to how supervision and regulation will take place after we leave the European Union.
It has been a pleasure to take part in this debate. But, above all, it was an incredibly stimulating experience to have conducted this inquiry as chair of the committee. I would just remind the House of the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, who said that, in deliberating what we found in this report, we were unanimous as a committee in coming to the conclusions. That is the way it should be. It is a very grown-up committee, where the members recognise that and behave accordingly. It has been my pleasure to chair the committee. I beg to move.
Brexit: Energy Security (European Union Committee Report)
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Brexit: Energy Security (10th Report, HL Paper 63).
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, while noble Lords from the previous debate leave, I will declare my interests. I am a trustee of the Green Purposes Company and a trustee of Regen Southwest, both of which are non-financial interests. I am also a board member of the Marine Management Organisation, which has responsibility for licensing offshore renewable projects in English waters.
If one thing is clear, is it is that a robust, reliable and affordable energy system and network in a country are absolutely vital for its economic—let alone its social—stability. It is in that context that we wrote the report and I am bringing it to the Floor of the House today.
A key point to remember is that while imports of energy from electricity make up only 5% from the EU and 7% for gas—although when we include imports from Norway it is much higher at close to 46%—they are growing because of interconnectors in place and the need to be able share loads in terms of energy systems. For that reason, and because we will be connected to the rest of the European Union’s energy systems after Brexit, this is an area where we believe that government action will be important.
One of the ironies of Brexit is that the United Kingdom has been one of the leaders on energy policy development within the 28 and, indeed, at the time of the 15. The internal energy market was created at the behest of, and is in the image of, a market that the UK would want to see and has helped to evolve. How that evolution takes place after we have left is of course another matter, but we have been fundamental to securing the position we are in at the moment.
I believe that the report is measured. While it sets out the challenges it also looks at the opportunities, and I shall go through some of those because it is important to stress them as well as looking at the challenges. There have been a number of developments since the report was originally published and there are areas in which I am sure that the committee would welcome the changes that have taken place. The Prime Minister spoke in her Mansion House speech of wanting a close association with Euratom, which is key to the energy area. She also said that she wanted to ensure that there would continue to be a single electricity market in Ireland, a market that is absolutely unified, indeed more so than the wider internal energy market itself. She has also stated that she wants to see our continued participation in the internal energy market. As a committee we strongly endorse that wish, although how to do so might be rather more difficult. I shall come on to that.
Claire Perry, the Minister responsible for energy from renewables, in response to a question put by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who will speak later in the debate, told the committee that Britain would remain operational within the EU emissions trading scheme up until the end of the transition period. We welcomed that statement. As we discussed earlier today, we welcome the progress that has been made on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the various discussions not only with the International Atomic Energy Agency but with our partners worldwide as well. Lastly, we welcomed in their response to the report the Government’s continued commitment to the Paris agreement, which is fundamental not only to us and the European Union but to the global position in terms of climate change.
I will go through some of the opportunities that we set out in the report. Post Brexit, we can operate our systems and networks in a way that suits our own energy grids within Great Britain. We can set our own decarbonisation and renewables targets, something that has been a source of friction in the clean energy package legislation that has come recently from the European Union. We may have more flexibility on state aid for chosen projects and how the Government might want to take forward their own energy strategy. At the moment, the charging structures for interconnectors are highly regulated by the European Union and we could opt out of those. Moreover, we must have a 5% tax floor for VAT and we could remove that for consumers. That was our list, but I am sure that the Government will set out many other opportunities that we look forward to hearing about from the Minister.
However, our report clearly needed to concentrate on the challenges, whether on costs for consumers both industrial and retail, security of supply, influence and continuing participation in a system that we will still be closely connected to, investment levels whether in interconnectors or energy systems, and the whole question of labour supply, an issue which has been a theme in all my committee’s Brexit reports. Moreover, as we heard from speakers in the previous debate, it is a theme in other areas as well. The island of Ireland is particularly key in the energy area, but not on that list is the issue of tariffs. There is no substantial risk of tariffs. They are potentially possible on electricity, but at a minimal level and are very unlikely. They are not applied to gas, although there is a potential issue as regards tariffs on spare parts and machinery imported for replacement of energy systems, particularly in the nuclear area.
On costs, our key concern was that outside the internal energy market we will not have the ability to participate in what is known as market coupling or the network codes that drive European energy systems, particularly in electricity. Does that really matter? It matters in terms of efficiency of trading, and it particularly matters the more that we are connected to the continent, as we will be increasingly, and the fact that those interconnectors give us a good opportunity to share loads and to import and export according to the different peaks in various countries, as well as the ability to share loads to prevent and reduce the amount of capital investment that will be needed for our energy systems, which of course saves on costs. As a part of that, our current membership of the European Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, known as ACER and one of the many acronyms used in this area, and its so-called subsidiaries, ENTSO-E and ENTSO-G for electricity and gas respectively, will come to an end. We will not be members unless we are inside the internal energy market.
Something that came over very strongly from our witnesses was that those inefficiencies in terms of trading will mean that upward price pressures in wholesale markets for gas and particularly for electricity will be inevitable. The answer to that is to stay within the internal energy market if that is possible, and indeed our witnesses almost universally wanted to achieve that. There is a real upward pressure on prices at a time when all of us are aware through the price cap Bill that energy prices are of considerable concern on all sides of the House and of course to the public and consumers.
I turn to security of supply. An area of the internal energy market that has grown in solidarity is in gas through the security of gas supply regulation. Where there are shortages in supply, there are requirements for individual nations within a region to help each other out. We will no longer be a part of that. However, the key area in security of supply is in the nuclear sector, which provides around a fifth of our energy. On Euratom, it comes back to our being able to trade in nuclear supplies, people, and in all the other areas where we enjoy flexibility at the moment. I will not go into detail on Euratom because we discussed those issues earlier. If we solve the Euratom issue and settle our nuclear co-operation agreements, we will be okay, but that is one area where we have an issue around security.
A stark point came from the energy ambassador for Switzerland—it has an ambassador just for energy issues. We wanted to explore as a third country, even though it is one that is very close to the European Union in all sorts of ways, what sort of influence it had. It was quite a shock to learn that, although Switzerland is literally at the centre of the European electricity and gas networks, its ambassador said that it has very little influence on European policy; sometimes it had some influence on regional policy for member states around it, but that was as far as it got. That again reinforced the need for us to find a way to stay close to the internal energy market; outside it, one has very little influence on European policy in this area, even when one is connected to those networks. Norway has a little more influence, perhaps, because it is a major gas supplier, but not a great deal more.
One of the other themes apart from labour was investment. As in many other areas, the European Investment Bank, which has invested some €37 billion in energy in the UK since 2000, is a major source of finance. This is about not just finance but expertise in terms of large deals and getting lower cost capital, hence evaluation expertise and being able to crowd in private investment. The Green Investment Bank is no longer a public sector body in this country. There is the challenge of where that investment, which is often the foundation of other investment—particularly offshore —will come from in the future. That is true in terms of both interconnectors and investor certainty once we leave the EU. In fact, programmes such as the Connecting Europe Facility, which has €5 billion available to it, and projects of common interest, where the UK has had €40 million for interconnectors, are also key areas that will no longer exist.
It was interesting that skilled labour was mentioned in the previous debate. One of the areas of concern for my committee is not just skilled, but less skilled labour or labour that would not be defined as skilled by the Home Office. In this instance, particularly in the nuclear field but also in the broader energy industry, there is a shortage of engineers and we rely very much on foreign labour. That is certainly the case in the nuclear industry: we have mentioned in this House the problem of feel-stixers—oh! steel-fixers—for EDF and Hinkley C, where such skills would not be included in a skills shortage list at the moment.
Lastly, I want to come on to the question of Ireland. We already have a single market there, which has become even more meshed and inseparable this year. It is vital that we maintain that single market in the island of Ireland. It is so impossible to pull it apart that a practical solution will have to be found. That will be key in the Irish negotiations.
How do we stay closer to the internal energy market if we keep our red lines? How do we keep our influence if we are not in that market? How do we remain an associate of organisations such as ACER that are critical in terms of energy and market efficiency throughout Europe? How do we keep investment? How do we find investment when the EIB and other European schemes have disappeared? How do we ensure our labour mobility for not just skilled but unskilled labour? How do we ensure that Ireland remains as one? How do we take advantage of the opportunities of Brexit as well? I am sure that my committee would be very pleased to hear the Minister’s reaction. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, the report is excellent. With the leave of the House, I will quote a number of sentences from it. Paragraph 24 states:
“Whatever the final detail of the EU exit terms the UK is likely to be more peripheral to EU energy markets which will mean higher prices and more unreliable supply”.
Paragraph 29 states:
“Post-Brexit, the UK may be more vulnerable to supply shortages in the event of extreme weather or unplanned generation outages”.
Paragraph 30 states:
“Energy UK claimed that operating in a less efficient market ‘will have an impact on consumer bills’”.
Paragraph 32 states:
“It is likely that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will lead to less efficient energy trade, which could in turn increase the price paid by consumers for energy security”.
Paragraph 55 states:
“Market coupling is currently estimated to be worth £100m/year to the UK … Energy UK argued that GB operators could be excluded from market coupling post-Brexit”.
Paragraph 56 states:
“In the absence of the REMIT Regulation, we would need to seek alternative arrangements to access this data and to facilitate information sharing”.
I will stop here but similar quotes are available right the way through the other 200 paragraphs of the document. Paragraph 62, which I think says it all, states:
“None of our witnesses expressed a desire to leave the IEM”.
In other words, the argument is completely one-sided. All sorts of people are pointing to the dangers and risks of Brexit to energy, such as leaving Euratom and, potentially, the IEM. No one is suggesting that it is a good thing. The House would be in dereliction of its duty if we simply ignored that fact. The British people are having serious energy costs imposed on them, which will affect every family in the country and impact on future economic growth, propensity to invest, output, employment and so forth, as sure as night follows day.
Who caused all this? Did some external enemy impose this on us? Are we the victims of an international conspiracy? Did the gods send a plague on us? Are we suffering from a curse of Zeus? No, this is a case of a Government deliberately imposing costs and risks on its people to a considerable degree. I cannot think of an analogy in history for what is going on at the moment with Brexit. This is true right across the piece, not just in the energy market but in pharmaceuticals, the automotive industry and civil aviation. As we saw in the previous debate, it is also true in financial services.
So it goes on. Every day, every week, the Government come up with proposals that they will ram through with their majority in the House of Commons—concocted from their relationship with the DUP—apparently irrespective of the cost to the British people. More and more of this comes along and we do not get any estimate of the cost to the British economy. When estimates are prepared by Whitehall, they are kept secret by the Government and we hear about them only through leaks. It is an absolutely extraordinary and disgraceful situation. We know the considerable potential cost of our leaving Euratom and that if we do so in a situation with no agreement to replace it, all sorts of disastrous things will occur: we will not be able to import radioactive isotopes, which will bring radiotherapy to an end in this country, costing lives, and so forth. That is quite horrific. We will have lorry-loads of vegetables rotting in the Port of Dover. All these things have been described by Whitehall and the departments that have been doing contingency studies into what might happen, but the Government have done their best to disguise them from the British public.
What can we do about it? It is extraordinary that leaving Euratom is an entirely gratuitous decision. There is absolutely no need whatever, simply because we leave the European Union, to leave Euratom. I know that if you ask the Government, “Why are you doing this?”, they will say, “Oh, because the British people voted for it”. The British people never voted for us to leave Euratom. I challenge the Government to give me one reference in the referendum campaign to Euratom or the energy market generally. There was not one. The British people were never told about the cost of this. The Government decided retrospectively, after the end of the referendum, that this was included in the vote. It was not at all. Why have they done such a thing? I think we all know the reason: because the Eurosceptics in the Tory party are holding the Prime Minister to ransom. She is afraid of 48 letters going to the chairman, Sir Graham Brady, if she does not satisfy their demands, so we are pushing through these policies, which are quite gratuitous, unnecessary and extremely costly. It is an extraordinary situation.
I do not think that the British public have fully understood what is going on. Of course, they will when the higher energy prices come through in a few years’ time if we go ahead with this programme. I have some simple questions for the Government. What is the cost to the British economy of leaving the EU? What is the cost to the British economy of leaving the internal energy market? What is the cost to the British economy of leaving Euratom? What is the maximum cost, if there is one, that the Government are prepared to pay to achieve these very dubious objectives?
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord who just spoke, but I have a different interpretation of the evidence the Minister gave the committee. I quote paragraph 64:
“The Minister informed us that ‘our top priority is to be as near as possible to the current arrangements … Where there is such mutuality of interest I do not believe it is beyond the wit of those involved to work this out very quickly’”.
On the whole subject of research, his emphasis was that there should be collaboration. I quote paragraph 113:
“The EU provides not only energy research and development funding, but also collaboration opportunities that are of value to both the UK and the EU. We therefore support the ambition of both Government and industry to continue to collaborate with the EU on research initiatives post-Brexit”.
Like the chairman of our committee, I should mention an interest that I have in a small family company that has pockets of land and the possibility of one or two turbines. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the excellence of his chairmanship and his objectivity, and the clerks, who have shown very great ability and considerable skills in drafting.
When the British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey famously declared that the lamps were going out all over Europe, he was of course speaking metaphorically. He was contemplating the terrible conflict which was about to erupt across the channel in 1914. Most fortunately, we are not facing disaster and open warfare as was Sir Edward. Our concerns are very much more mundane. They are economic, functional and structural. But the committee report that we are debating contains some serious warnings for the Government on the matter of our post-Brexit energy security and supply, concluding as it does that the UK’s current frictionless trade in energy with Europe could be at risk.
Indeed, there is concern due to bad weather, which is not always foreseen, and interruptions caused by outages. Last week, a series of predictions were made and entered the public domain that can be described only as alarming about how a no-deal Brexit might impact on various spheres of our lives here in the United Kingdom. They were refuted strongly by members of the Government, so can the Minister assure us that no such drastic consequences or deprivations would affect the vital energy sector if we were to leave the European Union without a properly regulated free trade agreement?
When the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Richard Harrington, gave evidence to our sub-committee he said that the Government’s determination with regard to the maintenance of energy security was as far as possible to try to maintain the status quo, which I mentioned to your Lordships in different language. His actual words were:
“So, our top priority is to be as near as possible to the current arrangements”.
He stressed that and we are entitled to ask the Minister how far that aspiration has been fulfilled. Can an update be given about the extent of the progress and success achieved in pursuit of this objective, despite the Government’s determination to leave the single market and the customs union—a policy which makes it more likely that we will no longer remain inside Europe’s internal energy market? Responding to the report’s conclusions that the UK should seek to stay within the IEM, the Government have said that they are “exploring options” for our continued participation, but it would appear that is unlikely to be possible if we continue to insist that the UK will no longer acknowledge the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
An important related question in Mr Harrington’s evidence was on future funding for energy research initiatives. We are currently working alongside our European neighbours and in particular we need to know about nuclear research, in which Britain plays a pre-eminent role. I was told when I put that particular question to the Minister that it was the Government’s objective to achieve a far-reaching science and innovation agreement with the EU. He said, as I mentioned:
“We want the framework for future collaboration that we have now”.
The report also stresses the importance of the recruitment of highly skilled workers from Europe to the energy industry, which is particularly important in the nuclear energy sector, and the need to take account of this as new immigration policy is developed.
I refer to the committee’s concerns about the Government’s decision to leave the Euratom treaty, which regulates the nuclear industry throughout the EU. This determination to depart, about which Ministers claim that they have no choice, has caused considerable concern and warnings have been issued about its impact, which range from the difficulties that could be caused for the import of medical supplies to treat cancer to a possible threat to the building of the new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point. The report suggests various steps that the Government could take to mitigate the adverse effects of leaving Euratom, including negotiating some form of associate membership. Once again, however, the need to accept some form of jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice could be a stumbling block, although I hope that will not happen.
This House recently backed an amendment to the EU withdrawal Bill to try to prevent the Government leaving Euratom unless and until alternative arrangements on nuclear co-operation were in place. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the UK will be ready to put in place its own safeguards and inspections regime when the implementation period ends in 2020.
According to my recollection, the Minister expressed the hope that we would visit the National Grid. We were in a position to inform him that we had. It was quite moving to witness the decision-making taking place with consummate professionalism. The great expertise of those concerned and their dedication caused me to believe that those who are giving such tremendous service to our countrymen and women deserve the strongest possible support. I hope the Minister will be able to give some reassurance tonight.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest, declared at the end of the report, as a director of the Ludlow Hydro Co-operative, which operates an Archimedes screw—a community-owned hydro-electricity project—on the River Teme at Ludlow. We are in our second year, and it is going quite well.
I want to deal with three issues, each of which was touched on briefly by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in a bit more detail. The first is Ireland. A new interconnector between north and south is planned for 2021. Currently, 88% of the electricity on the island of Ireland is imported from Great Britain, and 40% of the gas on the island of Ireland is imported from Great Britain. In Northern Ireland, 100% of the gas is imported from Great Britain, and that gas is crucial to the generation of electricity in Northern Ireland. There has been an integrated market, in some ways as a result of the Good Friday agreement, in operation for several years now. I can remember visiting one power station in Northern Ireland, when I had the privilege of being there for a year as a direct rule Minister, which has closed down. The fact of the matter is that the system is planned to work, but there is still more work to be done. However, my view is that I do not think that Dublin or Belfast should trust London. The situation is so fragile that I know there are long-term plans for an interconnector from the island of Ireland—from the Republic—directly to Europe, to the northern coast of France. That would be a very expensive operation, but it would be a lot cheaper than the lights going out and your industry closing down. So there is some serious planning required, I think, as to what should be done.
We have raised these issues in the report about the security of supply and the sensitivity regarding what is, in effect, a border down the Irish Sea as far as electricity is concerned. DUP politicians just lie through their teeth every day, because there are borders down the Irish Sea on a whole host of issues, which are already there, and electricity is just one of them—and they do not represent the people of Northern Ireland anyway, because the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain. The fact of the matter is that these issues were raised in our report, but the government response to the report, on the three issues that I want to raise, is pathetic. We are sleep-walking into major problems. In response to our recommendations 25 to 28, the Government just quoted the Prime Minister’s speech of 2 March:
“This includes protecting the single electricity market across Ireland”.
However, she is in no position to promise that at all. Therefore, there are some serious issues of planning to be done.
What is really a bit concerning—and I know that we will be told, “Oh, there is no confirmation; it is only a rumour”—is the story in the Times this morning:
“After economic collapse, food shortages and even Armageddon one might have thought that Brexit was running out of dire consequence. But under one contingency, Britain’s exit from the EU results in blackouts. Plans to use tens of thousands of electricity generators to keep Northern Ireland’s lights on are included in proposals for the most disruptive form of Brexit, according to a Whitehall source”.
The story goes on to refer to the single energy market, but it also identifies,
“the possibility that power providers in the Republic could withhold energy in the absence of a legal document”,
and legal structures. I know that we will be told, as we have heard from the Government today in relation to other things, that Governments have to prepare for all kinds of contingencies, and quite clearly that is true. Where the generators will come from, I do not know, but it is quite clear that they will be needed as a contingency if things go wrong.
Now, I do not expect the Minister to confirm that story or otherwise, but it would be nice if he could show—I do not say this to him personally—a modicum of interest in the fact that people in Northern Ireland, and in the Republic for that matter, are in a completely vulnerable situation regarding the rest of Europe, being reliant, as they are, on Great Britain for massive amounts of energy supplies. And let us leave to one side where we will get it from, given the interconnectors across to Europe. My view is: “Don’t trust London. Make plans for the future”.
The second issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which I want to consider in a bit more detail—it was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk—is labour in the energy sector. The report states in paragraph 41:
“The highest concentration of non-British nationals as a percentage of the total employed workforce is within Nuclear New Build”—
which is pretty important for us anyway. It continues:
“Angela Hepworth, Corporate Policy and Regulation Director at EDF, provided some concrete detail: ‘At the peak of the construction of Hinkley Point, we are going to need 1,400 steel fixers. At the moment, the total population of certified steel fixers in the UK is 2,700 so we would need more than half of the total steel-fixing population in the UK in order to meet the peak requirement for Hinkley Point’”.
A lot of these people are not UK citizens. As the report mentions in paragraph 45, Angela Hepworth,
“was concerned that steel fixing, a key skill for the construction of Hinkley Point, ‘does not meet the criteria for skilled employment under the UK’s points-based system’”.
We are heading for deep trouble, and the Government’s response—on page 5 of their letter—is to say:
“The Government continues to support new nuclear. We recognize it is essential that access to workforce for projects, such as Hinkley Point C, are not adversely affected by the UK’s withdrawal … The Government has commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee … to gather evidence on patterns of EU migration and the role of migration in the wider economy”.
Forget the wider economy; what are you going to do about the steel fixers? We cannot just drum up steel fixers. It is a very professional occupation. It does not fit the Home Office criteria for being super-super-qualified in the technical sense, but one plant—on which we are due to rely for 6% of our future energy requirements— will take more than half of the qualified steel fixers in this country, and we get a pathetic response in the Government’s letter responding to the report that shows not the slightest inclination that they have taken on board the seriousness of the situation.
The third point that I want to raise relates to Switzerland, which was also touched on by the chairman. I will not go over Norway—we have dealt with Norway—but in Switzerland the issue is slightly different. Switzerland has 40 electricity interconnectors with Europe; given its geographical situation, it would be surprising if there were not. However, when the Swiss energy ambassador spoke to us, as the report states in paragraph 198, he,
“explained that although the Swiss tried to amend the drafting of the CACM”—
that is, the capacity allocation and congestion management regulation, which is pretty serious as far as central Europe is concerned—
“‘all that was simply unsuccessful. The EU wants to have an internal electricity market as one coherent thing, and either you are in it and abide by the rules or you are not in it.’ For an exception to be made, ‘you have to have a very strong case that you as a country bring something to the internal electricity market that is indispensable to the functioning of the energy market’”.
I would argue that Britain, having helped create the internal energy market in Europe, is not bringing something indispensable to the current EU arrangement. That is history—the market is set up and functioning— and we have nothing to offer. Indeed, as we said in paragraph 205, the ambassador,
“struck a note of caution: ‘I am not aware of the UK having anything that I would call a unique selling point; that is, something that you would bring to the Internal Energy Market, both electricity and gas, which in the countervailing scenario of you not bringing it to the market would put the Internal Energy Market in some sort of jeopardy’”.
In other words, they do not need us. In Switzerland’s case, as was hinted at by the chairman, the Swiss are members of various committees and structures—they have to be, because they have all these interconnectors—but sometimes they are not allowed in the room when the committee meets. That is the way that the Swiss are treated. Because they are not actually a member of the internal electricity market, they are kept out of the room, and yet they have this massive arrangement, geographically, of interconnection of electricity with Europe.
And what did we get from the Government in their response? In terms of words used, we got less of a response, on page 23 of the Government’s letter, than the actual recommendations in our report to which it was responding. It is contemptible that lazy Ministers—and it is Ministers, not civil servants—should give us a response that is shorter than the recommendation. They simply refer to,
“the value provided by UK expertise in the development of the IEM, and the starting position of alignment with EU rules”.
That is our selling point. The Swiss ambassador has already ruled that out; it is in the report. So why do we get this rubbish in the government response? It is completely and utterly inadequate, and it is all on the record. The chickens will come home to roost one day. True, they will not be roasted if we have no power, but this Government show not an iota of recognition of the seriousness of the situation as far as energy is concerned.
We visited the National Grid; we also visited the fusion plant at Oxford. It is quite right: there was no debate in the referendum about Euratom—I doubt that the Prime Minister had ever heard of the term before it turned up in one of her briefing papers, showing not the slightest interest, given the shallow arrangements that she has for running the Government. I do not expect the Minister to respond to any of my points. I wanted to put them on the record just for audit purposes later on, when the blame game will really start.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the sub-committee, I add my congratulations to those offered by other noble Lords to my noble friend Lord Teverson on his skilful chairmanship on this complex topic and to the clerks on excelling themselves in drawing together all the threads that make up this informative report.
Brexit is a far more traumatic experience than the joy-filled journey to sunlit uplands that was sold to the public. Your Lordships’ House has been instrumental in adding some realism to preparing for the journey, through the painstaking work of the EU Select Committee, which has produced reports of depth and quality on the opportunities and challenges that Brexit presents.
I have been a member of this committee while it has conducted several Brexit inquiries, including on the impact of Brexit on agriculture, fisheries, farm animal welfare and environment and climate change. It is clear to me that, of the sectors that the committee has inquired into to date, the arrangements that we currently enjoy within the EU with respect to energy security are those from which the UK reaps the largest benefit.
The energy market is ferociously complex. The finely-tuned balance that our membership of the internal energy market brings, to our advantage, was recognised by all expert witnesses to this inquiry, including by the Minister, Mr Harrington, who more than once in his evidence session stated that,
“our top priority is to be as near as possible to the current arrangements”.
That was also brought up by my colleague on the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk. We are hearing more and more that the Government are seeking “business as usual”, which is a real giveaway, because it gives us a clue that light is dawning that the deal we have forged over the decades within the EU is as good as it gets, allowing us to have our cake and eat it. Given that the Minister agrees that close association with the IEN is where we would like to end up, why are we setting red lines that could jeopardise our retaining the benefits of the IEM? In what alternative universe does this make any sense?
My contribution to this debate will focus on the cost of electricity, because energy security is as much about cost to those who do not have much money as about availability for the rest of us. Electricity markets in the UK, Ireland and continental Europe are physically linked by interconnector cables. Interconnectors are critical in ensuring a stable and secure energy system. They help integrate renewable electricity by smoothing out peaks and troughs across the EU, which is a key requirement if we are to meet our climate change commitments. The more we move towards renewables, the more important interconnectors become.
Crucially, interconnectors also offer lower costs to both system operators and consumers. While there was general agreement among witnesses that even in a no deal scenario we are unlikely to see tariffs on electricity, it is also clear that no longer being a part of the IEM would likely make electricity trading less efficient and more costly, as GB interconnectors could be excluded from current and future market coupling mechanisms—my noble friend Lord Teverson has already touched on this.
Market coupling is a mechanism by which IEM participants use a shared algorithm to arrange cross-border electricity trades by matching supply and demand efficiently. Research commissioned by the National Grid suggested that being excluded from market coupling and other balancing mechanisms could cost the GB system £260 million per annum. Energy UK expressed concern that GB operators could be excluded from market coupling if we were to leave the IEM without replacement arrangements,
“as there are no provisions in the texts for ‘third countries’”.
This was reinforced by His Excellency Jean-Christophe Füeg, head of international energy affairs at the Swiss Federal Office of Energy, who has already been quoted extensively today. He told us that Switzerland is excluded from market coupling despite a large, mutually beneficial energy trading relationship with the EU. I mention the testimony given by His Excellency because it underscores the importance of political considerations, which often supersede pure market considerations when it comes to dealing with the EU.
The cost of electricity is something I wish to focus on, so I will say a few words about interconnectors. At the moment, interconnectors supply 7% of the UK’s electricity. Another 14 gigawatts of capacity is either in preconstruction or at various planning stages, expected to become operational between 2019 and 2022. We are told that each 1 gigawatt of new supply through interconnectors could reduce Britain’s wholesale price of electricity by 1% to 2%. Clearly, the impact of this in terms of cheaper costs for consumers, ranging from 14 to 28%, is not lightly to be put in jeopardy; it would be negligent of any Government to do so. Yet this is what we are playing with when we toy with leaving the EEA: we are risking higher energy costs for those least likely to be able to afford them. NEA has warned that,
“the UK leaving the EU could … badly impact the people who struggle to keep their homes adequately warm”.
In response to the report’s recommendation 4, asking government to conduct and publish an assessment of the impact of leaving the IEM on the price paid by consumers for their energy and to take steps to mitigate this impact, particularly for financially vulnerable customers, the Government outlined a number of measures to help consumers manage their bills. Can the Minister give an assurance that no one, but especially those on minimum wage or on benefits, will have to pay more for energy as a consequence of us leaving the EU? Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I live in no expectation of receiving any such confirmation from the Minister, but it may be a matter that we can come back to once the consequences of Brexit, whatever shape it may take, unfold.
I hope that the Minister will recognise, nevertheless, the value to the poorest in society of the UK being a meaningful member, with a meaningful seat at the table, of an energy market that is designed to achieve lower costs for its members—designed, in large part, through substantial UK input.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, the effect of Brexit on nuclear energy will be critical for the United Kingdom. I declare my interests as an energy scientist and a consultant for a company, Tokamak Energy, which is progressing a private sector approach to fusion. I was formerly chief executive at the Met Office and learned something there about the unpredictability of weather, which is an important part of energy, as has already been mentioned.
As agreed this afternoon, and as endorsed by this report, it is essential for the UK to remain as a working state within Euratom, both for standard and regulatory activities but also in dealing with long-term nuclear issues. The UK is still a very significant nuclear country, both nationally and internationally, through its membership of the International Atomic Energy Agency. It also has bilateral arrangements, which we will discuss this evening. For example, the IAEA is a vital forum, with other north-western countries of Europe, for dealing with radioactive material that leaks into the sea and, to a smaller extent, the atmosphere. The UK must have high-level scientists who are well respected in order to ensure that these international negotiations are well conducted. It is very important that the UK should have enough nuclear scientists and engineers at the highest international level. It was encouraging to hear today from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the Government will be maintaining and contributing to this programme with some money. I suspect it might need more than the £10 million he mentioned, but that will certainly be necessary for us to maintain this at a high level.
One issue we have already discussed today is the need for the Government to allow migration to the UK to enable the UK nuclear industry to expand as the Government intend. The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has recently been discussing improved, more efficient methods of construction. Of course, one of the biggest construction projects in the UK at the moment is the Hinkley Point nuclear power station. Interestingly, in order to speed up productivity, which my noble friend Lord Rooker described vividly, new techniques are being developed by a company we investigated. Some new methods are emerging from this, but it is extremely important to relate technology to the people in order to effect it.
The Government and the nuclear industry also need to have a big leadership role in defining the UK’s long-range strategy, working with Euratom and the IAEA. One of most long-term, most profound problems is dealing with radioactive waste. Maintaining its existing waste is a major expenditure for the UK, which has very advanced technology to deal with this. The question is what will happen as we continue to expand our nuclear energy, as other countries do, and what to do with this waste. This is an area where Euratom has had some innovative R&D in the past. The current idea, of course, is to put it in geological repositories, but in such a way that it could be extracted if some new technology emerges. This has been a Euratom programme for some years and it is very important that the UK is part of it.
In the long term, there may be a possibility of combining the extraction of nuclear waste and turning it into material that has a very much shorter reaction time, and to use the technology of fusion power. Developing fusion power is the main scientific and technology programme in Europe. It started in 1980, but in collaboration with major countries such as the USA, Japan, China, Russia and others. However, progress has been much slower than was envisaged when it started; the original prospect of electrical power is now not likely before 2040, as has been stated by Euratom and other organisations. This was discussed at a Royal Society meeting in March.
The UK’s contribution to this international programme comes through the Culham laboratory. What is interesting now is that the Government are putting their money into this international, very long-range programme. A whole new approach has in fact begun to emerge. This really came about through new ideas of plasma physics, from the Culham laboratory, and new computations. Most importantly, it came about because we can now have superconducting magnets at a considerably higher temperature—about 30k as opposed to 1k. This has led to the concept of a much smaller, modular fusion reactor that will deliver practical power by 2025: in other words, seven years from now.
This Tokamak project, amazingly, is funded by the private sector, including insurance companies, charities and private funding organisations, including a big company owned by a prominent member of the Conservatives. There was a press statement today, which I can refer noble Lords to, about the latest progress and how temperatures now, in this contained fusion, exceed the temperatures at the centre of the sun—15 million degrees. The International Atomic Energy Agency described this as the leading innovative idea in fusion worldwide. I very much hope that the UK’s influence in Euratom will continue and will ensure that innovative private sector contributions work at the same time and in collaboration with state-funded contributions.
We hope that fusion reactors will be providing this power but while the source of power is one thing, one of the most extraordinary possibilities that motivates much of the research is that, with the neutron flux in these smaller devices it will be possible to bombard and transform radioactive waste, which of course is developing all over the world. That could then decay in 100 years as opposed to lasting, in current plans, perhaps 10,000 years, which is hardly a sustainable policy. I hope that Euratom and the UK Government will encourage this and other private sector advanced fusion systems. We need great leadership across Europe.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as recorded at the back of the report: I am a former member of the Climate Change Committee and chair of its adaptation sub-committee, and a current member of the advisory board of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit. I also join other noble Lords who are members of the sub-committee in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his outstanding chairmanship of this report—and indeed the other reports we have produced—and thanking the committee clerk and policy analyst.
Before we started on this inquiry I had read a report from Chatham House, published in 2016, before the referendum. It said:
“In the field of energy and climate policy, remaining in the European Union offers the best balance of policy options for Britain’s national interests”.
I had expected—perhaps even hoped—that in the many hundreds of pages of written evidence and many hours of oral evidence, including the evidence from the Minister that has been referred to, we would find out why Chatham House was wrong. Unfortunately, we did not find out why it was wrong, so I want the Minister to explain at the start exactly why leaving the European Union will be better for the national interests of Great Britain in terms of energy and climate policy.
As we know, and as the Government state in their response, the challenge for energy policy is to reconcile three imperatives that are essential for the future: security of our energy supply, affordability of our energy supply, and decarbonisation of our energy supply. As things stand, and as we have already heard from other noble Lords, the Government’s delivery of these objectives is supported not only by national legislation but by our membership of the European Union and its various component parts that deal with energy.
I will be brief, bearing in mind the late hour, but I want to spend a few minutes talking about the third leg of energy policy: decarbonisation. The Government’s response to our report makes several references to our legally binding national decarbonisation targets, the Paris Agreement and the Clean Growth Strategy. Commenting on the last of these, the government response states:
“The Clean Growth Strategy sets out how the country can benefit from the creation of new technologies and new businesses, while meeting our climate change targets”.
This may well be true but what the government response does not say is that the Committee on Climate Change has pointed out that the measures set out in the Clean Growth Strategy do not take the Government anywhere near meeting their own legally binding commitments. The committee has said:
“Although ambitious, the Strategy does not go far enough. Urgent action is needed to flesh out current plans and proposals, and supplement them with additional measures, to meet the UK’s legally-binding carbon targets in the 2020s and 2030s … Even if delivered in full, existing and new policies, including those set out in the Clean Growth Strategy, miss the fourth and fifth carbon budgets by around 10-65 MtCO2e—a significant margin”.
Without going into detail, the CCC also points to areas in which more action is needed, including transport, domestic buildings, low-carbon electricity, energy efficiency, landfill and agriculture.
The Committee on Climate Change has also pointed out that by the 2020s, about half of the required emissions reductions will be dependent on policies that come from the European Union. I ask the Minister to explain to us how, post Brexit, the Government intend to combine the objectives of maintaining a secure and affordable energy supply while meeting their legally binding commitments on decarbonisation.
Finally, I want to say just a few words about the internal energy market, although much has been said already and I do not want to repeat it. As we have already heard, the Minister, Richard Harrington, told us that the Government’s,
“top priority is to be as near as possible to the current arrangements”,
but he did not explain, given that, why he thought it was such a good idea to leave the current arrangements. If you want them to remain, why not just stay with them? More recently, on 27 April, the European Commission published its Notice to Stakeholders on Brexit and the internal energy market, which contains some stark messages for this country. For instance, as a third country, the UK will have to pay for transmission costs inside the internal energy market, which could seriously alter the economics of interconnection. What is the Government’s assessment of the Commission’s Notice to Stakeholders, particularly in the context that, as we have heard from other noble Lords, virtually all projections of UK power supply indicate that we will have to import more, rather than less, over the next decade or longer?
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I will deal with only one or two aspects of energy security. The present state of the electricity supply industry in the UK has been determined by two major and virtually contemporaneous events: the discovery and exploitation of North Sea gas, and the privatisation of the industry. These events have determined both the predominant technology of the electricity supply industry and the means by which it markets its output.
Prior to privatisation, generating capacity was provided predominantly by large coal-fired power stations. The last of these to be constructed was the massive Drax power station, which was commissioned in 1987. This was shortly before the passage of the Electricity Act 1989, which prepared for the privatisation of the electricity industry in Great Britain. The privatised industry was no longer capable of large capital investments on the scale of the Drax power station, nor was there any possibility of the industry pursuing nuclear power generation; instead, the new generating capacity was provided, almost exclusively, by combined-cycle gas turbine plants fuelled by North Sea gas.
The fact that private enterprise was able to provide the new infrastructure of our electricity generating industry seemed to confirm the opinion of Conservative Governments that the private sector could be relied upon to provide much of the social and industrial infrastructure that had hitherto been the responsibility of central government. Latterly, that opinion seems to have been confirmed by the manner in which private industry has financed and constructed most of the renewable generating capacity in this country. However, by relying on private enterprise to provide the infrastructure, we have allowed both a dearth and an imbalance to affect our generating capacity.
Soon we shall be facing a severe shortfall in our capacity for baseload generation, which is a necessary adjunct to our increasing reliance on intermittent renewable generation. To provide for our electricity in the future while pursuing a policy of decarbonisation, we need to build new nuclear power plants. So far, the only nuclear power station under construction in the UK is at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The Government have been unwilling to provide the necessary funding. It has therefore incurred the exorbitant costs of private finance, at a time when the interest rates associated with government borrowing have been at an all-time low.
In consequence of the privatisation of the industry, the UK has led the way in devising flexible and innovative ways of marketing electricity via a system of futures markets. This is relied upon to equate the supply with a demand that varies in annual, weekly and daily cycles. Our system of energy markets has been adopted by the European Union. It is ironic that, in pursuing the Brexit agenda, we will be divorcing ourselves from a European internal energy market—IEM—that has been largely a product of our own endeavours. Our committee’s report makes it clear that there will be significant disadvantages if we cannot remain part of the IEM. It instances the circumstances of Norway and Switzerland, which are constrained to abide by the rules of the IEM without having any influence over its policies.
I turn to some issues that have arisen out of what has been described as one of the most outstanding of the self-inflicted injuries of Brexit: the decision to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community —Euratom, as it is commonly called. The decision to withdraw has given rise to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. Euratom has provided much more for us than an inspection regime for ensuring that radioactive material does not fall into the wrong hands. It governs the supply of fuel and all the nuclear engineering materials and equipment that come to us from abroad. It facilitates international exchanges of personnel trained in nuclear technology. It governs the acquisition and supply of medical radioactive isotopes. It funds an extensive nuclear research and development programme, including the programme for nuclear fusion.
Euratom, which predates the Common Market, was established in 1957, and exists largely independently of the European Union. However, in a speech of 17 January 2017, Theresa May declared that she would not countenance,
“anything that leaves us half-in, half-out”,
of the European Union. Since the European Court of Justice plays a marginal role in its affairs, Euratom was judged to be half-in, half-out of the European Union and, therefore, an organisation that the UK was bound to leave.
On leaving Euratom, the functions of nuclear safeguarding will have to be assumed by the Office for Nuclear Regulation—ONR—which is the UK’s nuclear regulatory agency. To have all the necessary facilities in place by March 2019 will be impossible, and it is doubtful whether other nuclear nations would be convinced of the adequacy of our provisions, as they must be if we are to continue to co-operate with them. There have been fears on the part of the nuclear industry that unless the status of the ONR as a viable safeguarding authority can be ratified by the date of our formal departure from the EU, and unless all the necessary nuclear co-operation agreements with overseas suppliers of nuclear fuel and materials are in place, we shall have to close down our nuclear power plants. However, today we have passed an amendment to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill that will enable the Government to approach the European Council with a plea to be allowed to remain under the auspices of Euratom if the necessary arrangements are not in place in good time. The Government have simply reworded a Lords amendment that was passed on Report on that Bill in the face of their opposition.
I turn to the matter of our access to the skilled labour that will be required for the various nuclear infrastructure projects that are either mooted or already under way. It is vital that these projects should proceed in a timely manner if we are to have an electricity supply industry that meets our needs while fulfilling the objectives of decarbonisation. I am told that the Government are carefully considering a range of options for the future immigration system and will set out initial plans in the coming months. This is where the difficulty lies. We have no idea as yet of the sorts of allowances that will be offered to the industry in respect of the EU and non-EU nationals whom they might wish to recruit.
I am aware that the Government have received strong representations from some of the companies involved in projects for new nuclear power stations. The most prominent of these is EDF, which has repeatedly reminded the Government of the skills shortages that it will face in connection with the construction of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. The limitation in the supply of civil engineering workers, including welders, steel fixers and concrete pourers, is a particular concern of EDF. These are the kinds of workers who are liable to be excluded by an immigration policy that gives priority to so-called tier 1 immigrants of “exceptional talent” who possess high-level professional or academic qualifications.
I should also mention the concerns of Rolls-Royce, which is engaged in a project for the construction of small modular nuclear reactors. It continues to await a long-delayed decision from the Government regarding the outcome of a competition to identify the reactor of best value for the UK. There may come a point soon when the company can no longer sustain its project in the face of the continuing uncertainties. Rolls-Royce is committed to training a native nuclear workforce but should it walk away from this project, which is quite likely, Britain will lose much of its nuclear engineering competence.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, we have had an excellent debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Teverson and the EU sub-committee on this excellent report on the energy security ramifications of leaving the EU. Our status as a full member of the EU has, up to now, ensured our energy security, efficient trading and a focus on energy efficiency while, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, also ensuring a continued advance on decarbonisation. A number of your Lordships across the House—I think it was the noble Lords, Lord Selkirk of Douglas and Lord Krebs, and my noble friend Lady Sheehan—referred to the Commons Minister himself admitting to the committee that we will have to remain as near as possible to current arrangements. He is probably sorry that he said this. That particular sentence, I guess, highlights the complete folly of this. We seem to be cutting off our nose to spite our face in this fool’s rush to be free of the EU.
This excellent report demonstrates in every sphere the necessity of replicating or continuing each and every area of our energy relationship with the EU. Almost all of your Lordships who have spoken raised the necessity of remaining in or having an exact replica of our membership of the internal energy market, whose creation we led on. If we are to keep energy costs down, we will need to remain in it if and when we are outside. The Government are incredibly fond of referring to energy prices, so perhaps they should take notice of themselves. Perhaps the Minister can tell us in his response how we are to avoid the imposition of broader EU energy policy if we no longer have any voice in its creations but are mere supplicants to the table. Switzerland was highlighted as an example of how bad it gets.
A number of your Lordships raised the challenges and dangers of leaving Euratom, which was debated at length during the passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, and where across the House we fought tooth and nail for the amendment that eventually came forward from the Government during ping-pong. It gives us an insurance policy so that if everything that should be in place by March 2019 is not, there is that fallback position.
A number of your Lordships also raised the issue around interconnectors. What do the Government believe will happen when these circumstances arise? At the moment my understanding is that, as a country, you get priority according to your need in the direction of energy flow. We have benefited from that to date but it will no longer be the case if we are not in the club. Club members will be served first.
We cannot presently meet our own heat and power requirements. I would obviously argue with the Government that we could if they really supported renewables, actually did something about energy efficiency, invested in renewable heat and supported innovation to scale. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, certainly made clear his view of the Government’s response and, having read it, I was pretty much in agreement with his view. It is apparent from that response that the Government are relying to an extent on shale gas to answer their prayers. I can see the attraction of having the problem of the energy gap filled by private money coming in. It leaves the Government only to break all their promises and remove planning protections for local people, as if shale is some sort of economic miracle that will rescue us from the gas gap.
The Government look to the American experience to be replicated. Outside the recent report showing the new scientific evidence on the danger of fracking in ex-mining areas, I point out to the Government that our geology and geography is very different from America’s. Even if it were feasible to produce shale gas at scale, the economic miracle is fading. Asset life is critical, and the outlook is poor. In the USA, shareholders are now experiencing the reality rather than the promise of shale. A company such as Cuadrilla, which is looking for shale in Lancashire right now, has seen its shares fall to a quarter of what they were worth in 2009. That bubble is bursting. Shale is proving difficult in this country. The Government’s answer to the challenge of giving local people their right to protest is to change these applications to permitted development, and that from a Government who promised local people the final say. The shale bandwagon has passed. This is not the time to climb on it. This is the time to say yes to tidal lagoons, to invest in renewables and to take innovation to scale.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, neatly highlighted, the Government’s answer to many things is the clean growth strategy and the industrial strategy. They form the stock answer to all questions on the future of energy security, but I find no security in them. They are full of ambition, but they are also full of words rather than actions. Actions speak louder than words, and we have seen many a time that the Government’s actions are going in the wrong direction. The Minister will be relieved that I shall not rehearse all the measures this Government have removed or have taken that have damaged our green credentials, which include removing the zero-carbon homes standard and the precipitate removal of subsidy that devastated many in the solar industry. The even more serious part of that is that the consequent undermining of investor confidence—if we Brexit, we will need investor confidence —is real and tangible in the investment community. Thank goodness we have pioneers pushing the boundaries.
This brings me to the last issue I want to address, which is the loss of EU investment in so many projects and areas in this field: the European energy programme for recovery, the connecting Europe facility, Horizon 2020 and the European Investment Bank, which many noble Lords raised. Perhaps when he replies the Minister will say how EU funding worth billions, which we will lose on our exit from the EU, will be replaced.
I will finish on the island of Ireland. I heard no solutions for it, and I look forward to the Minister giving us such a solution.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his excellent introduction of the committee’s report, which is the subject of the debate today, and I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his chairmanship and on the work of his committee. As evidenced here, he is very adept at identifying and choosing important issues for investigation, often at an early stage of debate. This report was prescient in raising many of the issues that have arisen concerning Euratom and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. His opening speech was mirrored by the interesting closing remarks of his colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone.
The report brings forward 43 well-thought-through recommendations and by and large the Government have given comprehensive answers in their response, with detailed replies outlining the latest up-to-date position on the Government’s Brexit energy programme at the end of March, following the conclusion of the EU-UK discussions on the implementation period. However, it can be argued that the Government continue to reveal complacency about the seriousness of the issues in this report. What comes across on nearly every page is the industry’s anxiety should the UK be required to leave the internal energy market, with the implications and possible consequences following that, not the least of which may be increased costs to consumers.
The public debate that has raged between the Brexiteers and the Government over the single market, regulatory alignment and hard borders could be replicated across the energy market. To the Government’s credit, they are getting on with dialogue over the energy sector, which may reflect that there is much less contention that the UK’s national interest lies in continued participation in the EU’s internal energy market, as the Government state at paragraph 33 of their response. When the UK’s energy security, a fundamental aspect of everyday life, is at stake, it is in everyone’s interest to ensure the least disruption and that the lights stay on at the least cost and at maximum efficiency. The wider the participation and the exchange of energy across the continent, the more effective and secure energy supplies will be.
However, the Government still have a long way to go to achieve a successful Brexit. The report brings up interconnectors and the future expansion of their use as a case in point. They formed a crucial part of the remarks of my noble friend Lord Rooker on Ireland and of the challenges from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. The report quotes National Grid’s estimate that the levels of electricity interconnection planned by 2020 could meet 35% of the UK’s peak electricity demand, making interconnectors an indispensable asset base for providing energy security. While it is understood that the UK will become a third party in EU internal arrangements, the report stresses, and the Government endorse, that there should be no new trade barriers; that the UK will look to remain in certain EU agencies, as the Prime Minister expressed in her Mansion House speech on 2 March; and that it remains a key ambition for the UK to form a new deep and special relationship with the EU, as the Government’s response at paragraphs 54 and 57 reveals, including the fulfilment of a single energy market on the island of Ireland, as set out in paragraphs 84 and 87 of the report.
Given that emphasis and that there are no interconnectors, planned or not, other than to the EU or member states in the EEA, how strong a weighting are the Government putting on continuing membership of the internal energy market as a negotiating priority with Europe? Have the Government undertaken any activity or proposals as an alternative for the UK to continuing participation in the IEM, and what does that look like? Some time ago, National Grid quantified the risk of exclusion from the IEM at £500 million per annum by the early 2020s.
Less efficient trading is likely to increase UK consumers’ bills, and my noble friend Lord Davies expanded on that considerably throughout his remarks. In their response to the report, the Government outline measures that they are already taking to reduce costs to consumers. Paragraph 21 mentions the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill, which is due to have its Committee stage next week, as evidence. However, the Government have not addressed concerns around potentially higher energy prices resulting from any changed relationship with the EU. Have they given this any thought in the legislation that is still progressing through your Lordships’ House? How are they going to ensure that Brexit does not result in undue increases in consumer energy bills? This could well be the subject of an amendment next week.
The importance of the nuclear industry to energy security was underlined tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Hanworth, and others, especially in relation to the arguments expressed—or not—at the time around the Brexit vote. As was to be expected from the timing of this report, the committee examines the UK’s position in respect of Euratom and makes 11 recommendations. To a large extent, the discussions undertaken during the passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill have taken this up. From the outcome of that Bill earlier today and the Government’s response to the report, the position has been addressed—notwithstanding that there is still a lot of activity to be successfully pursued to secure a robust and effective conclusion. The House will appreciate that the Minister will be making Statements as the situation develops and that the UK will continue in its relationship with Euratom as we develop UK safeguards.
While the report has been comprehensive in addressing the current position of the UK’s energy security, by its own admission it largely excludes an examination of the EU’s emissions trading scheme as this was the subject of another report, Brexit: Environment and Climate Change. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, spoke eloquently on climate policy and decarbonisation. As well as the serious questions that he posed, there are some pertinent questions to ask the Minister on the EU ETS. Could he outline what contingency plan is in place to manage the UK’s exit from the EU ETS in the case of no deal, and how the interests of UK companies with obligations under the ETS will be protected? Has the Minister’s department undertaken any plans for a stand-alone UK ETS that could be linked to the EU ETS to provide continuity in carbon trading arrangements and certainty for companies?
Lastly, I shall mention two aspects of energy security that the report does not examine: demand-side response and energy efficiency. Both are critically important. It should be pointed out that the market development of goods continues to improve through innovation. When most household equipment gets replaced, be it a washing machine or a boiler, it is usually with a new, more modern and more efficient piece of equipment. There is a passing reference at paragraph 74 of the Government’s response to demand-side response, DSR, regarding battery storage as evidence of achievements secured through the capacity market—but it is not expanded on.
There is much mention of energy efficiency in the IEM and other developments, but no analysis of energy efficiency measures as part of national infrastructure. Your Lordships’ House only recently concluded its assessment of what is now the Smart Meters Act, which has huge potential to rationalise household energy use. Both subjects could fill an entirely new debate. Perhaps I could pose questions to the Minister regarding the Government’s commitment for the UK to mirror EU standards, which could at least ensure that the UK will maintain similar levels of response to innovation to those that would occur through EU regulation. However, the challenge remains that the UK is yet to develop a comprehensive policy over demand-side energy reduction and energy efficiency measures. In his reply to the debate, will the Minister respond to the challenge and outline the Government’s ambitions in these two regards? In conclusion, this is an excellent report that has triggered excellent responses from noble Lords all around the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
The noble Lord has set me a rather large challenge in terms of how much he wants me to respond to in my comments—particularly as he strayed into the Smart Meters Bill, now the Smart Meters Act. I do not think we want to rehearse that. I may have to refer to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, shortly to become an Act, because I think it will be important for this issue, but I am grateful for his mention that he will be tabling amendments to the price cap Bill—or whatever its proper name is. I look forward to seeing them as soon as possible to make it easier for us to respond to them in good time when we meet in Committee on Monday and Wednesday.
I join other noble Lords in offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on chairing the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee and my thanks for producing the report. I am grateful that my right honourable friend was able to respond in good time—although I am not sure that I recognised her response in the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I thought that she responded in a proper and timely manner.
I should also say that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has received a letter from my right honourable friend sent only today—if he has not, I have a copy—in response to the European Commission’s notices to stakeholders, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, nods, so I take it that he has received it. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to the various questions raised in that capacity. I shall ensure that a copy of the letter is placed in the Library so that the noble Lord can see the more detailed response. I apologise for the fact that it came out only today, but I think it was probably of use to him in his response.
Many points and questions have been put to me, some of which I will be able to respond to. As always, I give an assurance that I will write in due course to noble Lords to deal with other, more detailed points if I feel that I cannot answer them in the time allowed. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, complained about the brevity of some of my right honourable friend’s responses. He will be the first to understand that it is not always possible in a short debate happening late at night to respond in the detail that he would like to some of the points that he has made.
We believe that the UK has a well-functioning, competitive and resilient energy system and that our energy market is one of the most liquid and developed markets in the world. As we have made clear, we also believe as regards costs that it is right to intervene where necessary. That is why we have brought forward the price cap Bill as a temporary measure.
As noble Lords will be aware, we have also commissioned the independent review of the cost of energy by Professor Dieter Helm. We are currently considering his findings and will be sorting out the next steps after further consultation with stakeholders. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will accept that as a response to some of his points about costs and will be prepared to wait for it in due course.
At the heart of our plans for a reliable electricity system in Great Britain is the capacity market. It secures the capacity required to meet peak demand in a range of scenarios, and it will continue to do so after EU exit. To ensure long-term security, we are broadening GB’s power generation base, including through new nuclear generation and offshore wind. Several noble Lords referred to the building of Hinkley, including the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. He will also be aware of the announcement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made about Wylfa in Anglesey. For some reason, his noble friends did not want me to repeat that Statement in this House, but it is there in Hansard for him to see. I can further add that the latest contracts for difference round secured record renewable energy capacity—I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone—at a record low price.
The GB gas market is highly diversified, with a variety of different sources of supply that do not depend on a relationship with the EU. We have domestic production, short-range and flexible gas storage facilities, gas pipelines from Norway, and three liquefied natural gas terminals, as well as gas interconnectors, about which I shall say something a little later, because they were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester and the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Sheehan.
Whatever our future relationship with the EU, we remain committed to delivering dependable, secure and low-carbon energy. Our Clean Growth Strategy, published in October—again, the noble Baroness was faintly dismissive of it—set out plans to build further on our successful decarbonisation of the power sector, while looking across the whole of the economy and country, through the 2020s and beyond. The clean growth grand challenge in our industrial strategy sets out to maximise the advantages from the global shift to clean growth for UK industry. The grand challenge will require us to embed clean growth across government’s activities. We remain strongly committed to the Paris climate change agreement, and will satisfy our international obligations and seek to maintain the shared approach enshrined in the agreement. Leaving the EU will not change any of our domestic statutory commitments to reduce our emissions, as laid out in the Climate Change Act 2008; indeed, those targets are more ambitious and challenging than those set by EU regulation.
As set out in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech, we are seeking the broadest and deepest possible agreement, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today, for its future economic partnership with the EU. We have made significant progress on negotiations so far; we have agreed the terms of a time-limited implementation period, and on the wider withdrawal agreement have locked down entire chapters on the financial settlement and citizens’ rights. More recently, as was made clear at Question Time today by my noble friend Lord Callanan, we will produce a White Paper that will set out in detail the UK’s position on a future relationship.
With respect to energy, as was made clear in the evidence given by my honourable friend Richard Harrington, we seek broad co-operation with the EU, ensuring that energy trading continues as efficiently as possible with the EU to underpin our future economic relationship. This includes exploring options for the UK’s continued participation in the EU’s internal energy market, as was mentioned by many noble Lords but particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson, Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Grantchester. It also includes protecting the single electricity market across the island of Ireland, which was a concern to many noble Lords. The Irish Government and the rest of the EU share the UK Government’s intention to support the stability of energy supply on the whole of the island of Ireland.
The Government are also clear about the importance of continued efficient electricity and gas interconnection between the island of Ireland and Great Britain, which the committee’s report rightly highlights. In the ongoing negotiations with the EU, we are making good progress on agreeing a basis on which the single electricity market can continue, as part of the draft withdrawal agreement. We are confident that we will secure a UK-EU future partnership that will achieve that shared objective.
Can I say a little about electricity interconnection? The UK and the EU have a common ambition to make energy trading easier and more efficient by opening up national markets and by increasing the level of interconnection between them. Facilitating cross-border energy trade so that it is as efficient as possible will remain in the interests of not only ourselves in the United Kingdom but of the EU, following our exit. The UK is continuing to develop more electricity interconnection and to open up trade with neighbouring markets. In addition to the 4 gigawatts of existing interconnection capacity, a further 4.4 gigawatts is now under construction and, beyond this, 9.4 gigawatts of potential additional interconnection projects already have regulatory approval from Ofgem.
Positive investment decisions on new interconnectors have taken place since the referendum. There have been final investment decisions on two interconnector projects, with approximately €1 billion of construction contracts being awarded. The ElecLink interconnector awarded contracts worth approximately €400 million in November 2016, and the IFA2 interconnector awarded contracts worth approximately €600 million in April 2017. So progress is being made and we are working to ensure that we can continue trading as efficiently as possible over those assets. We also want to continue with the gas interconnectors—mentioned by other noble Lords—with Belgium, the Netherlands and Ireland, which support the gas markets in those regions.
Moving on to Euratom, I dealt with quite a lot of that earlier today and throughout the passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. I do not want to repeat all the points that I made earlier today and at other times, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that there is no threat to medical radioisotopes. We will still be able to import them from Europe and the rest of the world. Those assurances have been given by myself and by other Ministers on other occasions. The simple fact is that it has been agreed that we will leave Euratom when we leave the European Union; the two are interconnected. As stated in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech, the UK will continue to seek a close association with Euratom, which shows our commitment to maintaining close and effective arrangements relating to civil nuclear co-operation, safeguards and safety with Euratom and the rest of the world. Maintaining continuity for the nuclear sector is a key priority.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that we also recognise the importance of being able to attract the right workers and we recognise the challenges that he mentioned in relation to Hinkley Point. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned those with a wonderful spoonerism when he talked about steel-fixers—I will not try to repeat it. We recognise the importance for the nuclear sector and we must remember that “skilled” is not always the same as “highly qualified”. We know that we need construction workers in that industry and we are working closely with the Home Office—a department that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, knows well—to ensure that the needs of the nuclear sector are understood and will be addressed.
I repeat what I made clear earlier today—although I think the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, was not here at the time—that as part of developing our policies for coming out of Euratom, in Vienna today we received an agreement from the International Atomic Energy Agency which provides for the voluntary application of international civil nuclear safeguards. That was formally approved by its board of governors today. In addition, looking across the Atlantic, I am delighted that we have now signed a new nuclear co-operation agreement with the United States of America, which will go through the ratification process both there and here. Although the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, seems to think that it will take rather a long time, I am confident that that will come into play in due course.
In Brussels, our negotiations with the European Commission on separation issues have gone well. We have reached agreement with the EU on the majority of Euratom issues under discussion, including on the legal text to be included in the withdrawal agreement.
The noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Hunt of Chesterton, and others expressed considerable concern about continuing collaboration on science and innovation. We have a strong history of collaborating with our European partners through the EU, pan-European, and other multilateral and bilateral initiatives on science and innovation, and we are committed to establishing a far-reaching science and innovation pact with the EU, facilitating the exchange of ideas and researchers. In her recent speech at Jodrell Bank the Prime Minister stated that she would like the option to fully associate with the excellence-based European science and innovation programmes, including the successor to Horizon 2020 and the Euratom Research and Training Programme.
Finally, on investment, we are very mindful of the need to give certainty to investors. The UK is a global leader in attracting investment, and there is still significant appetite to invest in UK renewables, including offshore wind, from developers and financial investors. The UK will remain a great place to do business after we leave the EU, and we expect the strong investment climate in the energy sector to persist, attracting inward investment from all over the world.
I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, would expect me to end without saying just a little about shale gas and the opportunities it gives us. As stated in the government response, the UK Government are committed to ensuring we have secure energy supplies that are reliable, affordable and clean. As part of this, shale gas has the potential to be a home-grown energy source which can lead to jobs and economic growth, contribute to our security of supply, and help us to achieve our climate change objectives. The Government are clear that shale development in the UK must be safe and environmentally sound, and we have a strong regulatory system in place. I hope that the noble Baroness and her party will come round to my way of thinking in due course. She looks as though that is unlikely, but I live in hope.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the problems but, as I said, I will reply by letter in due course. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for taking the opportunity to bring this report before the House and for the hard work that he and his committee put into it.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. First, I reflect the thanks expressed by a number of members of the committee to our clerk, Alexandra McMillan, and our policy analyst Jennifer Mills, who looked after this report so well. They are not here this evening, and one of the reasons for that may be that they are not in their offices this week because the energy security of Millbank House has totally failed. So, although Britain might not be in energy security mode at the moment, this House is. I have not been in my office this week for the same reason, but I hope that that will be put right next week.
I shall not thank all noble Lords individually but I thank everyone collectively for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, who participated in the previous debate, although I was not here for that. I suspect that it had a very similar theme but I will not be checking it to such a great extent in Hansard. I am also very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on the Front Bench. He has obviously recovered well from his malady.
I thank my noble friend Lady Sheehan for mentioning prices. During his witness session, the Minister, Richard Harrington, was fairly relaxed about the whole subject. It is worth taking up the point about the importance of energy prices, in that we still have some 34,000 premature deaths over the winter and in England alone some 2.5 million households are still in fuel poverty. This is a real issue. I know that the Government understand that as well and they have introduced their price cap Bill, but this is an important area.
I shall say just one thing about the internal energy market, which many of us discussed. I do not see how we will remain a member of that market given the red lines that we and the European Union have in the negotiations, unless the conversation changes fundamentally. That inevitably means that we will not be at any table in any significant way with any influence whatever over EU energy policies post Brexit. The Government probably understand that but it is something we need to work on and we need to find a different basis for the discussions.
I challenged the Minister to go through the positives of Brexit regarding energy but I did not notice any in his speech. I listed the ones that the committee found but, in going through them, we found that they were minor and pretty pathetic. That internal energy market is the goal and I do not see how we can leave it at the moment.
We have come to the end of the evening. The very last thing that I want to say is that, as the negotiations go on and on, Europe is losing interest in Brexit. It has problems with Italy, eastern Europe and the rule of law, as well as migration and, potentially, the eurozone. Brexit will become more and more minor. Whether on energy or more broadly, if we do not get ourselves into gear pretty quickly, our negotiating position will degrade because there is a lack of interest in us as a subject. Regrettably, I think that that is true with regard to energy as well. However, I wish the Government well in the negotiations and I too look forward to their negotiating position, which I hope will have energy as a core part, as reflected in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech. I thank everyone for their contributions.