House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
Children and young people should receive the right support to meet their special educational needs. In most cases, that can be provided close to home through the schools and services in their local area. Services must be jointly commissioned, with a published local offer kept under regular review.
Anne Marie Morris
Yet 41% of pupils attending special schools in Devon have to travel more than 10 miles to reach their school. How will the Minister support those children in Devon, to ensure that SEN provision is locally available and of a high quality?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. If a local authority identifies a shortage of special school places, resulting in a significant number of children with special educational needs and disabilities having to travel a long way, they need to consider creating or expanding specialist provision. We announced £50 million of funding in May this year, and Devon will receive £2.8 million from 2018 to 2021.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Nadhim Zahawi
It is important to ensure that children with SEND who want to and can be in mainstream education are able to. For example, 72% of children with autism are in mainstream education. We recently announced 14 new free special schools. As I said, it is important that, where councils need further provision to help to maintain children in mainstream education, they are able to create that.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Every year, 3,285 children with special needs are excluded from our schools—that is roughly 17 a day—and 833 children with special needs are given fixed-term exclusions. Does my hon. Friend recognise that that is a major social injustice? I know that he has his review, but surely the Department’s priority must be to address that.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Education Committee for that question. I do recognise that, which is why the Government have announced an exclusions review, led by Ed Timpson.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Further to the previous question, what are the Government doing to address the issue of academies excluding people with special educational needs, which is contributing to the rise in exclusions?
Nadhim Zahawi
We are looking at different groups and the proportion of those being excluded, which I hope will come out through the Timpson exclusions review. We are also talking to Ofsted about the issue of off-rolling.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Some 1.4 million children in this country display some kind of speech, language or communication disorder. That is 10% of children, as was highlighted recently in the excellent Bercow report, the second one on this. Given that children entering school with lower than expected communication skills tend to do less well academically and feature more highly among excluded children and young offenders, can the Minister give an indication of how the recommendations in the Bercow report might be implemented in our education system?
Nadhim Zahawi
Ten years on from the Bercow review; I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. We are looking very carefully at the recommendations of that report. One thing we are already doing is working with Public Health England to ensure that the health workers who go to see parents at that crucial young stage are trained in speech and language therapy.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
Schools must provide a broad and balanced curriculum that prepares pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
Mr Sheerman
The team on the Front Bench could not beat Panama or any other country in terms of effort and talent. Is not it a fact that the earlier young children are able to use both their academic and technical skills, the better, and that this Government have cramped the curriculum? Is not it also true that we can only deliver T-levels with the support of the further education sector, which is being destroyed by Government policies and underfunding?
Damian Hinds
In a wide-ranging question, as they say, the hon. Gentleman presents a number of different aspects, ranging from the World cup to T-levels. He is right about one thing, and that is the earlier children acquire skills and knowledge the better. That is why it is so important we have managed to narrow the attainment gap both in the early years and in primary school.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
May I welcome the advances the Government have achieved in this field and my right hon. Friend’s positive approach, contrary to what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said? What more can be done to tackle the skills shortage in the construction sector?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend raises a very important point about the construction sector, and of course we have considerable requirements because of the need to accelerate residential development. One of the first T-levels will be in construction, and we are working closely with the sector to bring that on.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern in the creative industries about the contraction in the number of pupils in maintained schools studying performing arts, and how does he intend to address that problem?
Damian Hinds
The right hon. Gentleman is correct about the importance of the performing arts. In fact, the number of children taking a GCSE in arts subjects has not really moved very much, but we very much believe in a broad and balanced curriculum, with the breadth of opportunities he would want.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
In the funding of these opportunities, where an academy runs up a debt because of the Department’s failure to supervise the academy sponsor, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Department should take responsibility for that debt, rather than leave it with the school, as appears to be the case with the Goodwin Academy in my constituency?
Damian Hinds
Where it does become necessary to re-broker an academy, as it does on occasions—my hon. Friend and I have had an opportunity to meet to discuss this—there is a bespoke approach to make sure that the settlement for the new arrangement with the new trust is sustainable.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Heads have recently warned that the new GCSEs are “inhumane” and that the “collateral damage”, as they call it, will be the less able pupils. Given that the Health and Social Care and the Education Committees recently found that one of the top causes of child mental ill health is the new exam regime, when will the right hon. Gentleman’s Department take action to assess the impact of the new GCSEs, and will he ensure that private schools that are opting out of the new GCSEs at the moment will be forced to take them as well?
Damian Hinds
We take the mental health of children and young people extremely seriously; hence the recent Green Paper and the whole programme of activity. To be fair, I do not think that the concept of exam stress is entirely a new one, and at this time of year there obviously is heightened stress among some young people. But the new GCSEs and A-levels have been designed and benchmarked against the leading systems in the world to make sure that we have a leading exam and qualification system.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Whether it is for academic or practical skills, reading and literacy are vital. In contrast to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, does the Secretary of State welcome the fact that pupils in England are outperforming their peers right across the world when it comes to reading and literacy, according to the latest PIRLS—the progress in international reading literacy study—figures?
Damian Hinds
I very much welcome that. It has been very encouraging to see how, particularly through the focus on the phonics programme, our young readers have improved in their reading so much, and that is reflected in those international comparisons.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
The two colleges serving my own constituents are both suffering severe financial pressures. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield is absolutely right: further education is fundamental to providing ongoing education in both practical and academic skills. When are the Government going to look at FE in general and particularly at the two colleges serving my constituency?
Damian Hinds
There are of course two enormous programmes of benefit to FE colleges. First, there is the apprenticeships programme. Through the levy, the total funding for apprenticeships by the end of this decade will be double what it was at the beginning. The other programme—the hon. Member for Huddersfield and I touched on this briefly—is T-levels, which will bring another half a billion pounds of funding.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
The crucial role of social workers should be recognised and celebrated. We are improving initial education standards and providing professional development. We have established an independent regulator, focusing on better standards.
Alex Burghart
As the Secretary of State will know, one of the reasons that we need to improve the quality of social workers in our country is to ensure that children in care can move on into employment and further education. Can he outline what more the Government are going to do to ensure that those children get the support they need?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance and challenge of that transition. Care leavers can access a personal adviser until they are 25. They can get a £2,000 bursary if they are in higher education, and a 16-to-19 bursary of up to £1,200 from the college if in further education. Care leavers aged 16 to 24 can receive a £1,000 bursary in the first year of an apprenticeship.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Department’s own figures show a gap of over 10,000 in the overall children’s social care workforce. Unison analysis shows that children’s services have experienced a funding shortfall of £600 million, with more cuts to come. Will the Secretary of State explain why he is happy to see hundreds of millions of pounds cut from vulnerable children, yet he is outsourcing £73 million to train as few as 700 new social workers and introduce an unpopular accreditation scheme?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is right to identify the importance of funding and resourcing for children’s social work. The spend on the most vulnerable children has been going up. There are some 35,000 child and family social workers and that number has increased a little between 2016 and 2017.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
The sector-led review is an important contribution to the family justice system. Across government we will consider its findings and recommendations carefully. My counterpart in the Ministry of Justice and I are due to meet the Family Rights Group to discuss the report in more detail.
Bill Esterson
Now that the Government have admitted that cuts to the national health service were a political choice, not an economic necessity, will they admit the same when it comes to local government, especially children’s social care? Will the Minister read the report from the directors of children’s services, take the action that is needed to end the crisis in children’s social care, and make the priority looking after our most vulnerable children, not tax cuts for the very wealthy?
Nadhim Zahawi
There is some great work taking place in children’s social care across the country. Money, of course, is a consideration, but good leadership, and strong and confident teams are making a huge difference. Across government, as has been mentioned, we are spending £1.4 billion on the troubled families programme.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What steps are the Government taking to encourage innovation in children’s social care?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for that question. We have two programmes: first, the What Works programme in children’s social care and, secondly, a £200 million innovation programme to look at what really works and then scale it up.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Does the Minister agree with the basic premise of the care crisis review that, if more money were spent on early intervention and family support, fewer children would go into care, and does he agree that that would be a good thing?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a great advocate of early intervention. She is absolutely right. On top of the £1.4 billion programme for troubled families, the Government are looking at reducing parental conflict. We know that many children in need have suffered from domestic abuse. The landmark Bill that we are bringing forward bears witness to our hard work across government to deliver this. However, she is absolutely right to say that early intervention is important and the Government take that very seriously.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
The rates that we provide to childcare providers were based on the review of childcare costs, which was described as “thorough and wide-ranging” by the National Audit Office. We have recently commissioned new research to further understand providers’ care costs.
Dan Carden
Last week, the National Day Nurseries Association found that nurseries faced an annual deficit of £2,000 per child on the 30 hours of childcare policy. That means that nurseries are struggling financially; a skills shortage as workers quit the sector; and fewer nurseries for parents to send their children to, or more nurseries with under-qualified staff. When will the Minister conduct an honest review of the chaos that he has caused across the sector?
Nadhim Zahawi
Thirty hours is a success story. The summer numbers are 340,000 children aged three and four benefiting from 30 hours a week free childcare. For those parents taking advantage of that, that is a £5,000 saving a year. We are conducting a review to look at the economics of the model, as we have done in the past, when we raised the hourly rate from £4.65 to £5. It is a huge success story, and clearly the hon. Gentleman is running scared.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
May I ask the Minister to explain how the Government intend to increase free childcare for foster carers, which is a great idea?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is right. We have listened carefully, including to many views in this Chamber, and we have delivered. As of September, foster carers who qualify for the 30 hours a week free childcare for three and four-year-olds can take advantage of it.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Minister will know that nursery schools, as distinct from nurseries, provide first-class education in deprived areas in the early years. However, their funding is still in doubt beyond 2020. When will the Minister make an announcement about these nursery schools and put nursery schools in Wolverhampton, which provide good and outstanding education, on a sure financial footing?
Nadhim Zahawi
There are 402 maintained nursery schools. The hon. Lady has championed their cause and I have seen at first hand the great work they do. She is right that the funding goes up to 2020. Clearly, we have to see what happens, but they are a very important part of the mix of provision.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Childcare is a critical enabler to allow parents to access further education. Nottingham College, in a move reflective of the exceptionally difficult landscape facing further education, has chosen to shut its nursery in my constituency. That is wrong, and I am campaigning with local residents and councillors to keep it open. Does the Minister agree that access to childcare is an important driver of accessing further education?
Nadhim Zahawi
I do agree that access to childcare is very important. I will look at the specific details the hon. Gentleman mentions, but suffice it to say that we are investing £50 million more to help schools to open a nursery setting.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
May I push the Minister further on the report from the National Day Nurseries Association, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden)? Not only is there, as mentioned, an annual funding deficit of £2,000 per 30-hours child, but a third of nurseries are having to limit the funded places they offer and a third of nurseries are being paid late for the work they do. To support our childcare providers, will the Minister tell us how many local authorities will see a real-terms funding increase in the next academic year?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady rightly speaks about the important research by the NDNA. Our own research demonstrates that 80% of providers are willing and able to offer places, and one third have actually increased their places.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
In the new national curriculum, which we introduced in 2014, maintained primary schools are required to teach swimming and water safety. Pupils are required to be taught how to swim competently, confidently and proficiently over a distance of at least 25 metres, covering a range of strokes. It also requires pupils to be taught to perform self-rescue in different water-based situations.
Mr Dhesi
No doubt the Minister agrees with the Prime Minister, who told the House last week, when I raised with her the case of Michael Scaife, who tragically drowned in Slough, that she recognises there is more to do on water safety education. The curriculum swimming and water safety recommendations were made nearly a year ago. On this, the last day of the Royal Life Saving Society’s annual Drowning Prevention Week, will the Minister agree to prioritise the implementation of those recommendations?
Nick Gibb
We were all very sorry to hear about the tragic death of Michael Scaife, who drowned while trying to save a friend. The Government take swimming and water safety very seriously, which is why we improved the national curriculum and why we support the National Water Safety Forum’s national drowning prevention strategy. The group the hon. Gentleman refers to published its report in July 2016. We then established an implementation group and the Government are currently reviewing the recommendations that came out of that report.
Mrs Hodgson
The children’s Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—was the founder and the first chair of the all-party group on water safety and drowning prevention. Like me, he had constituents who tragically lost their lives, which was why the group was set up. Ross Irwin in my constituency drowned in Christmas 2016 and two schoolgirls drowned a couple of years previously in the same river, the River Wear. So I know this is an issue very close to the Minister’s heart and a number of colleagues from across the House have had constituents dying in such circumstances. Given that almost a third of all pupils leaving primary school are unable to swim and do not have basic water safety skills, will the Minister make it his personal ambition to ensure that every child leaves school knowing the dangers of open water and cold water shock, as well as knowing how to swim?
Nick Gibb
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she has been doing over several years to ensure that children are better informed about the dangers of water and how to be safe in and around it. I thank her for her campaigns and that of the father of Ross Irwin, to whom I also pay tribute. Thanks to the Royal Life Saving Society and Sunderland City Council, there are now improved water safety measures in place at the Fatfield riverside on the River Wear. We take these issues very seriously, which is why we improved the curriculum and why this Government asked an independent group of experts from across the swimming sector to submit an independent report, setting out how we can improve swimming and the swimming curriculum in our schools.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
We have made good progress. We have announced the providers who will deliver the first three T-levels from 2020. We published the outline content for them, developed by panels of employers, and have begun the process to select an awarding organisation to develop them.
Damian Hinds
We have thus far selected a relatively small number of colleges to teach the first three T-levels from 2020. This is an ongoing programme and more T-levels and colleges will come on stream in the years to come. We expect to launch the process to select providers for 2021 early in 2019.
Sir Robert Syms
I welcome the introduction of T-levels, which could be a game changer for the British economy. What other sectors are the Government talking to about introducing T-levels in future years?
Damian Hinds
Eventually, as per the Sainsbury report, we will be looking right across industry and the requirements for technical and vocational education and training. We are looking at the combination of T-levels and apprenticeships to deliver learning across those routes. These are just the first three for 2020 and there will be a further 12 to come very soon.
Mary Robinson
Small businesses account for 60% of all private sector employment in the UK. What support will the Government put in place to encourage and enable small businesses to offer T-level work placements?
Damian Hinds
Industrial placements are at the heart of the T-levels programme. We are investing £5 million in the National Apprenticeship Service to make sure that it can be a one-stop shop. We have published “How to” guidance for employers, and we continue to work closely with bodies such as the Federation of Small Businesses and small employers themselves to establish the support that they need to offer these placements.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What is the Government’s plan for mandatory work placements as part of their new T-level when the number of learners exceeds the placements available from local employers? Answers that include “remote learning” or “online” will not be accepted.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for laying out his acceptance criteria for my response. The simple point is that we are working hard from now, not starting in 2020, to build up the availability of industrial placements, because they are such an important part of the programme.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I hope that the Secretary of State will do a bit better than he is doing on apprenticeships, which have collapsed in my constituency in the last two years, going from 350 starts to 50. Will he consider being more flexible about the time release rules for employers?
Damian Hinds
We think the quality requirements for apprenticeships are absolutely central, and that includes the 20% off-the-job training requirement, as well as the minimum 12-month length. We should also bear it in mind that over the last few years there has been further strengthening of the overall employment market, so today the proportion of young people who are unemployed and not in full-time education is down to 5%, as opposed to 8-point-something per cent. at the change of Government. The apprenticeship programme remains absolutely vital to building up the skills level of the nation.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State might be content with T-level progress, but I am afraid that many in the sector are not. There is no clarity on work placements, on bridging options post-16, on the transition years that some need or on where T-levels sit in the post-18 review. The Department’s own research warns that having a single awarding body for T-levels risks system failure, and Ofqual says the same, while his own top civil servant advised a year’s delay, which he rejected. Is he content just agreeing with himself, or would he be happy with a process for T-levels with the wheels coming off—a magical mystery tour for young people that risks becoming a ghost train?
Damian Hinds
Dear oh dear! Gordon! I do not quite know where to go with that question, because I do not recognise its premise. I spend a great deal of time talking to employers, providers and others throughout the sector about this programme, and if the hon. Gentleman consults the Sainsbury report, he will see the overall blueprint. It is absolutely clear where T-levels fit in with the overall skills landscape, including levels 4 and 5, which also need improving. T-levels are fundamental to building up the country’s skills base, and I would expect to see him supporting them.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
We continue to support schools in meeting their wide range of safeguarding duties, and as part of the integrated communities strategy, I have announced measures intended to safeguard children across the spectrum of educational settings, including out-of-school settings and home education.
James Cartlidge
The Bridge School, a specialist school in Ipswich, in my constituency, offers education to pupils of all ages with profound and severe learning difficulties. Following growing concerns about specific safeguarding issues, an Ofsted report was undertaken and found the school to be inadequate on every count, which is almost unprecedented. There is now a real sense of instability at the school. Given the vulnerable nature of the children, will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what can be done?
Damian Hinds
Of course I understand that, and of course I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. Where a maintained school is judged inadequate, my Department has a legal duty to issue an academy order, and the regional schools commissioner is considering all further options available to support the school through this transition.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Schools in High Peak tell me that the vast majority of their applications for education, health and care plans are refused, meaning that children with very serious special needs, including autism, are left struggling and teachers are left trying to cope with them in large classes. What is the Secretary of State doing to assess the number of children with special needs who receive no support and to ensure that local authorities receive sufficient provision to support them all?
Damian Hinds
The education, health and care plans are an important step forward from the previous system, bringing together, as they do, the education, health and care considerations. If the hon. Lady has specific cases, we will of course look at them.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Department’s highly unusual application to the court for a closure order for the Darul Uloom School in Chislehurst has not only received wide publicity but raised concern among residents and, no doubt, parents. Will the Secretary of State update us on the position and meet me to discuss the way forward for this school, which has a long-standing poor record in academic matters?
Damian Hinds
Again, I understand those concerns, and of course I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend. We did apply to the magistrates court for an emergency order to close the school in his constituency. At a hearing last Friday, the school agreed some significant assurances, including—crucially—that the two individuals associated with the case would have no further involvement. The school will remain closed until a new trustee is appointed, who will be approved by the Department for Education.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
One group that is under-represented in tertiary education are care-experienced young people. Care leavers in Scotland will now be supported with a grant of £8,100 through college or university. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the steps the Scottish Government are taking? It was good to hear about the support packages he mentioned earlier for young people leaving care, but will he now consider a more realistic level of funding to allow these young people to access tertiary education?
Damian Hinds
I will always keep an open mind about what more we can do to help care leavers—that is at the heart of the care leavers covenant—and of course I will continue to look at what the Scottish Government do, as well as others.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
At the weekend I was contacted by a constituent who chairs one of the maintained nursery schools in north-east Lincolnshire. She expressed views similar to those expressed by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) about funding. Will my right hon. Friend confirm his continuing support for maintained nurseries, and will he ensure that funds are in place to provide the certainty that they require?
Damian Hinds
The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), talked about the maintained nursery sector earlier. I can confirm that we greatly value the role played by maintained nurseries, and will continue to work with them to ensure that they play that role as effectively as possible in our diverse early-years sector.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Children are not safe when they are being taught in schools where water pours through the ceiling when it rains, as happens in one school in my constituency. What is the Secretary of State doing to end the drought in capital funding for schools, particularly those like the one I have just mentioned?
Damian Hinds
I should of course be happy to look into the case that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We have allocated a total of £23 billion of capital for school buildings, but it is difficult for me to comment on that specific case from the Dispatch Box without knowing the details.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Information released accidentally from Ofsted shows that only 4% of schools in the most deprived areas achieve “outstanding” ratings, compared to 58% in the least deprived. Inspections are measuring deprivation rather than the quality of teaching and learning. Does the Secretary of State not agree that that is morally repugnant?
Damian Hinds
At the heart of our priorities since May 2010 has been raising standards for all children while also narrowing the gap, and I welcome the narrowing gap that we have seen in both primary and secondary schools. Is there more to do? Yes, there is, and that is at the heart of our opportunity areas programme, which—as the hon. Gentleman will know—identifies the pockets of under-achievement that may exist even in otherwise more affluent regions, and seeks to establish what area-specific conditions are required.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
As recommended by Sir Nick Weller, we have implemented a range of measures in the north to improve teaching and leadership capacity, recruit and retain teachers, and close the disadvantage gap. In 2017, nearly 400,000 more children were in good or outstanding schools in the north than in 2010.
Imran Hussain
When the strategy was announced, £80 million of funding was attached to it, but just months later that was rowed back to £70 million. Now, according to the vice-chair of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, nothing at all has been spent. Can the Minister tell me how much has been spent so far, and how much of that has been spent on recruiting teachers in Bradford in particular?
Damian Hinds
We continue to spend on a range of programmes in the north, and some of the results are reflected in the figures I have just given. Bradford is of course one of the opportunity areas to which I referred, and £1.5 million has been provided to fund school improvements there. We are seeking to support the work of Bradford for Teaching, and Academy Ambassadors is working to further strengthen multi-academy trusts across the north. Altogether, more than £767 million of additional pupil premium funding was allocated to schools in the north, which over-indexed on pupil premium funding in comparison with the rest of the country.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The Government did indeed commit themselves to spending £70 million on improving educational attainment in the north. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that they have in fact spent considerably more than that?
Damian Hinds
I am happy to confirm that we remain committed to all areas of the country. In English education there is nothing as simple as a north-south divide. There are areas of educational under-achievement in the north, the south and the middle. We need to seek them out wherever they are, and provide the support and accountability that are needed to ensure that those children too can thrive.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Through the national funding formula, we are giving every local authority more money for every pupil in every school in 2018-19 and 2019-20. However, we have always made it clear that local authorities remain responsible for determining schools’ final budget allocations in these transition years, in consultation with their schools.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the Minister for his answer, but I am horrified by what it contains, because the reality is that in my constituency, in the Borough of Tower Hamlets, there will be £28 million of cuts by 2020 in an area with the highest child poverty in the country. Where is the fairness in that, and will the Minister and the Secretary of State show some guts and stand up to the Prime Minister, perhaps like the Defence Secretary, and call an end to the billions of pounds of cuts in national funding of education?
Nick Gibb
Under the national funding formula we prioritise children from disadvantaged backgrounds; that is a key element of the way we allocate funding in a fairer way. In the hon. Lady’s constituency, the average per pupil funding for primary schools under the national funding formula when it is fully implemented will be £6,140, compared with the national average of £4,193 per primary school pupil. For secondary, the hon. Lady’s schools will be funded at £7,965 per pupil compared with the national average of £5,380.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Minister knows that I have written to him and met him to discuss some of the budgets of schools in my constituency, which seem to be going down, at variance to the impression the Government would give; and those schools where the budget is going up seem to have their costs increasing at a faster rate than the increase in funding they are getting. Will the Minister look again at the schools budget in the Shipley constituency? Will he perhaps write to me with his understanding of what each school is getting this year and in the next financial year compared with the last financial year, and will he commit to making sure they get adequate funding? And if he is looking for a pot of money, perhaps the overseas aid budget would be a good place to start.
Nick Gibb
Of course I will write to my hon. Friend as he asks, but I have to say that we are spending record amounts of money on schools, some £42.4 billion this year. There has never been a sum as high spent on schools in our history, and it will rise again next year to £43.5 billion, and we announced an increase in school funding last July to the tune of £1.3 billion. That was the result of successful negotiations with the Treasury.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Nick Gibb
The right hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points and I will take advice on his suggestions, but I must say that we have guaranteed the pupil premium to the end of this Parliament: it is over £1,300 for every pupil eligible for free school meals attending a primary school, and nearly £1,000 for every disadvantaged child attending a secondary school.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that there is nothing morally superior about maintaining a blatantly unfair existing system, and is it not fair and reasonable therefore to target increases in school funding on schools, such as those in Worcestershire, that have been relatively underfunded for decades?
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
The Chancellor gave a guarantee that not a single school would lose a single penny—no ifs, no buts, no small print, but an ironclad, copper-bottomed guarantee. Now he is trying to wriggle out of it like a second-hand car salesman. If Private Pike is prepared to go to war to get funding for defence, why is the Education Secretary waving the white flag rather than meeting his guarantee on schools?
Nick Gibb
The national fairer funding system is giving every local authority in the country more money for every pupil in every school in 2018-19 and 2019-20, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that school funding will be maintained in real terms per pupil in those two years. But we have always been clear that for these two years we will allow some discretion to local authorities as to how they allocate that funding to each of their local schools, and that is why the points the hon. Lady made arise: because we have given discretion to local authorities.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
As the Secretary of State outlined in his speech to the National Association of Head Teachers, we will support and hold to account trusts with poor educational, financial or governance performance. We will continue to act swiftly and robustly to turn around academies that Ofsted has judged inadequate, bringing about leadership change if that is necessary.
Justin Madders
I thank the Department and the Secretary of State for agreeing to meet me and colleagues last week to discuss our concerns about the performance of the University of Chester Academies Trust. Now that they have heard our concerns, can the Minister assure us that they will deal with these matters as swiftly as possible?
Nick Gibb
Yes, we will. The University Church of England Academy was judged to be inadequate by Ofsted in April last year. There was then a question of whether the multi-academy trust could provide the support that that school needed. Following a recent Ofsted monitoring visit to the academy, the Department took the view that insufficient progress was being made and that the leadership of the trust was not taking sufficient action. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the hon. Gentleman confirming that the academy was going to be brokered to a higher-performing multi-academy trust, and we will do that as swiftly as possible.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I witnessed at first hand the work of the Autism Education Trust at the Rise School in Feltham, in helping to train schoolteachers, receptionists, caretakers and others across the teams in schools. About 175,000 people have been trained to recognise and help children with autism.
Mr Sweeney
Rossie Stone set up Dekko Comics in my constituency two years ago after suffering from dyslexia throughout school. He found that by creating a gamified version of school lessons, he was able to improve his academic performance rapidly. Will the Minister consider how using gamified methods of teaching can rapidly improve learning outcomes for people who are neurodiverse?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are looking at innovation across the board in the Department, and one of the areas that we are looking at is gamified work. I have seen some excellent work being done with children in Luton.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
The Government are committed to tackling our need for science, technology, engineering and maths skills in order to create a dynamic, innovation-driven economy. That is why we are investing an additional £406 million in skills, including maths and digital. This includes the advanced maths premium, and an £84 million programme to improve the teaching of computing, which should help to increase the take-up of these subjects.
Colin Clark
The Oil & Gas Technology Centre in Aberdeen is a major promoter of STEM subjects. Does the Minister agree that it is essential to prioritise the take-up of STEM subjects if we are to have the engineers and technicians that we need for the future?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is why we are encouraging more students into STEM education across the entire school system. We have seen a 17% overall increase in entries to STEM A-levels since 2010. In physics, it is overall at its highest level since 1996. However, there is clearly a lot more to do, which is why we are focused on doing a lot through careers and through the university system.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
One of the major factors affecting the uptake of STEM subjects is the expertise of the teachers. However, Department for Education data show that one third of physics teachers in England do not have a relevant degree in the subject. Rather than simply accepting that as an unfortunate reality, what steps is the Minister taking to upskill STEM teachers? Will he commit to following Scotland’s example in making a relevant degree a requirement for entering the profession?
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Based on last year’s GCSE results, converter academies and free schools had higher Attainment 8 and Progress 8 scores than the average for state-funded schools overall. In fact, eight of the top 10 schools for progress made by pupils were either academies or free schools. That is evidence that free schools and academies are delivering high standards for their pupils, and that particularly includes disadvantaged pupils.
Mr Jayawardena
The Department for Education has identified target local authority areas for raising standards. Further to my right hon. Friend’s answer, does he agree that free schools that are accessible to anyone, wherever they might live in that area or beyond, will increase parental choice and improve standards?
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend is right. Since 2010, the creation of the free schools programme has been a huge success. Those schools, which often serve disproportionately disadvantaged communities, have unleashed innovation and driven up academic standards. To give just one example, 92% of disadvantaged pupils at Reach Academy Feltham achieved grade 4 or above in English and maths last year.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
EU students, staff and researchers make an important contribution to our universities. We want that contribution to continue and we are confident, given the quality of our higher education sector, that it will do so. Information on eligibility for the academic year 2019-20 will be made available for students and institutions as soon as possible.
Daniel Zeichner
We need much more urgency. The admissions process is open and people are waiting to apply to medical and dentistry schools and universities such as Cambridge, but they face a real drop-off unless certainty is given soon about the status of EU students next year. Why do the Government not support British universities, which are among our great export earners? Is this just another day, another Brexit blunder?
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
We published a plan last year for improving social mobility through education, which set out the actions we are taking to increase social mobility. A crucial part of that is a career strategy, which I launched last year. Legislation came into force this year, including a requirement to allow further education technical and apprenticeship providers to have the opportunity to talk to young people. At the heart of the career strategy are those Gatsby benchmarks, which will make sure that young people get good careers advice.
Anne Milton
This is absolutely crucial. Obviously, someone who cannot speak English will be at a disadvantage. We have done a great deal more to improve the roll-out of ESOL. On the work we are doing in primary schools, the proportion of six-year-olds meeting expected standards in the phonics screening check has risen dramatically.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
It is right that local councils decide how they spend on children’s centres. Our priority is to improve outcomes for disadvantaged children overall. It is not just about bricks and mortar, but about using and improving evidence about what works.
Sandy Martin
Given that there are now at least 1,240 fewer designated Sure Start children’s centres than there were in 2010, will the Department commit to retaining the remaining two thirds of the original centres and invest in improving the range of services they offer?
Nadhim Zahawi
This Government are spending £6 billion on childcare. It is not just about bricks and mortar. There are 2,300 children’s centres and they are very much part of the overall picture, but we will do what works. We have committed £8.5 million for councils to peer review each other, to see what is actually working. I hope that, like the Government, the hon. Gentleman is interested in outcomes rather than just bricks and mortar.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
In the past month, we have announced £730 million of capital funding to create new school places. That will bring to 1 million the additional school places to be created over the decade, making it the biggest for investment in school capacity for at least two generations. Friday was Thank a Teacher Day, and we have more of them to thank than ever before, as well as more to thank them for.
Gavin Newlands
This year’s Times Higher Education rankings show UK universities falling down the league tables. Does the Secretary of State agree that that makes it even more vital that the UK relaxes any restrictions on EU academic and research staff post Brexit, to ensure that our universities do not become isolated and cut off from development?
Damian Hinds
Our higher education sector performs extremely well in the international comparisons. It is a popular destination for international students, including EU students, and, indeed, it remains a popular destination for EU academics.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Damian Hinds
I agree with my hon. Friend that we want children off their phones and focused on their lessons. As he says, we know from research that that improves results. I am also very clear that it is for the people in charge of schools—the headteachers—to make the detail of their disciplinary rules.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Just weeks ago, Ministers stood at the Dispatch Box, rejected our call to save the NHS bursary and promised that 5,000 apprentice nursing associates would be recruited this year to tackle the nursing shortage. Half were due to be recruited by April. Can the Minister confirm that Ministers have now missed that target by 60% and tell us how many people will start apprenticeships this year?
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Anne Milton)
We need to make sure that nursing apprenticeships and apprenticeships for nursing assistants work well. There are complex problems in the NHS, not least in providing 40% off-the-job training and the fact that those apprentices are supernumerary. I am working very closely with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that we make this work.
I was, in effect, a nursing apprentice. I know how well such apprenticeships can work, and I am determined to make sure they do.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
We calculate the area cost adjustment using data on teacher pay and data from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on general labour market costs. For teacher pay we use the regional teacher pay bands as zones, but we will keep it under review to ensure that funding always matches need as closely as possible.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I sit on the Home Secretary’s serious violence taskforce, and we are publishing revised statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children,” which makes clear the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved in protecting children from gangs. The guidance also offers links to further advice on these forms of abuse. Obviously, we also have our strategy for alternative provision—the hon. Gentleman referred to pupil referral units.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Damian Hinds
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We are having this consultation, and there has been a rise in children being home educated, which of course includes some children with particular special educational needs who have had a particularly bad time in the school system and whose parents devote their lives to their education—I pay tribute to those parents. The rise includes other categories, but it is important that we listen carefully, and we will, to those parents in the consultation.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Nick Gibb
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the national figures, he will find that, at primary, something like 97% of families received an offer of a place in one of their top-three schools, with 91% offered their first choice. At secondary, 94% of families received an offer of a place at their first-choice school. We have created 825,000 school places since 2010, following on from a Labour Government who actually cut 100,000 school places from the system.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Nick Gibb
Our national funding formula is a much fairer way of allocating funding, and it also supports small rural schools, particularly in areas such as West Oxfordshire, by providing a lump sum of £110,000 for every school and by targeting funding to small and remote schools through the sparsity factor. That provides up to an additional £65,000 for small rural secondary schools and £25,000 for primaries.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Mr Sam Gyimah)
As part of the EU negotiations, we are mindful of the fact that we want academics here to work with academics from abroad. The Prime Minister said in her most recent science speech that roughly 50% of researchers in the UK are from the EU—we intend that to remain the same post Brexit.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
Anne Milton
Sixteen proposals for institutes of technology will go through to stage 2, which we will launch in July. IOTs are a collaboration between higher education and further education, with a focus on levels 4 and 5; traditionally, this has been rather neglected in this country but it is so crucial for building the skills base. They will also extend to levels 6 and 7. There will be a £170 million capital fund to help IOTs get off the ground.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
I have recently learned that “consequence booths”, where children spend up to seven hours in a small booth without contact with peers, are being used by academies in my constituency. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can protect children in Stockton South from this threat to their mental health?
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in encouraging young people in Walsall to attend the open evening at Walsall College, rated as outstanding by Ofsted, on Wednesday afternoon from 4 till 7, in advance of it delivering T-levels from September?
Anne Milton
My hon. Friend has given a great advert for T-levels. Contrary to what the shadow Minister said, T-levels have been viewed as a huge success, as shown by the broad support at the conference of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers this morning. They are a fantastic opportunity for our young people.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, a survey of teachers by the charity stem4 revealed that students are facing a mental health epidemic and are not receiving the support they need. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the number of counsellors, educational psychologists, peer mentors and pastoral care staff that have been lost from our schools in recent years? What assurances will he give that the proposals in the “Transforming Children and Young People’s Mental Health Provision” Green Paper will bring about a genuine addition to the mental health workforce in our schools and not just replace what has already been lost?
Nick Gibb
This Government take mental health very seriously. Some 84% of secondary schools have a counsellor to help children deal with mental health issues and stress, and we have unveiled our Green Paper, whereby we intend to improve mental health support for young people in our schools, including by having a designated senior mental health lead in every school in the country.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The teachers I meet in my constituency want to use more of their judgment and to reduce their assessment workload. Will the new goals for four to five-year-olds achieve on both fronts?
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Northern College has recently started teaching a pioneering 10-week course to help survivors of modern slavery. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the work of Northern College? Will he also meet me to discuss its difficulty in using public funds to fund these vital courses because of current immigration regulations?
Damian Hinds
Of course I will meet the hon. Lady, and I pay tribute to what she is doing to make sure that the survivors and victims of modern slavery are given all the opportunities possible.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Following the announcement on the obesity strategy, what consideration is being given to opening up school sports facilities for free after school and during the holidays to parents and sports clubs that provide constructive opportunities for young people?
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In last month’s Westminster Hall debate on school funding, the Minister said that per-pupil funding at Twerton Infant School in Bath would rise, but the headteacher maintains that it will not. If the Minister is so confident about his figures, will he please publish them next month?
Nick Gibb
The figures have already been published. We are providing increases in school funding for every school and every pupil—we are providing funding to local authorities on that basis. It is up to local authorities, in discussion with their schools, to decide how to allocate that funding to individual schools. I suggest that the hon. Lady takes up the matter with her local authority.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
This morning, I attended the schools’ engineering and technology competition in Chelmsford, where Essex students had designed a wheelchair that climbs stairs. Does the Minister agree that such projects are key to inspiring the engineers of the future? Will he congratulate the Chelmsford Science and Engineering Society and all who were involved?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
This month, Newcastle’s £9 million Discovery free school closed following a devastating Ofsted report. The Department for Education has said that it—or rather, the taxpayer—will bear the financial cost. Does the Minister recognise that the cost to the students, the people and the economy will be borne by the city of Newcastle, which should have been responsible for the school in the first place?
Nick Gibb
Yes; we take these issues very seriously. We take swift action when free schools such as that one fail. It was sponsored by the Newcastle colleges, with Newcastle University’s involvement, but it was not delivering the required results so we took swift action and closed it. All the pupils will be placed in other, better schools.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that daily mile initiatives are included as part of the childhood obesity strategy?
Nadhim Zahawi
On top of what we are doing, including the £26 million for breakfast clubs and the doubling of the physical education and sports premium, we would like schools to embrace the active mile as a simple, fun and inclusive way to build physical activity.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Earlier, the Minister claimed repeatedly that funding for the nursery sector is entirely adequate. On that basis, will more nurseries be open at the end of this Parliament than at the beginning?
Nadhim Zahawi
The important thing is to make sure that we have sufficiency in the system—that is, enough places—and I am confident that we will. This summer, 340,000 three and four-year-olds will benefit from 30 hours’ free childcare a week; that is to be celebrated.
Leaving the EU: Airbus Risk Assessment
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement following the publication on Friday of the Airbus Brexit risk assessment report and its implications for future investment and job security in the UK.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
The aerospace sector is one of the UK’s greatest manufacturing strengths. Directly and through its supply chains, it employs in the UK around 300,000 people in high-skilled jobs, with an average salary of £41,000—that is 43% above the national average. Of the sector’s £33 billion turnover, some 90% is accounted for in exports. From Bombardier in Belfast to Airbus in Filton, the supply chain that the sector operates is complex, precise and just-in-time. The industry is in demand around the world and that demand is growing rapidly, with the sector doubling in size every 15 years. Airbus is a very important part of that success, employing 14,000 people across 25 sites, with 110,000 people working in the supply chain of 4,000 small, medium and large companies.
On Friday, Airbus published a risk assessment, in which it stated to suppliers and to the UK and EU member states that if an agreement between the EU and the UK were not reached by 29 March 2019, its production would be likely to be severely disrupted, with a significant impact on the company. It also said that any agreement that involved significant change to customs arrangements would take time to implement through Airbus’s supply chain, and that any agreement that involved new procedures, complexity or frictions would undermine the efficiency of the company’s operations. That is completely consistent with what every part of the industry collectively has been saying directly, as well as through the ADS industry trade body and the international body the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, including in a letter to Michel Barnier at the European Commission earlier this month. Any company and any industry that supports the livelihoods of so many working people in this country is entitled to be listened to with respect.
The Government have been clear that we are determined to secure a deal with the EU that meets the needs of our aerospace firms and the thousands of people whose livelihoods depend on them and that, in particular, products made in the UK can be approved for use across Europe, that there should be no tariffs or any unnecessary friction in the trade between the UK and the EU, and that skilled employees will be able to work across the multiple sites of an integrated operation. Those objectives have been clearly set out by the Prime Minister in public and in our negotiations.
In the months ahead, my colleagues and I will work closely with businesses to ensure that, under the terms of our new relationship, we can continue to enjoy the prosperity that working in aerospace brings to so many people in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Mark Tami
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this important urgent question and I thank the Secretary of State for his response.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the continued operation of Airbus in the UK is vital to the UK economy and that we need to take seriously its worries and concerns? Alternatively, does he support the comments of the International Trade Secretary, who said that we should ignore the views of business? Or does he agree with the views of the Health Secretary, who said that it was inappropriate of Airbus to raise concerns? Finally, does he support the more direct approach of the Foreign Secretary, who said, “F*** business”? I know that the Foreign Secretary has to be elsewhere today; I believe that he has gone as far as Afghanistan to avoid the Heathrow vote. Are not those comments indicative of the chaos in Government over Brexit and of the Government’s approach to anyone who dares to raise genuine concerns?
Airbus has been raising those concerns privately for 12 months and getting absolutely nowhere. Can the Secretary of State explain why it is now, when it has done it publicly, that it is shouted down by Cabinet Ministers? Will he meet me and representatives from Airbus to address the serious concerns raised in the report? Does he accept that the lead-in times for investment in aerospace are long and that the sums of money are huge? For Airbus, it is all about securing the next generation of wing work, and these decisions are being taken now.
Is it not the case that, without clarity on Brexit, investment could be placed outside the UK—either in the EU itself or in low-cost producer countries such as China where the company has a plant? Airbus’s concerns are real and shared by many other manufacturers such as BMW and Siemens. The Government need to wake up and listen rather than just address Tory infighting.
Greg Clark
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has more than 6,500 people employed in his constituency in good jobs, and many more in the supply chain. Members from all parts of the House have constituents whose prosperous careers and excellent opportunities come from working in this important sector. Let us be clear: this sector is one of our proudest strengths and it is expanding. The opportunities around the world grow every year and the excellence that we have needs to be nurtured and cherished. I take seriously the representations of all businesses because we are talking about not speculation or visions of the future, but the reality of the lives of many hundreds of thousands of people across the country, which is important.
It is the case that we should listen to businesses. Of course, what Airbus has said was consistent with what it has said before and consistent with what it has said to Select Committees of this House. Very importantly, it was addressed equally to the European Commission and to member states of the European Union. It is very clear that, in order to have the agreement that we seek, it is necessary that both sides of the discussions should participate. Airbus has been clear that it is in the interests of the whole country and the whole company that that should be the case. I hope that that message will be heard in Brussels as well as in this country.
The hon. Gentleman asked questions about listening to business. All Government Members recognise that the livelihoods of millions of people, and the prosperity of our country, depend on business being successful. We will not always agree with everything that businesses say, but they have the right to be heard. The hon. Gentleman was rather one-sided in his representations; I think that he should direct some of his recommendations to his own Front Benchers, who have not been a picture of clarity on what they would like from these negotiations.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend explain to some of his Cabinet colleagues and others that it is simply not going to be possible to opt into most of the benefits of the single market and the customs union, while rejecting every trade rule and regulatory arrangement that the member states of the EU accept as part of that deal? Does he also agree that if, at the end of our negotiations, we start erecting new tariff barriers, new customs procedures and new regulatory divergences, it is perfectly obvious that we are going to deter inward investment from companies such as Airbus, BMW, Siemens and many others, with long-lasting damage to our economy?
Greg Clark
It is imperative that we do not do that. I am actually more optimistic than my right hon. and learned Friend about the prospects of a deal that will avoid that. Part of what this company and others have said is that it is strongly in the mutual interest of this international business that there should be an orderly agreement that allows a very successful company to continue to trade without friction. I think that that is in prospect.
We are leaving the European Union; that decision has been clearly taken. The task before us is to make an agreement that implements that decision and which, at the same time, ensures that these avoidable threats of frictions and tariffs do not take place. That is absolutely within our grasp and it is what the whole House should back during the months ahead.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) on securing it and on so eloquently setting out the importance of Airbus to our economy and the 110,000 workers whose livelihoods depend on it.
Airbus is not alone. Last week we heard from: BMW, which has 8,000 workers; Unipart, with 6,000 workers; Siemens, with 15,000 workers; and INEOS, which has 18,500 workers. These are the ones that have put their heads above the parapet, to be shot down by their own Government. The Secretary of State may say that he is listening, but the Health Secretary calls Airbus “completely inappropriate”, the Trade Secretary blames the EU and it would be unparliamentary to fully quote the Foreign Secretary, wherever he is.
Businesses are told to shut up when they call for clarity, Labour MPs are accused of scaremongering and Conservative MPs are called traitors. This Government are so insecure—so at odds with themselves and the country—that they cannot stand scrutiny. Their chaotic handling of Brexit is dividing the country, not bringing it together, and it is risking our industrial base. They should abandon their red lines, rule out no deal, accept that a new customs union and single market is in all our interests, and give business and workers the certainty that they need—or step aside for a Labour Government who will.
Greg Clark
We listen to the voice of business—large and small, across the country. Let us reflect on the months past. The hon. Lady knows that, around a year ago, business—again, large and small, across the country—said how important it was to have an implementation period. That proposal was put forward, adopted by the Prime Minister and has now been agreed with the European Union.
In her Mansion House speech, again, the Prime Minister responded to what business communicated very clearly in saying that we should be able to continue to be part of bodies like EASA—the European Aviation Safety Agency—which is responsible for aviation safety. That was also something that was recognised. Business recognises that this Government do listen and do act on the advice that business gives during these negotiations. It is an approach that is serious and sober. It recognises the challenges and complexity of the negotiations and addresses them in a responsible way.
I am glad that the hon. Lady calls for a degree of cool-headedness and consensus around this, because 80% of colleagues—80%-plus, I think—were elected on a platform that recognised the importance of leaving the European Union. What is before us is to make sure that the deal that we get is something that can be supported. But at every turn, her party changes its position—not for any reason of substance, but to maximise political advantage: shape-shifting to try to catch the Government out. In the past two years, we have had from Labour, at my last count, 15 tests, five red lines, four bottom lines, 170 questions and four key messages, but no coherent policy. Meanwhile, we in the Government are getting on with the task in hand, and that is precisely what she should do.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend for coming so quickly to the House? When he was answering the original question, did he notice the irony that Siemens, among many other companies, has already been showing its faith in the UK even before this, with a £200 million investment in Goole to make sure that it is able to be here because it is where the talent lies? Would he not also consider it slightly ironic if the complaints from Airbus were such that it actually moved its production to China, given that China has never even been in the European Union?
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend is right. I hope that he would acknowledge that my Department and this Government are energetic in promoting the advantages of locating in Britain, and not just at the new facility in Goole—I had the great privilege of opening the Siemens blade factory in Hull, employing 1,000 people. People locate in this country because it is a good place in which to invest. We have an environment of innovation and excellence—it is a tribute to the workforce—and we want to keep it that way. It is therefore incumbent on us, when we have industrial investors who are committing for years ahead, to listen to what they say about the requirements from the negotiation. He and I completely agree that in that relationship, we want to make sure that we do not have tariffs and we do not have frictions. That is what the company wants, that is what we want, and now we need to agree it with our European counterparts.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Airbus’s risk assessment is sobering news for those drunk on the fantasies of Brexit. Airbus has forecast “severe disruption” and “interruption of production” in the UK, forcing it to switch investment planning away from the UK. Airbus says that this is not “Project Fear” but a dawning reality. The fact is that business after business is shouting, “Brace, brace.” At the heart of this is the lack of any plan or any sense over the customs union from this Government. This, coupled with no sign of any agreement over the EU-US open skies arrangement, means that Airbus is taking flight while the planes it already has in service could be stuck on the ground here.
The UK Government’s disastrous plan to leave the EU customs union and single market risks 80,000 jobs by 2030 in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State provide details about how the Government will protect 8,000 jobs and £541 million of activity in Scotland indirectly supported by Airbus? What technical discussions has he had with Airbus and sectoral organisations on the impact Brexit will have on the industry? In the light of this, what policy changes, if any, will he take forward?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman talks about the impact of Brexit. It may have escaped his attention that we are negotiating the terms of our future economic partnership with the rest of the EU. The representations that have been made by Airbus—as I say, directed at the UK but also at other member states and the Commission —are about what that future economic partnership should look like. I hope there will be a broad consensus in the House that it should be a regime that allows fantastic sectors and companies within them to not only continue to export in a just-in-time system in which any delay at the border undermines the business model, but also to expand production in a rapidly expanding market, not just in Europe but around the world. That is what we are negotiating, and that is the context in which Airbus has given advice to us and the other side of the negotiations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Given that there is a further urgent question to come, thereafter to be followed by a ministerial statement and subsequently a debate on the Heathrow motion, which I can tell colleagues is extremely heavily subscribed, the Chair’s accommodation of the extensive interest in this matter will require brevity from Back and Front Benchers alike—to be demonstrated in the first instance by a co-author of the short questions textbook, Mr John Redwood.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does not Boeing’s decision to make a major manufacturing investment in this country show that a complex supply chain can be run with a lot coming in from outside the EU perfectly well and give the lie to the idea that we will not be able to supply the wings to Airbus?
Greg Clark
I want Britain to be the best place in the world to produce advanced manufacturing products, and that means we should be tenacious in looking at every way to make the supply chain competitive. Given that our parts go backwards and forwards between the UK and the continent, if we can avoid frictions, as I am certain we can, that enhances our ability to compete, which is to the advantage of Boeing as well as any other company in the industry.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Is it not pretty damning that the Secretary of State has had to come to the Dispatch Box today to say that Airbus should be treated with respect when it tells the truth, rather than be criticised? Since the whole House knows that he understands what is at stake here, does he agree that the fact that the Cabinet is still arguing about what kind of customs arrangements it wants two years after the referendum is why a growing number of businesses despair at the Government’s inability to get a grip of this issue?
Greg Clark
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. On the first point, we are an open economy. Businesses that employ people here are perfectly free to speak out and have a right to do so. It is incumbent on the Government to listen to what they say and factor that into the negotiations we are having. We have been very clear about that.
When it comes to the negotiation of our future customs arrangements, the right hon. Gentleman knows, as Chair of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, which has given this extensive scrutiny, that up to now we have been discussing the terms of our withdrawal. We are coming on to talk about the future economic partnership. We are negotiating and setting out what we want to achieve through that, and this was always the time when that would be done. For evidence from Airbus and other companies to come forward at this time is to be expected, given the focus of the discussions over the weeks ahead.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
A small business in my constituency that employs 180 people is part of the Airbus supply chain, so this matters very much to the good people of Broxtowe. I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement and welcome it, but Airbus is not alone in having grave concerns about what the Government’s position will be on Brexit and seeking clarity. Will he assure people first that the Conservative party remains the party of business, and secondly that when British businesses speak out, they should be able to do so without fear or favour and be listened to with respect?
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
When the Health Secretary suggested that Airbus should get behind the Prime Minister’s position, which of the positions on customs was he referring to: a customs partnership, maximum facilitation or customs arrangements?
Greg Clark
If the right hon. Gentleman had read what Airbus said, on which my right hon. Friend was commenting, he would know that it gave a forensic analysis of its requirements when it comes to imports and exports. The import of that was that it needs to avoid frictions and tariffs, which is precisely what the Prime Minister has committed to.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
There are no tariffs on the aerospace industry under world trade rules, are there?
Greg Clark
The aerospace sector includes various components that do attract tariffs, and it is very important that we should have zero tariffs on all such components.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Secretary of State is being sensible and listening to the concerns of business, unlike some of the disgraceful comments of his colleagues. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what assessment his Department has made of the impact on jobs and investment in the aerospace sector, and the impact not only on Airbus, but on companies in the supply chain, such as UTC Aerospace Systems in my constituency, of leaving the single market and the customs union?
Greg Clark
The supply chain of Airbus and indeed of every company in the sector is pervasive right across the UK, and many employers—small and large—across many of our constituencies contribute to it. The hon. Lady asks about the impact of leaving the single market. The purpose of the negotiations in the months ahead is to make sure, as we leave the European Union and as we leave the single market—she knows that it is not possible to be a member of the single market and to be leaving the European Union—that we have an agreement that allows us to trade without frictions and without tariffs. That is our purpose, and it is what the Prime Minister has very clearly set out. It is within our grasp, and I am confident we will be able to achieve it.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Is not the truth that the kind of Brexit deal that will fully safeguard our industrial base will be one that requires significant compromises? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are fast approaching the moment when we need to spell out, for the benefit of business and industry, what those compromises look like?
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend is right that any negotiation of course involves give and take. That is true on both sides, and it is important to remember that these observations have been addressed to the European Union as well as to the UK. My right hon. Friend talks about the time. As I said to the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), now is the time when we are moving on from discussing the terms of our withdrawal to what our future economic partnership looks like. This is precisely the time at which we will set out and agree, I hope, a long-term future in which Airbus and many other companies can prosper.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Airbus and its supply chain are significant employers in north Bristol, so will the Secretary of State set out what assessment his Department has made of the number of jobs that need to be put at risk, the number of families’ lives that need to be devastated and the amount of damage that needs to be done to British industry before the threshold is met for the definition of a duff deal on Brexit, and will he at that stage join me and others in calling for a people’s vote?
Greg Clark
I think the hon. Gentleman would be more productive if he engaged with the substance of the negotiation. We are leaving the European Union, and what is required is to reach an agreement that avoids frictions and tariffs. It is perfectly possible to agree such an accord with the European Union. That is our purpose, and we will faithfully implement it.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Thousands of jobs in the north-west depend on Airbus and its supply chain there. Does the Secretary of State agree that close regulatory alignment is also a requirement to help to ensure that trade is as frictionless as possible?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right in alluding to the fact that an aeroplane, which is what we are talking about, is a combination of products from different countries. They need to come together—this is inherently international—so to have standards for wings that are different from standards for engines and parts of the fuselage would clearly be incompatible with having a plane that flies. There is good sense in having an agreement that brings coherence to what is a single product manufactured in different parts of Europe.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My constituents, many of whom work at Airbus plants in Newport or across the Severn bridge in north Bristol in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), also face devastation from the prospects of a hard Brexit. Will the Secretary of State therefore join me in condemning the leader of the Welsh Conservatives for his comments describing Airbus’s remarks as “hyperbole”, “threats” and “exaggerating”, and agree with his ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who has described senior Cabinet Ministers’ comments as “both unworthy and inflammatory”?
Greg Clark
I have said very clearly, as I hope the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, that it is entirely reasonable for any firm that employs people and pays taxes in this country to contribute its expertise and experience to the discussions that we are having.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Article 50 provides that the withdrawal negotiations should take into account the framework for the future relationship between the departing member state and the continuing EU. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the lack of clarity, about which Airbus is quite reasonably complaining, is a consequence, at least in part, of the flat refusal by the European Union to discuss that future relationship?
Greg Clark
One of the things that Airbus has set out is what it regards, correctly in my view, as the serious consequences for it of a Brexit without an agreement. It is in all our interests, on both sides of the channel, to have an agreement that avoids that. My right hon. Friend is right that Airbus and the various trade associations, some of them international, to which it belongs, have made the same points to other member states and to the European Commission. I hope that it will be heard in Brussels as well as in every other part of the European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
As the record shows on urgent questions, I almost always call everyone. Today, I fear, that will not be possible and quite a lot of people will not get in, but the shorter the questions, the more who will. I call Jonathan Edwards.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
These warnings from Airbus, other manufacturing companies and, indeed, other sectors are not new to the British Government, as their own economic impact assessment shows that leaving the single market and the customs union will be hugely damaging. Is not the reality that for the Welsh economy the UK’s Brexit policy is a game of Westminster roulette where every chamber is loaded?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman should be more constructive. Given that the whole country—the United Kingdom—voted to leave the European Union, we should be engaged in making sure that we have the best deal possible. I talk regularly with colleagues in Wales about what is required in the terms of that agreement. He should contribute to that, rather than wishing away the results of a referendum that clearly he did not want.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
If Airbus makes good on its ridiculous threats—and I do not think it will for one minute—how much of the billions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy, paid for by the British taxpayer, would it have to pay back?
Greg Clark
I disagree with my hon. Friend. I think that the company has set out what it requires to be agreed in the negotiations so that it can continue to prosper. It is true that the company, like most companies in the aerospace sector, has been part of a successful investment with the Government in innovation and training. That is one foundation of our success, and I very much want that to continue.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Fourteen thousand jobs directly affected; over 100,000 in the supply chain, including in our crucial aerospace cluster in Wolverhampton. What does the Secretary of State think is in the minds of leading Brexiteers when they hear warnings like this, which are anything but ridiculous? Does he think that they take them to the heart, or do they in the end believe that this is a price worth paying, because the overall imperative of controlling immigration comes before any economic or employment consideration?
Greg Clark
My experience gives me confidence that the evidence and the facts will ultimately determine the outcome of the negotiations; respect for the facts on both sides of the negotiations will be what determines a solution in the interests of both sides. That is what I am determined to pursue. When companies offer evidence, as others are completely free to do, it should be considered in a serious and sober way, and used to inform those discussions.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The aerospace industry is important to my Tewkesbury constituency. Did the Secretary of State notice, on the day of the announcement, that American company GE Aviation announced that it was going to rebuild its propeller business, which supplies a significant proportion of the world’s propellers, in my constituency of Tewkesbury, here in the United Kingdom? Is that not a vote of confidence in what we are doing?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) pointed out earlier that companies invest here because it is a good place to invest. My hon. Friend’s constituency and the area around it have proved successful because there is a critical mass—a cluster—of related firms. It is important that we do everything we can to ensure that we maintain and add to the strength of that cluster, and I am absolutely determined to do so.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Ideology before jobs; doctrine before the economy. It used to be that the Conservatives were the party of business, but now they are the party of fears. When will the Government give clarity to business and hard-working families, heed warnings, and commit to staying in the single market and the customs union?
Greg Clark
Day in, day out, I meet businesses and persuade them of the advantages of this country. I have to report that one of their concerns is the policies of the hon. Lady’s Front Benchers, which are a very significant deterrent to investment in this country.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Some months ago, when I visited Airbus at Broughton, I was briefed in detail about its considerable investment in both capital and skills for specialised wing work. Is it not a fact that it would be extremely expensive for Airbus if it were ever to contemplate trying to relocate that work, be it to Hamburg or Toulouse?
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend takes too pessimistic a view. We do not want Airbus to be located in this country because it is too difficult for the company to go elsewhere; we want it to be here with enthusiasm because this is a good and profitable place to invest. I am determined that the deal we secure and the investment we make through our industrial strategy will add to our strengths and make us even more attractive. We should have a counsel of optimism rather than defensive pessimism.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Unlike the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), my constituent Kyle Robinson, a Unite shop steward, works at Broughton every day. He wrote to me this weekend to say that the current situation for him and the families I represent is potentially catastrophic. Will the Secretary of State ensure that when he takes up the invitation from my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) to meet him and the company, the unions get an invite as well?
Greg Clark
The company has good relations with the trade unions and meets them regularly, as indeed do I. The hon. Lady should reflect that when the country took the decision to leave the European Union, there was always going to be a period before the negotiations were concluded when anxieties would be felt. Our purpose and determination is that those negotiations should be concluded so that there will be confidence to invest in the future and we can create many more jobs for her constituents.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Given what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, and given Boeing’s £40 million investment, is it not important that we listen to all voices in this argument, rather than concentrating on one voice, which may have a different view about Brexit, disproportionately more than others?
Greg Clark
Companies in the aerospace sector—big and small—report very similar requirements: we should avoid frictions and tariffs. That is consistent with many other employers who create valuable jobs in this country. It is important that we listen to not just one voice but them all.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Since aerospace regulations tend to be made on a worldwide basis rather than on an EU basis, the tariffs on manufactured goods are low or zero, and the UK is an important market for Airbus. Does the Secretary of State accept that we should take some of these warnings with a pinch of salt? If Airbus has concerns, it ought to direct them towards the EU negotiators who seem to be putting every obstacle in the way of the Prime Minister’s objective of frictionless future trade.
Greg Clark
We need an agreement. The right hon. Gentleman is right that regulatory standards are increasingly international, but the idea that we would find ourselves unable to operate to the standards required for aircraft produced in Europe would be unacceptable not only to Airbus, but to Bombardier in Northern Ireland, which communicated in very similar terms its requirements for the future.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Given that the clear aim of the Government, and indeed Airbus Group, is to achieve a frictionless and zero-tariff exit agreement, has not the statement from Airbus generated more heat than light? Is not the simple truth that we make the engines, wings and landing gear for the Airbus, that it is incredibly important that we continue to do so, and that there is no reason for us not to arrive at an agreement that enables us to do so?
Greg Clark
I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the House can tell that I regard the prospect of a good agreement as being within our grasp. That is our objective, and it is what this company and many others want from us.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Airbus makes great play in its statement of the need to remain in the European Aviation Safety Agency, because regulating in that way means that planes can fly. What confidence can the Secretary of State give to my constituents, including the chair of the trade union group and the 1,500 people in my patch who work there, that we will still have that proper regulation after Brexit?
Greg Clark
That is precisely what the Prime Minister set out in her Mansion House speech: we want and need to secure an agreement such that we will not require a different set of regulatory standards. I am confident that we will be able to agree that.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Airbus is also a key player in the space sector, which is important for many jobs in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the partnership that we are looking for will cover co-operation on standards and a deal on services, so that maintenance contracts and the like can continue to be fulfilled?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no hard and fast distinction between manufactured goods and services, and that is especially illustrated in the aerospace sector. If, for example, Rolls-Royce sells an engine, the money that it makes in the years ahead is from maintaining and servicing that engine. That involves skilled engineers being able to travel, so it is very important—again, as part of our agreement—that such services should continue to be supplied uninterrupted.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have very little time left for this, I am afraid, so we will need short questions and short answers.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Apparently it was at a Foreign Office reception in honour of the Queen’s birthday that the Foreign Secretary applied his four-letter expletive to the concerns of Airbus and business about leaving the single market. I can think of a few suggestions myself, but what four-letter word comes to mind for the Secretary of State when he thinks about the Foreign Secretary?
Greg Clark
For all of us, it is “jobs” that we want to secure from our negotiations—good jobs—and we are determined to do so.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is it not the case that the United Kingdom has attracted more foreign direct investment than most, if not all, our European partners, and is it not the case that today, two years on from the referendum, there is more foreign direct investment in our economy than there was in 2016?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that I spend time travelling around the world to encourage overseas investors to invest in our country and our economy. One of the reasons why they choose to do so is that we are a place of skills and ingenuity. We are also a place from which it is possible to export around the world, and we want to be able to maintain that. That is my purpose.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Many of my constituents work in Newport and in Filton. I reiterate to the Minister that the Government’s failure to address the issues that Airbus raised about Brexit mean uncertain times for the workforce, and that includes the 500-plus apprenticeships that have been offered over the last five years in Wales. This is about jobs for our young people.
Greg Clark
I am glad that the hon. Lady refers to the 500 apprenticeships because, as she will acknowledge, the sector has prospered as never before during the last few years, during which we have had a fantastic programme of joint investment in skills and in the technology of the future. That has been this Government’s deliberate policy. Through the industrial strategy, we are taking that forward, and I am determined that we will be able to create markets around the world—including the European Union—for those products to be exported to.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments and for his support for businesses on all sides that wish to make their views known, because it is important that our constituents’ jobs are protected. Will he adopt the same pragmatic attitude towards his input into the negotiations and encourage that from all sides, including Brussels?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If one has the privilege, as I and many of us do, of visiting the shop floors and workforces around the country, one sees how important these jobs are. These are good jobs providing careers and opportunities, as well as decent incomes for workers and their families. It is important that we have that always in mind as we approach these negotiations. If we do, a sensible outcome will, I believe, prevail.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Is it not the truth that Airbus has done a great public service by injecting much-needed frankness and realism into this debate, and will the Secretary of State commend it for being willing to do so?
Greg Clark
As I have said to colleagues across the House, Airbus and other companies in the sector, like many other companies, have been very consistent in their approach for many months, including in evidence to Select Committees on which some Members in the Chamber sit. This has caught the country’s attention now, but it is consistent with what the company has been saying for some time.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I declare an interest, having visited the Airbus headquarters recently. Airbus has a manufacturing facility in Alabama, USA, which is outside the customs union. It exchanges products, parts and labour without impediment. Does that not give us hope for the future?
Greg Clark
In the context of Europe, the company’s arrangements are remarkably effective. It combines products from neighbouring EU countries and, in many cases and in many markets, beats the competition hands down. Why would we want to disturb something that works?
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Bristol, home of Concorde, is proud of its aerospace industry, to which Airbus is critical. It is also critical to the provision of good apprenticeships in my constituency. How will the Secretary of State’s industrial strategy be delivered if companies such as Airbus are not here?
Greg Clark
Not only will Airbus be here, but it will be expanding its operation and recruiting more apprentices for very successful careers.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
May I welcome the Secretary of State’s firm restatement of a properly Conservative position that respects business and puts pragmatism above ideology? Will he make sure that the same applies to negotiations on our key services sector, which represents 80% of the economy?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right. It is important that services, which make such a good contribution to our economy, can continue to prosper. That means that, whether in financial and professional services, or in the oil and gas sector in which we have such expertise, we can fly people into other countries, have them ply their trade and give advice and help, and then have them come back again. We can do that at the moment; we need to be able to do it in the future.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
It was a Tory Government who shed more than 8,000 jobs at Shotton in 1980—the biggest lay-off in one day in British industrial history. We will see history repeat itself, with 6,500 jobs lost at Broughton, if the Secretary of State does not pull his finger out. Why are he and his party prepared to sacrifice those Airbus workers’ jobs and futures for party political ideology?
Greg Clark
I am not, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about job losses, he should refer to the periods when his party has been in power and the devastation to the economy that that has caused. We are determined that industries that are successful now will be successful in the future. The policies of Labour Front Benchers, which are seemingly predicated on the idea that if it works, it has to be subsidised, and if it still works, it has to be nationalised, will attract no confidence in this country.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Has the Secretary of State noticed that the European Union sells us £100 billion more in goods than the other way around? Does that not underline that, rather than following the defeatism of the Labour party, we should be bold and courageous in putting forward maximum facilitation and trade with the EU?
Greg Clark
Given my hon. Friend’s constituency, he knows the importance of having no frictions at the border. As he describes, there is a common interest between the two sides of the negotiations, which I am sure will lead to a successful outcome.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the Health Secretary said that it was “completely inappropriate” for businesses such as Airbus to make warnings about moving jobs because of Brexit. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Health Secretary was wrong and that, in a democratic country, it is entirely appropriate for such businesses to raise their concerns? What will he do to protect the thousands of jobs in the aerospace sector in the north-west and across the country that will be put at significant risk if the Government pursue their plan of leaving the customs union and single market?
Greg Clark
As I think I made it clear throughout my statement, I do not agree—unusually—with my right hon. Friend on this point. I think that businesses have a right to speak out if they pay taxes and employ people, and we are determined that they will be able to continue to succeed in the future.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Having visited the Airbus facility in Bristol, I am pleased to note the tone and nature of the Secretary of State’s remarks. Will he confirm that the aviation industry is increasingly working on a global basis—there are even direct flights from here to Australasia now—and that that will not change after Brexit?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to be able to take advantage of increasing global opportunities, but to do so without losing the advantages that we have from what have been very successful trading relationships within Europe.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
When the Secretary of State said that there should be no unnecessary friction, was he referring to discussions within the Cabinet or to the economy?
Greg Clark
When a matter is complex and requires a forensic attention to what companies require, there will of course be discussions, and sometimes people will not agree with each other. What is important is for those discussions to be concluded in a way that is productive for the whole economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise to remaining colleagues, but we must move on. I am sure that this matter will arise again, and that those who were not called today will have a chance next time.
Childhood Obesity Strategy: Chapter 2
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)(Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make a statement on the Government’s childhood obesity strategy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
Today the Government published the second chapter of our childhood obesity plan. The plan is informed by the latest evidence. It sets a new national ambition to halve childhood obesity and significantly reduce the gap in obesity between children from the most and least deprived areas by 2030.
Childhood obesity is one of the biggest health problems that the country faces. Nearly a quarter of children are overweight or obese before they start school, and the proportion rises to more than a third by the time they leave. The burden is being felt hardest in the most deprived areas, with children growing up in low-income households more likely to be overweight or obese than more affluent children.
Childhood obesity has profound effects, which are compromising children’s physical and mental health both now and in the future. We know that obese children are more likely to experience bullying, stigma and low self-esteem. They are also more likely to become obese adults, and face an increased risk of developing some forms of cancer, type 2 diabetes, and heart and liver disease. Obesity is placing unsustainable costs on the national health service and our UK taxpayers, which are currently estimated to be about £6.1 billion per year. The total costs to society are higher and are estimated to be about £27 billion per year, although some estimates are even higher than that.
The measures that we outline today are intended to address the heavy promotion and advertising of food and drink products that are high in fat, salt and sugar, on television, online and in shops, and to equip parents with the information that they need in order to make healthy, informed decisions about the food that they and their children eat when they are out and about. We are also promoting a new national ambition for all primary schools to adopt an “active mile” initiative, like the Daily Mile. We will be launching a trailblazer programme, working closely with local authorities to show what can be achieved and to find solutions to problems created by barriers at a local level.
Childhood obesity is a complex issue that has been decades in the making, and we recognise that no single action or plan will help us to solve the challenge on its own. Our ambition requires a concerted effort and a united approach by businesses, local authorities, schools, health professionals, and families up and down the country. I look forward to working with them all.
Jonathan Ashworth
We have a childhood obesity crisis, and we need action.
Of course, many of the policies announced today seem familiar. That is because they are actually our policies. Supporting the Daily Mile initiative is a Labour policy. Supporting a ban on the sale of energy drinks to under-16s is a Labour policy. Proper food labelling is a Labour policy. A target of halving childhood obesity is a Labour policy. The Minister should not be commending his statement to the House; he should be commending the Labour party manifesto to the House.
But what was not in the Minister’s response? There were no mandatory guidelines on school food standards, and no powers for councils to limit the expansion of takeaway outlets near schools. There was nothing about billboards near schools, there was no extension of the sugar tax to milky drinks, and there was no commitment to increasing the number of health visitors—and what about television advertising? We were told action was coming:
“the Health Secretary, is planning a wave of new legislation...including a 9 pm watershed”
said the Telegraph.
“Barring a last-minute change of heart, advertising for products high in sugar, salt and fat will be banned before the 9 pm watershed”
insisted The Times. But what did the Secretary of State announce yesterday? He is
“calling on industry to recognise the harm that constant adverts for foods high in fat, sugar and salt can cause, and will consult”.
So not even an “intention” to ban advertising of junk food—just a consultation. Surely this former Culture Secretary has not given in yet again to big vested interests?
We would bring forward legislation to ban the advertising of junk food on television. We have a childhood obesity crisis; the Government should be introducing restrictions on the advertising of fudge, not serving more up of it.
The Government talk of the role of local authorities. We agree, so will council public health budget allocations still have to wait until the spending review? Does that not mean new money will not be available for councils until 2020?
The Government have today announced 13 consultations and reviews; that hardly suggests the Government are gripped with a sense of urgency to tackle this crisis. Yet the evidence is clear: we need determined action now. I can assure the Minister that we would co-operate on the timely passage of legislation, so rather than stalling further, will he take us up on our offer? Our children depend on it.
Steve Brine
I have been doing this job for just over a year now and I had yet to find the party politics in child obesity, but I have to say that the hon. Gentleman has just managed to land that one correctly, if nothing else. He seems to be suggesting that everything in the plan is a Labour idea and that the last two years have been in some way a wasted opportunity since the 2016 plan. I would suggest that that is not true, and it is not even close, actually. Over half of the products in the scope of the soft drinks industry levy that we brought in under Chancellor Osborne have been reformulated, with many important manufacturers leading the way. Our comprehensive sugar reduction programme has reduced sugar in some products that children eat the most. We have also made a number of significant investments, including doubling the primary PE and sport premium to £320 million a year, transforming children’s physical activity, as well as investing about £100 million this year in the healthy pupils capital fund and £26 million over three years to expand the breakfast clubs, with a focus on the Department for Education’s opportunity areas.
But we were always clear that chapter 1 was the start of the conversation—the clue is in the name—and we are very clear that more needs to be done; that is why I said what I said in my opening remarks. That is why we are introducing the bold new measures outlined in chapter 2. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not like consultations, but what could be described as delay through consultations I would describe as getting it right, and I expect that we will come on to discuss some of these measures in the coming minutes. But we must get these measures right and make sure people cannot duck underneath them.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman spoke about public health. We are spending £16 billion in the ring-fenced public health budget during this spending review. There are many good examples of local councils doing excellent things with that money, and we will probably hear about some of them as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order It is unsurprising that there is significant interest in this matter, but in order to facilitate timely progress to the ministerial statement, and indeed to the subsequent debate which I can advise the House is heavily subscribed, there will need to be a premium on economy from Back and Front Benches alike, as will now be brilliantly exemplified by the Chair of the Select Committee on Health, Dr Sarah Wollaston.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I warmly welcome the second chapter of the childhood obesity plan, which takes us so much further in a number of areas. Can my hon. Friend the Minister set out the timescale for these consultations and confirm that the responses will be considered in a timely manner, treating this with the urgency it deserves?
Steve Brine
Yes, and may I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for the work she has done on this? Ever since we came into Parliament together she has been championing this issue—long before it was fashionable, I might add—and she has really led the line with her Select Committee inquiry on it, to which I and other Ministers joining me on the Front Bench today, including the Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), gave evidence. With most, if not all, of the consultations we are not hanging about; they will be getting under way this year.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
This is a ticking time bomb that needs to be dealt with properly. We know that children from deprived backgrounds are twice as likely to suffer from obesity, so I first want to ask the Minister how this ties in with his plans to tackle poverty. The Scottish Government’s ambition to halve obesity in Scotland by 2030 and initiatives such as the Daily Mile are extremely important in addressing this. Those initiatives have received the backing of Jamie Oliver, who has stated that Scotland
“has picked up the baton that Westminster dropped”.
The Scottish Government will support small and medium-sized enterprises that have innovative ideas for junk food alternatives. What support will the UK Government be giving to companies founded to offer alternatives to fatty foods? Does the Minister agree that restricting the powers of the Scottish Parliament to lead the way on legislation on food safety, labelling and health claims could severely restrict Scotland’s ability to lead the way in this area?
Steve Brine
I thank the hon. Lady for what I think was her welcome for this. Looking at the letter on the comprehensive strategy to tackle child obesity that was sent to the Prime Minister on 25 April and signed by her leader, the First Minister of Scotland, I have ticked alongside the bullet points and I reckon that 80% or possibly 90% of the things that her leader has asked for are in this plan. She has asked about inequality, for example, and we have the lowest levels of inequality in 30 years. I am not going to get into the devolution arguments, but I will say that we welcome the North Star policy that the Scottish Government have announced, with the support of Jamie Oliver—who, I might add, has been very supportive and helpful throughout this process. We matched that, but the difference is that we have a plan for how we are going to get there.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council is already leading in Leicestershire in the areas of prevention strategy and tackling obesity? Chapter 2 will be widely welcomed. Has he considered talking to supermarkets about healthy shopping strategies?
Steve Brine
I cannot say that I have considered that personally, but I know about lots of the technology solutions that supermarkets are bringing in. I am not surprised to hear the news about my hon. Friend’s local council, and yes, this is absolutely about prevention. Last week, the Prime Minister announced a record investment of new money in the NHS, alongside our new long-term plan, of £20.5 billion a year, but that must go hand in hand with prevention. Investment and prevention are always better than cure.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I also warmly welcome these proposals. These have been asks of the all-party parliamentary group on diabetes and of Diabetes UK for a number of years. There is a clear link between childhood obesity and diabetes, and 4.1 million people in the UK suffer from diabetes. Does the Minister agree that retailers do not have to wait for the consultation? As with the sugar tax, they can start to make the changes now to prevent diabetes in the future.
Steve Brine
Yes, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for this. Diabetes UK has said:
“Diabetes UK welcomes the ambitious range of measures outlined by the government in their commitment to tackling the childhood obesity crisis facing the UK.”
Its brilliant chief executive, Chris Askew, has been very supportive of this plan. This is one of the drivers of the need to tackle this issue, and no, nobody has to wait for this. There have been many examples, and I am happy to name-check Waitrose, which took the lead on not selling energy drinks to children. Its example was followed by all the other mainline supermarkets.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s multi-pronged approach, but will the Minister bear in mind the fact that, when it comes to calls for banning advertising before 9 o’clock, such a measure would do huge damage to the economics of the commercial broadcasters, just at a time when fewer and fewer young people are watching scheduled television? Instead, they are now watching the on-demand services that are the direct competitors of commercial TV stations.
Steve Brine
I take my right hon. Friend’s views very seriously, but we want to protect children from the advertising of products that are high in saturated fat, salt and sugar, and we are going to consult on introducing a 9 pm watershed. He mentions online, catch-up and social media, and that is one of the reasons that this is an important area for us to consult on. We want to ensure that we get this right, and it is not about punishing the industry. The people who work in the industry and in advertising are also parents, members of society and taxpayers. They also have a stake in this and in the reason for it all to succeed.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I am really glad to hear the Minister talk about tackling the health inequalities of obesity among children, because we know that the gap between the least deprived and the most deprived children has become more pronounced over the past eight years. Will he go into a bit more detail about what he is going to ask local authorities to do to close that gap?
Steve Brine
I will work with local authorities on a new pathfinders programme, which the hon. Lady may not have had a chance to look at as it was published only this morning. We want to work with them to model solutions and barriers to action through the pathfinders programme. There are already some good examples, some of which are set out in the plan, including in Blackpool and at Derbyshire County Council, which are doing good things. Many local authorities already have a number of substantial levers and powers. We want to model the best so that others, such as Liverpool, can follow.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Why are the poorest children disproportionately among the fattest? It is not because they watch more adverts, is it?
Steve Brine
It could be that, but it is a job of education and about helping their parents make sensible choices, because it is the poorest in society who miss out when we get this wrong. It is about what the Prime Minister described as a “burning injustice” when she was first elected, and I agree with her.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Breastfeeding is a protective factor against childhood obesity. Although initial rates are about 75%, fewer than 45% of mothers continue to breastfeed by six to eight weeks. There is no mention of breastfeeding in the childhood obesity plan. With health visiting services being cut, what are the Government doing to promote this important part of a child’s nourishment?
Steve Brine
There is no mention of breastfeeding in the plan, but that does not mean that I and my colleagues do not see it as a very important part of the early years programme. In areas that I represent, as well as, I am sure, in other areas represented by colleagues, local authorities are often actively engaged in making sure that breastfeeding is a very important part of a child’s start in life.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It was the drive and passion of Alderman Eric van der Burg, a right-wing politician, that led to results in bringing down child obesity in Amsterdam. What more do we need to do to get local authority leaders here to see that this is actually part of their core business, not a fringe activity?
Steve Brine
As my hon. Friend will remember from my speaking to the Health Committee, I have also been to Amsterdam, but unfortunately not for as long as the Committee members were. The whole-systems approach taken by Mayor van der Burg and Amsterdam is very impressive and has resulted in a 13% reduction in child obesity. Local authorities can learn from their attempts to market their cities, areas and regions, and I would suggest that having a good, healthy community and a good, healthy look when people walk out of the airport and do not see massive adverts for unhealthy fast food is an important part of that.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will he encourage supermarkets to offer free fruit to kids coming into the store? Nothing has changed my supermarket shop more than my local store doing so; when kids go in, they now ask for their free clementine rather than their chocolate.
Steve Brine
That is an easy one to agree with. Tesco has been doing that for years, and my children regularly avail themselves of the opportunity.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I urge the Minister not to get into some nanny state, socialist claptrap arms race with the Opposition parties, which will never be satisfied, as we heard earlier from the shadow Secretary of State? May I remind the Minister that he is actually supposed to be a Conservative and urge him to think about this from a Conservative standpoint, which focuses on things like parental responsibility and not seeking to ban anything that moves?
Steve Brine
I am very pleased that my hon. Friend made that very helpful contribution. I am a Conservative—I said so in my opening remarks—but at the end of the day this is a publicly funded health service that we all believe in and all love. If we want it to celebrate its 140th birthday, we need to protect it, and that means getting serious about prevention and stopping people coming into the service and getting sick. Everyone in the House—Conservative, Labour and everyone in between—should get behind that.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As I understand it, a six-year-old will be 18 before the Minister’s proposed ban on the promotion of unhealthy food at supermarket checkouts will come into effect. Surely this is meant to be a crisis, not a long-term plan.
Steve Brine
I thought for one fleeting moment that the hon. Lady and I were going to agree. I do not recognise that that six-year-old will have to wait another 12 years for the measure to be consulted on and put in place, so I think the hon. Lady might need to check her math.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I think the Minister said that one quarter of children are obese by the time they go into primary school. The figures are shocking. Surely that must mean that nought to five-year-olds have far too much refined sugar in their diet. Can we please have an emphasis on parental responsibility for those young children?
Steve Brine
Yes. I am absolutely clear that there are three parts to this particular puzzle: there is Government, and using the power of Government for things like a sugar tax, which clearly only the Government can do; there is business, and the reformulation we are seeing from many, many businesses is impressive and helpful; and there are parents. Parental responsibility is central to this—we cannot do it without them—but we are going to give them information to help them do it.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister’s Conservative Government introduced a tax on sugary drinks, which worked because, as we know, manufacturers have reformulated their drinks. Why does he not accept that the voluntary approach to high-sugar food is not working? Why does he not introduce regulation to cut sugar in the high-sugar foods marketed at families?
Steve Brine
The hon. Lady and I went through this at oral questions just last Tuesday. There is a two-part approach: the stick and the carrot. As a carrot, we have a sugar-reduction programme on fizzy drinks, and my colleagues at Public Health England are doing a calorie-reduction programme—working closely with the industry, and with great success, to reduce calories through changes to recipes and portion sizes, for instance. Yes, sometimes the Government need to wave a stick, but there are also times when they need to encourage and to help along the way. We are going to do both.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
At a time when families are struggling with the cost of living, I urge my hon. Friend to make sure that these measures do not increase prices, which hit those on the lowest incomes the most.
Steve Brine
I have been very aware of that throughout the drawing together of this plan. For instance, we do not propose to ban “children eat free” offers. We are talking about food and drink price promotions, such as two-for-one multi-buy deals in the retail and the out-of-home sector, to prevent needless consumption and to help parents with pester power—with which I am incredibly familiar, as I have a 10-year-old and a seven-year-old.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The challenge is about both prevention and cure. We need to act now to help the growing numbers of children who are already obese, but in its recent inquiry the Health and Social Care Committee heard that provision of tier-3 and tier-4 services is bare. It concluded:
“Addressing health inequalities must include providing help for those children who are already obese.”
What is the Minister going to do about the commissioning of tier-3 and tier-4 services?
Steve Brine
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not just about some future generation; it is about the generation now that is already too big. It is about helping people through a sugar-reduction programme, a calorie-reduction programme and—something we have not yet talked about—the Daily Mile and the activity programme we see in so many schools in my constituency, and I am sure in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. That will help children in the future, and it will certainly help children now. It is never too late.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s proposals, and I am grateful for his recent visit to Bexley to see our local plans for coping and dealing with childhood obesity. Chapter 2 is a good plan. Does he agree that targeting sedentary lifestyles is a top priority, and that to do so we need parental involvement?
Steve Brine
It was a pleasure to visit my right hon. Friend’s constituency to see how Bexley Council is using its power, money and public health grant—the council made it very clear to me that it would like more, and my right hon. Friend is a very good advocate on the council’s behalf—to bring forward a whole community response like the one I saw in Amsterdam. I would like to see much more of that in England.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
We have heard that obesity is caused not only by the wrong food but by a lack of exercise. Far too few children walk or cycle to school. Will the Minister engage with all our schools to make sure we have proper, realistic travel plans in place so that many more children walk or cycle to school?
Steve Brine
Yes. The Daily Mile happens when children are in school, but getting to school is important. I work with Sustrans, a charity, quite a lot in my constituency, as I am sure many Members do. It works to help children to cycle and scoot to school. That is very important, and the hon. Lady is right to raise it.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) is starting to resemble a runner who is literally itching to get out of the starting blocks.
Robert Courts
As the father of a two-year-old, I am increasingly concerned about the sedentary lifestyles that children lead. Will the Minister join me in praising Middle Barton, Great Rollright, Queen Emma’s, Clanfield and Stanton Harcourt primary schools in West Oxfordshire, which have signed up to the Daily Mile programme? Will he encourage others to do the same?
Steve Brine
My hon. Friend will have enjoyed that contribution; I suspect his office are clipping it as we speak. We have a national ambition for every primary school to adopt an active mile initiative, such as the Daily Mile, as a result of this plan. I visited Western Church of England Primary School in my constituency recently, which has good plans to do that. This week is National School Sport Week. I will be at my sports day on Friday, taking part—as I am sure you will be at some point, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
The Minister’s virtue is boundless; he is truly a person of the people. I am sure he is a very popular parent at the school—I have no reason to doubt it.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
On Friday, I met Councillor Hazel Malcolm, Wolverhampton’s cabinet member for public health. We discussed this challenge for the city, where, unfortunately and sadly, the child obesity problem is often worst in the lowest income wards. The Minister has mentioned the Daily Mile a few times during this statement. What can he do to make this more than something there are warm words about and to roll it out in schools so that children get the benefit?
Steve Brine
The education team are working very closely on this, and the Minister for School Standards wrote a very good piece in The Sunday Times about it. [Interruption.] Indeed, the children’s Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), is right here on the Bench with us. We are encouraging all schools to take part in the initiative and we have a national ambition for it. There is no reason why schools in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency cannot do it, as is the case for schools in my constituency and those of other Members.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I, too, want to welcome the Daily Mile initiative. We should not be arguing about who was first to introduce it; I know we are competitive, but this is competitive for the schools. Does the Minister agree that any sporting activity in schools should be encouraged? Does he also agree that the social prescribing of sporting activities could also play its part in tackling this obesity crisis?
Mr Speaker
Any sport, of course, but particularly tennis, I suggest to the Minister.
Steve Brine
Especially tennis, Mr Speaker. I know my hon. Friend is keen on social prescribing, as am I. I recently signed an accord between National Parks England and Public Health England to use the brilliant natural resource of our national parks. They are clearly part of the social prescribing mix that we increasingly see across our country, and I want to see more of it. She is right to raise that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the Minister for his statement. With 25% of children overweight in Northern Ireland, will he confirm how he intends to work cross-departmentally there in the absence of a working devolved Assembly? We need a strategy that works for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Steve Brine
Yes. Some of the measures in this strategy relate to reserved matters, such as the advertising proposals that I have spoken about. I have been speaking to my officials, who are already talking to officials in Stormont and will be helping them to develop their own plans. I know they have been very interested in what we are doing, and I hope they can copy and follow some of this locally.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Community sports clubs, such as the Cary Park tennis club in Torquay, play a large role in making children active and encouraging them to participate in activity. Will the Minister confirm that looking at these sorts of groups will be part of the strategy—to get people active, not just to tackle what they are eating?
Steve Brine
Yes, that is part of the strategy, in so much as we want local authorities to be involved, and upper tier authorities in England are all now public health authorities in their own right. There is absolutely no reason why sports clubs, which are plentiful in all of our constituencies, should not be a key part of the active lives agenda. Not just children need to do more activity in our country; all of us do.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the inclusion of both physical exercise and diet in this. Of course physical exercise is vital for mental health as well as physical health. Is the ambition to halve childhood obesity by 2030 ambitious enough, given that this is such an important issue for the future of not only the children, but our health service?
Steve Brine
I think it is very ambitious. Our first plan was world-leading and I outlined some of the things it has achieved. I think this plan is ambitious enough at the moment. We say in the plan that it is chapter 2 and that there will be a chapter 3—and no doubt there will be.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
As 80% of children are not doing the recommended minimum of exercise, we owe it to them to do better than make political gestures. In stark contrast to when the Labour Government devastated school sport, will the Minister commit to making it an absolute priority to work with the Department for Education to unlock school sports facilities for free after school and in the school holidays for sports groups and parents, in order to provide opportunities?
Steve Brine
I spoke earlier about the Government’s doubling of the primary PE and sport premium to £320 million per year, which is very important. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue. I will of course work with all my colleagues across Government to implement the plan and to do even better than we currently are.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Obesity harms the life chances of too many children. Given the Minister’s encouragement earlier, will he join me in praising schools such as Lytchett Matravers Primary School, which has already set up a Daily Mile scheme, and encourage others to follow suit?
Energy Policy
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the proposed Swansea Bay tidal lagoon.
Britain’s energy policy on electricity generation is based on meeting three needs: ensuring that we can count on secure and dependable supplies of electricity at all times; minimising the cost of supplies to consumers and taxpayers; and meeting our greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations. To those three requirements we have added, through our industrial strategy, a further ambition, which is to secure long-term economic benefits, in terms of jobs and prosperity, from the decisions that we take.
Our policy has been successful. Britain has one of the most secure and reliable electricity supply sectors in the world. Last winter, one of the coldest in recent years, the margin of capacity in our electricity generating system was more than 10%—around twice what it was in 2016-17. We have the strongest record in the G7 for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Between 1990 and 2016, the UK reduced its emissions by more than 40%. We have massively increased our deployment of renewable generation: renewable electricity now makes up almost 30% of our generation; our renewable capacity has quadrupled since 2010; and in two years the auction price of offshore wind has fallen from £114 per MWh to £57.50 per MWh. Coal, the most polluting fuel, contributed less to generation in Britain last year than in any year since the industrial revolution. All that has been achieved while the UK has maintained a position in respect of electricity’s overall cost to households that is well below the average for major European countries.
Nevertheless, the cost of electricity is significant for households and for businesses, and the policy-related costs have been growing. We have made a clear commitment to bear down on those costs. It is in that context that the Government have assessed whether they should commit consumer or taxpayer funds to the programme of six tidal lagoons proposed by Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd, with the first being the proposed project at Swansea. We believe in renewable energy and we believe in the benefits of innovation. The conclusion of our analysis, which has been shared with the Welsh Government, is that the project and the proposed programme of lagoons do not meet the requirements for value for money, so it would not be appropriate to lead the company to believe that public funds could be justified.
The proposal for the Swansea tidal lagoon would cost £1.3 billion to build. If successful to its maximum ambition, it would provide around 0.15% of the electricity we use each year. The same power generated by the lagoon over 60 years for £1.3 billion would cost around £400 million for offshore wind, even at today’s prices, which have fallen rapidly and which we expect to be cheaper still in future. At £1.3 billion, the capital cost per unit of electricity generated each year would be three times that of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. The Hendry review found that if a full programme of six lagoons were constructed, the cost would be more than £50 billion, and it would be two and a half times what it would cost Hinkley to generate a similar electricity output. It is estimated that enough offshore wind to provide the same generation as a programme of lagoons would cost at least £31.5 billion less to build.
Taking all the costs together, I have been advised by analysts that by 2050 the proposal that was made, which would generate around 30 TWh of electricity per year, could cost up to £20 billion more to produce, compared with generating that same electricity through a mix of offshore wind and nuclear, once financing, operating and system costs have been taken into account. That could cost the average British household consumer up to an additional £700 between 2031 and 2050, or the equivalent of £15,000 for every household in Wales. However, in recognition of the potential local economic benefits that might result from a lagoon in Swansea, I asked officials to go back to consider what additional benefit could be ascribed to a number of other factors, including a beneficial impact on the local economy. For £1.3 billion, a Swansea lagoon would support, according to the Hendry review, only 28 jobs directly associated with operating and maintaining the lagoon in the long term.
Officials were also asked to make an assessment of the potential for valuable innovation and cost reductions for later lagoons that might come from embarking on a programme of construction. Independent advice concluded that the civil engineering used in Swansea bay offers limited scope for innovation and capital cost reduction—estimated at 5%—in the construction of subsequent facilities.
I asked for an assessment of the export potential of embarking on a programme of implementing the technology, but the Hendry review concluded that it would take
“a leap of faith to believe that the UK would be the main industrial beneficiary”
of any such programme. On energy reliability, the generation of electricity would be variable rather than constant, with a load factor of 19% compared with around 50% for offshore wind and 90% for nuclear.
The inescapable conclusion of an extensive analysis is that, however novel and appealing the proposal that has been made is, even with these factors taken into account, the costs that would be incurred by consumers and taxpayers would be so much higher than alternative sources of low carbon power that it would be irresponsible to enter into a contract with the provider. Securing our energy needs into the future has to be done seriously and when much cheaper alternatives exist no individual project and no particular technology can proceed at any price. That is true for all technologies. The fact that this proposal has not demonstrated that it could be value for money does not mean that its potential is not recognised. My Department is also in receipt of proposals from other promoters of tidal energy schemes that are said to have lower costs than the Swansea proposal, although these are at an earlier stage of development. Any proposals must be able credibly to demonstrate value for money for consumers and public funds.
I am sure that many people in the House and beyond would wish that we were in a position today to say yes to the Swansea proposals. I have appreciated the contribution of Charles Hendry, whose constructive report led to this further analysis being made, and the engagement of the Secretary of State for Wales and Members of the Welsh Assembly, including the First Minister and the Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R. T. Davies. All of us have a requirement to be responsible stewards of taxpayers’ and consumers’ money and to act at all times in their interests. It is in discharging that responsibility rigorously that I make this statement today, and I commend it to the House.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the somewhat late advance sight of his statement—I think we understand why—and give the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who would normally respond to this statement, but who is a victim of the Transport Secretary’s failure to run the trains on time; a failed policy if ever there was one. I am afraid that this statement is evidence of yet another failed Government policy; it is a missed opportunity for the domestic economy and for our export potential.
The Government really should be ashamed about what we have heard from the Secretary of State today. When he announced the cancellation of the project, my hon. Friends said, “Shame”. They were right to do so as this is indeed shameful. It is another broken promise by the Conservative party—we have seen lots of those recently, too. I remind the House that, in 2015, the Conservative manifesto committed to building the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. The Government appointed Charles Hendry to produce a report to do just that. It has been one year, five months and 14 days since he published his final report. The report stated:
“The aim now is that we should move to secure the pathfinder project as swiftly as possible.”
During this time, the Minister has received letters signed by more than 100 MPs from all parts of the House in support of the project, along with interventions and questions indicating the strength of feeling in this place. There has been unanimous support from across industry, but the handling of the project by this Government has been atrocious. Not only have the Government taken an inordinate amount of time to come to the House; hon. Members, Tidal Lagoon Power, the Welsh Government, the trade unions and other stakeholders have been left to find out about development through leaks in the press
It emerged in a joint hearing of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and Welsh Affairs Committee last month that a BEIS Minister had not spoken to Tidal Lagoon Power for 16 months. Will the Secretary of State set out how we can trust his word that he wants to talk to other marine developers and bring forward the other projects to which he referred in passing, when his Department has not even spoken to Tidal Lagoon Power for more than a year? This is no way for the Government to conduct themselves over an issue that is so important for Wales, our environment and the whole wider UK economy.
Approving the lagoon would have been a positive step, taken by a Government with a clear vision for the future, willing to lead the way in new, innovative technology and strongly supporting British industry. It would have been a step taken by a Government able to provide businesses with certainty in uncertain times, rather than the insulting, undermining and questioning rhetoric that we have heard from the Secretary of State’s Cabinet colleagues. We have heard a lot from him and his colleagues about the industrial strategy and supporting new technologies, revitalising our manufacturing sector, encouraging UK-based supply chains and creating jobs outside London. Well, so much for that industrial strategy. Swansea Bay tidal lagoon could have helped to deliver on each of these objectives, so will the Secretary of State outline which assessment criteria were used to decide against the project, over and above a simple cost calculation?
The project would have required 100,000 tonnes of steel, with a significant proportion expected to be produced nearby at Port Talbot. It would have used first-of-a-kind, precision-engineered, bi-directional turbines, with the vast majority of components built in the UK, establishing new UK-based supply chains. It would have created more than 2,300 jobs in Swansea and paved the way for the creation of a new domestic industry with substantial export potential. The Hendry review was commissioned by the Government. Given that the Secretary of State is ignoring his own review, what alternative analysis did he carry out to support his decision to cancel the project? That this Government, especially in the excessive time that they have taken to make a decision, do not value the wider benefits of the project is disappointing to say the least.
One very good way of offsetting the impact on climate change of expanding airport capacity would be to expand renewable energy production. Is not it remarkably ironic that this statement has been made on the same day as the Heathrow vote? There is a fine judgment to be made on Heathrow tonight. Giving the go-ahead to the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon would have made supporting Heathrow just that little bit easier.
Greg Clark
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, my understanding is that the Welsh Government support the option of a third runway at Heathrow; I am not sure whether that is a co-ordinated position.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions. I understand his disappointment that we have not been able to approve the proposal, but he will know that we all—be it the UK Government or the Welsh Government —have to be responsible stewards of taxpayers’ and consumers’ money. He asked about the analysis that has been made and the time that has been put into this decision. It was the request of the Welsh Government and the recommendation of Charles Hendry that we consider alternative suggestions as to the economic impact of the proposal. That is what we have done, and I have been willing to extend the analysis and leave no stone unturned to see whether this project can be approved.
The hon. Gentleman knows that our record on renewables is one of the strongest in the world, particularly for offshore wind, in which Wales—as well as every other part of the United Kingdom—is a huge beneficiary. We have quadrupled our deployment of renewables since 2010. We are the world’s leader in offshore wind, creating jobs and exports around the world. If we were to use the funds at less value for money—that is, take them from that very successful supply chain and deploy them instead to the programme of a tidal lagoon—the consequence would be job losses in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. It is the commitment to continue what has been a successful strategy of achieving jobs all around the country in offshore wind that provides the reason why we need to be rigorous about this.
Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one would think that what ordinary working people and businesses have to pay for their energy is a matter of complete indifference to him. Is there any limit at all to what he would he would make consumers pay? The Swansea lagoon would cost three times as much—I repeat, three times as much—as having the same electricity generated by offshore wind here in the UK. The whole tidal programme would cost £50 billion when we could have the same amount from wind for nearer to £20 billion. Is it Labour’s policy to charge £700 per household more than is needed in the first place? As for economic development in Wales, it would be cheaper to write a cheque for £15,000 to every single household in Wales than to subsidise this particular proposal. I am afraid that his response sums up the approach of spending whatever it takes, no matter how wasteful of consumers’ and taxpayers’ money that is.
The hon. Gentleman talks about industrial strategy, but the clue is in the word “strategy”. A strategy does not spray consumers’ or taxpayers’ money on any proposal—it requires a rigorous assessment. We are a leader in offshore wind because we took a decision to focus on a technology for which costs could come down and there was a massive global market in which we could create jobs. What he proposes would reverse that by doling out subsidy to whoever asks loudest, rather than what has been rigorously assessed. That is not strategic.
In summary, Labour would pay £700 per household for less reliable electricity, fewer exports from offshore wind and fewer jobs, including in East Anglia, on Teesside and in Scotland—and, yes, in Wales and Northern Ireland, too. It would saddle taxpayers with a decommissioning cost of over £1 billion. We will always put the interests of taxpayers, and working people who pay bills, first. I would hope that a responsible Opposition would acknowledge the seriousness of the analysis that has been made and recognise that its conclusion is rigorous.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Even Conservative Members who have been the strongest supporters of the lagoon project have always known that there was a serious value-for-money question to be answered. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that every single avenue was explored to try to find a financial solution to make this happen, and that today’s announcement does not close the door on future investment in tidal and wave power that would give us reliable, clean energy into the 21st century and beyond?
Greg Clark
I can confirm that. Anyone who has concentrated on this proposal and seen the assessment that has been made would conclude that my hon. Friends and I have left no stone unturned in looking at all possibilities that might improve the economic case. However, when the conclusion is that something is so much more expensive than other low-carbon technologies, we have to follow that evidence and protect consumers and taxpayers from paying so much more than they need to pay. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we continue to believe in innovation. We have spent £100 million on new energy research and development. We will continue to do that. We have had other proposals that suggest they would be cheaper. I am very happy to continue work with other promoters of schemes to see whether what would be an attractive proposal can be implemented in a way that would be value for money.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Eighteen months ago, an independent review commissioned by the UK Government said that moving ahead with the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon would be a “no regrets policy”. Well, plenty of people are regretting this decision today. The Welsh Government were willing to put £200 million into the scheme if it went ahead. It was described as a world-leading opportunity to establish Wales as a centre for expertise and manufacturing, and a long-term source of low-carbon energy. This statement is, yet again, pulling the plug on a Tory promise.
In Scotland, we know how Wales feels. We witnessed the promised £1 billion for carbon capture and storage in Peterhead being pulled for no good reason, stunning both the public and the companies that had bought into the promise, surrendering the technological lead, and costing the taxpayer £100 million. Now it is back—it is flavour of the month—but, of course, grossly underfunded. Here we go again.
The Secretary of State hides behind the scale when making the comparison. He says that he cares about consumers, but this Government are happy to see bill payers paying through the nose for the calamitously bad deal that is Hinkley C. The Government’s disastrous deal with EDF on the strike price will see them pay at least £30 billion over 35 years. At a time when offshore wind strike prices are dropping dramatically, they seem to waste more and more on failing nuclear.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that this and other renewable support is being withdrawn in order to subsidise the likes of Hitachi’s Wylfa nuclear plant? That company has requested loans and guarantees of £12 billion, as per the secret negotiations. Will he admit that this is yet another mistake, and will he have the backbone to categorically rule out any other public bail-outs for failing, costly and desperate nuclear providers?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman represents a country that has prospered from the development of the offshore wind industry. The truth is that if a decision had been taken to subsidise this proposal, that money would have come out of the budget for offshore wind, which would have led to job losses in Scotland and elsewhere around the United Kingdom. He mentions a proposed subsidy. The truth is that if a project that is not viable is subsidised by the taxpayer, it is simply a taxpayer-subsidised unviable project. That is no basis on which a project can be approved.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the nuclear power programme. If he regards the price agreed for the power from Hinkley Point C as too high, that is all the more reason for him to oppose this proposal, because it is so much costlier. He must accept that there is a responsibility for the use of consumers’ and taxpayers’ money that comes with being in office. When a proposal is so out of kilter with what can offer value for money, the necessary decision must be made, and he should respect that.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I accept that, on the Secretary of State’s figures, this would be a very bad investment, but can he tell us about the amortisation period of the investment? Surely a barrage will last a lot longer than, say, a wind farm. Will he explain why his advisers think that the project would generate so little power on a not very reliable basis, given the reliability of the tides?
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend is correct to point to the amortisation. As someone who has spent a career in finance, he is aware that in discounting the value of earnings in future generations, the great majority of the value is in the earlier years, and that has been the standard basis of the assessment made. What has not been taken into account is the prospective decommissioning cost of the proposed lagoon, which has been estimated at £1 billion. That has not been included in the analysis, but it would be a further liability for the taxpayer.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I have to say that I am slightly surprised by the Secretary of State’s tone. In answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), he said that this project was “so out of kilter” with other ways of producing energy and that the costs are much higher. In that case, can I gently ask why on earth it has taken five years to come to this decision? What lessons has the Secretary of State learned from the decision-making process around the tidal lagoon project? Frankly, a lot of effort has been put into this project by business, the Welsh Government and others, and I think that many people have lost confidence in the Government’s programme for renewables because of this.
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady will know, as Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, that the Government’s programme of renewables has resulted in the biggest reduction in the cost of the deployment of renewables that we have seen in this country, and that deployment has increased threefold. The success of that strategy is evident. I was asked by many Members, the Welsh Government and many businesses to make sure that every aspect that could contribute to a value-for-money case had been considered —the impact locally, the prospects for exports and the prospects for innovation—and it was right to do so and to leave no stone unturned. I think that that was the right approach, and when the Select Committee scrutinises the decision, I think it will regard the process as having been exhaustive and rigorous.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relentless criticism by environmental groups and Opposition Members of the £92.50 per megawatt-hour strike price for Hinkley—not least in this House a few weeks ago—has made it virtually impossible for any Government ever to agree to pay a higher strike price than £92.50, and that this project was coming in at a significantly higher price, according to the person responsible for it?
Greg Clark
I saw the evidence given to the Committee inquiry chaired by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). He is right that we made a commitment, in approving Hinkley Point C, that future projects had to come in at a lower price. I think it is the case that evidence to the inquiry cited a strike price on a comparable basis of not £92.50, but £150, which demonstrates the force of my hon. Friend’s point.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I was Secretary of State for Energy when the tidal lagoon story began, so may I tell the current Secretary of State with responsibility for energy that his statement is wrong, wrong, wrong? The evidence that the price of future tidal lagoons would fall dramatically after the first lagoon at Swansea is overwhelming. That was exactly what happened with other renewable technologies, including offshore wind, as he has admitted. Will he promise the House today that he will publish every scrap of evidence and analysis that he has used to take this decision, and hold a debate in Government time on that analysis and evidence?
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman will see from the analysis, and indeed from the conclusions that Charles Hendry and others have pointed to, that the technology inherent in the construction of the lagoon programme—whether building sea walls or the turbines—is not subject to the same degree of cost reduction as other energy technologies. We will be very open about this and publish whatever is not covered by a non-disclosure agreement with the companies concerned. He is, of course, welcome to scrutinise that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Secretary of State has been very thorough in answering questions but, as the House can see, a great many people wish to ask questions. We have about 20 minutes left for the statement, which will allow everyone to get in if we can have just short questions and short answers.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I have to say that this is a sad day for Swansea, for Gloucester—the home of Tidal Lagoon Power plc—and, indeed, for other innovative sources of marine energy more widely. Since the project was entirely financed by entrepreneurs and institutional investors, not by the Government, the only real point of argument was the price at which the Government were prepared to buy the energy through the grid. Will the Secretary of State tell us at what price he would have approved the Swansea project? Will he also confirm that his Department will lay out a programme of how it will develop a real strategy for taking forward tidal and other forms of marine energy?
Greg Clark
I know that my hon. Friend has been a great champion for this technology and that he will be disappointed with the conclusion that has had to be reached. At the point of considering any proposal, we are required to examine the cost of alternatives, and the costs of low-carbon alternatives, including offshore wind and nuclear, were more competitive than those for this programme. It is not possible to specify a particular price, because such an assessment has to be made at the point of a decision. However, I have said very clearly that far from being against tidal technology, I am in favour of it, but a value-for-money case has to be presented. We will continue to be open to proposals that can demonstrate such a case.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I am disappointed by today’s announcement. It sounds as if the Government have given up on innovation, marine energy and their own industrial strategy. The Secretary of State discussed wind energy. It would not be at the price it is today if we had not had a decade of subsidies through renewable obligations, which many Government Members opposed. Will he assure me that other marine energy projects such as those in my constituency and across the country will not be jeopardised and crowded out by the price of wind today, and that there is a level playing field for innovation in marine energy?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman would accept that the commitment that I have given to pursue alternative energy sources, including projects in his constituency, has been clearly demonstrated. Of course we are open to innovation—we fund innovation. The assessment by independent experts is that the prospective cost reduction for this technology is not the same as that enjoyed by offshore wind. When it comes to future proposals, of course I will consider them rigorously, and if they can demonstrate value for money they can be contenders.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Like many others on both sides of the House, I am disappointed that the Swansea tidal lagoon and associated lagoons are not economically viable. The Government have a responsibility to protect the interests of consumers who pay electricity bills. What we all want to hear from the Secretary of State is that he is committed to looking at other schemes that might offer the potential to use tidal energy around our coasts and the power of the production of our marine environment in which our islands live.
Greg Clark
I will. I welcome my hon. Friend’s remarks. We have a substantial programme of investment in innovation. Indeed, when it comes to the costs, to pay £30 billion more than is required to generate the same amount of electricity crowds out the ability to fund genuine projects that can reduce the price of energy.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Swansea Bay tidal lagoon is in my constituency. The Secretary of State will never understand the frustration and anger felt in my city today. It prompts the question of just who is speaking for Wales in the Cabinet, because it is certainly not the Secretary of State for Wales. We have not had electrification; we have not had the tidal lagoon. If he does not do the job properly, it is time to move on, I fear.
Greg Clark
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has been vigorously engaged in making sure that every aspect of the analysis of this project has been conducted, including the impact on the local economy. The hon. Lady is familiar with the figures and the economics of the project, and because she is aware of the proposal she knows of its distance from being value for money, which causes higher bills for her constituents, including intensive energy users such as the steelworks in south Wales, which is something that any responsible Government have to take into account. I think she knows that this has been done in a rigorous way.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The question is not simply about cost, although that is important, but about energy security. Tidal lagoons are one of the best and most secure ways, under British control, of ensuring that we generate power for the future. Will the Secretary of State please have a look at this again?
Greg Clark
Of course we look at energy security, and having a diverse energy supply is important. In so doing we have to look at the contribution that is being made, and it is much more cost-effective to diversify our energy by commissioning sources that, in many cases, are a third cheaper than what is proposed. We can do more of it if we adhere to value for money.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
This announcement will be met with widespread anger in the communities that I represent, and it is the second broken promise from the 2015 Tory manifesto on top of the cancellation of electrification. Will the Secretary of State outline how detailed the discussions were with the Welsh Government regarding joint equity in the project? If the Welsh Government determined that they wanted to increase their equity share and go it alone, would the British Government stand in their way?
Greg Clark
The commitment given was to enter into discussions to see whether the project could be financed. We have done that rigorously, including with the Welsh Government. I think there have been more than 10 meetings with the Welsh Government this year alone to consider whether this was possible and to make sure we were looking at every possibility. The conclusion we have drawn is that it cannot be justified in terms of value for money. It was right to work with the Welsh Government to look at all the possibilities, but we have to abide by the conclusions of a serious analysis.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s statement will have been listened to with great concern at GE Power Conversion in Rugby, which would have manufactured the turbines for the tidal lagoon. A great deal of development has been done there within a mostly British supply chain. UK manufacturing missed out on the manufacturing of wind turbines because of a lack of a commitment to the sector in its early years. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that we do not miss out on the manufacturing opportunities that can arise from harnessing tidal power?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right that it is important to take a long-term and strategic approach. That is exactly what we did with offshore wind, identifying a technology in which the supply chain could be located in the UK and creating jobs right across the country. That has been a great success. The opposite of that, however, would be to spread very thinly very expensive projects that do not, as the analysis demonstrates, have the potential for exports that offshore wind and others enjoy. That would reduce the economic prospects for firms across the country.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Part of the role of government is that a Secretary of State will have a vision for delivering and a vision for ideas. The Secretary of State has shown today that he does not have any vision for delivering services and improvements to the economy for the people of south Wales. We have had the scrapping of electrification and we are clearly no further forward with various projects the British Government can fund. Can we have a guarantee from the Secretary of State about when the British Government are going to start investing, so that the people of Wales can have some faith? All he is proving right now is that, with the Welsh Secretary and the British Government, the Tories really are failing Wales.
Greg Clark
The Swansea city deal, to name one case in point, will be welcomed by the hon. Gentleman. In terms of planning for the future, making commitments that put on bill payers or taxpayers costs that are three times higher than are justified is no strategy for the long term. To saddle businesses and industries with such costs is a strategy for uncompetitiveness.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his very sensible decision. Will he confirm that it would have put an additional 31p on every household’s bill in my constituency every year for up to 65 years, leading to £370,000 a year flowing out of my constituency on energy bills to pay for this uneconomic project?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is right that £700 per household across the UK cannot be justified, either for consumers in Wales or in any of our constituencies.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Swansea Bay tidal lagoon would also have been in my constituency. I can tell the Secretary of State that today the people of Aberavon see this as yet another betrayal of the interests of the people of Wales. They also understand that the project would have had tremendous benefits for the steel industry. Will the Secretary of State today please promise to publish the cost-benefit analysis for the steel industry and the massive opportunity cost of not going ahead both for the steel industry and the steel supply chain? Will he publish that information?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman and I engage closely with the steel industry. In fact, the steel content of the proposed lagoon would have been about a third of a month’s output of the Port Talbot plant. He knows perfectly well that one of the challenges facing the steel industry in this country is energy prices. I would have thought that he would want to take steps to reduce the burden of energy costs on businesses such as the steel industry.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I can say that value for money is very important to the House and should always be, and I accept the Secretary of State’s assessment in this regard. However, will he confirm to and reassure the House that the Government are not giving up on marine energy or renewable energy, and set out further plans in due course?
Greg Clark
I will indeed. We have an energy innovation fund that can bring forward new technologies, but when it comes to the point of mass deployment, they have to be value for money and show that consumers and taxpayers will not see increased bills as a result.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I am disappointed that the Secretary of State does not seem to understand that the Government are not just responsible for stewardship of taxpayers’ money. Their stewardship of the Earth is what counts here, as does their stewardship of investment in our economy and shepherding an industry from its nascent stages to something commercially viable. This country has so much potential marine energy. Will the Secretary of State please reiterate his commitment, which he should have, to investing in that marine energy today?
Greg Clark
This proposal is not commercially viable and the prospects are that it will not become commercially viable. If technologies are proposed through the test beds and our innovation programme, no one would be more pleased than I to deploy them as part of our energy mix, but we have to take into account the impact on bill payers and taxpayers.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I confirm that there is also great disappointment from Conservative Members that this scheme is not going ahead, but with disappointment there is also realism. The figures that he quoted make it clear that if the scheme went ahead, the burden on our children and grandchildren would be enormous. He has already confirmed that he is still looking into tidal energy. Will he also confirm that if and when it is suitable to proceed with tidal energy, Swansea and the south Wales coast will be looked at first and foremost for future investment?
Greg Clark
Of course. The test is that the deployment of a technology can be done at good value for the taxpayer. That is the challenge for any new technology, and if it can be demonstrated that it meets that challenge I will be very pleased to welcome it.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The Secretary of State was very specific in the figure that he gave for the number of jobs he expected to be created in operation and maintenance of the lagoon—it was 28. Can he be equally specific about the number of jobs that he has been advised would have been created in the UK-wide supply chain during the construction phase?
Greg Clark
The figures are taken from the Hendry report—these are not Government figures; they were laid out there. The number of jobs created during the construction period would have been 2,260, but they would have been for the very limited period of construction. In terms of value for money, of course, the permanent jobs are what needs to be assessed.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State reassure me that he will continue to make these types of decisions based on clear analysis, rather than political convenience?
Greg Clark
It has to be the case that when we take decisions that have consequences for consumers and businesses that already face, in energy-intensive industries, high energy costs, we have to act responsibly both for households and the future competitiveness of those companies.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The proposed lagoon off the north Wales coast would have stretched from Llandudno to Prestatyn in my constituency, protecting a very vulnerable coast. In assessing the viability of a tidal lagoon, what recognition does his Department give to the impact of lagoons in combating coastal flooding?
Greg Clark
Part of the energy assessment that has been made is what would be the best way to secure our energy supplies of the future competitively and so that costs for taxpayers and bill payers are minimised. As I made clear in my statement, I added to that assessment considerations of the local impact and the prospects. I could not have gone further in embracing all the different aspects, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect that that was the right thing to do.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
It is clear from what the Business Secretary said that this was not even a marginal decision that could have gone either way, and that by a country mile the Government have decided that this scheme is simply not financially viable. What I do not understand is why there is such a big gap in the Business Secretary’s analysis and that of Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd. What is his assessment of why that gap is so wide?
Greg Clark
With any proposal, it is important to do due diligence and check the basis of the calculations, and in this case, in so doing, as my hon. Friend stated, we found the gap to be so wide that the proposal could not be responsibly backed. As I have said to hon. Members, however, any proposal that is competitive will be welcomed.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
This is another blatantly broken promise to the people of Wales, but I will leave that aside. The Secretary of State has given umpteen speeches talking about the need for this country to invest in new technologies and innovation and lamenting that we have failed to capitalise on great British ideas in the past. Does he not see the huge gap now between that laudable rhetoric and his short-term accountancy decision today?
Greg Clark
Part of the assessment, and part of that which Charles Hendry made in this analysis, was of the technology’s export potential, and a great proportion of the global potential is within this country, so it does not have the potential the hon. Gentleman describes. In fact, Charles Hendry concluded that any benefits from the technology would be limited to design and consultancy, rather than substantial industrial benefits.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
This Government consistently let Wales down, and on this the Secretary of State is completely and utterly wrong. It is his duty to provide leadership here. The National Audit Office states that the lagoon either matches or outperforms Hinkley across its three value-for-money tests. If he supports the tidal industry, how can he not be prepared to support the project that makes it possible?
Greg Clark
In terms of support for Wales, for every £100 of public funds spent in England, £120 is spent in Wales, and the NAO, which scrutinises all such decisions and proposals, will find that this one was taken in complete conformity with the standards of probity required.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
And finally, the prize for patience and perseverance goes to Tonia Antoniazzi.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I have been a teacher in Wales for 20 years, and I am devastated by today’s news. Pupils throughout Wales have been studying an exciting new future promised to Wales by this Government, and now it is not going to happen. The fig leaf of a city deal will not hide the Government’s shortcomings in Swansea. This is a clear dereliction of duty. If they have no aspiration for Wales, what aspiration does the Secretary of State expect for our future generations?
Greg Clark
I am surprised that the hon. Lady would turn her nose up at a £1.3 billion city deal. I would have thought she would welcome it on behalf of her constituents. It does her constituents, young and old, no service to saddle them with energy bills much higher than if we have regard to the price that ordinary people would pay in their bills and which businesses would incur when trading. That is responsible government.
Point of Order
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Charles Hendry published his review of the role of tidal lagoons in December 2016 —[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. If hon. Members want to talk about other things, there are other places to go. I call Mr Richard Graham.
Richard Graham
Charles Hendry published the Hendry review of the role of tidal lagoons in December 2016, but today’s statement is not an adequate response to a report that included 18 pages of recommendations. In it, Charles Hendry wrote that
“when the wind turbines and solar panels…have long since been decommissioned in a few decades time, the tidal lagoons will still be capable of delivering some of the cheapest, lowest carbon power available.”
Given the difference between what he wrote and what the Secretary of State has said today about the finances of tidal lagoons, how would you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure the Government give a proper oral response to the Hendry review?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I am sure he recognises, it is not a point that I can answer from the Chair, but I understand that he wishes to suggest that the review completed by Charles Hendry needs to be debated properly in the House, and I am sure that the Minister and others on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he said. He asked me how he could make his point, and I can tell him that he has made it very well.
Bill Presented
Football Offences (Amendment) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Damian Collins, supported by Julie Elliott, Paul Farrelly, Simon Hart, Julian Knight, Ian C. Lucas, Brendan O’Hara, Rebecca Pow, Jo Stevens and Giles Watling, presented a Bill to amend section 3 of the Football Offences Act 1991.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed (Bill 236).
Business of the House
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Secretary Chris Grayling relating to National Policy Statement not later than 10.00pm; and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—(Paul Maynard.)
National Policy Statement: Airports
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 415 / Noes: 119 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I beg to move,
That this House approves the National Policy Statement on New runway capacity and infrastructure at airports in the South East of England, which was laid before this House on 5 June 2018.
This is a very important moment in the history of the House and the history of the country. If the House endorses the proposed national airports policy statement today, it will move on from decades of debate and set what is, to my mind, a clear path to our future as a global nation in the post-Brexit world.
Let me explain to Members what we are doing today. The proposed policy statement does not grant final planning consent; what it does is set the policy against which a promoter of an expanded Heathrow airport can deliver more detailed design and participate in the detailed planning process that can lead to final consent.
I thank the many Members on both sides of the House who have gone on the record to support expansion at Heathrow, and who have made considerable efforts to persuade others of its importance to all nations and regions of the United Kingdom. I know that this debate is divisive for many, but there is also strong support across the House for what I believe is a very important step for our nation, and I am grateful to all those who have been involved in supporting the way forward that I believe is right for our country.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has mentioned divisiveness. I personally think that this development is well overdue, and, although I know that it is not on the cards, I would support a fourth and a fifth runway, at Heathrow and at Gatwick. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that—just as with HS2—when constituency matters come into the equation, it is understandable that some people feel that they are unable to vote for this Government motion, and might find themselves called away?
Chris Grayling
I would never criticise any Member for representing the views of his or her constituents. After all, whatever position we may hold in the House, in government or in opposition, we are all ultimately constituency MPs, and it is absolutely right for us to champion the issues that affect our constituents.
I also want to thank people outside the House. It is unusual for me to find myself campaigning on the same side of the argument as Len McCluskey of Unite the Union, but the trade union movement has been a strong supporter of this, as have business groups in all corners of the United Kingdom.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I will join the Secretary of State in the Lobby tonight because I think that the third runway is a piece of infrastructure of national importance that will benefit the whole nation. However, what it must not do is increase the disparity of wealth and income between the regions of this country and London and the south-east. Can the Secretary of State tell us what extra funds he will invest in the regional airports to ensure that they can make their contribution? It cannot be right, at a time when this investment will lead to a great deal of public expenditure in the south-east, that Manchester airport is expected to pay for the station for HS2.
Chris Grayling
I absolutely take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point. Of course Manchester airport is a great success story, and a great international success story. I have been working with the airport management to help it expand its expertise internationally and will continue to do that.
What I would say to reassure the hon. Gentleman is that, as he will be aware, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has indicated that the region of the country that will secure the highest proportion of Government spending on transport in the next few years is the north-west. That is right and proper—a sign of our continuing commitment to deliver improvements in the north of this country that are long, long overdue.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right: Members of Parliament have a duty to stand up for their constituents, and I will do just that. Can he confirm that the expansion of Heathrow puts an end to the daft estuary airport idea, and that the long-term provision of air capacity needs can be met at Gatwick?
Chris Grayling
The Airports Commission looked very carefully at the estuary airport concept, concluded that it was not viable and made this recommendation. I see no way how, off the back of an expanded Heathrow, an estuary airport would become a viable option, so I reassure my hon. Friend on that point.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
In terms of the benefits for the regions, does the Secretary of State accept that the expansion opens up the opportunity for over 500 jobs for Northern Ireland, £5 billion of economic growth, a £10 million airline route development programme, and a logistics hub that, if based in Northern Ireland, will increase productivity and jobs and make Northern Ireland a key part of this development programme? Does he support that hub being in Northern Ireland?
Chris Grayling
This project, including the development hub concept that Heathrow has been promoting, will make a contribution to the economy of all parts of the United Kingdom. I know the hon. Gentleman has a keen eye on making sure that the hub goes to Ballymena; I cannot make any promises to the airport on the plan, but I know the hon. Gentleman will carry on making that argument very robustly.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Whether it is pre or post Brexit, does the Secretary of State accept that, to be an open, liberal, market economy, we need an airport that can compete against the likes of Paris, Schiphol, Istanbul, Dubai and Doha? On the issue of the regions, does he accept that Birmingham airport also has a part to play over the skies of the UK?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the Secretary of State answers the two questions in that intervention, may I say that interventions should be short and should make one point? Otherwise, it is not fair to Members at the end of the incredibly long list of speakers I have here. Those making interventions now at great length are taking time away from the Members who will be trying to speak, having sat here until after 9 o’clock tonight.
Also, there are lots of conversations going on around the Chamber; perhaps Members are negotiating which way they are going to vote this evening. If they are, will they do so either more quietly or somewhere else? The rest of the House wishes to hear the Secretary of State.
Chris Grayling
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will respond to the last intervention, then take a couple more interventions and then make some progress: as you rightly say, lots of Members want to contribute.
I say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) that this is absolutely crucial to the UK as a whole. He is right that Birmingham airport is probably the most directly affected, although of course HS2’s arriving at Birmingham airport will create fantastic connections to that great airport from around the country.
Our forecasts show all regional airports growing, which is an indication that we need to provide the capacity at Heathrow. We can do so without damaging the prosperity of the regions. Indeed, it will enhance the prosperity of the regions, as their airports grow and their connections improve.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend should be commended for finally, at long last, bringing forward this vital measure of national infrastructure. Will he confirm that although, according to Sir Howard Davies, London and the south-east will benefit to the tune of £52 billion economically, the north, Birmingham and the rest of the country will benefit to the tune of nearly £80 billion?
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend is right, and it is interesting how much support there has been from around the whole United Kingdom: not a single regional airport has opposed the expansion of Heathrow, and I have talked to business groups up and down this country, all of whom support the expansion of Heathrow because they believe it will make a huge difference.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Although airport expansion is crucial to our economic success, does my right hon. Friend accept that from 2014 unfortunate changes to the pattern of aviation movements from Heathrow, made without consultation, have created a much worse noise situation over my constituency and adjacent constituencies? Will he ensure that a proper noise reduction programme is in place from now on? We do not like the existing level of noise, let alone an expanded one.
Chris Grayling
I absolutely understand my right hon. Friend’s concerns and will make two points to him. First, we intend to move ahead quickly with setting up the independent noise monitoring body, which is needed to make sure the rules are kept to. In addition, I believe the modernisation of air space, and proper enforcement of the way air space operates, will mean we can use it in a smarter way, give communities more relief and avoid the kind of change that affected my right hon. Friend’s constituency. I give him the assurance that I will work with him, and make sure that NATS and others work with him, to ensure that the issue he is concerned about is addressed in the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Grayling
I will make a little more progress, and then take some further interventions.
The need for an additional runway in the south-east is greater than ever before because—this is the reason why we have to do this—all five of London’s main airports will be full by the mid-2030s, and Heathrow is full today. We are seeing business leave the UK and go to airports like Frankfurt, Amsterdam and Paris, which have made additional capacity provision. If we sit here with our “Plane Finder” app on, we can watch planes flying overhead from the United Kingdom so that UK business passengers can go to Schiphol and then fly around the world. We are losing those connections to other countries, and we are losing the investment that goes around those connections. That is an important part of why this expansion is necessary.
I also need to be clear that this is not at the expense of growth at our other airports. It is simply not the case that other airports will lose business as a result of the expansion. All of our forecasts show every airport around the UK continuing to grow and expand. The UK’s Regional and Business Airports Group, which represents 40 airports, wrote to hon. Members saying:
“Heathrow expansion would mean more UK airports have vital access to a truly unrivalled network of routes...to destinations around the world.”
With expansion at Heathrow, non-London airports will continue to experience that strong growth—80% by 2050—and, importantly, they will have the capacity to accommodate that growth.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. This is clearly more than just about the constituencies around Heathrow and London; it is about connectivity for all the regions, as he has outlined. It has been said that Belfast City, Belfast International and Londonderry airports will gain by some 15% in new domestic routes. Can the Minister confirm that the increase will be of 15%?
Chris Grayling
My expectation is that we will see substantial growth. I would not put an exact percentage on it, but I have said that I will use the public service obligation mechanisms to set aside 15% of the additional capacity at Heathrow for links around the United Kingdom. We will use the PSO mechanisms to ensure that airports such as those in Northern Ireland, which are already thoroughly successful, benefit from this connection, and we will do the same in Scotland, the south-west and at other airports in the north and potentially north Wales, where this can make a difference.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
How many airports per region will be protected by that “up to 15%” promise in the document? I have been led to understand that the Department will only protect one per region.
Chris Grayling
That is simply not the case. Heathrow itself has set out a long list of airports that it expects to benefit and where it will make provision for those links to happen. I believe that setting aside that 15% will result in links being provided to airports all around the United Kingdom. We will use the PSO mechanism to make sure that the expansion delivers improved links to all around the United Kingdom.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
This proposal for a third runway at Heathrow was first published in 2002, whereas Hong Kong published theirs in 2011 and it will be built within five years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to remain internationally competitive, we should get on and build the runway?
Chris Grayling
Absolutely; I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We have delayed on this for much too long, and it is time we got on with the job.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Aviation already has a uniquely generous allocation for climate emissions, which basically means that passenger numbers can grow by up to 60% by 2050, but according to the Secretary of State’s own Department, passenger numbers are expected to grow by 93% by 2050 even before expansion at Heathrow, so when is he going to start looking at demand-side regulation—perhaps including a frequent flyer levy—rather than simply carrying on growing more and more supply? Or is he content to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and basically cover the whole country in concrete?
Michael Fabricant
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have expected better from the hon. Lady. She claims that I have said that I want to cover the whole of the country in concrete. Not only is that deliberately untrue but I think she should withdraw that falsehood.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Lady has made her point, and the hon. Lady—I mean the hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.] I will start again. The hon. Lady has made her point. The hon. Gentleman has made his point, which is not a point of order for me, but the matter is dealt with, I think.
Chris Grayling
Let me touch on the issue of climate change, which I was planning to come to in a moment. We are confident that we can deliver the expansion at Heathrow within our obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008. Any increase in emissions that would have a material impact on our ability to meet our obligations would lead to a refusal. I can tell the hon. Lady that the independent Committee on Climate Change wrote to me two weeks ago setting out its views on the NPS. It works to a target that aviation emissions in 2050 should be no higher than they were in 2005. With more efficient aircraft and engines, improved ground operations and the use of biofuels, the CCC’s analysis estimates that the UK can accommodate that increase in air travel by 2050 while meeting our climate change obligations. We believe that an expanded Heathrow airport and a new runway are consistent with this target.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Grayling
I want to make some more progress, then I will give way a couple more times.
Let me touch on the benefits to the wider economy and the connections to Heathrow airport on the ground. Surface access is one of the questions that is regularly raised. People ask why this location is best and what the benefits will be for the United Kingdom. Heathrow is already Britain’s best-connected airport by road and rail, and this will be further strengthened by improvements to the Piccadilly line, by new links to Heathrow through Crossrail and connections to HS2 via an interchange at Old Oak Common, and beyond that by the development of western and southern rail access to Heathrow.
A point that people often miss about Heathrow airport is that it is also crucial to the economy because it is our biggest freight port by value. It carries more freight by value than all other UK airports combined, nearly all of it transported in the belly-hold of passenger aircraft. This expansion will bring a real trade boost to the United Kingdom, providing a greater choice and frequency of vital long-haul flights to international markets for passengers and goods than could be achieved by any of the other options that were available to us. These benefits will be felt all around the United Kingdom.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows about the case of my constituent, John Coles, a British Airways engineer who sadly passed away in an accident at Heathrow. I support a third runway, but the Secretary of State has not yet mentioned health and safety. Will he ensure that the health and safety of the 75,000 employees and 78 million passengers will be front and centre in his mind?
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. What happened to my hon. Friend’s constituent was tragic. I know that it is an accident that all at Heathrow bitterly regret, and they have worked to learn lessons from it. Of course, at a major facility such as Heathrow—and, indeed, any other airport—safety has to be our priority. Aviation is one of the safest—if not the safest—modes of transport around, but that should not in any way allow for slippage on health and safety.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Manchester airport employs thousands of people in my constituency, and it has 28 million passengers a year, with a capacity of 55 million. Obviously, it is doing a lot more than hub; it has global connections as well. Given the investment in northern powerhouse rail and in the north-western and northern economy, can my right hon. Friend assure me and my constituents that we will have even more benefits from this new proposal?
Chris Grayling
All the expectations we have are that Manchester airport will continue to grow strongly. There has been a £1 billion investment, and I was there recently to see the start of the development of the new terminal building. Manchester airport is a fantastic success story. It is a real asset to the economy and to the country as a whole. Manchester will also gain through the additional connectivity to new and emerging markets that we get through a hub airport. This is a good news story for Manchester, and it is also part of the ongoing success story of the north.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What assessment has the Secretary of State’s Department made of the impact of this proposal on the respiratory health of London children?
Chris Grayling
We have been very clear about two things. First, this runway cannot open if it does not meet air quality standards. Secondly, the air quality issue in west London is much bigger than the airport itself. This is the kind of challenge that we see in any busy metropolitan area. That is why we published our air quality strategy last summer, and it is why we need to get on with the job of making our car fleets much greener through lowering emissions. We are pushing ahead with low emission vehicles as fast as we can in this country.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Heathrow is a vital economic hub, but because of that, the traffic congestion that surrounds it is a really serious problem, particularly in parts of my constituency, where the emissions levels are high and the roads are almost impassable. Can he give me an assurance that, in looking at the development of a third runway, attention will be given to improving the infrastructure so that these areas benefit?
Chris Grayling
That has to happen. This is not just about infrastructure. My Department has already been in discussions with South Bucks Council about some of the issues that my right hon. and learned Friend’s area will face and about how they can be mitigated. One of the options is to improve the environment around the Colne Valley, and I am keen for my officials to work with him and the local authority on that. The provision of a community fund from Heathrow as a result of this will make it easier to fund projects such as those.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has said that Manchester airport will gain from this proposal, but the reality is that the modelling that his own Department and the Transport Select Committee have done shows that Manchester airport will have 11% or 12% fewer international flights by 2030 as a result of the Heathrow expansion. I spoke to the chief executive of Manchester airport today, and he explained to me that its catchment area for passengers is very different, so it is simply wrong to say to the House that Manchester will somehow benefit from this proposal.
Chris Grayling
I refer my right hon. Friend to the tables that we have published, which show that Manchester will grow international routes over the 2030s and 2040s, as will Heathrow. This is an important part of delivering growth around the United Kingdom. The reason for a hub airport is that, if there is a new destination such as an emerging city in China or a new, growing economy in Africa or Latin America, there is often simply not enough of a market from an individual location to support that new route. A hub brings together passengers from around the United Kingdom to make that route viable.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pre-empting some of the remarks that I will make in my speech later, but as a Manchester MP, I thought I should speak for Manchester airport on that point. Manchester airport refutes the figures in the forecasts, because it believes that it will exceed those passenger numbers even before the Heathrow expansion is on stream. The hub argument is not the right argument to make for Manchester, because most of its connectivity involves direct flights. There are other reasons that Greater Manchester MPs have come together to support this proposal, but that particular argument is not the one to make.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am not going to stop interventions being made, but they must be short if we are to get through all the speakers.
Chris Grayling
We want to ensure that passengers who are flying to a hub airport from points in the UK can do so through a UK airport and not, for example, through a middle eastern hub. Manchester airport is a great success story and, on behalf of this country, I am hugely proud of how much it has achieved. I have been trying to work with the management of Manchester airport to help it to win business internationally, because I think it has a great model that it could take to other countries. I think that this will be a win-win. It will be a win-win for the north of England, for Manchester, for Liverpool, for Leeds, for Newcastle, for Edinburgh, for Glasgow, for Aberdeen, for Dundee, for Belfast and for Newquay.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Grayling
I will give way three more times, then I really must make some progress.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend’s remarks about climate change, which will clearly require an upgrade to surface transport. Will he confirm whether the statement lays out the polluter pays principle and that the developer will be expected to pay a contribution to the surface transport upgrades?
Chris Grayling
Absolutely. Improvements to nearby roads and paying for parts of the rail projects that are due to happen are built into the plans. It is absolutely essential that that is the case. Heathrow airport will make a substantial contribution to that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Grayling
I will give way to two more Members who have a particular interest in the issue.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The last time this House took a decision on this matter, in January 2009, the Secretary of State voted against a third runway. Since then the case for Heathrow has got worse on every indicator, whether it is the economic case, the cost to the public purse, the environmental case or the effect on the regions. Why has he changed his mind in the face of all that evidence?
Chris Grayling
We commissioned an independent review that asked where we should site new capacity in the south-east of England. The Airports Commission came back with a very clear view. We have studied that view and talked to all those who are promoting individual schemes, and as a Government we believe that this is the right thing to do. We stood on this in our election manifesto last year. I believe it is the right thing to do for Britain.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
The Secretary of State said earlier that not a single regional airport has opposed this scheme, but will he not acknowledge that Manchester, Edinburgh, Birmingham and the East Midlands have all expressed opposition to it, not because they do not believe that they will see growth, but because they believe that whatever growth they do see will be in spite of Heathrow expansion and that it will be less?
Chris Grayling
The key point is that they will see growth. The opportunities are there right across the United Kingdom. As I said a moment ago, the body that represents regional airports has been very robust indeed in its support. I genuinely believe that this project brings benefits right across the United Kingdom, including at least 100 additional flights a week for Scotland, and potential new routes for Northern Ireland, unlocking the benefits of tourism and advanced manufacturing. We believe that this will deliver, across the United Kingdom, the kinds of connections we need for the future.
Let me touch briefly on a couple of other issues that have been raised. First, I have been very clear that this airport NPS says that expansion can happen only if the delivery is compliant with our legal obligations on air quality. I am very confident that the measures and requirements set out in the NPS provide a very strong basis for meeting those obligations, including a substantial increase in public transport mode share, and it could also include an emissions-based access charge to Heathrow airport and the use of zero or low-emission vehicles. Heathrow is already consulting on the potential of a clean air zone.
Crucially, communities will be supported by a package of compensation worth up to £2.6 billion. That is absolutely vital. It is not possible to deliver a project such as this without some consequences for people who live in the area—I am well aware of that. Our job is to make it as easy as possible for those people in what is inevitably going to be a very difficult set of circumstances. There is, therefore, a world-leading package of compensation, ensuring that homeowners who lose their homes or who live closest to an expanded airport will be paid 125% of the full market value of their property. It includes a comprehensive noise insulation programme for homes and schools, and a community compensation fund of up to £50 million a year, which can help in places such as the Colne Valley. The Government will also consider how local authorities can benefit from a retention scheme for the additional business rates paid by an expanded Heathrow.
To mitigate the noise impacts of expansion, the proposed NPS makes it clear that the Government intend to implement a six-and-a-half-hour ban on scheduled night flights, which could mean that some communities will receive up to eight hours of noise relief at night. That is a really important part of the proposal. It may be uncomfortable and difficult for airlines, but it is the right thing for local communities.
It is important to note that those measures will not be optional; they will be legally binding. Let me explain how we will ensure that that happens. We are governed by the Planning Act 2008, a good piece of legislation passed by the Labour party. Following a period of statutory consultation by a promoter, any subsequent application for a development consent order will be allocated to the Planning Inspectorate. At the end of the examination process, the inspectorate will report to the Secretary of State and the mitigation measures needed to comply with the NPS will be imposed on a successful applicant as requirements in the development consent order. The Act grants the relevant planning authority significant powers to investigate a breach of the requirements and ultimately to apply for an injunction or prosecute for failure to remedy a breach. In the Crown court the fine is unlimited and, in determining the level of the fine, recent judicial trends have tended to look to the benefit gained from the offence.
I can also confirm that expansion can and will be privately financed, at no cost to the taxpayer. It has to be delivered in the interest of the consumer, which is why in 2016 I set out my ambition to keep airport charges as close as possible to current levels, and why I have commissioned the Civil Aviation Authority to work with the airport to keep landing charges close to current levels. So far, that process has identified cost savings of £2.5 billion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Grayling
Before I conclude, I will take a couple more interventions, but only from Members who have not already intervened, for obvious reasons.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
May I take the Secretary of State back to the issue of climate change, which he glossed over? His policy statement says that passenger numbers can grow by 80% by 2050 and we can still meet our carbon budgets, but the Committee on Climate Change says that they must not grow by more than 60% by 2050. He has outlined a set of measures in his sustainability appraisal, but is he not just adopting the Micawber strategy of hoping that something is going to turn up on climate change?
Chris Grayling
The key thing that is happening right now on climate change and aviation emissions is a transformation of aviation technology. As I said earlier, the new generation of aircraft are already much more fuel efficient. We expect the introduction of biofuels and further technological changes. We have been not only working very carefully with the Airports Commission, but listening very carefully to the Committee on Climate Change. This House will form a view today, but we believe absolutely that we can deliver this expansion within our obligations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
In the past, Heathrow has scored poorly on accessibility for people with disabilities. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that, as part of this expansion, Heathrow improves its accessibility for people with disabilities, particularly people with wheelchairs?
Chris Grayling
That is a really important point. It is not something that can and should wait until 2026. There have been one or two unfortunate incidents recently in the aviation sector, which should be as disability friendly as any other mode of transport. All airports and airlines have a duty to do that.
I am going to conclude because there is a long list of Members who want to speak. My message to the House is very simple. I believe that this project is in the strategic interests of our nation and that it will unlock prosperity in all the regions of this country. I think it will set us fair for the post-Brexit world. I believe this is essential for all our constituents, with the jobs it will create and the connections it will bring. We have to deliver it in a way that ultimately stretches every sinew to do the best we possibly can for the communities affected. My commitment to them is that we will do that. We will ensure tight rules around the permissions that are granted, and we will make sure that the commitments made by the airport and by this Government in the run-up to today’s vote are kept, enshrined in law and delivered for the future.
Ultimately, this is a project this country needs. It has been delayed for much too long. It falls to this House of Commons to take a decision today and I urge it to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Before I call Andy McDonald, I warn Members that we will start with an eight-minute limit but it will soon drop to five minutes.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Airport expansion in the south-east of England has been a deeply contentious and divisive issue for 50 years. If the motion is agreed to, it will generate many winners, not least the shareholders of Heathrow Airport Ltd, but it risks making losers of many, including the communities in which thousands of people will lose hundreds of homes. I regret to say that the Government have not been direct and clear with those communities and, as I will point out, the Government are demanding that they make sacrifices based on flawed information. Their potential loss should not be ignored or devalued.
I respect voices in industry and the significant voices in the trade union movement who have concluded that the best interests of the country are served by proceeding. Having faithfully and carefully assessed Labour’s four tests against the revised national policy statement, I have to respectfully disagree.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend mentions the trade unions. Will he confirm that the Trades Union Congress and Unite the union—they have written to all Labour MPs—support this project? Will he also confirm that Michael Dugher, who, as shadow Secretary of State for Transport, wrote the four tests has come out in support of going ahead with Heathrow expansion today?
Andy McDonald
I respect the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend, who has been entirely consistent in his support for this project for many years. I acknowledge his point about union support, but there are unions that support Heathrow expansion and those that do not. My predecessor was responsible for writing the tests, and it is my job to implement them—my predecessor has a new career.
I remind the House that the UK’s aviation and aerospace industries are world leaders. They bring services to hundreds of millions of passengers, generate tens of billions of pounds in economic benefits and support nearly 1 million jobs. Labour wants successful and growing aviation and aerospace industries across the UK. The industries and their workforces deserve a sustainable and strategic plan for the future, and they currently have neither.
Mr Speaker,
“I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that as a result of today’s announcement, nobody will take this Government seriously on the environment again.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2009; Vol. 486, c. 366.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the current Prime Minister during a 2009 debate in which she opposed the expansion of Heathrow. Nearly 10 years on, I entirely agree with her. Given how she and her Transport Secretary have approached this issue, nobody should take this Government seriously on the environment.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the glaring absence of any genuine carbon mitigation policy framework, tonight’s votes will break down into two camps of those who believe we can negotiate with climate physics, and those who do not?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I hope shortly to be able to address in some detail.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I must confess that I am a waverer on Heathrow expansion. I do not like the air quality dangers we face or the Government’s target to do something about air quality by 2040, by which time 1 million people will have died. People in the north of England, in Yorkshire and in Huddersfield want to know what investment they will get. This is yet another massive investment in London and the south-east.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend raises two significant points about air quality and investment across the United Kingdom. I hope to address them in great detail as I proceed with my speech.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andy McDonald
I will make some progress, because I am aware that many Members want to speak.
This has not been a great year so far for the British transport system, with meltdown on the railways and growing frustration across the transport industry about the Government’s “It will be all right on the night” approach to Brexit. Last week’s news from Airbus struck like a thunderbolt, so the proposal to undertake a large-scale infrastructure project in the UK should be a good news story. The expansion of our hub airport should be very good news indeed—except it is not.
The Government have not done the work to support the development of this project. Their case is riddled with gaps and is fundamentally flawed. Yet again, this Secretary of State has made a complete shambles of a vital national project. Yet again, he is not putting the relevant facts before Parliament. Today’s vote has been scheduled just days before the Government’s own advisory body, the Committee on Climate Change, is due to publish a report that is expected to warn that increasing aviation emissions will destroy Britain’s greenhouse gas targets. It appears that the vote on the national policy statement has been planned for today so that hon. and right hon. Members are left in the dark about how much the Secretary of State’s plan will obliterate the UK’s climate change commitments. That is not only reckless, but shows contempt for Parliament and for the environment.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Is not my hon. Friend slightly missing the point? Aviation—across the world and into Europe—will continue and grow, so the real question is whether it will be going into Schiphol, Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle airports, or whether we will create investment, protect the well-paid, unionised jobs at Heathrow, and create opportunities for the youngsters of the future.
Andy McDonald
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention but, of course, we must always ensure that any growth is delivered sustainably—that has to be the point.
Hon. Members will not have the opportunity to see the hugely important Committee on Climate Change report before they vote. Global warming is the single most important issue facing the world, yet Members of this House are being asked to vote today without full knowledge and without the full set of facts.
That is outrageous behaviour from the Government, and from the Secretary of State in particular. The Justice Committee said last week that his multi-billion pound reforms to the probation service in 2014 will never work. In his two years as Secretary of State for Transport, he has laid waste to the railways, slashing and burning and leaving a trail of scorched earth. Rail electrification cuts, franchising meltdown and timetabling chaos have caused misery to millions. His mismanaging of airport expansion, as he has mismanaged other areas of transport, will present much bigger risks, with immensely more serious consequences.
The Transport Secretary has consistently demonstrated poor judgment and a reliance on incomplete, unreliable and non-existent evidence, yet he stands here today and expects the House to take his word for it—to take a leap of faith with him. Labour has been clear that we will support airport expansion only if the very specific provisions of our four tests are met. We are not against expansion; we are against this option for expansion, as presented.
The north-west runway is too risky and it may be illegal. There are simply too many holes in the case. There are too many hostages to fortune for the taxpayer and for any future Government.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State. He says that climate and the expectation of meeting our climate responsibilities are vital, but does he accept that Professor Dame Julia King, who is a member of the Committee on Climate Change, sat on the Davies commission and fully endorsed its report?
Andy McDonald
The critical word is that it “could.” That is the important point—not that it will, but that it is quite possible that it could. There is an awful lot of work to get from one place to the other.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is setting out a powerful case regarding the four tests. The Secretary of State said that one of the key selling points is connectivity with our regional airports, but that will be only up to 15% of the new capacity. He has already indicated there will be 100 extra flights a day from Scotland, and as that 15% of new capacity is for all the regional airports and the Crown dependencies, it does not sound like a very good deal to me.
Andy McDonald
There are grave misgivings on the whole issue of regional connectivity, which I will address, but first I will deal with the tests.
Can the airport actually be built? It is not clear that it can. Heathrow’s borrowing costs depend on whether it can increase landing charges at what is already the most expensive airport in the world. The Government have provided no guarantees that landing charges will be held flat. Astonishingly, there are no details or costings on the upgrades to the M25 and the wider transport system in London and around the airport that are required for expansion. That uncertainty risks yet more transport infrastructure investment being sucked into the south-east of England at the expense of the rest of the country. It is simply staggering that this information has not been provided.
The cost-recovery clause that the Government signed with Heathrow, as highlighted by the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), is an enormous liability for future Governments and represents a significant risk to taxpayers. For those reasons, Labour has concluded that the third runway is not in fact deliverable.
Ensuring the health and safety of our country for our children and grandchildren should be the most important priority for each and every Member of this House. Some 40,000 people die prematurely each year because of poor air quality. Despite the superficial public relations initiatives from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, this Government have dithered and delayed on dealing with air quality and carbon emissions.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying. He makes a good case for why he will not be able to support Heathrow, but what would his alternative be, given that growth in the sector will happen whether we have Heathrow or not? We will simply be handing business to other airports.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Gentleman is listing names from overseas, but how about others—Birmingham, Newcastle, Manchester?
On test 2, we are being asked today to support a significant expansion in UK aviation capacity without a plan from the Government for tackling aviation carbon emissions. The Secretary of State did not even mention climate change in his statement to the House on 5 June.
Andy McDonald
I am going to plough on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. Plenty of people want to speak. I know he has just walked into the Chamber, but I want to crack on.
The Government have still not set out aviation’s place in the overall strategy for UK emissions reduction, despite their having a legal requirement to do so. According to the Department for Transport’s own projections, this plan for Heathrow expansion will cause the Government to miss their carbon emission limits. The Government argue that they can reduce emissions through technology, but their only proposal is a hypothetical case study by a consultant that contains a disclaimer professing that there is
“significant uncertainty around the results of the study and the conclusions that are drawn”.
That is not a credible position.
Mary Creagh
The economic case for Heathrow is unarguable, but the environmental case is unconscionable. The Department’s analysis—this is from the study my hon. Friend talks about—refers to two ways to reduce carbon emissions from flights: one is single-engine taxiing; the other is ensuring that 12% of fuels in aeroplanes are renewable. Neither of those is currently in operation in Heathrow or any other airport in the world.
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point because this whole process is predicated on banking technological achievements that do not currently exist. We must be more thoughtful about this.
The Committee on Climate Change’s last progress report saw the UK failing to stay on track to meet its 2030 carbon targets. The CCC publishes its latest report on Thursday, and it reportedly will detail just how badly the Government are performing. The third runway will increase the number of flights by 50%, as per the Airports Commission report—table 12.1; page 238—yet any increase in aviation emissions will require other sectors to reduce their emissions beyond 85%. That is astonishingly imbalanced. The Department’s own projections show that a new runway at Heathrow will directly lead to a breach of at least 3.3 million tonnes of the 37.5 million tonnes carbon dioxide limit for 2050 set by the CCC without new policies to mitigate emissions.
Chris Grayling
It might be helpful if the House were to understand whether the hon. Gentleman’s position is that there should be no expansion of aviation at all.
Andy McDonald
I thought the right hon. Gentleman was going to provide some clarity from the Dispatch Box about the breach of the CO2 limits that I have just described, but instead he asks that question. In fact, we know that we are talking about considerably more than that. It is utterly absurd for the Government to ask the House to vote on expanding Heathrow without a plan for reducing aviation carbon emissions. Under the revised NPS, there is a very real risk that aviation’s carbon emissions will be higher in 2050. Furthermore, the Department for Transport is not due to publish a new aviation strategy until 2019.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend is right that the environmental case against Heathrow expansion has always been unarguable; what has changed is that the economic case is also now very strongly against it. The net present value is plus or minus £2 billion to £3 billion over time. The case for Gatwick, which would be much easier to build and would involve far less grief, is much easier than that, so whether on economic or environmental grounds, Heathrow is a non-starter.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a powerful point, which many commentators have identified, about the various economic arguments.
Andy McDonald
I will not take any further interventions; it was well timed, but too late.
This Parliament will not know the Government’s plan for keeping UK aviation emissions at or below 2005 levels by 2050 until next year—talk about carts and horses! This scenario, where aviation targets are exceeded, would place an unreasonably large burden on other UK industries. I do not believe it is acceptable or fair to ask other sectors of the economy to make reductions to compensate for aviation emissions. The UK Government call themselves a climate leader, but only last week the EU raised its carbon reduction target to 45% by 2030, which is above that set by the Paris agreement, whereas this week the UK Government support an aviation plan that will increase emissions without a clear plan to reduce them. The revised NPS is simply not consistent with the obligations set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We are being asked to give the Transport Secretary a blank cheque on the environment. On the issue of climate change, this fails to meet test 2.
Airspace modernisation is vital to the future of this country. Only through modernisation can we improve the structure and management of UK airspace, to handle growth and realise the economic benefits. The process and consultation to make these changes is at an early stage and there are many years ahead, yet airspace modernisation is critical to noise levels at an expanded Heathrow. Once again, we are being asked to accept promises on noise without a broad framework for the future. That is not good enough and this is yet another gaping hole in the Government’s case.
It is difficult to clearly assess the noise impact at Heathrow until the airspace modernisation programme is more advanced. Precise details of new flight paths will not be known for several years, and this represents another significant uncertainty. The Transport Committee’s excellent report called on the Government to set clear noise targets, but in the revised NPS they are not proposing any new targets. Do they really care about noise levels?
The revised NPS states that
“the Secretary of State will consider air quality impacts over the wider area likely to be affected, as well as in the vicinity of the scheme. In order to grant development consent, the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that, with mitigation, the scheme would be compliant with legal obligations that provide for the protection of human health and the environment.”
That provides no indication as to how the air pollution can be managed. Much of the additional air pollution is largely outside Heathrow’s control. The Government have been repeatedly dragged through the courts over their failure to address the air pollution crisis, so it would be generous to assume that they will now suddenly address these issues in the context of a decision over an expanded Heathrow. That the key issue of tackling air pollution could turn on the judgment of the Transport Secretary does nothing to afford us any comfort whatsoever.
What of the regional economic benefits? The revised NPS says that if the third runway is built, up to 15% of all new routes will need to be reserved for the domestic market. There are considerable uncertainties around that pledge. The Government say that public service obligations will ensure compliance, but “up to 15%” could mean as little as 1%, and PSOs apply to cities rather than airport-specific locations. Late last week, the Government announced they would use PSOs to ensure domestic connectivity. They have not said where they will be used, how many will be used, what percentage of routes will be guaranteed through this method or if they will be permanent. In addition, PSOs would make domestic routes exempt from air passenger duty. That tax cut was not considered in the business case, and the Government have not stated its cost to the public purse. Surely this represents an uncosted subsidy to Heathrow Airport Limited. It is simply incredible that the Government would announce such a subsidy at the eleventh hour before a vote on the NPS.
The Government’s stated case for expanding Heathrow is dependent on a number of other conditions being met, including measures to constrain growth at regional airports in order to ensure that Heathrow expansion can meet the UK’s climate change obligations. I cannot support the restriction of other UK airports to facilitate expansion at Heathrow. Rather than improve regional connectivity, it has been said that a third runway at Heathrow will have a substantially negative impact on the UK aviation industry as a whole. Regional airports will also lose around 17 million passengers per annum, as Heathrow’s share of the UK aviation market rises from 21% today to 27% in 2050.
Government claims for the economic benefit of expanding Heathrow do not include the costs of the improved public transport links needed to keep road traffic at current levels. Transport for London estimates that expenditure of £10 billion to £15 billion is required for new surface access; Heathrow and the Airports Commission say the figure will be closer to £5 billion—so what is the correct figure? The absence of clear proposals, projections and costs in relation to surface access are a major failing of the revised NPS. Labour is not satisfied that the taxpayer interest will be protected. We are also concerned that the lack of a clear surface-access plan will result in yet more transport investment being sucked into the south-east of England. Furthermore, our view is that there are too many uncertainties that could undermine the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. We are not assured that the number of jobs that have been promised will be forthcoming, given the number of variants that could undermine the economic benefits of the case.
For all those reasons, I am not convinced that regional connectivity and shared economic benefits will in fact be delivered by the proposed expansion. I acknowledge the case made for expansion, but I believe that the price of a third runway at Heathrow is currently simply too high. I am greatly aware that right hon. and hon. Members from all parties will wish to weigh up the issues carefully before they cast their vote, and I of course utterly respect the decision that each and every one of them will make. But, given my grave misgivings as to the process itself and the manner in which it has been conducted, I can only conclude that to proceed at this juncture, given all the circumstances, would be the wrong thing to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I call Greg Hands to speak, with an eight-minute limit.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
I rise to oppose this national policy statement, which is why I resigned from the Government. I did not resign willingly; I greatly enjoyed my seven years in the Government. I spent four years in the Government Whips Office, keeping the show on the road during those difficult coalition years; I carried out the 2015 spending review—controversial in places—which is now bearing fruit as we see the deficit at a record low; and I was at the very foundation of the Department for International Trade to help the Secretary of State for International Trade to make the crucial preparations for having our own independent trade policy for the first time in 45 years. But I am also surprised to be resigning from the Government as I had always been led to believe that the decision on this issue would be a free vote.
I always knew, however, that I would vote against this proposal. At the 2017 general election I made two unequivocal pledges:
“Greg will be voting against the proposal when it comes before Parliament, expected later this year”,
and:
“Greg is against Heathrow’s 3rd runway and will vote against it, in Parliament.”
So for me, this is not just a debate about Heathrow, important though that is; it is also about being true to one’s word and to one’s election pledges.
Regrettably, this is a truncated debate, but I am joined by several right hon. and hon. Friends who have similar views about Heathrow, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) and my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) and for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), and I know that they will make a lot of important points. I have three points to make, briefly. The first is about the impact on the environment in an urban London context; the second is about whether a large hub airport is in the nation’s interests, and the arguments about London’s connectivity; and the third is on night flights and the need to remove this wholly unnecessary stain on the liveability of our great capital city.
On London’s precious urban environment, Heathrow already exceeds legal pollution limits, before any single plane has landed at the third runway. Heathrow is seeking to have an extra 28 million passengers visit the airport each year, but somehow without a single extra car journey. Furthermore, Heathrow has not yet identified the future flight paths, so it is impossible to tell who and where will be affected by this big increase in flights. An awful lot of Londoners currently have no idea that they will be overflown by planes every 90 seconds.
Zac Goldsmith
I salute my right hon. Friend’s principles on this issue. Does he agree that the lack of information on where the new flight paths will go makes an absolute mockery of all the consultations that have been doing the rounds over the past couple of years?
Greg Hands
I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. It is perfectly possible to show where the flight paths are going to be or are likely to be. I conducted my own consultation, because both Heathrow and the Department for Transport initially refused to do a consultation in my Chelsea and Fulham constituency. I eventually had them come to the constituency, but even then they were unwilling to provide such basic information.
The pledge to build a freight hub is absolute madness when we already have excellent freight hubs that are well away from population centres, such as those at East Midlands airport and Stansted. Surely freight hubs should be created away from population centres, not in the middle of urban environments. The Secretary of State’s argument centres on this essential proposition: that the UK needs a hub airport—and by implication only one—to compete. I fundamentally disagree. A hub airport suits Heathrow and it suits the British Airways’ business models, but those are not the same as the national interest.
Most hub airports tend to be in medium-sized cities, and there is a reason for that. I fundamentally believe that London is best served by its five airports. It is about the difference between a city of 8 million to 10 million people and a city with a population of 1 million, 2 million or 3 million. New York has three large airports, as does Moscow, and Tokyo has two large hub airports. Most successful hub airports are in medium-sized cities. The Secretary of State gave the examples of Frankfurt and Amsterdam on Conservative Home this morning, but those are both cities with a population of fewer than 1 million. They cannot generate that level of traffic themselves, so they need to hub to create and boost their connectivity. It is not a choice for them; it is a choice for London.
Why should London prefer a set of orbital airports? The answer returns to the question of the size of London, with its 8 million, and growing, population. Travel times across London to one hub airport will very often exceed the two-hour median flight time. That is why, while Amsterdam and Frankfurt need a hub, London needs a set of orbital airports.
The related question is on connectivity, and it is not just about Heathrow but about London’s airports as a whole. Much has been made of Frankfurt and Amsterdam overtaking Heathrow in respect of connectivity, but that misses the point. What about the whole nation’s connectivity? And Heathrow is actually already pretty well connected. It may surprise people to know that 10 Chinese cities—Beijing, Shanghai, Changsha, Chongqing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Qingdao, Sanya, Wuhan and Xian—are currently connected directly to Heathrow each day. And to London as a whole, 28 US cities are connected to London airports, along with 13 Polish cities, seven in India and eight in Canada—more than either Frankfurt or Amsterdam. The growth of destinations served by London airports has been huge, and they have been point-to-point flights. The direction of modern aviation is towards point-to-point direct flights.
Justine Greening
My right hon. Friend is making important points. We have just seen the very first non-stop direct flight from Sydney to London. Does he agree that there is no reason for people to want to hub unnecessarily, and that it is therefore wrong to have a 20th century hub strategy instead of a 21st century direct strategy?
Greg Hands
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point about the introduction of the first point-to-point flight from Australia to London. It returns to my point about what is in not just my constituency’s interests but London’s interests as a whole and the national interest. Creating the super-hub at Heathrow clearly suits the interests of British Airways and of Heathrow. I have nothing against that. I am a Conservative and have nothing against companies doing well, but we should not equate that with the national interest.
I promised to say a few words about night flights.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I respect the position in which the right hon. Gentleman finds himself. Birmingham airport could take 17 million extra flights now on the existing infrastructure, and that capacity could be unlocked if we built the high-speed loop that was originally proposed. The cost of that loop would be about half that proposed for the new runway at Heathrow. Should we not look again at using high-speed rail to unlock capacity we already have rather than bring forward a proposal that will drain 43,000 flights from our airport?
Greg Hands
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I support high-speed rail. With regard to the sort of solutions that one could come up with with the money being spent here, I certainly think that that is probably an example of the sort of thing that could increase the UK’s connectivity as a whole.
On night flights, the situation is untenable. There are allowed to be up to 16 flights each night, starting from 4.30 am. I hear these planes at 4.30. I frequently receive letters about them from my constituents. One can almost time the first flight coming over at 4.30. This is done in the interests of a few thousand people. These are important people travelling from the far east to this country to do business; nevertheless, we are talking about a few thousand people measured against the convenience of many hundreds of thousands of people living directly under those flight paths, many of whom are some of the most economically productive people in this country, paying a lot of taxation. We should not ignore their interests. We need to ban night flights—6 am is early enough. Even if this proposal is to be adopted, the minimum quid pro quo should be the abolition of all arrivals before 6 am. We definitely do not want this stealthy smoothing.
I have just outlined a few of the arguments against this policy statement. The proposal is fundamentally flawed, but this vote is also about integrity and about the pledges that we make to our electors. It is to be regretted that we will not now have a free vote, but I urge colleagues to vote against the proposal tonight.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I am a civil engineer by profession and so have an appreciation of the importance of infrastructure investment. For too long, successive UK Governments have not invested enough money directly into infrastructure. The correct infrastructure projects can lead to increased productivity, increased connectivity, a possible increase in visitors, a possible increase in trade and contributions to growth in the economy. Clearly, those are all the hoped-for benefits of the additional runway proposed for Heathrow.
When it comes to decision making on infrastructure, Governments are often too frightened to make decisions because of potential impacts and disruption. Heathrow has been a case in point: the expansion and additional runway have been spoken about for decades. It is only right that the pros and cons are assessed, and this must be done with a balanced perspective. The Airports Commission recommends the additional runway at Heathrow, and the National Infrastructure Commission has said that it wants it to proceed. The Scottish Government have spoken in support of it in principle, and I have spoken in favour of it, although I have highlighted some concerns.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He mentions the support of the Scottish Government. Until 24 hours ago, the SNP Scottish Government said that they supported expansion at Heathrow airport and looked forward to Scotland seeing the benefits. What has changed in the past 24 hours?
Alan Brown
Sometimes when we take an intervention, we worry about what is going to come and trip us up. That was so obvious that I did not see it coming. If the hon. Gentleman waits and is willing to listen to the rest of my speech, I will set out where I am going.
After forensic analysis, the Transport Committee recommended approval of the national policy statement, but with a considerable number of recommendations for consideration. The proposed expansion at Heathrow has the support, on record, of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce, plus Inverness, Ayrshire, Glasgow, and Edinburgh chambers of commerce. Clearly, it has the backing of the GMB and Unite the Union. As the Transport Secretary said, it has the support of the Regional and Business Airports Group; it has the explicit support of Glasgow, Highlands and Islands and Aberdeen airports; and it has the support of Airlines UK.
As we will hear over the course of tonight, there are concerns about the proposals. Some environmentalists will never support air expansion of any kind. Clearly, there are local objections to do with the impact and disruption; I appreciate that MPs should represent the concerns of their constituents and I can understand why some are against the proposal.
However, given the general support that I have outlined, the Secretary of State should be able to pull this off, and for me this is where he has come up short. He has come up short on addressing the concerns of the Transport Committee, but where he has really come up short is on the protection of slots for domestic flights. My predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), previously raised the issue of protection of slots and the need for point-to-point public service obligations. The Transport Committee highlighted the fact that further clarity was required on national slots in paragraph 3.34 of the national policy statement. This is where the UK Government are, frankly, all over the place. Paragraph 3.34 states:
“The Government recognises that air routes are in the first instance a commercial decision for airlines and are not in the gift of the airport operator.”
The Government then state that they will hold Heathrow airport to account. That is clearly a contradiction: they are saying that it is the airlines that hold the slots, but that they will hold Heathrow airport to account.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I do not understand what difference it makes where the flights are going to. If we want trade and business with the rest of the world, why does that matter? We want that business—why does not the hon. Gentleman?
Alan Brown
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Frankly, as a Scottish MP and an SNP spokesperson on transport, it matters greatly to me where the flights are going. I want these flights, the connectivity for Scotland and the protection that we have not yet heard about from the UK Government.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech. I have a simple question. Does he want the extra 100 flights that an expanded Heathrow will provide for Scotland? Can he give me a simple yes or no?
Alan Brown
I want that, but I also want guarantees of protection. I will come on to that point, so, again, I ask the hon. Gentleman to show a bit of patience and wait.
Chris Grayling
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he confirm whether Heathrow airport has this afternoon agreed with the SNP and the Scottish Government that it is prepared to set aside 200, not 100, slots at Heathrow airport for connections to Scotland? If that is the case, why are they continuing to object to Heathrow’s plans?
Alan Brown
Obviously, 200 slots are preferable to 100 slots. The thing is that only the UK Government can provide the protections. Heathrow has always said that it is willing to work with the Scottish Government, and with the UK Government, but it is only the UK Government who have the powers to provide the guarantees and protection.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making some very important points; what he raises here is a real issue. Let us put this into context. One hundred flights means 50 arrivals a week—seven flights a day. We are talking about Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee, Aberdeen, Prestwick and Inverness. It is simply not enough. Is it not the case that Prestwick has held out its hand to the Scottish Government, but it is the UK Government who have not stood up to protect Scotland’s interests? That is the point.
Alan Brown
I will elaborate on my right hon. Friend’s point later in my speech.
The Government have still not responded properly to recommendation 10 from the Select Committee on Transport, regarding the 15% of new slots for domestic connections. They have fallen short on clarity. Paragraph 1.60 of the Government’s response to the recommendations states:
“The Government expects the majority of these domestic routes from a potentially expanded Heathrow to be commercially viable”.
Expecting the majority of routes to be commercially viable falls a long way short of cast-iron guarantees that the UK Government are going to protect those slots. There is a concession that
“the Government will take action where appropriate to secure routes through the use of Public Service Obligations (PSOs)”,
but, crucially, the Government do not explain how these will be managed. We are advised in paragraph 1.61 that:
“The Government’s expectations on domestic connectivity will be detailed as part of the Aviation Strategy Green Paper”,
which is not expected until the second half of 2018. Having to wait months after tonight’s binding vote in order to get clarity on these points is simply not good enough.
Ian Paisley
As someone who represents one of the regions of the United Kingdom, I understand that the hon. Gentleman wants certainty and clarity about this issue. But does he accept that an expansion, by its very nature, will necessitate more domestic passengers and, hence, more routes will open up locally?
Alan Brown
That is not the case. It all comes back to the protection of slots. Airlines operate the slots. If no protections are put in place, the whole concern is that domestic slots will be lost to more lucrative international flights. That is why I am asking for this protection. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who represents airports in Northern Ireland, would be grateful that I am looking for this guarantee from the Government.
Ian Paisley
But by necessity more passengers will be required to travel through Heathrow. Those passengers are going to come from Northern Ireland, Scotland and the north of England. That is a fact. Some 700,000 passengers annually already travel from Northern Ireland. That number will expand, and it will also expand for Scotland.
Alan Brown
But that is not guaranteed, which is why we need these protections.
Over the years, domestic connectivity and the number of domestic slots have been cut massively because of the way in which the airlines have operated the existing slots. If we are going to get these increases, we need protections in place.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman, speaking up for Scotland as he does. But does he not agree that whether there are 100 or 200 extra flights a week—whatever the figure is—an expanded Heathrow would provide more flights than Scotland currently gets?
Alan Brown
It comes back to the anticipation that 15% of new slots will be available for domestic connectivity. Quite frankly, every regional airport wants a cut of that action. The hon. Gentleman’s local airport, Northern Ireland, Scotland and airports in the north-east of England all want some of that 15%. At the moment, we do not know how that 15% is going to be broken down, or what is going to be provided.
Justine Greening
The Transport Committee’s analysis showed that Scotland will actually lose 2,700 international flights per annum as a result of Heathrow expansion, and that flights will be fewer than they otherwise would have been.
Alan Brown
I do not recognise the exact figure mentioned by the right hon. Lady, but I do accept that Department for Transport figures suggest that direct connections and international connectivity will not increase as much if the Heathrow expansion goes ahead. Yet Scottish airports themselves do not express that concern and they do back the expansion of Heathrow, so I also have to trust their judgment on the matter.
Chris Grayling
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Scottish National party’s view is that because it is not sure how big Scotland’s bit of the cake is going to be, there should be no cake?
Alan Brown
I have also spoken up for other regional airports, because I would expect them to want the same protections that I am asking for when it comes to Scottish airports. It is up to the Secretary of State to give these guarantees and satisfy us on these points.
Paragraph 1.62 of the Government’s response to the Transport Committee’s recommendations explains that the Crown dependencies are also included in the 15% of additional slots. How will the figure actually break down between the Crown dependencies and all the various regional airports?
Ian Blackford
There has been a dereliction of duty by the Secretary of State. The language being used is “up to 15%”. The harsh reality is that Scotland has lost slots in recent years, and we have lost connectivity. The Secretary of State should guarantee connectivity, but he has failed to do so time and again.
Alan Brown
I think that my right hon. Friend was making a rhetorical intervention.
I raised my concerns about slot protection when the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box and made his statement about the NPS. He will be aware that I followed up in writing to seek clarity and assurances, including on the fact that Scotland could have several PSOs if necessary. I asked him how many slots would be protected and what the reality of “up to 15%” would be. I also asked him whether there would be an absolute minimum that the UK Government would seek agreement on, and what percentage of the 15% would be for new routes rather than just additional slots. Just prior to that, a few days after giving the statement, the Secretary offered me a meeting. I stated I was happy to meet him and work with him, but I was instead left with last-minute phone calls with the aviation Minister, who is an unelected peer—not accountable to this place and not even able to come to the Dispatch Box tonight.
Following that there was a letter and DFT public announcements, which were pre-planned anyway. I acknowledge that there has been welcome movement in terms of airport-to-airport PSOs, and the Government have set out the fact that Scotland can have more than one PSO. But I repeat: there is no clarity or assurances regarding how these can or will be implemented. We do not even know whether any money has been set aside or whether there has been any cost analysis of the Government saying that they will provide these PSOs.
If the Heathrow expansion goes ahead and the airlines do forgo their domestic slots for more lucrative international slots—in, say, eight years’ time—what actual obligation is there on a UK Government at that moment in time to act and bring in PSOs? I would suggest that there is none. We cannot bind a future Government, especially given how the provision is set out just now, and that is a critical concern.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman says that he seeks clarity and certainty on what extra slots Scotland will get if the Heathrow expansion goes ahead. I put it to him that the clarity has come from the Secretary of State—that, without Heathrow expansion, there will be no extra slots for Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman support the expansion this evening?
Alan Brown
Well, it is a daft point because it assumes that, if Heathrow goes ahead, the slots will somehow magically be there for Scotland. That is not the point, and that is why we are asking for these guarantees.
Ian Paisley
I really appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way again because it is absolutely essential that the House understands that four out of eight of the domestic routes that are already available go to Scotland. Scotland already stands strong in this area. It does not need protection measures. Indeed, British Airways has already expanded its routes to Inverness.
Alan Brown
The fact is that Scotland has lost a lot of domestic connectivity over the last few years, so the hon. Gentleman is not quite right. It is good that he sees Scotland as strong, but we want to be stronger and we want further connections.
As we have already heard, the Department for Transport said that there would be 100 extra flights a week to Scotland. Although it is now saying that there could be 200 flights coming from Heathrow, it is up to the Government to provide the protections. Let us take the figure of 100 that has been quoted. If, say, Dundee and Prestwick get the new suggested slots, even just a twice-daily service from each of those airports would equate to well over half that figure of 100 flights. When we take the rest and spread it over the rest of Scotland’s airports, it is not actually a great deal of increased connectivity. That is why this falls short of our expectations.
Heathrow airport has made it abundantly clear that it is willing to work with the UK Government on the matter, and acknowledges that it is a Government function to deliver that protection. As has been touched on already, Heathrow has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Scottish Government. The airport has been very open and communicative with both me and my predecessor in the SNP’s transport spokesperson role. I believe that it really wants to deliver on its commitments to Scotland, including the preconstruction logistics hub, for which I appreciate it is currently doing an ongoing assessment. I hope that that assessment concludes that Prestwick airport is successful, because that would be really good for my local area. There is also a stated minimum value of £300 million construction and supply chain contracts for Scotland, and a minimum peak construction job creation of 100 jobs.
Heathrow committed to a £10 passenger fee discount to Scottish airports, and, to be fair, it has since increased that reduction to £15 per passenger. It committed £1.5 million to advertising through a Scotland-specific marketing fund, and it has delivered on that, with only £250,000 outstanding, which it has pledged to use to promote the new V&A museum in Dundee. It has also confirmed that it is now working with VisitScotland to provide a takeover of a gate room to promote Scotland for a five-year period, equating to some £300,000. Cynics will say that it is bound to do these things to keep Scottish MPs and the Scottish Government onside. However, it seems to me that it has delivered to date, and over-delivered in some aspects, so I can only take it at face value.
In the bigger picture, 16,000 jobs are predicted to be generated in Scotland through an expanded Heathrow. These are certainly benefits that I want to see delivered.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with his namesake, Keith Brown, the Cabinet Secretary for the Economy in the Scottish Parliament, who supports the expansion of Heathrow and spoke about it very strongly in 2016? Does he not agree that the jobs he mentions simply will not come if there is not an expansion?
Alan Brown
As I said, I have spoken in favour of expansion before. The Scottish Government have also spoken in favour of it—that is why they have signed a memorandum of understanding. We are just looking for protections and deliverability.
Some people have asked, why Heathrow and not further expansion in Scotland? We have to acknowledge the reality that Heathrow has been the hub airport for the UK for 40 years, and there is not the critical mass in Scotland for getting such a hub-status airport. That is why the Scottish airports have supported the principle of Heathrow expansion.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Alan Brown
No, I need to make progress.
Some of my other concerns relate to the UK Government’s responses to the Transport Committee. The Secretary of State said that he had acted on 24 out of 25 of its recommendations, but that painted a more proactive representation than what the Government have actually taken on board. Their responses have not been robust enough. I am sure that the Chair of the Committee will cover these aspects later on. My key concerns include the response to recommendation 12, which is about airport charges being held flat in real terms. This would address some of the wider concerns about the cost of the expansion being passed on directly to the airlines. The UK Government have said that expansion cannot come at any cost, yet they are passing the buck to the Civil Aviation Authority.
Recommendation 25 is about policy and ways to maximise other runway capacity across the UK. That is not a make-or-break condition, but it would have been nice if the UK Government had got this policy in place at the same time as they are bringing this proposal forward. On the air quality issues in the Committee’s recommendations 3 to 6, the Government need to confirm that Heathrow’s triple lock is sufficient and that development consent will be robust enough to address those issues. More importantly, it needs to be confirmed that the expansion of Heathrow will not compromise obligations on climate change.
I have outlined my concerns—
Alan Brown
I was going to fast-forward there, but I think the House wants to hear me speak for a wee bit longer, so I am quite happy to do that.
This is a project where people tailor their arguments to try and bring other people onside. In a recent Westminster Hall debate, I had Tory rebels urging me not to vote with nasty Tories, and Tory and Labour MPs expressing their concerns about what Heathrow expansion would mean for an independent Scotland. I heard concern from the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) that this investment will take away infrastructure investment in Scotland. Frankly, these are all false arguments.
The announcement of a multi-billion-pound infrastructure project should be good news. The predicted job growth and opportunities for Scotland should be good news, and certainly businesses see the merit in the expansion proposals. As I said, I want the jobs to come to Scotland, I want a logistics hub at Prestwick, and I want the additional regional airport connectivity—but crucially, I want these aspects guaranteed, and that is where the UK Government have fallen short. I have been supportive to date. I certainly will not vote against these proposals, because of what I hope the opportunities are for Scotland, but given that the UK Government cannot and will not provide these guarantees, I also cannot, unfortunately, vote with the Government.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
There is no doubt that large-scale infrastructure projects will always be controversial, and no doubt that this is a large-scale infrastructure project that is incredibly controversial. That is one of the reasons why the coalition Government asked the Davies commission to do a report. That was supported by the House at the time, including by the Opposition. It was an attempt to try to get an expert opinion to take us forward through a report that we could take a proper decision on.
I am incredibly disappointed by the way that the SNP has responded today, because a big issue like this needs cross-party support to take it forward. These things do not happen in one Parliament; they go forward over many Parliaments. I heard the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) question the Secretary of State on 5 June, just 20 days ago, when he said:
“To be fair, Heathrow has engaged fully with the Scottish Government, and has signed a memorandum of understanding in relation to commitments”.
He went on to say:
“However, all but one of the Scottish airport operators support it. So do the various Scottish chambers of commerce, because they recognise the business benefits that it can bring to Scotland, including…16,000 new jobs. That helped to sway me, and the Scottish Government have reiterated their support.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 175.]
Well, support means votes. It does not mean trying to abstain at the end of the day when an important decision like this comes about. However, I can assure the SNP that the Secretary of State for Scotland will carry on making the case for Scotland in the House of Commons and at the Cabinet table, and so will my 13 colleagues who represent Scottish constituencies. The people of Scotland can feel let down by the SNP for playing party politics, because that is absolutely all that this decision is about.
Chris Grayling
I thank my right hon. Friend for the important point that he is making. Will he join me in paying tribute to Scotland’s best representatives—the team of Conservatives who would not play party games like those we have just heard and who are acting truly in the interests of Scotland and the Scottish people?
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I urge SNP Members, even at this late stage, to change their minds on this and follow through on what they say they support with their votes, because this is too important a matter not to do so.
It is now 50 years since the Roskill commission first started its work on expansion. I was first made a junior Minister in the Department of Transport in 1989. I was originally told that I was going to be the Minister for roads, but the then Secretary of State, Cecil Parkinson, informed me that I was going to be the Minister for aviation and shipping—which was a bit of a surprise to me, especially bearing in mind my fear of flying at the time. In 1989, there were 368,430 air traffic movements at Heathrow airport. We have gradually seen those grow, up until 2006, when the figure was 477,000 movements a year, peaking in 2011 at 480,000. There has been growth and expansion at Heathrow, and during that time NOx emissions have in fact reduced. That has come about partly due to newer and better aircrafts. I think that Heathrow has got the message that it has to improve on environmental issues, and that has moved substantially up the track.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the other change at Heathrow over that period is the massive improvement in connectivity? HS2, which he contributed to, will be part of that process, and Crossrail is another part of it. Heathrow is massively more connected now than it ever was in the early 1990s.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with him.
I fully understand that my colleagues who represent local seats say that this is wrong for their constituents, but one question they need to address is: change or no change? Without the expansion, there will be no change. With the expansion, there will be a number of changes—not least, an extension of the ban on scheduled night flights to six-and-a-half hours, legally binding noise envelopes, predictable periods of respite for every local community, extending compensation to more than 3,000 additional properties, a £1 billion compensation package for local people, a new independent community engagement board, a new independent noise authority and 10,000 apprenticeships. That is why it is rather disappointing to hear the Labour Front Benchers change their tune today, in a way that some leading trade unionists who support the project have not done.
“The benefits of a third runway at Heathrow to our members are clear and compelling: 180,000 new jobs, doubling the number of apprenticeships to 10,000 and £187 billion in economic benefits.”
Those are not my words; they are the words of Len McCluskey, along with four other trade union leaders. That is the point they have made.
What has changed since the setting up of the Davies commission is the revolution on the Labour Benches, which has seen the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) assume the role of shadow Chancellor. I accept that he has long been an opponent of this scheme, but the truth of the matter is that setting up the Davies commission in 2012 to do a detailed investigation into the right way forward was the right thing to do. It was not just Howard Davies, but also John Armitt and Professor Dame Julia King, who is a leading expert in the environment.
In the past 10 years, we have seen £12 billion of investment in Heathrow airport, which has been very beneficial to the airport and to the country. Part of that—[Interruption.] Sorry, I thought the shadow Transport Secretary, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) wished to intervene, but he does not. That investment has been very welcome, and it has led to a better facility for passengers.
One thing that the Government have to do—I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes this fully on board—is to ensure that this expansion is done to budget. There have already been trimmings on the cost of the original scheme, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on driving that. The CAA must ensure that that happens, so that we do not put too much extra cost on travelling passengers or indeed the plane operators. That will be very important for the future of Heathrow, and it is well aware of that. We are seeing investment proposals.
Sir Nicholas Soames
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on everything that he did on this when he was Secretary of State. Does he agree that the whole credibility of this vast scheme will depend on control of the cost and the way in which that is transparent to the House?
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I agree with my right hon. Friend. When the Secretary of State made his statement three weeks ago, I raised that point with him, and he was very clear on it.
This is one of the biggest infrastructure projects that the country faces over the next 10 years. We have been better on infrastructure over the past few years. We are about to see the opening of the Elizabeth line, which will make a tremendous difference, including to Heathrow airport, and that has been part of the investment cost. This is long planned and long overdue. I believe that this is the right scheme to go for, and I congratulate the Secretary of State on bringing forward these proposals.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Fast, reliable and affordable transport has the power to make a real difference to people’s lives. That is why I am a passionate believer in the transformative power of improving transport. If Britain is to have any chance of succeeding in a post-Brexit world, improved connectivity, both outside our islands and around them, is key. Among the most pressing of the challenges facing our transport system is the need for additional airport capacity in the south-east of England. Failure to address that challenge will mean less choice, more disruption and higher air fares for UK passengers. Along with the other members of the Transport Committee, I agree that building an additional runway at Heathrow is, in principle, the right answer to our aviation capacity challenge, provided there are safeguards and mitigations to protect passengers and affected communities.
The Secretary of State has already set out the economic benefits that could be achieved with expansion. The case is compelling, but have the Government been as candid with MPs and the public as this decision deserves, acknowledging not just the benefits but the costs and risks? Ensuring that the NPS properly reflects the weight of evidence in the supporting documents was the first objective of the Transport Committee’s report. Our Committee’s detailed analysis of the Department for Transport’s forecasts revealed that future passenger growth, and the destination and route offering at the UK level, are broadly similar over the longer term to those of the other schemes. That is not reflected in the final NPS.
At the current costs anticipated for the north-west runway scheme, there is a very real possibility that domestic routes from Heathrow will not be commercially viable. Ministers have told us that they intend to use public service obligations to guarantee regional connections, yet their own 2013 guidance on the use of PSOs states:
“Government considers it unlikely that PSOs would be appropriate for new routes from the regions to London.”
What has changed since 2013 to make a policy that was ruled out then viable today? Even if PSOs could be used, it is not clear what level of subsidy would be needed and whether those subsidies would be provided in perpetuity.
Justine Greening
That is an important point, and it has not yet been raised—PSOs will require subsidies. For example, in Cornwall, Cornish taxpayers are subsidising the PSO, but those flights are to Gatwick. If Heathrow has a PSO, it will be way more expensive for taxpayers, and they are unaware of that.
Lilian Greenwood
I hope the Minister addresses the issues around PSOs in his closing remarks.
The analysis supporting the decision is extensive; what is lacking is a fair and transparent representation of the information in the NPS to the House. For example, the Committee’s scrutiny revealed that the Department’s methods of presentation hid compelling noise modelling showing that more than 300,000 people are estimated to be newly affected by significant noise annoyance due to an expanded Heathrow. The total number of people in the noise annoyance footprint is estimated to be more than 1.15 million. Our investigations also indicated that those estimates are likely to be toward the lower end of the scale of potential impacts.
Chris Grayling
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but will she confirm that I made that clear in my statement to the House on the publication of the draft NPS? I also indicated that we expected that that would be a temporary process while technology changed, and that those figures assumed no mitigation measures, whereas we intend significant mitigation measures, including, for example, the night flight ban.
Lilian Greenwood
The Secretary of State has clarified that issue. I simply want to ensure that Members have the full range of information in front of them before they vote this evening.
There are many instances where the assumptions underpinning the analysis misrepresented what was likely to occur in practice. For example, the Department has assumed that all the capacity will be filled within two years of an opening date in 2026, yet Heathrow’s own business plan expects phased expansion over five to 10 years. Earlier this month, the Secretary of State told the House:
“We have accepted the recommendations…and will follow faithfully the Select Committee’s wishes to make sure that its recommendations are properly addressed at each stage of the process.”—[Official Report, 5 June 2018; Vol. 642, c. 174.]
These are fine words but, disappointingly, they are not matched with actions, and the NPS has not been updated.
The second objective of our Committee’s scrutiny was to ensure that the NPS provided suitable safeguards for passengers and affected communities. We know that the Government have been struggling to deal with air quality in London for years. The Committee made two recommendations on changing the wording of the NPS to provide air quality safeguards. The Government did not accept these recommendations. On noise, we wanted to ensure that there were clear safeguards for communities, including guaranteed respite. The Government did not accept most of our recommendations to safeguard communities from noise impacts. On surface access, we recommended a condition of approval to ensure that the scheme would not result in more airport-related traffic on London’s roads. The Government did not accept that recommendation.
Chris Grayling
Will the hon. Lady confirm that if there is a point of disagreement between us, it is simply that we accepted the Committee’s recommendations but also said that the appropriate moment to insert them would be at the development consent order stage, rather than the NPS stage? Will she confirm that we have very clearly said that we will insert those at the DCO stage?
Lilian Greenwood
I confirm that that is the Secretary of State’s view, and I will come on to my concerns about that approach in due course.
On protections for communities, we recommended that compensation be independently assessed and reviewed once the full impacts were known. The Government did not accept this recommendation. On protection for passengers, we recommended a condition of approval in the NPS that passenger charges be held flat in real terms unless not doing so was in their interests. The Government did not accept this recommendation.
Lilian Greenwood
No. I am conscious of time.
The Committee did not make a specific recommendation on carbon emissions, but the NPS scheme must be compatible with our climate change obligations. As others have already said, this remains very uncertain. The Government have told us that our recommendations will be dealt with during the development consent order process, in consultation with communities and other stakeholders, but our recommendations were made on the basis that there were not enough safeguards in the DCO process to ensure that high-level policy objectives on noise, air quality, surface access, regional connectivity and costs could be achieved.
The third objective of the Committee’s recommendations was to limit the risk of legal challenge, yet not providing fundamentally important information on possible environmental, health and community impacts seems to be a point on which a judicial review may be focused. Baroness Sugg told us recently that making the meaningful changes to the NPS we sought would add a six to nine-month delay to the process. Given the potential scale of the impacts of this scheme and the decades it has taken to get to this point, a few extra months may seem an appropriate price to pay, especially given the Government’s self-imposed delays since the Airports Commission reported in July 2015.
This is a vital decision about our national infrastructure. Additional runway capacity must be delivered. I do not doubt the Government’s intent, but rather their ability to deliver. Some of my Select Committee colleagues will accept the Government’s assurances, but I intend to be guided by the evidence. I have no doubt that the Government intended their air quality plans to ensure compliance with legal standards, but three times the courts rejected them. I am certain that the Department for Transport intended to electrify 850 miles of railway and to introduce new rail timetables successfully but, as we know, the reality has sometimes fallen short of the ambition. This NPS leaves too many risks: the risk of a successful legal challenge; the risk of harming communities; the risk of rising charges; and the risk of a failure to deliver new domestic connections. If a substantial proportion of the Committee’s recommendations had been incorporated, I would have felt able to vote for the motion. I wish that I could do so but, without them, I am afraid that I cannot.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who made a very powerful speech.
I do not think that the proposal before the House will be seen as Parliament’s finest hour. It is very easy to dismiss the contributions of MPs perhaps who have communities overflown by Heathrow planes, but nearly 3 million Londoners will be affected if this expansion goes ahead. However, this is actually a vote that will affect all our communities in one way or another.
I think that the story of Heathrow is a story of broken promises, broken politics and broken economics. Those of us with communities around Heathrow know about Heathrow’s broken promises better than anyone else. There has been no action, despite promises, on night flights. The first flight over my community’s homes today was at 4.29 this morning. Under this proposal, we will actually end up with more early morning flights, not fewer. There has been no action on sticking even to existing rules on respite. I have been at public meetings at which the current Heathrow management has said that the previous promises made by previous managers should never have been made. Regional MPs who are banking on promises from Heathrow should bear that in mind when they sign up to this proposal today.
Of course, the ultimate broken promise was when the fifth terminal got planning permission. There was an express condition for local people of having no third runway, but look at where we are today. The bottom line is that any assurances in the development consent order are literally not worth the paper they are written on. Dare I say it, but with the greatest respect, Ministers will be long gone by the time those Members who are promised that their regional airports will get extra connections find out that those connections have not materialised. Such a “facts of life” explanation to them from a future Minister will be that their county council has to pay perhaps £10 million a year for their route to Heathrow. The problem, however, will be that no airline will want to provide it, because that is not a big enough subsidy, and doing so would be uneconomic. There have been broken promises in the past, and there are more to come for other MPs from Heathrow Airport Ltd.
What about broken politics? As we have heard, MPs are not being shown any kind of proper planning for a third runway. There will be 28 million extra passengers a year, but there is a promise from Heathrow that not a single extra car journey will happen. How is that going to be achieved? We do not have a plan for that. West London is illegally breaching air pollution limits, and there are similar problems in my own community. Expanding Heathrow makes that significantly worse. There is no plan at all.
No flight paths have been published today for communities to see. There is no plan on tackling carbon emissions. There is no plan on how to ring-fence domestic routes, as promised. Members might be interested to hear that the regional air connectivity fund set off with 11 new routes in 2016, but just two are still operating, and those are doing so at reduced frequency because they were not economic. There is no plan on how to have a freight hub in such a congested area. There is no assessment of how the resultant congestion charge that will become necessary will affect the west London economy.
Of most concern to people in this House is the fact that there has been no formal safety review—yet—even though the crash risk goes up by 60% in the most densely populated bit of the country, including my own community. When the Health and Safety Laboratory did its estimate of that crash risk, it asked DFT officials whether they wanted the population numbers impacted by the crash risk to be modelled, and they were told no, that was not necessary. Safety has been far from the top priority of the Department for Transport.
The process to create what little planning there is has been totally flawed. Consultations are never—I repeat, never—listened to. The Airports Commission got its numbers wrong. MPs have been given erroneous impressions of the impact on regional airports. The Government have had to reissue the draft NPS because its numbers were incorrect. Parliamentary questions have not been properly answered in the very short time MPs have had to ask them since the statement was first made. People simply get ignored in this process. They have to be either a big business or a big union before their voice counts, and that is totally unacceptable.
After all that, the DFT disagrees with its own analysis. It picks the project that it shows has a lower level of total benefits to passengers and the wider economy than Gatwick. It picks the project that is likely to need the biggest taxpayer subsidy. It picks the project that is the most risky by far. It picks the project that cannibalises the transport budget for the rest of the country. It picks the project that harms the growth of regional airports. That is why this is a story of broken economics. Even Heathrow knows that this is risky, which is why it has a poison-pill cost-recovery clause in the pre-legal contract, effectively outsourcing the economic risk to taxpayers.
Heathrow knows that there is a massive risk of the project going belly up. When that happens, it will be in a strong position to turn round and ask taxpayers to pay. When it turns out that the problem of air pollution is insurmountable, we will be asked to pay for the runway that it cannot use.
Zac Goldsmith
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent, forensic speech. It has been said in the debate that without cross-party support we cannot hope to deliver an infrastructure project of this magnitude. Three of the four main parties in the House are not in favour of the scheme. Does she not think that that adds to the undeliverability of the project?
Justine Greening
Absolutely. This requires cross-party support, which is simply not there. Heathrow’s problem is that it is a hub airport in the wrong place, which means that it is expensive. Passenger charges are 40% more expensive than at rival European airports. That is why Leeds Bradford routes have been cut. It is not because there is not space—it already has space—but because those routes are simply uneconomic.
Steve Double
My understanding is that flights have been cut on those routes because of the unavailability of aircraft and crew, not because of the cost.
Justine Greening
No, Leeds Bradford has tended to hub out of Schiphol because it is cheaper. This is about economics, which matter. The bottom line is that in expanding Heathrow the economics and the expensiveness of the airport become worse, putting more pressure on domestic flights, with a loss of flights to emerging markets. Flights to places such as Dar es Salaam and Osaka, for example, have been cut.
In today’s vote, Heathrow Airport Ltd is seeking to go one further than outsourcing economic risk to the taxpayer. It wants to outsource political risk to MPs who are prepared to sign up to its project today. We know that in the end it will not deliver for the regions or communities. I am not surprised that the Scottish National party has begun to see through the proposal. I hope that it continues to see through it, and I wish that it would vote against it today.
There is an alternative: a proper regional strategy for airports around the UK, including in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, and around our country in England, which would bring connectivity to the world for communities that need and deserve it, and regional economies too, bringing investment direct to the door. As I said, we have just had the first non-stop flight from Sydney to London. Direct flights—people being able to go from A to B—are the future of aviation. Low-cost carriers are moving into that market. They want to operate out of cheap airports, on the doorstep of communities and regions that need them—not an over-expensive airport at Heathrow.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you asked me to come up with the most backward-looking, ill thought-through, poorly bottomed-out, badly articulated, on a wing and a prayer, bad value-for-money, most polluting airport plan I could find, this would be it. It is hugely polluting for my local community. To have only a four-hour debate on such a monumental infrastructure decision is an absolute disgrace. I am staggered that the House is seriously contemplating voting for the fantasy economics attached to such an expensive and risky airport plan. If we vote for that tonight, it will be proven that the House has not done due diligence properly, and people should rightly hold us to account for that. I will certainly vote against the proposal, not just on behalf of my community but on behalf of my country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I call John McDonnell. The time limit will go down to six minutes after John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I shall seek to go under eight minutes if I can, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Speaker for allowing me to speak from the Back Benches, given the direct impact of the proposal on my constituency and my constituents, who find the whole debate heartbreaking.
Occasionally in the House there are defining moments, and I think that this is a defining moment on a number of issues. It is a defining vote tonight. As we have heard in the debate, it is a defining vote, first, on climate change. The evidence from the Select Committee on Transport and others basically outlines the fact that if we are to tackle climate change, as the Committee on Climate Change said, we have to restrict the growth of aviation to 55%. However, as has been evidenced in the debate, it looks as if it might hit 90% or 100% by 2050. As a result of Heathrow expansion, that means that regional airports will have to be constrained or, as the Committee on Climate Change said, other sectors of industry will be constrained within our economy. To be frank, on past evidence we will not meet those targets, so we will jeopardise our potential to tackle climate change.
The second issue that has been raised in our discussions is whether we are going to tackle the grotesque inequalities of investment geographically across the country. Tonight, we have learned from some of the views that have been expressed that we will not do so. The economic benefits were announced by the Airports Commission: we were meant to gain £147 billion. The Government reduced that figure to £74 billion, then to £72 billion. Now we know that that was the gross benefit, and that the present net value ranges from £3 billion over 60 years to minus £2 billion. If there is a 1% delay in the project, that is completely wiped out. Costs will not be borne by Heathrow Airport Ltd, because it has a leverage rate—a debt to asset value—of 85%. If it expands that will be over 90%. When the Government—not with my wishes—privatised the National Air Traffic Services, we prevented companies from bidding if they went anywhere near 65%. Heathrow will not find the money—the cost will be borne by taxpayers. The biggest taxpayer burden will be the surface infrastructure, assessed by Transport for London as £15 billion.
That money will come from investments, but they will not be in London and the south-east, and we will see delays and the ending of investments in transport and infrastructure around the country. We have heard about the growth of regional airports being held back, but the proposal will hold back growth in road and rail, along with all the benefits of infrastructure.
Ruth Cadbury
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the much needed infrastructure promised as part of this statement—the southern and western rail links, along with Crossrail—have been on the cards for many years, and are needed for the existing number of passengers at Heathrow?
John McDonnell
It is an obvious point that we have made time and again in the House. We have been pressing for investment in infrastructure for the existing airport, but it has not been forthcoming.
We do not even know what the infrastructure plan is for the area. Last time, the infrastructure plan included a road through my local cemetery. We were meant to disinter the dead to enable access to Heathrow. We have still not seen the infrastructure plans. No wonder my constituents are angry about this. That is the third defining point. Does the House stand up for people and communities, especially working-class communities, or does it stand up to protect the interests of a corporate cartel that has ripped us off for decades? Ask how much—
John McDonnell
I would respect the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, if he accepted a runway in his constituency south of Heathrow, but he refused.
Look at how much corporation tax has been paid by this company over the past 10 years: £24 million. It has been borrowing to pay dividends more than its profit ratios. That is the nature of the company we are dealing with. It is a company and an operation at Heathrow that has lied to my constituents. When it got the fifth terminal, a letter was sent to my constituents. I had meetings with the directors of Heathrow and they were beside me saying, “We will not seek a third runway.” Within 12 months, they were lobbying for one. We were told by a former Conservative Prime Minister, “No ifs, no buts, no third runway”. They never told us that promise was for one Parliament. The existing Prime Minister backed that guarantee to my constituents.
These are the consequences for my constituents that hon. Members need to know: 4,000 homes will go; 8,000 to 10,000 people will be forcibly removed from their community, the biggest forced removal of human beings since the Scottish highland clearances; and a church, a temple, community centres, open spaces and even our hospices are now threatened. That is what it means to my community. Two schools—where will they go? It is no good offering them 125% compensation. You cannot compensate for the loss of your whole community. We have a housing crisis in our area on a scale not seen since the second world war. We cannot house our existing population. Where will they go? Two schools, at least, closed, with another one, most probably, after that. We have not got enough places for our existing pupils. Where will they go? We cannot find sites to build the new schools we currently need.
Those who get forced out might be the lucky ones, because the ones left behind are already breathing in air that is already poisoned above 2010 EU limits. No effective mitigation measures have been demonstrated to us tonight. We know the health consequences—respiratory conditions and cancer—yet the Government have refused to undertake a comprehensive health assessment.
Andy McDonald
Is my right hon. Friend as surprised as I am that there is nothing specific in the revised national policy statement that adequately sets out a framework for dealing with our air pollution crisis?
John McDonnell
We have 9,000 people a year in London dying from air pollution, yet there is nothing in the Government proposals that goes anywhere near even thinking about tackling these issues. Those are the consequences for my community, despite all the promises they have been given that their homes would be secure. These are villages that have been there for 1,000 years, to be wiped off the face of the earth—and for what? To ensure that a company maximises its profits. This is a company owned by Ferrovial, which was founded by Franco contracts, by the Chinese state and by Qatar. It is shipping profits abroad, rather than reinvesting in this country. That is what this vote is about tonight.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
John McDonnell
I will finish on this point, because other Members want to speak.
This decision tonight will likely go through, but there will inevitably be legal challenges from a cross-party group and the London boroughs, as well as the Mayor of London. I believe, like last time, that those legal challenges will win. We will be left, yet again, with not tackling the real problem of developing a real aviation strategy that builds on the five airports around London, develops the regional airports we need, and connects them up with the rail and road infrastructure we desperately need. We will be back here yet again, having failed. I tell Members this as well: if the courts do not decide this, there will be a campaign. This will be the iconic, totemic battleground of climate change, which will attract protesters and campaigners from across Europe. This issue will not go away.
Before Members vote, I want to leave them with one thing in their mind: remember the name Armelle Thomas, resident of Harmsworth. Her husband, my friend, died a short while back. Tommy Thomas came to this country during the second world war to fight for this country against fascism. He flew airplanes for the RAF on some of the most dangerous secret missions into France. Armelle is his widow. His home that he built up with Armelle is in the centre of what will be the runway itself. There are human costs to this decision that Members need to recognise and contemplate before they vote tonight to worry and blight my community once again on a project that will never—pardon the pun—take off.
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con)
May I begin by first commending my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) for resigning on a point of principle to stand up for his constituents in the way that he made public at the last election? Similarly, in two general elections, 2015 and 2017, I stood on the position that I would support airport expansion in south-east England. That is why, this evening, I will be supporting the Government. However, I want to make a few points about the local impact of that decision and some broader points on the capacity of this country to make strategic decisions about the infrastructure it requires in future.
I came to the decision I did in 2013 because, on balance, the socioeconomic impact on my constituency was positive if we expanded capacity in the south-east of England, at both Gatwick and Heathrow. I am in favour of the expansion of both airports for that reason. It did not go unnoticed—I promise hon. Members that my postbag was large—that the impact of noise in my constituency was significant and, indeed, had grown, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said in an intervention, because of the unilateral decision by the National Air Traffic Services to change the flight pattern, with no prior notice to anybody—including the airport itself. That impact has been significant. Despite that, I have stayed true to my word, recognising that an expansion of airport capacity in the south-east is, on balance, to the benefit of my constituents.
I say to colleagues on both sides of the House: let us be realistic about the world in which we live. In this post-Brexit world that the country voted for, there is little avoiding the fact that we are going to need intercontinental connections. This is what the country voted for. It is going to have an impact on the environment, a point made so eloquently and passionately by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but it is what the public voted for. Until we invent a means of transport that flies through the air and does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, that is going to be the case. I therefore ask the Government to recognise that fact and that they need to take the issue of noise in particular seriously—I know they do: they have made some assurances today for that reason. But they must also recognise that the way the world works at the moment is not sustainable.
We must look at how the global economy works and the impact that that is having on the need for people to travel. All travel at the moment involves carbon dioxide being released into the air. As far as I am concerned—it is 17th-century physics—that is having an impact on the environment. It is extremely important that Britain takes that seriously and engages internationally on this issue.
I will not take all of my time, because I know colleagues want to speak. My final plea is on strategic thinking. Take a look at how long it took to build terminal 5. As I recall, it took eight years to get planning permission. Take a look at how long it has taken to build HS2—I am not a big fan of HS2: the future is fast data, not fast people, and I struggle with the justification for that project. Take a look at the world that we are growing into—an ageing world where, in future, transportation may be more domestic than international, because we need to look after our elderly. Take a look at the future in terms of who we are competing with and who we want to trade with. Do we want to trade with countries if it then involves significant pollution from the transport of their goods by boat and plane to our shores, or do we want to trade with countries closer to home?
If I look at the decisions that we have made as a country over recent decades, involving both political parties, what comes out at me is a complete absence of strategy. The Government should create a unit that looks at the long-term, strategic approach of this country in the world where we currently live, and the world that we are growing into. That is long overdue. If we are going to make such decisions, we need to make them quickly. The world changes even more quickly now than it did when we first started talking about airport capacity. We need to be agile. Above all, we need to be competitive, but in being competitive we cannot lose sight of the impact that it will have on our local communities and the wider community across the globe. If Britain wants to be successful and lead the world in protecting our globe—our planet—it needs to get real about its long-term strategy.
Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome today’s debate. Finally, after decades of dithering, this House is being asked to trigger the process that could approve a third runway for Heathrow, the UK’s only hub airport. The debate on the expansion of aviation capacity in the south-east has always focused on balancing the importance of international connectivity with its impact on key local and international environmental issues, such as noise and emissions, but taking a decision has been put in the “too hard” box for far too long.
I support a third runway at Heathrow: the case for jobs and the economy is overwhelming. Heathrow has been virtually full for a decade for both passengers and freight. Failure to take a decision has already had consequences. Airports in the regions have not benefited; instead, the UK has lost out to other hubs—to places such as Frankfurt, Paris, and Schiphol, and further afield, Dubai. Only this week it has been reported that Munich has now overtaken Heathrow for international connectivity. That has impeded the development of much needed trade outside Europe, and it has severe consequences for the economy. A 10% increase in air connectivity brings a 0.5% increase in per capita GDP.
Heathrow is particularly important for freight, especially to countries outside Europe. Adding one flight to each of Heathrow’s five routes to China would deliver an extra £16 million per annum to our economy, creating 530 jobs, and that cannot be done without the expansion of Heathrow. All the main business organisations, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce, have repeatedly warned that cargo capacity to pivotal trading markets in Shanghai, Delhi and Dubai is virtually full. The CBI is concerned that if additional capacity is not available by 2030, we could lose £5 billion per annum in trade to Brazil, Russia, India and China alone. These concerns are echoed by the major trade unions. We ignore these warnings at our peril.
Expanding Heathrow is not an alternative to supporting airports in the regions. Airlines take commercial decisions about where they will fly; if Heathrow is full, the alternative has been another hub, such as Paris, Frankfurt or other airports—it has not been to move to the English regions. I support all efforts to develop airports in the regions, and that includes improving surface access, but the shortage of slots at Heathrow has weakened regional connectivity. Liverpool was squeezed out by Heathrow decades ago because of the shortage of slots. The commitment for 15% of new slots in an expanded Heathrow to be reserved for links to the regions is to be welcomed. For Liverpool John Lennon airport, Heathrow expansion offers a direct connection to international flights, plus a logistics hub, with the potential of a lasting legacy of construction and engineering skills for future generations, but it is essential that that is delivered.
The economic case for expanding Heathrow is overwhelming, but environmental concerns are critical as well. They could, and should, be addressed through the development consent process and other methods, such as taking steps to impose legally binding targets, better aircraft design, much improved public transport and a new use of airspace strategy.
Today is a watershed. We must draw a line under decades of dithering and take the bold decision that is required in the national interest. Expansion at Heathrow will link the UK to vital emerging markets, make it possible for airports outside the south-east to be connected to the hub, and bring jobs and opportunities across the country. The House should now take the responsible decision: support the national policy statement and back a third runway for Heathrow.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I rise on behalf of my constituents to say that, in my judgment, this development is one that should be supported. About 750 of my constituents are directly employed at Heathrow airport, but many thousands more are economically dependent on its success.
It might well be that if we were starting from scratch, Heathrow airport would not be developed on the site where it is at present, but the reality is that in a country that is very crowded, particularly in the south-east of England, we have been quite successful in getting quarts into pint pots and minimising the environmental impact that might take place elsewhere if another hub airport had to be developed. The idea, for example, that we could successfully build one in the Thames estuary without vast amounts of environmental damage is simply fanciful. I am also convinced that we need a hub airport and that a capacity is being reached.
All those things take me to the view that this development, if it can be achieved within the environmental parameters, to which I shall come back in a moment, ought to be supported. I say that, I might add, even though I am probably going to be personally affected: living where I do in Hammersmith, I have absolutely no doubt that I shall be directly under the northern flight path into the airport.
My concerns, however, are these. First, there has been a consistent lack of strategic planning about the area around Heathrow airport. At the moment, many of my constituents, particularly in Iver, which is closest to the airport, have their lives blighted by the consequences of that. Developments that were allowed to take place during the second world war, which are now linked to the airport’s success, provide a level of planning blight that is exceptionally bad. Just to give an idea to the House, in Iver village, where two heavy goods vehicles cannot pass each other without going on to the pavement, one HGV per minute goes through the village street. All this is linked to the fact that Heathrow airport is an economic hub and presents real difficulties for my residents that, I might add, are going to continue even if this development does not go ahead.
Secondly, there is the problem of noise. It is difficult to make a judgment as to what the noise levels will be from the construction of a north-west runway, but there is no doubt that even today in the southernmost bit of my constituency, people are affected by the noise of aircraft on the ground. That, too, is going to have to be addressed, and I am very concerned that the current project does not necessarily envisage some of those residents being entitled to compensation. I was glad to hear from the Secretary of State today that that will be reviewed.
My third concern is about the entire environment in which I live. The Colne Valley is an area of biodiversity. It is also exceptionally attractive, and could be made much more so, if the proper investment went in. One of the things I look to from the development of a third runway is that some of those developments will be facilitated. If they are forthcoming, these developments, be they putting in the proper road infrastructure and an Iver relief road or environmental improvements in the Colne Valley, are capable of delivering a better outcome for my constituents and the environment than they have at present. That is one reason why, at this stage, I am prepared to support the scheme.
I am left with a slight sense that people see this vote as final. One should read what the NPS actually says. Paragraphs 112 through to 120 make clear the targets to be met if the Secretary of State is ever to sanction the development. If they cannot be met, as the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has correctly said, there will be successful legal challenges. In those circumstances, I would want those legal challenges to succeed: I will certainly not condemn my constituents, or those of any other part of London or its immediate and adjacent areas, to levels of pollution that do not meet the environmental standards to which we have said we will adhere. I see that as a major challenge for the Government to meet.
Justine Greening
My right hon. and learned Friend has made an important point. The problem is that the assessment would come after Heathrow had spent probably billions of pounds on a runway that it was then unable to use, and it would seek to recover that from the taxpayer.
Mr Grieve
I take my right hon. Friend’s point, but the modelling that will have to take place even before the development proceeds ought to be capable of identifying whether that will happen. If it is to fall on the taxpayer to compensate for the failure of the scheme once it starts, that is something the Secretary of State will have to take full account of before giving any approval.
For those reasons, and because I happen to believe that a hub airport is a necessity and cannot be avoided, and because I also believe that there are real economic benefits for this country that cannot be ignored, I am prepared tonight to support the Government—but, as I say, my support is conditional. If this project is to deliver a better future for our country generally and for local residents, the Government will have to show that they understand the wider considerations of environmental benefit and improvement that must go with it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. After the next speaker, I am afraid that I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes, and I remind people that interventions mean that others might not be able to get in. I say that particularly to people who have already spoken.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I start by expressing my respect for the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands) for having resigned from the Government over this issue. I, like him and quite a few other Members, am concerned partly about our own residents and partly about the wider national interest. We are being criticised in some quarters for being nimbys, but in this case our backyard is very large indeed. At present, 1 million people are affected by the 51 Leq—equivalent continuous sound level—noise contour, which is a good definition of serious impact, and that number will increase substantially.
The aspect of noise that I want to focus on, however, has already been alluded to by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and others, and this is the deliberate creation of what our residents now call “noise sewers”: the deliberate concentration of flights along particular routes. The problem is aggravated by the absence of regulations governing the angle of take-off, which is judged by airlines specifically according to fuel savings. Tens of thousands of residents under take-off paths as well as landing paths are subject to extreme and prolonged forms of noise pollution. The question now is: how will the expansion of Heathrow affect that?
The number of flights is to increase by more than 50%, and the NPS says it would like to keep the proportion of people additionally affected to around 10%, so almost by definition those who will experience the greatest hardship and environmental damage will be those under the existing flight paths. I invite the Minister in reply to give some reassurance to those who have to deal with this noise sewage problem and say how that can be alleviated within the overall policy. We do not know the future flight paths or whether the Government will regulate to deal with some of the effects, but perhaps they could give us some assurances.
On the wider national picture, I strongly agree with the analysis of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I do not necessarily agree with his approach to public finances, but on the financing of the airport he is absolutely right. Heathrow Ltd is an exceedingly dodgy company by any reckoning: last year, its profits were just over £500 million, but it remitted in dividends over £700 million; it extracts rent in the form of monopoly rent from its existing holdings, particularly its monopoly control of carparks; it has very little interest in development; and its balance sheet position is terrible—it has run down its shareholder funds from £5 billion to about £700 million and it has doubled its debt. It has no interest in development and no competence in managing the kind of risky project now envisaged. The only way the Government can cope is by underwriting the company. We know in practice, however, that the regulator, because of the regulatory asset base system of regulation at the airport, will increase landing charges to enable the investment to remain profitable. The worry expressed by people such as Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways, is that passengers—or a combination of the taxpayer and passengers—will pay for the overrun.
The other aspect of cost that the right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to is the complete lack of a definition of who pays for the infrastructure costs outside the perimeter fence. We have a wide range of estimates, from £5 billion, in the Davies report, to £15 billion from Transport for London. The Government say they do not recognise the lesser figure, but what figure do they recognise? The developers have said they will come up with only £1 billion, so where will the remaining billions come from? I know that “the odd billion between friends” might be a good way of looking at this, from the Government’s point of view, but we need some precision and some protection for the public finances. Billions of pounds of public investment are ultimately likely to be involved, and given how the Treasury operates, with the rationing of capital, this will come at the expense of infrastructure projects in other parts of the country.
In my remaining minute, I want to say a bit about that regional impact. The assumption in the Government’s statement is that the regions will benefit, but they patently will not. There will be a rationing of capital and of landing rights because of carbon dioxide limits. Every one of the seven leading regional airports—Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, East Midlands, Bristol, and others—have made it absolutely clear that they oppose Heathrow expansion because it inhibits their own potential for developing point-to-point routes to other parts of the world. In terms of the aggregate picture, we have already been told that the net present value is close to zero, and actually heavily negative if we take out international transfer passengers, and on the specific issues, such as the availability of flights outside Europe for business passengers, only 2% of all flights fall in this category. For national and local reasons, therefore, I oppose the motion.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
We have heard about some of the human and environmental consequences of the decision that we may be about to make, but it is worth repeating them.
Heathrow is already the noisiest airport in the world, and a third runway will obviously make that problem worse. The Heathrow area has been in breach of air pollution laws for more than a decade. Expansion will mean 250,000 more flights, 25 million more road passenger journeys, and therefore, plainly, more pollution. A third runway will mean the destruction of old and entrenched communities such as those described by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—I pay tribute to Armelle and her campaign against the third runway, which goes back many years. Thousands of homes will be destroyed to make way for the new runway. Families will be displaced and simply told to start again. Official forecasts tell us that Heathrow expansion is not reconcilable with the Climate Change Act 2008. Those are just some of the consequences of the way in which we are potentially likely to vote tonight.
Members would only sign off those costs if they believed that the economic upside justified it, but so much of what we have heard about the economic benefits is propaganda. It is not even very sophisticated propaganda. Heathrow bosses must be laughing out loud when they tell us that expansion can deliver 250,000 more flights without any extra car journeys, or that a third runway will mean that fewer people will be affected by noise.
Let me briefly say something about the economic case. In its 2014 report, on which the Government’s decision was based, the Airports Commission estimated that Heathrow expansion would deliver £147 billion worth of total economic benefit. The Government lapped it up, but then, in last year’s draft NPS, they quietly revised the figure down to between £72 billion and £74.2 billion—less than half the original estimate. Today’s NPS uses the same figure, but admits that it is a gross figure which does not include the actual economic and financial costs of the proposal.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the runway were ever built—in fact, it would be half a runway—it would be the most expensive place on earth on which to land, and that that would knock out the economics of improving our trade and connectivity?
Zac Goldsmith
As would be expected, my hon. Friend has made an impeccable point.
The net present value, a metric which does include all the costs and benefits, reduces the figure to between £2.9 billion and minus £2.5 billion over a 60-year period. So the upside has gone from £147 billion to minus £2.5 billion, yet the Government’s position has not budged.
It gets worse. A report from the New Economics Foundation shows that three quarters of any new capacity from a third runway will be taken up by international-to-international transfer passengers who never leave the airport. The Department for Transport’s own guidance says that they add nothing whatsoever to the economy, and should not be counted. If they are excluded—as the Government have recommended to themselves—the NPV is reduced by a further £5.5 billion, which produces a minus figure. DfT analysis also shows that an overrun in Heathrow’s costs of just 1% could be enough to negate the overall benefits of the scheme.
None of that, by the way, takes into account the point made by the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable) about Transport for London’s estimated £15 billion price tag for a link between the Heathrow expansion and surface level. It also does not take into account the legal and planning complexities that are unique to Heathrow. A gigantic legal challenge, backed by local authorities, City Hall and numerous organisations, is waiting around the corner from tonight’s vote.
This is what is so utterly perplexing. Why would we choose the most polluting, most disruptive, most expensive and least deliverable option, when the alternative is at least as economically beneficial, and vastly simpler to deliver? It is not because Heathrow will deliver more connectivity. According to every metric and every analysis, Gatwick and Heathrow deliver the same. Even the discredited Airports Commission’s own analysis predicts that whichever airport expands, the UK as a whole will achieve almost identical connectivity.
That brings me to the NPS. I am having to skip whole chunks of what I was going to say. The NPS is a horror story. The Secretary of State told the House that Heathrow expansion would “enable” growth at Birmingham, Newquay, Aberdeen, and other regional airports. That is nonsense. The Government’s own analysis shows that Heathrow expansion hinders growth at regional airports. It does not “enable” it. The Transport Committee found that if expansion goes ahead, there will be 74,000 fewer direct international flights per year to and from airports in the non-London regions in 2030, and that the figure will double by 2050.
In the last few seconds available to me, let me ask the Secretary of State to take this opportunity to put the record straight, because he has misled the House. We are being asked to approve a monstrous scheme, and I urge—beg, even—Members to look at the details before they cast their votes.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
I do not believe that a third runway at Heathrow is necessary or desirable, for all the reasons that have been set out so powerfully by other Members. I shall certainly vote against Heathrow expansion tonight. I entered the Chamber totally opposed to it, and what I have heard has convinced me that it is an absolute and total nonsense,
I do not wish to be wholly negative about the need for airport capacity, especially to serve the capital and the south-east. I have one major and specific alternative proposal to advance, which is serious, sensible and practicable. Let me say first, however, that it is clear that maximum use must be made of existing airport capacity in and around London. Indeed, that was been emphasised in at least one Government policy statement, although another that was published at about the same time mysteriously missed out the reference.
This capacity will, of course, include London Luton airport, whose passenger numbers are rapidly increasing, and where substantial investment is happening now to cope with future demand. Luton airport is a major part of our local economy, and a booming success story. With new parallel taxiways and the coming generation of composite-bodied aircraft, our airport will able to accommodate long-haul flights and millions more passengers. My primary concern today, however, is to propose an expansion of airport capacity to serve not just London and the south-east, but the midlands and beyond.
Very simply, my proposal is to link Birmingham airport to central London with a direct fast electrified rail link. The Great Western line linking Birmingham Snow Hill to Marylebone and Paddington should be electrified, and should include the rail link from Leamington Spa to Birmingham airport. With some modest upgrading and the restoration of a few miles of four tracks on the line and a direct link to Crossrail at the southern end, rapid direct services to and from central London will be possible. Indeed, that could also provide for a rapid rail service between Heathrow and Birmingham, again using Crossrail, in a hub-satellite relationship. That would be useful for Members, who would be able to take the Jubilee line from Westminster to Bond Street and then immediately get on to a train which would take them straight into the heart of Birmingham airport. The airport has a long runway to accommodate large, long-haul aircraft on intercontinental flights, and has at least 50% spare capacity.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Notwithstanding his vision for Birmingham, does my hon. Friend recognise that, according to official Government figures, there will be 40,000 fewer international point-to-point flights from Birmingham in 2040 if Heathrow expansion goes ahead?
Kelvin Hopkins
I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point.
There is massive extra capacity at Birmingham, and that seems likely to expand in the future. There is a railway station actually in the airport, linked via Leamington Spa to the main Great Western line. It is not a remote parkway station, but can provide direct rail travel right into the airport, much as happens at Gatwick. With 125-mph electrified trains, non-stop on the main route, journeys would take less than an hour from central London, and would be convenient and easy with no train changes required.
I have consulted, and have been advised by, experienced railway engineers who, like me, are convinced that this scheme would be perfectly practicable and inexpensive to build. I have also discussed the scheme with Paul Kehoe, who was recently chief executive of Birmingham airport, and is an old friend who was formerly airport director at Luton. He, too, considers the scheme to be eminently feasible and perfectly practicable. Many Members rightly believe that we should seek to develop our regional economy economies, with more emphasis on regional airports. I believe that developing Birmingham airport will meet that challenge too, while also making a potentially massive contribution to south-east aviation needs.
I urge Ministers to give serious consideration to what I propose, and to think again about Heathrow expansion.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
Just outside the boundaries of my constituency lies a charming little village called Cublington. I mention that because 50 years ago, in 1968, the Roskill commission started its inquiry on airport expansion in the south-east. Its conclusion was that a new airport at Cublington should be recommended. Fifty years on, we are still dithering, and the time for a decision is now.
I have been a member of the Transport Committee for the majority of my time in this House. I have been part of two inquiries into airport expansion. The first, which was in 2013, was not scheme-specific, but looked at the general pros and cons of all the options for London and the south-east: Boris island, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and the others. Since then, I have been part of the current Select Committee’s inquiry on the scheme-specific proposal for Heathrow.
I started my journey with an open mind—I did not have a preference for any airport. Indeed, I was not even convinced that we needed airport expansion in the first place. I looked favourably on suggestions that a proper high-speed rail network would free up enough domestic capacity at our international airports to create space for the long-hauls. However, having looked at all the evidence in detail, I am convinced that we do need the expansion of a hub airport over point-to-point capacity—both are important, but we need the hub option—and that the location for that should be Heathrow. Gatwick has many advantages, but it is on the wrong side of London for most of the rest of the country. It is also one of the primary freight hubs, and we need that freight capacity in the holds of passenger aircraft to make many routes viable. It is essential for our long-term international trading interests that we have this expanded capacity.
I was agnostic about whether we should choose the third runway or the Heathrow hub option. Neither of the options is perfect; each has its advantages and disadvantages. We also have to contend with the uncertainty of forecasting many decades into the future.
It is important to point out that the current Select Committee’s inquiry looked only at the current Heathrow option; it did not conduct a comparative analysis of Gatwick or the Heathrow hub option. That was not in our remit, but had we done that, I am sure we would have found shortcomings in the other schemes as well.
We also did not look at the comparative costs of not proceeding—the huge economic cost to this country of not building new airport capacity at this point, when Schiphol, Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle, Istanbul and Dubai would mop up our markets. What is the opportunity cost environmentally of not proceeding at this point, given the emissions from aircraft both circling in the air and on the ground now?
I am satisfied that the Government are listening to the Select Committee’s recommendations, if not in the NPS then at some other point in the process. I am also satisfied that technology will help to address many of the justifiable concerns that people have. Aircraft technology will deliver quieter and less polluting planes. Electric vehicles will remove many of the surface access concerns, and there are solutions so that moving aircraft from the stand to the runway involves less emissions. All in all, we cannot afford to delay this decision.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will spend most of my speech discussing a cross-party letter that myself and 21 other MPs from Greater Manchester wrote to the Secretary of State last week in support of Heathrow expansion, and also asking the Government to renew and restate their energy and focus on delivering the vision of a northern powerhouse transport strategy that is fit for purpose. Before I do so, however, I will say a couple of things about Heathrow itself.
I am for national infrastructure projects. I think that they boost jobs and growth—in this case, high-quality jobs—directly and indirectly. The economic benefits of a hub airport in London are unquestionable, which is why trade unions such as Unite and the GMB are in favour. We must also remember that that capacity would go elsewhere if it was not at Heathrow. Obviously, there are concerns—environmental, noise and air quality concerns in particular—and they need to be addressed throughout the process.
I see today’s decision as a gateway decision, not a final decision, but if we are in favour of major infrastructure projects, as I am, we also have to be in favour of taking the difficult and tough decisions to make them a reality. There are always reasons to oppose things, which is why we have seen such delay and dithering in relation to Heathrow over many years. I totally understand and respect the issues that local Members of Parliament have, and they have done themselves a great deal of justice in putting them forward.
I want to turn now to the issues relating to the north. Let us be honest: over the past few weeks, the optics of transport infrastructure in the north have been terrible, with “Northern Fail” and all the problems that have arisen from that. Unfortunately, this has given the impression that the northern powerhouse ambitions are second-order priority for this Government, and that there is always something more important to focus on. That was why we came together as a cross-party group of MPs to ask the Government to now give the same energy and focus that they have given to Heathrow expansion over the past few years to truly realising the northern powerhouse vision. It is a great vision. If we can get the agglomerative effect of connecting all our great cities with our fantastic airports in the north, including Manchester airport, we can really rebalance the economy for good.
Manchester airport has come up a few times in the debate. We want the Government to recognise the fact that it is not like any other regional airport. It is the second best connected airport in the country. It serves many direct routes, including trade and business routes to China, Africa and many other places, and we want a bespoke strategy for Manchester airport that acknowledges that. In particular, that strategy needs to focus on the HS2 stop and on connecting northern powerhouse rail to Manchester airport. We want the same deal that other airports have had in relation to who is going to fund that HS2 stop. We are being asked to fund it, but we do not think that that is fair. Birmingham is getting its stop funded by the Government, and connections to Heathrow and Gatwick have been funded by the Government through many years of rail investment. We want the same. We will support this decision tonight, on the basis not of the hub being connected to Manchester airport, but of the benefits to the country as a whole, but we now want the northern powerhouse vision to be realised.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Let me spend the first couple of minutes of my speech addressing some of the issues that have been raised this evening. We have had the 2009 vote thrown back at us—that was when my party voted against Heathrow—but since 2009, the arguments have been about the Airports Commission report. In 2009, I personally would have supported an airport in the estuary, and there are still common-sense arguments in favour of that, particularly in relation to the environment. An environmental trade-off between people and wildlife would have to be made. It is still the case, however, that we asked the Airports Commission to look at all the issues, and it came up with a clear conclusion.
I want to pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart). There is a serious cost to not making a decision. We have been frigging around with this for 50 years, one way and another, but we finally have to grasp the nettle and make a decision.
I also want to address the points about hubs made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands). His argument is addressed by the relative success of Incheon airport in Korea, which has taken the cluster of airports around Tokyo to the cleaners, economically, as has Chicago when compared with New York, which has three separate airports around the city. The economic lessons about the success of hub airports are there to be learned.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made several points about Gatwick, and I want to address them as the chair of the Gatwick Co-ordination Group, which brings together colleagues in this House, councillors from the affected local authorities, and representatives from the voluntary and charitable sectors with a key interest in the decision. We submitted our own response to the Airports Commission. The House needs to understand that there are two total showstoppers as far as Gatwick is concerned. One of the masterstrokes in my campaign was to drive the then Transport Secretary in a straight line from central London to Redhill, which is just over halfway to Gatwick. It is a distance of 30 km, and it took us two and a half hours using the main arterial route to Gatwick from central London.
Gatwick hangs off one rail access route: the Brighton main line, the busiest commuter line in the country. Those of us whose constituents are served by and use that line have all experienced the agony it has caused over the past four years. If there were a proposal for additional rail access to Gatwick, it would at least have some credibility, but Heathrow will have five new rail accesses to serve the extra runway. There is simply no comparison, not least given the obvious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South that Gatwick is the wrong side of London for the vast majority of the country.
The final point I want to make in the very limited time available is about the workforce. When we submitted evidence to the commission in 2015, we totalled up all the people who were unemployed and claiming benefit in a vast area centred on Gatwick who could try to service the estimated 122,000 primary and secondary jobs that would come from expansion at Gatwick. Today that number is under 20,000. If we want to add to the massive housebuilding demand in areas of the south-east that we cannot even meet now, that would be one way of doing it.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s decision is about much more than airport capacity in London. This is a major national infrastructure project that can affect every region of our country, and it is on behalf of my own region of Teesside that I speak in favour of Heathrow expansion.
I pay tribute to Heathrow for its commitment to setting up logistics hubs, which will make sure that jobs and investment can be shared across the UK. Spreading the supply chain across the country in that way is a first for a national infrastructure project such as this and a key reason why I will vote in favour of expansion.
The South Tees Development Corporation site—a former steel site—in my constituency has been shortlisted to be one of those four hubs. I was pleased to welcome the Heathrow team to Teesside last month to show off the infrastructure and the local skills we have to offer. British Steel, with sites at Lackenby and Skinningrove on Teesside, also has aspirations to provide steel for the project, supporting jobs in our region. Heathrow expansion has the potential to give a boost to local economies such as the north-east. It is supported by the North East chamber of commerce, and additional flights are expected to generate £1.5 billion in additional economic growth.
After completion, a bigger Heathrow will be a driver for growth across our country, delivering new connections to open up Britain and links to the rest of the world. On Teesside we have investors from all over the world—from the US and Australia, to the middle east and Asia—who are looking for good transport connections when developing their projects. Heathrow expansion would deliver a boost not just for passenger flights, but for the movement of goods and services to both domestic and international markets. More than 550,000 international visits were made to the north-east in 2016, generating expenditure of more than £400 million.
It speaks volumes that more than 40 UK airports, including my own local airport, Durham Tees Valley, which states:
“We strongly support the expansion of capacity at Heathrow”,
support the expansion and the new connections it will bring. Durham Tees Valley airport is currently cut off from the UK’s hub. Amsterdam and Aberdeen are virtually the only destinations it is possible to fly to directly from the airport, which has been named by Flybe in its route map for Heathrow expansion, and easyJet is also considering it for a future Heathrow route. That connection would be a big boost for our local economy and for businesses and holiday passengers alike, and the interest demonstrates the appetite for more domestic connections in our hub.
To ensure that our regions can benefit, I welcome Heathrow’s promise to support ring-fencing a proportion of slots for domestic flights and the commitment to reducing domestic passenger charges. Factors such as air passenger duty can be a drag on the affordability of domestic flights to regions such as mine, and that, along with the environmental commitments, is a commitment to which I and many other colleagues will hold both Heathrow and Ministers.
To conclude, for too long we as a country have been putting off this decision. Our national hub is at full capacity, and if we do not want to fall behind other countries we have to expand. Heathrow expansion is good for the British economy, good for jobs across the UK, and good for British Steel. Let us stop dithering and get this project off the ground.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
Of course I rise to defend my constituents, and I think everyone in this House would expect me to do so. Given the idea of Windsor castle being triple glazed and of 7 million visitors to Windsor being overwhelmed by the noise of aircraft, I can do nothing but object to the proposal. It would require the demolition of hundreds of houses. The noise levels experienced across the entire Windsor constituency and in Bracknell Forest, Woking and everywhere else in the area are already dreadful and would get much worse. We know about the pollution levels and I am pretty sure that everyone present will have experienced the congestion on the M4. It is a very bad idea to expand Heathrow.
People would expect me, as the MP for Windsor, to say these things, and they would expect me to be a nimby but, frankly, with my background in business and my having studied economics, my major objection to the third runway at Heathrow is to do with the national interest and national economics.
I have to ask a few questions. First, why do we believe we will have more flights to the regions? I have been an MP for 13 years, and I know how easy it is just to read the briefings and go with the flow, but the Government’s own data and analysis say that every single region of the United Kingdom will have fewer connections than they would have had if Heathrow were not expanded.
Adam Afriyie
I will not give way because of the time available.
Every single region, particularly the south-east, will have fewer flights. The second area where it is easy to have some fairly lazy thinking is the hub-and-spoke concept. The facts have clearly changed, and it is now about point-to-point travel. Nobody wants to get on an aircraft and then change to get somewhere else. Everybody wants to fly direct. The aircraft that are being purchased today by every single airline are point-to-point aircraft. Ninety-seven per cent. of all aircraft ordered are for point-to-point travel.
Aircraft can get from London to Sydney direct. Why are we showing our age? Why are we showing this lazy thinking, that we need a 20th century solution to a 21st century problem? I know it is difficult, because Heathrow has a huge amount of propaganda. Heathrow has a lot to gain. It paid £1 billion in dividends to shareholders while making only a £500 million profit. Of course it is in Heathrow’s interest to try to get this decision in its favour and to try to slow the process so it can continue to drive up landing fees.
Lastly, it upsets me as a Conservative to sit on these Benches and see us all nodding our heads and saying that we should go ahead and create the most expensive airport in the world at which to land. Why on earth would we commit to such a project?
Crispin Blunt
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The way to make both Gatwick and Heathrow more expensive is simply to create no more slots by having no more capacity.
Adam Afriyie
Funnily enough, I have some sympathy with that view. I agree with my hon. Friend on having an offshore airport to address the country’s very long-term interests. An offshore airport slot would be a lot less expensive than a Heathrow slot. It costs just six quid per passenger to land at Gatwick, but it costs £24 per passenger to land at Heathrow. It is crazy to invest further in Heathrow to create a £34 per passenger cost for the airlines. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I cannot support this, and I hope that, in the coming months, as they begin to realise that Heathrow is pulling a fast one on them, the Government will begin to back off. We will then all gradually begin to change our minds.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The decision to expand Heathrow is complex and contested, with competing projections and a range of criteria that must be considered—more than I can do justice to within the four-minute time limit.
As we have heard, my party’s Front Bench remains unconvinced, with the four tests not being met. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Transport and his team for sparing their valuable time to discuss the issue with me in depth.
My good friend the Mayor of London and the No 3rd Runway coalition have put cogent arguments to me for why the third runway should not be built. Conversely, my local council, Slough Borough Council, has come out strongly in favour, as have the Trades Union Congress and unions such as Unite and the GMB, which represent thousands of local workers. I have listened very closely to their representations.
First, on climate change, we must bear traffic noise and air quality in mind. Yes, a new runway will mean more flights and more traffic, but what would be the impact on our environment if we do not build a new runway? The sad truth is that, if we do not build it, others will. New runways would be built in other parts of Europe, and the net result would be no different. The Government and Heathrow airport contend that they will have electric vehicle fleets and less noisy, less polluting aircraft, along with other mitigation efforts.
Secondly, expanding Heathrow will boost the national economy by tens of billions of pounds. In addition to creating apprenticeships, a new third runway will purportedly create more than 100,000 jobs across the UK, nearly doubling the size of the current workforce. Many of those jobs will be skilled jobs, jobs with prospects, unionised jobs, well-paid jobs.
Thirdly, there is the local economy and the benefits for Slough. The people of Slough sent me here to look after their interests, so of course I will be looking very closely at the impact of expansion. I am grateful to the many hundreds of residents who have shared their views with me. Heathrow is firmly in our backyard, given that the proposed runway will be built on Slough Borough Council land, and the people most directly affected by Heathrow airport must also be those who benefit the most. There must be fair compensation and clear benefits for local people.
I have argued with the aviation Minister, the chief executive of Heathrow airport and others that a greater share of the business rates must rightly come to Slough. The waste facility in Colnbrook would need to be rebuilt in Slough, along with a training and skills hub. More than 4,000 Slough residents rely on Heathrow for their living and a further 3,600 Slough people work in related industries. The expansion of Heathrow will protect and boost those jobs, while helping to tackle youth unemployment in the surrounding areas.
Fourthly, on the UK’s transport infrastructure, let us not forget what this proposal means for thousands of people who will be able to use a new runway, as customers, to travel to destinations unknown to previous generations. As our Parliament deliberates on whether we build one new runway, it is worth reminding ourselves that India will be building 50 new airports and the Chinese will be building 136 new airports by 2025. When weighing all this evidence, and with the Slough people foremost in my mind, I will be voting in favour of expanding Heathrow when the House divides. I will do so without any sense of jubilation, nor am I handing Ministers a blank cheque. I will be keeping an eagle eye on how the Government implement this project. Ministers and Heathrow airport will rue the day they seek to renege on their promises in principle to the people of Slough.
In many ways, I vote in favour of expansion with a heavy heart. I am concerned about the environment and of course we must weigh up these various issues, including the uprooting of people from their homes. However, we are faced with a binary decision to make at this stage, without all the requested clarifications and answers, including on flight paths, the six and a half-hour night flight ban, local apprenticeships and the western road into Heathrow and discounted car parking.
Mr Speaker
We are extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is now able to breathe.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Governments in democratic polities struggle with big, long-term, strategic decisions, and that affects our infrastructure particularly. They struggle because those who make such decisions rarely get the credit, as they are long out of office once the impact of the decisions has been felt; because there is no political payback, typically, in a five-year period; and, more nobly, because they are reluctant to tie the hands of their successors. For those reasons, successive Governments over time have tended to duck the kind of issues we are debating tonight, and it is to the credit of the Secretary of State, his Department and this Government that they are taking such a decision. That they are doing so is not surprising, given their history. When I was a Transport Minister, we took a very big decision about road investment, with the biggest road investment strategy of modern times. Crossrail was a product of a long-term decision of the kind I am describing. And when I was Energy Minister, our coalition Government took a big decision about nuclear power, so this Government have a disproportionately good record against the backdrop I have described. It is right of course to consider the impact of such decisions, and the issues that have, understandably, been raised tonight in particular concern air quality, noise, traffic and compensation. Air quality is about a much bigger issue than just airports. We need to reconsider what we do about air quality and the Government have done that. The work we have done on the electric charging infrastructure, autonomous vehicles and trying to move towards cleaner means of travel will have a real impact on emissions over time. Technology will change, too. It is likely that all modes of transport will become cleaner and less polluting than they are now, but we are making the decision now and it is very hard for us to see that, hard to imagine what the world might be like in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time.
Compensation is being paid as a result of the consideration of the Government, the inquiries that we made and the record consultation—the one on this subject was one of the biggest ever. As you know, Mr Speaker, the compensation package that will be paid to those directly affected, including many of the constituents of Members who have spoken in this debate, is going to allow them to take steps in their homes and in their communities to mitigate some of the worst effects that have been described to us in this short debate. More steps can be taken on noise, and so the Secretary of State has been clear about night flights, about how noise can be controlled and about how surface noise can be dealt with.
Before I come to the exciting culmination of this thrilling address, it is worth saying that one or two valid points were made by Members on the Opposition Benches. We do need to look more closely at how people get to and from the airport, as we have been too blasé in our assumptions about those kinds of issues and their effect on noise, disruption, congestion and so on.
Finally, this debate is about 40,000 more jobs, 5,000 more apprenticeships and a £44 billion economic benefit to our capital city. In the end, it is about a huge economic boost to our capital and to our country. It is right that we take account of the environmental considerations, and we must take them seriously, but the economic case is one that is made.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It was the Mancunian entrepreneur and industrialist Daniel Adamson who coined the phrase “northern powerhouse” in 1882, when he wanted to create a single economic region stretching from the Mersey estuary to the Humber estuary. The process of building the Manchester ship canal took up three years of parliamentary time.
The Department for Transport has done an astonishing piece of work: from two Prime Ministers ruling it out, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, within three years it has gone from consultation to a national policy statement to this motion. One can only hope that the Government will have the same laser-like focus and energy when they talk about the regional aviation strategy, northern powerhouse rail and HS2. In his letter to Manchester MPs, all that the Secretary of State said was that he hopes that regional airports fulfil their potential. There was no promise of Government support for them.
Let me state my position. All the major trade unions have come out in favour of the expansion of Heathrow, and the north-west CBI has said that the proposal will create 15,000 jobs in the north-west of England and add around £16 billion-worth of growth to our economy. That is why I will vote for the motion tonight.
Today, first thing in the morning, I had the great honour of celebrating Manchester airport’s 80th birthday in my own constituency. Some 28 million passengers went through Manchester airport last year, making my constituency one of the most visited in northern England. It is the only airport outside the south-east with two runways and has a rail station that serves 5 million passengers a year. Those runways have the potential to bring 55 million people into that northern hub and, as the Secretary of State knows, the airport is investing £1 billion in a transformation programme. Only 1.6% of passengers who use Manchester airport use Heathrow.
We have been let down by the “northern fail”. Public transport penetration and journey times are key to Manchester airport’s growth, but the journey to Leeds takes 16 minutes longer on the new timetable. We have no agreement about how the HS2 station is going to be paid for, about the east-west alignment at Piccadilly station or about the extension of the Metrolink to the terminal 2 building. We are still awaiting a lot of promises.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
That is exactly why this northern MP, who was born in Manchester and worked at Manchester airport, will be standing up for the north and voting against the motion.
Mike Kane
I respect my hon. Friend’s position. It is horrible when City and United fans fall out, but when people born in Wythenshawe fall out, the gods weep.
Heathrow and Gatwick have benefited from huge subsidies, including £15 billion for Crossrail and £500 million of public funds for western rail access. Manchester airport could meet 75% of long-haul needs for the whole country. I was astonished to hear SNP Members, who would not let me intervene, talk about Heathrow being vital to Scotland when they want independence. If they wanted vitality for Scottish airports, they would use their power over airport passenger duty, which would lead to an increase in passengers in Scotland, but they again bottled implementing that devolved power just earlier this month.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) that point-to-point is the model for the future in London. At the moment, we have a cartel situation. People from Manchester airport fly across the world and when they land they see BA aeroplanes, but we cannot get those same BA aircraft from Manchester to anywhere else in the world. BA should be done under the Trades Description Act; it should be renamed “Heathrow Airways”, and it should be done pretty quickly. The Secretary of State has given northern stakeholders few assurances that there is an integrated plan for the north of England. I will be supporting the motion this evening, but we will be holding the Government’s feet to the fire about a bespoke plan for the northern economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will now have to apply.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
With no availability at its main hub airport, London is beginning to find that new routes to important long-haul destinations are set up elsewhere in Europe, rather than in the UK. Other UK airports are increasingly squeezed out by Heathrow, with passengers from the nations and regions obliged to transfer through other European airports. That is the hub—literally—of this debate.
Although I respect my hon. Friends who oppose the proposal for Heathrow airport for constituency reasons, I respectfully say that they are wrong. The future is of hub airports. We can look, for example, at Dubai, South Korea and Bangkok. All the airports where there is major expansion are hub airports. My hon. Friends suggest that we should spread the service across five London airports. All that will mean is spreading the misery across far more communities in London.
The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) put his finger on it when he said that if we do not adapt to what the world is facing, we will simply outsource air travel and pollution to other countries in Europe, and that really would not be very sensible. Of course, my hon. Friends want the greatest protections they can possibly have against the environmental damage and noise aspects of the airport, and I support them wholly in that.
Let me make my final point in the very short time that I have available. In paragraph 2.32 of the Airports Commission report, it says:
“Another important trend is that of rising inbound travel into Europe from emerging market economies. IATA’s forecasts…predict that over the next two decades the growth of the origin and destination (OD) market in China alone is predicted to be greater than that in the US, UK and Germany combined”.
If this country wants to succeed in a competitive world, it has to expand its airport at Heathrow. I am chairman of the all-party trade and investment group. I can see only too clearly what will happen if we do not remain competitive. Hong Kong started its consultation on this matter in 2011. Within the next five years, it will have completed a hugely difficult airport policy into the sea around Hong Kong. We must remain competitive. The world is changing around us.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. Heathrow plays an essential role in our national economy. My constituency is located on the gateway from Heathrow to London, with Heathrow being a powerful global symbol of our internationalism and our diversity.
I have been sceptical in the past about expansion, and indeed campaigned against the last proposed third runway. Today, on balance, based on jobs for the next generation and on what we need for our economy, I will not be voting against the motion, but let me be clear that much more reassurance is needed from Heathrow and the Government to ensure that any application does not fall to a legal challenge and that they can deliver for the country and local communities.
A majority in my constituency is in favour of expansion —every poll in recent years has shown that, and it is generally in the ballpark of 2:1. Tens of thousands of my constituents work, or have worked, at the airport. London’s first airport was in my constituency, in what is now Hanworth Air Park.
For many of my constituents, Heathrow is more than just a global hub for transport and shipping. It is the place where they go to work every day—not only flying the planes, running the air traffic control and policing the UK border, but driving the trains and buses, cooking the meals for passengers and, in logistics, delivering British goods to destinations all over the country and the world. They have developed a diverse set of skills to serve the needs of the aviation industry. Heathrow depends on them and they depend on Heathrow. But residents are conflicted because they want Heathrow to grow, but they also want a fair deal. It is vital that they have a fair deal.
Families have told me that they support expansion but that they have felt neglected when it comes to noise compensation. Residents wake up before 5 am if planes come in to land too early and they are unable to open their windows in the summer for the noise, including noise from hangars behind their homes. They also face traffic congestion to and from Heathrow, pollution from cars stuck in traffic and night flights. Respite and other protections are critical for their quality of life.
I campaigned alongside Hounslow councillors for Heathrow to reach out and do much better with regard to these issues, regardless of a third runway. But in my discussions with residents in recent weeks, they have cited reasons for supporting the expansion, including jobs, apprenticeships, more opportunities, a fair deal for small businesses and improved local transport. Local unions have also come out in support and residents highlight international competitiveness.
Today it is a disgrace that we are unfortunately being asked to vote before we have all the information, including sight of new flight paths and analysis of how people will be affected. If the Government get support for the NPS tonight, it will be for them to hold true to their word that the development consent will not be given unless detailed proposals show how environmental impacts will be mitigated in line with legal obligations, and all other commitments adhered to.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I rise to support the Heathrow expansion and the national policy statement on airports.
Connectivity to regional airports is absolutely vital to Scotland. Aberdeen International airport is in my Gordon constituency. Some 3.1 million passengers passed through Aberdeen in 2017. It is the busiest heliport in Europe, is vital to the oil and gas industry, which supports 300,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, and it serves half a million people in the north-east. Without Heathrow’s expansion, this will be undermined. That is why I am stunned that the SNP is voting against Scottish jobs.
Heathrow’s international success has admittedly squeezed out regional domestic routes since 1997. These have dropped from 62,000 to 40,000. Passenger numbers have dropped from 6.7 million to 4.8 million due to capacity restraint. How can the SNP not support Scottish jobs? Carol Benzie, the managing director of Aberdeen airport, joined 40 UK airport bosses supporting this strategic growth, which the Scottish Government did support until first thing this morning.
Heathrow is vital as a hub connecting the regions with the world and it is vital to Scotland’s tourism. Inverness is benefiting by £8 million due to the route from Heathrow. How can the SNP possibly want to block Scottish votes? The expansion is vital to exports such as Scottish smoked salmon, which I believe comes largely from the highlands through Heathrow. Scottish business has been stifled by cargo capacity. The expansion is good for every single Scottish constituency, so why would the SNP possibly block it? This is where the Union works at its best, with an airport of international significance serving the regions. That is why the SNP will not vote for it—because it has something to do with the Union.
The expansion of Heathrow will mean at least 100 additional Scottish flights a week. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) agreed that we do want more flights, but tonight he is rejecting those flights. Heathrow and the national policy statement on airports are vital to the nation and to Scotland. Conservative Members will vote for jobs tonight—and the SNP will vote against Scottish jobs.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Five and a half years ago when I became an MP, I became a member of the Transport Committee. At that time, we were doing an inquiry into the three options for south-east airport expansion. I went into it completely open-minded, but at the end of the inquiry I was absolutely convinced that Heathrow was the only viable option. Five and a half years have passed, and I have seen this Government and the coalition pass the buck on making a decision on this important topic—whether there was a general election or a mayoral election coming up—so I am really glad that we are now having the vote.
However, the issue has been ignored and put on the back burner for 50 years. In 1968 the Roskill commission on south-east airport capacity was launched, and since then we have been on the continuum of not grasping the real opportunity to invest in our infrastructure. I contrast what we have done with what has happened with Hong Kong airport. The difference is that that airport is owned by the state and there is a very clear commitment and understanding that investing in a country’s infrastructure helps it to grow.
I recognise the difficult time that many MPs have had in making the decision on how to vote. I completely understand the role of constituency MPs in serving the views and opinions of their constituents. But I would ask everybody else for whom this is not a direct constituency issue to think of the national interest, and what will happen to our economy in 10, 20 or 50 years’ time if we do not invest.
I say this for a particular reason. During the Transport Committee inquiry, we had some of the big international airlines come and talk to us about what their preferred option was. They said, “Actually, this is not an issue for us any more because we plan 20 years ahead, minimum, and so we have already started to discount the UK as our hub.” I know that we are in a race against time, but I want us to be putting forward a really clear message that we will invest in the infrastructure and in the people of this country. I am therefore very proud to be voting for the Heathrow option.
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion).
I am also very pleased that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is in his place, because he made a number of remarks about my position on Heathrow expansion. I have always supported Heathrow expansion—that must be said for the record. I find it extraordinary that he, who is supposed to be a bastion—a supporter—of workers’ interests should be turning his back on that and voting down a proposal that will boost jobs in the south-east, particularly in his constituency and mine, to the extent that this proposal does. It is not just me who is saying this—it is also a man called Len McCluskey, that great champion of capitalist interests and the cartels that the right hon. Gentleman talked about. That supporter of cartels would have us believe that Heathrow and the union he represents have shared interests in the expansion. He has said very categorically that it is a step in the right direction.
Heathrow expansion has been debated for 50 years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) lamented the fact that this debate would last for only four hours. That is completely wrong. We have been debating this issue for 20, 30, 40 years. The hon. Member for Rotherham mentioned the Roskill commission in 1968. I would suggest that that was before half the Members here, certainly those on the Conservative Benches, were even born. It is extraordinary that Britain, of all the advanced economies in the world, should be spending so much time and effort debating building, not an airport, but a single runway in the south-east, which has had no increase in capacity for 50 years. It is a shame, and I am embarrassed, that it has taken us this long, but I am also very grateful and pleased that we finally have a Secretary of State and a Government who have taken this step forward—who have actually had the gumption and the courage to address what is a serious national problem.
The House of Commons should take its head out of the sand, collectively, and look at what is happening outside in the world—look at Dubai and the other hubs that are expanding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, we should look at Incheon airport in South Korea or O’Hare airport in Chicago. These are the rising powers in aviation. As we debate and dance around these pinheads, the rest of the world is expanding, and we have to compete with that expansion. That is why I firmly recommend the Government’s position and will vote in the Aye Lobby tonight.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I thought it might be difficult to do justice to 30 years of my own and my constituents’ opposition to Heathrow expansion in three minutes, against a series of reckless, greedy and selfish operators of Heathrow airport, but actually I can simplify it down to three propositions. First, can the third runway at Heathrow be justified given its catastrophic human and environmental cost, especially if there are alternatives? Secondly, are those alternatives better or worse than Heathrow? Thirdly, is it feasible and will it actually happen? To the last, I would say, whether we believe in it or not, that it simply will not.
We have heard in the debate the fact that thousands of homes will be demolished; that Heathrow has been exceeding pollution targets for 10 years already and there is no plan to get those levels down; that the effect on public transport will be to suck up all the spare capacity in London, for which we worked for decades; and that there are no plans to expand the M25 and the M4, which are already two of the most congested roads, because apparently there will not be any additional cars. We have heard about the issue of safety, with 700 additional planes going across London a day. We have also heard about safety within Heathrow and the tragic case of John Coles, who was killed at Heathrow airport, and it took an hour and eight minutes for an ambulance to arrive there.
We have heard that 9,500 people die prematurely in London every year because of air pollution; that 300,000 additional people will be severely affected by noise, with 3 million people affected in total; that 28% of everybody severely affected by aircraft noise in Europe will live around Heathrow; that the cost is 40% to 50% higher than other airports; that the gearing ratio is over 80%; that there will be a 24% suppression in the growth of regional airports; that there will be a £10 billion to £15 billion cost to public transport, which the public purse will have to pay; and that the net present value over 60 years is somewhere between plus £2.9 billion and minus £2.5 billion, which is a worse economic case than Gatwick, and if we take out transfer passengers, it is worse passenger growth than Gatwick.
Are we really going to fall for this? If the House does fall for this tonight, there is a well-organised and well-funded operation. My borough has set up a residents’ commission chaired by ex-senior civil servant Christina Smyth, and we, along with the Mayor of London and other boroughs, are funding legal action that will delay this until people’s eyes are opened. When the flight paths are revealed and when the economics fall apart, Heathrow will no longer have the support that we may see today. I resigned 10 years ago to fight this, so I hope we are not back here in 10 years’ time debating this, because it is a doomed project.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I will be supporting this proposal tonight, but I must also make the case for our regional airports. The NPS suggests relatively little scope to redistribute demand away from the south-east region to heavily underutilised capacity elsewhere. I recognise fundamentally that despite all the scenarios considered by the Airports Commission to manage demand away from Heathrow, regular airline passengers will still want to fly internationally from Heathrow. Other markets such as freight and budget flights are already put off from Heathrow. As it says in paragraph 4.65 of the interim report,
“the relatively high landing charges and congestion at Heathrow already render it largely unattractive for charter flights, dedicated freighters…business and general aviation.”
It is important that the market demand for additional capacity at Heathrow is addressed. I recognise that long-term alternative locations do not satisfactorily offset that demand, but I think that more could be done to help reduce the pressure on Heathrow.
The scenarios in the interim report do not really look at the full potential for nudging demand towards our regional airports. It only seems to look at how many potential air passengers would instead use HS2, rather than how many Heathrow passengers might use HS2 or other rail projects as a means of accessing alternative airports. Both Birmingham and Manchester are planned to have direct connectivity to HS2, with a projected journey time between London and Birmingham Interchange of 38 minutes, so it will be comparable to other airports serving this market.
I stress that we need to support Stoke-on-Trent with improved airport connectivity. While we are fortunate to have four international airports within an hour’s drive of the city, rail access to our regional airports is not good enough. We must use HS2 and other rail improvements to strengthen connectivity to our regional airports in cities such as Stoke-on-Trent.
Our ambitions for a global Britain mean that we need to be linked to a greater number of global destinations. This is important for both passengers and freight services. East Midlands airport, for example, is hugely important to the national economy for cargo flights, and is second only to Heathrow. A significant proportion of Stoke-on-Trent freight goes through East Midlands airport.
I recognise that benefits from Heathrow can come to other parts of the UK. I particularly welcome the proposal for construction hubs supplying Heathrow to be located around the country to spread the benefits from construction more widely. I, of course, hope that Stoke-on-Trent’s bid for a hub will be successful. Airports provide not only the wider economic benefits, but significant employment and local economic advantages for the communities surrounding them and right across the wider UK.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Unlike the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who kept us waiting for four minutes—until the last sentence of his speech—to know whether he was going to support this project, may I say at the very start that I and my colleagues will be supporting the Government on this tonight? This is a project of national interest. It is one on which our economy depends, and that will help us in our pursuit of increased productivity, in our pursuit of being a global trading nation and in regenerating the regions. As someone from Northern Ireland, that is an important aspect of this particular project, because we rely on connectivity.
We have had Members telling us today that we can have regional airports or hubs in different regions all across the country, but the truth of the matter is that most regional airports are not in the centre of populations that can support all the international connections that are needed, and we therefore need an international hub. If we are going to have an international hub, we need to have local connections. Given that places are currently at a premium at Heathrow, the only way to get those connections, despite what the Scottish nationalists have argued, is to expand Heathrow. They cannot wish for more flights into Heathrow and say that they are ambivalent about whether it should be expanded. This is important to us for that reason.
Northern Ireland is of course an exporting part of the United Kingdom. High-value engineering exports and high-value food exports depend on having a good cargo infrastructure to enable us to send our goods across the world.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest domestic cargo trade between Heathrow and any regional airport is that to Belfast City, which will double if Heathrow is expanded?
Sammy Wilson
That is what we are hoping for. In fact, one of our asks is for a guarantee from the Government that the 15% of additional places will be ring-fenced for regional airports so that there is such access. The other thing is that this is a national project, and different regions of the United Kingdom should therefore be able to have an input into the work generated from it. I am pleased by the discussions we have had between Mid and East Antrim Borough Council in my constituency and Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council in looking at the possibility of one of the hubs being located in Ballymena, which would of course provide jobs for Northern Ireland as a whole.
Many contradictory arguments have been made tonight. On the one hand, we have been told by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that these capitalists intend to squeeze every penny out of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) has told us that this project is so uneconomic that the Government are going to have to subsidise it. One of the two has to be wrong.
On the one hand, we have been told that this is going to wreck our climate change targets. For those who find that an important issue, the only answer is of course to reduce the number of passengers. However, nobody has suggested that; they have all suggested that we should have passengers flying from regional airports. Well, those passengers will still produce carbon dioxide, and they will still contribute overall. If they fly from Schiphol, they will still burn carbon to get to Schiphol and from there to wherever they are going. Either it affects climate change or it does not. In fact, the only honest person was the Member from the Green party, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who wants people to stop flying, but I do not believe that that is an alternative.
For these reasons, we will be supporting this motion and walking through the Lobby tonight.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Behind the inquiry and report of the Transport Committee on the national policy statement on airports was our genuine desire to assist MPs when reaching their decision tonight. I have always been struck by the similarity of the NPS designation to the manner in which a local planning authority makes a local plan before developers promote site-specific applications for planning permission. Even if the NPS gains support this evening, Heathrow Airport Ltd will have to submit a development consent order for approval.
The Committee’s report included several recommendations that, in hindsight, would have been better addressed through the design process rather than the NPS. The Committee drew the following conclusions. We recommended that both Houses of Parliament allow the planning process to move to the next stage by approving the final NPS, provided that the concerns that we identified were addressed by the Government in the final NPS that it laid before Parliament. The issue is whether the 25 recommendations that the Committee made have been addressed. The Government maintained in their response to our report that they have largely done so, stating:
“The Government has welcomed and acted upon 24 of those recommendations, disagreeing with only one.”
Reviewing the Government response, the Committee Clerk found that the 24 recommendations were not to be found in the final NPS. I believe that the Government have taken note of our 24 recommendations, and taken action, but not necessarily within the NPS. In many cases, the Government do not believe that the outline planning NPS process is the right avenue for design-specific recommendations. They believe that the right place is in the development consent order or at a later juncture. As a result, the Government maintain that they have fully implemented or exceeded the action that we proposed; partially implemented the recommendation by updating the NPS or by publishing additional information; confirmed that proposals would be addressed later in the planning process; confirmed that action will be taken through other mechanisms or regulators; or agreed with the issue raised but disagreed that the NPS was the correct mechanism, believing that to be the development consent order process.
The Transport Committee has, in the last three parliamentary terms, been a supporter of Heathrow expansion rather than the alternatives. Our report supported expansion, provided that our concerns were addressed, and I believe that the Government have done so. This procedural difference in opinion is not going to stop me voting for Heathrow expansion this evening. Britain’s airport capacity is scheduled to run out by 2030. It was clear from our evidence sessions with neutral airlines that support all airports that we had to proceed, and that Heathrow was the only option on the table.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Apparently the Foreign Secretary could not be with us today because he is in Afghanistan. He has got his Khyber pass—what a carry on! We are in a situation where other Members, however, have spoken honestly and passionately about their constituencies and their constituency concerns. That is partly why we are here as Members of Parliament, but we are also here, even if our constituents are put at a disadvantage, to think about our country’s national interests. The SNP seems to have taken the ball off the field, and Labour Front Benchers are telling me that officially we are to abstain on the motion, which is a bizarre position, although some of us will vote—[Interruption.] It is a free vote—exactly.
In 2009, the Gordon Brown Labour Government made the decision to support Heathrow. That position was right then, and it is right now, in the national interest. I will vote in accordance with the position taken responsibly by Labour in government—not to have a free vote, but to say that these matters are in the national interest. I do so, too, as chair of the all-party group on Crossrail, knowing that my constituents in Ilford, and many other people in north-east London, Essex and Kent, will benefit greatly when Crossrail halves travel times from Kent and Essex, and from north-east and south-east London, across to Heathrow. That will be in the interests of jobs, prosperity and inward investment in our constituencies. The reality is that Crossrail will cut travel times.
The alternative to the proposal is delaying, stopping the process, and hoping that we will somehow go to remote and badly connected Gatwick. The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) was absolutely right to point out the difficulties with that. There is one decision, and only one decision, that we should be taking today. We need national leadership. At last we have a recommendation from this Government, but why were nine years wasted under the coalition and the previous Conservative Government? Let us go and do it now.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I support the proposed expansion of Heathrow and will vote accordingly. I will do so not because I do not accept there are many real and heartfelt reasons why Members feel, as they have explained today, they cannot support it, but ultimately because I believe that, on balance, it is in the national interest that we progress as a country by building a third runway at Heathrow. Frankly, as someone who can remember these debates growing up in the ’80s, we need to get on with it.
There are two points I want to talk about. A number of Members have referred to emissions and carbon reduction targets, outlining that they do not think we will be able to achieve those targets. I think it was the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) who asked for a plan on carbon reduction targets. Plans from this place or from Whitehall will not allow us to meet our carbon reduction targets. Those targets will be achieved due to the innovations that are occurring at Boeing, Airbus, Embraer and so on. It is the planes on which we travel on our holidays this summer that will ensure, through the use of carbon fibre and biofuels, that we start to meet those targets. A Boeing 737 that took us on holiday in the 1980s produced 36% more emissions than the Boeing 737s that will take us on holiday right now. The next generation of Boeing 737s will be 20% more efficient still. That is exactly how we deal with the emissions problem.
Members have rightly talked about economics. When I took my economics class, economics 101 was about monopolies. We have a clear monopoly in Heathrow. A small number of operators have, for whatever historical reasons, got hold of a number of slots and are using them. Less than 0.5% of new slots—taking off or coming down—have been given to new operators in the past few years. The situation is also seen in the frankly extortionate cost of the secondary market in the trading of those slots. Scandinavian Airlines System sold two slots to American Airlines for £75 million just so that American Airlines could take off and land twice a day. An old airline, GB Airways, was sold in 2008 for £100 million. It had 15 aircraft, 36 destinations and hundreds of people. It also had five slots at Heathrow, which went for another £100 million. If that is not the epitome of a monopoly and a market that does not work, I do not know what is. It is for that reason, and for the national interest, that I support Heathrow expansion. I look forward to voting for the motion.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
As co-chair of the all-party group on regional airports and the MP representing Newcastle International airport, I know that there are very passionate and strongly held views on all sides of the debate. Delivering aviation capacity is one of the most pressing infrastructure issues this country faces. It will be critical in shaping the UK’s economy, particularly given the very obvious challenges we will face with Brexit in the months, years and decades to come.
I have long made the case that where we build new airport capacity is not just an issue for London and the south-east, but a strategic, nationally important decision with implications for the whole UK, including the north-east. I firmly believe that expanding Heathrow, as set out in the national policy statement, is the right strategic decision for both the north-east and Britain as a whole. Indeed, Newcastle International airport, the single largest employer in my constituency, has also been very clear for the past decade that expanding Heathrow is the right decision for the north-east and that the decision needs to be taken now.
At present, the north-east benefits from up to six flights a day from Newcastle to London Heathrow, carrying half a million passengers a year, over 70% of whom use Heathrow as a hub to onward international destinations, many of which are long haul. It is clear, however, that without additional runway capacity at Heathrow, UK domestic routes such as those serving Newcastle will gradually be squeezed out as capacity is increasingly used by larger long-haul aircraft.
Indeed, Newcastle is already starting to see that pressure build, with the Heathrow-Newcastle route reducing to five flights a day in winter 2018-19. Many cities and regions in both the UK and overseas are seeking the Heathrow international hub link. The north-east needs to hold on to its well-established link, maintaining that frequency, because in the face of Brexit and all the challenges that that will bring, particularly for an exporting region like ours, the north-east can ill afford to lose further access to what is already its biggest hub airport.
Of course, Newcastle airport’s position on Heathrow expansion is echoed by the North East England chamber of commerce, which represents 3,000 businesses of all sizes across my region. It supports Heathrow expansion not just because of the clear connectivity benefits, but because it is determined to ensure that a significant proportion of the thousands of good new jobs and apprenticeships created will come to our region.
Mr Simon Clarke
Teesside has put in a bid for a logistics hub. Does the hon. Lady agree that this kind of sharing of the benefits of Heathrow expansion shows why shadow Front Benchers have got themselves into a really ludicrous position?
Catherine McKinnell
I agree that we need to share in the advantages. Just one of the firms that could benefit is Hart Doors, a family-run firm in Westerhope in my constituency, which has already supplied Heathrow with its high-performance security shutters for terminal 5. It said:
“Hart Doors has developed new products as a direct result of Heathrow’s procurement ethos…a focus on quality has required Hart Doors to find innovative solutions to meet Heathrow’s specific needs. The knock-on impact has been the development of new products that have subsequently been supplied to over 40 airports across the world. But Heathrow is not just a customer. Hart Doors also benefits from Heathrow’s international routes bringing in customers from long-haul destinations, allowing sales into markets that otherwise would not have been possible. Because of this, Hart Doors firmly believes that if Heathrow falls behind then Britain falls behind.”
This is undoubtedly why Heathrow expansion is supported by not just business, but the TUC, and the Unite and GMB unions nationally. They want to ensure that the UK can remain a world leader in the aviation and aerospace sectors, which are industries that mean high-quality, unionised jobs.
I recognise the important concerns that are being raised about noise, air quality and the potential impact on our climate change commitments. I would not support the proposal if I was not going to hold the Government to account on the mitigation that has been promised, but I feel strongly that this national decision must be taken in the national interest today.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I rise to support the motion and I will vote for this historic event. The decision is long overdue, and it is urgent that we now make it and move forward on increasing capacity at our international hub airport.
Aviation will be absolutely vital for the future prosperity of our nation. It is growing around the world. The only question is whether the UK will be part of that growth in the future, because if we do not increase capacity at our hub airport, we will miss out. We will not stop the growth in aviation; it will simply go to other airports around the world, to the detriment of our economy. That is why I believe that for the future of investment, trade and tourism in our nation, we should back the decision this evening and allow it to move on to the next stage of the process.
I am absolutely delighted that the Government have said that their absolute intention is that around 15% of the new slots at an expanded Heathrow will be available to regional airports. I was delighted that the Secretary of State came to Cornwall on Friday—
Steve Double
I will not take an intervention because we are very short on time.
In visiting Newquay airport, the Secretary of State saw the enthusiasm for an expanded Heathrow and the potential of a Heathrow link for Cornwall. It would be such good news for our local economy. It would be good news for our trade exports if we could export our high-quality goods from Cornwall directly through Heathrow to other parts of the world. The development would also be good news for our tourism.
At the moment, for example, we have a Gatwick link, but more overseas tourists to Cornwall come from Germany than from anywhere else, and Heathrow has five times more connections to Germany than Gatwick. A direct connection from Cornwall to Heathrow would therefore open up Cornwall to significantly more German tourists. We can multiply that by all the connections around the world that Heathrow would offer. If the success of the PSO that supports our Gatwick connection could be transferred to Heathrow, it would be another boon for our local airport and economy. A Heathrow connection would put us on the map by raising the status and profile of our regional airport, bringing other operators in. I am delighted to support the motion tonight. It is right for our country, right for Cornwall and right for Newquay airport.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The case for runway 3 is as bad as ever for my constituents, and now weak overall, as the economic case has not been made—and that is based on the Department for Transport’s latest figures. The proposal keeps coming back—16 years, I think, it has been—and I have been campaigning against it all that time. It keeps coming back not because of an unwillingness to make a decision, but because successive generations have realised that the arguments for expansion do not stack up. The generously funded Heathrow lobby keeps bringing the proposal back and will continue to do so until it gets the answer it wants. Meanwhile, we have not moved on to seriously address alternative solutions as part of a nationwide UK aviation strategy.
On noise and air quality, which are the issues affecting my constituents most of all, more than 300,000 people in our region of west London and the Thames valley will experience significantly worse noise than they do now. Most of them are not aware that they will be under the final approach path to the third runway. Those under the present approach paths to the existing two runways currently get eight hours respite; that will be cut to six hours and perhaps less. On night flights, the Secretary of State has suggested that the cap will be relaxed, despite promises. Runway 3 will bring 50% more passengers. Heathrow says that there will be no new traffic, but there is nothing in the NPS to justify that claim.
Zac Goldsmith
The hon. Lady has campaigned valiantly on this issue and deserves more than three minutes in which to make her case.
Ruth Cadbury
I thank my neighbouring colleague.
There is nothing in the NPS to justify how Heathrow can get away with saying that there will be no new traffic despite 50% more passengers, a doubling of cargo, and additional flight servicing and staffing. It is absolutely impossible. As everybody acknowledges, all the proposed rail infrastructure is needed now to meet current traffic pressures. Our roads system has ground to a halt, and our air quality has already been in breach of EU limits for many years. The Government will continue to lose legal challenges as a result.
There is nothing in the NPS on the air pollution generated by aircraft, and there is nothing on climate change obligations that will satisfy the Committee on Climate Change, as we will no doubt hear on Thursday. All the additional passengers arising from expansion will be outward leisure passengers and transfer passengers. The increase will bring nothing to the economy and will take the tourist pound away from the UK’s beautiful tourist destinations. Heathrow expansion means more intense use of existing routes such as New York. It will restrict growth at non-south-east airports by 24%—those are not my figures but the Department’s—reduce domestic routes to Heathrow from the current eight to four or five, and mean 160,000 fewer international links from regional airports, thus making our regions less connected to the rest of the world than they are now, according to page 27 of the Transport Committee’s report.
The hub airport model has been superseded by a preference for direct point-to-point flights among passengers and businesses who would rather not change, and also by the new ultra long-haul planes. Unused capacity outside London could, without Heathrow expansion, mean a growth of 62% in flights and 96% in passengers. Without Government intervention, domestic slots from regional airports to Heathrow cannot be guaranteed. The Government appear to have written a blank cheque to Heathrow by signing an agreement with a clause reaffirming the company’s right to sue the Government if Ministers back out of the scheme—a clause not included in the agreement on the Heathrow hub or that with Gatwick. It is increasingly evident that the Government are supporting the most expensive, most complex and highest risk scheme. Heathrow should be better not bigger.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Let me start by commending those who have spoken today. The issue of airport expansion has been around at least since 2008, and Members have been campaigning on both sides of the argument since long before then. I recognise that those on both sides have strong views, but I think we can all agree that the tone of today’s debate has been relatively comradely.
As we have made clear throughout this process, Labour recognises the need for airport expansion in the south-east, but our support was conditional on the meeting of our four tests. The draft NPS was published in October last year. In a Westminster Hall debate in January, I—along with other Members—highlighted a number of issues about which we were concerned. The Transport Committee scrutinised the draft NPS, and published an excellent report in March which made 25 recommendations to the Government. The Secretary of State claimed that he had acted on 24 of them, but the final NPS is largely unchanged.
The Government had the opportunity to listen to Members in the House and in the Transport Committee. They could and should have improved this document and given Members up-to-date, detailed information allowing them to make an informed decision about one of the biggest infrastructure projects in the country. Instead, Members are being asked to vote this through, and any concerns that they have will be dealt with by the Secretary of State at the development consent order stage. Given the Secretary of State’s disastrous handling of the railways, and given the Justice Committee’s recent comments on his reforms of the national probation service, I—and, I am sure, many other Members—will not have confidence in him to carry out that process. He should have listened to the Transport Committee and embedded its recommendations in the final NPS.
As I said earlier, our support for the NPS was always dependent on its meeting four tests. Throughout the process we made it clear that our final decision would be based on evidence, and, having looked at the evidence, we do not believe that the NPS has met our tests. The first warning sign is that the entire document contains only one mention of cost, which is shocking, given the £14 billion cost of the project. There is the big question of how the Government will keep landing charges flat in real terms. If they have to increase them, it is likely that the airlines will pass the cost on to consumers. The NPS does not guarantee that that will not happen. On surface access, the NPS provides no details of the costs that may fall on the taxpayer. There are also no details about the proposed changes to the M25 or the new rail scheme, and how they will be funded. The Government could have addressed those issues if they had implemented the Transport Committee’s recommendations.
The UK has a legally binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions under the Climate Change Act. However, the Government have failed to publish a strategy for UK emissions reductions in the NPS. Their new aviation strategy is not due to be published until 2019, so we will not know their plan for reducing emissions until next year. The Transport Committee asked the Government to amend their outdated air quality population figures and adopt a more stringent air quality compliance interpretation, but again the Government did nothing. It is also telling that tonight’s vote has been scheduled before the publication of a Government report warning that surging aviation emissions would destroy Britain’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. Not only are Members being asked to vote for the NPS when it includes out-of-date figures and presents no clear strategy on how climate change targets will be met; they have also been denied the opportunity to see a report that will provide key facts about the impact of aviation emissions.
The Government have failed to address noise and environmental concerns. They have not updated the 2013 baseline figure, or defined an acceptable noise level target. Noise level targets for noise mitigation was another Transport Committee recommendation that the Government chose to ignore, as was extending the respite period at night to seven hours. The Government have failed to give any detail on how they will secure slots for the regions. Given that the slots are owned by airlines and not the airport, it is unclear how the Government can guarantee the slots will be used for domestic routes. The Government have said that the public service obligation will ensure domestic connectivity; however, they have not said how, and given that they would make domestic routes exempt from air passenger duty, one wonders how this tax cut would be funded. Given the lack of detail on how the surface access plan will be funded, we are concerned this will lead to more transport investment being taken from the regions, and specifically the north of England, and used up in the south-east instead. We are not convinced that the third runway scheme will bring benefits across the country so it has failed our fourth test.
We have been clear from the beginning of this process that our support was dependent on our four tests and our decision would be based on the evidence. The NPS has failed our tests, and therefore I will be voting against the motion today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
This has been a generally well-tempered and constructive debate on a very important topic; indeed, it is a topic of such importance that no Government have been able to solve it for the previous 50 years, and it is therefore with great pride and delight that I put this question to the House today.
We have heard a very wide range of views and there has been great engagement, but the fact remains that the need for additional capacity in the south-east is more pressing than ever, and, as colleagues across the House have mentioned, there is a cost to doing nothing—an opportunity cost that we cannot ignore that forces us to act. We have acted so far by calling a review, and series of consultations, a statement, an urgent question, a debate, and I myself have signed 75 or so parliamentary questions; we have had a very extensive wider debate about this topic, and rightly so.
I have been very surprised, however, by the attitude of some of the Opposition Front-Bench teams. The spokesman for the SNP declared that his own Scottish chambers of commerce were in support and that he himself and the Scottish Government had spoken in favour of this proposal, yet they now find themselves against it, and at a time when airports in Inverness, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and the like all stand to benefit. [Interruption.] There were many speeches in this debate and they deserve to be paid attention to. The SNP position, however, is clarity itself compared with that of the Labour Front Bench, which has managed to pull together the astonishing combination of itself being against the motion, while ordering a free vote for its Members and recommending abstention, as the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) mentioned; I have seen sludge from the bottom of the Thames with more clarity than Labour’s position on this topic.
The fact remains that a new runway at Heathrow is the best strategic solution to this critical issue: it is well located, and it will provide the greatest connectivity by the introduction of new domestic routes and additional and frequent long-haul routes. The north-west runway scheme would deliver the greatest quantified benefits most quickly up until the 2070s. Crucially, this is not a scheme that will only benefit the south-east; its advantages will be felt across the entire United Kingdom, as we have heard from speeches from the entire United Kingdom during this debate.
The Government are committed to protecting and expanding these domestic routes, increasing them from eight to at least 14, and 15% of them will serve domestic flights to deliver even more opportunities for greater connectivity across the UK, benefiting passengers and businesses.[Official Report, 10 July 2018, Vol. 644, c. 6MC.]
Tom Tugendhat
Are there not two things that would help my hon. Friend’s position here: first, having the CAA and NATS taking overall control of airspace and, secondly, extending the Land Compensation Act 1973 to air routes?
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. If I had heard all of it, I would be able to respond in some detail.
Alan Brown
The Minister has referenced some of the points that I have made. What he did not do, however, was to guarantee to protect the slots for Scottish airports.
Jesse Norman
After this much discussion and documentation, the idea that the Scottish National party can hide behind the lack of a formal guarantee is frankly an insult to the process and to this House. To abstain, as the Scottish National party is doing, and not to reach a decision, is to say that it will give up the at least 100 additional flights per week. It will mean no more slots and no more economic growth for Scotland from this proposal. Frankly, that is a risible position.
Jesse Norman
I am afraid that I must make progress and continue to respond to the points that have been raised.
We will further improve the excellent rail connections that already exist. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) said, those rail connections distinguish Heathrow from Gatwick. The Elizabeth line will connect the airport directly to central London. The planned western rail link will greatly improve access from Slough, Reading and beyond, and I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). The proposed southern rail access would directly connect the airport to south-west London and the South Western rail network. The interchange at Old Oak Common will allow easy access to the airport via HS2 from the midlands and the north. Of course, Heathrow will pay for any surface access works that are essential to the delivery of the airport expansion. That includes works on the M25, the A4 and the A3044. It will also pay its fair share of the cost of any new rail connections.
Labour has put four tests to the Government on this topic, covering growth across the UK, climate change, air quality and noise. We have responded to each one of those four tests.
Bill Grant
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be many benefits for regional airports throughout the United Kingdom, up to and including Scotland, and for Prestwick airport in particular, as well as the potential for one of the four construction hubs for Heathrow to be placed in Scotland?
Jesse Norman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the opportunities lie not only in the increased connectivity but in the potential for hubs across the UK.
Both the independent Airports Commission’s analysis and our own show that a new runway can be delivered in line with our obligations under the Climate Change Act 2008. That position has been strengthened by a recent communication with the chair of the Committee on Climate Change. The Government’s clean growth strategy published last year also sets out how the UK will reduce carbon emissions across all sectors, including transport, across the 2020s.
We must also recognise the continued progress that industry has made in this area—[Interruption.] My colleagues have had a chance to make speeches, and it is right that we should recognise them. I was pleased to hear support from many Members across the House, and I wish that we could have had the support of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the Chair of the Transport Committee. She rightly said that the economic benefits were compelling, and I noted that other members of her Committee did not share her concern and will be supporting the proposal. I am delighted that the Committee supported the proposal at such a crucial moment earlier in the debate.
Our work on air quality shows that Heathrow can be delivered in line with our air quality obligations. It is a central requirement of the NPS that expansion will not go ahead—[Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) that expansion will not go ahead unless the scheme meets strict legal standards. Any application to build a new runway will have to show how air quality issues will be addressed. This could include an emissions-based charge to reach the airport, as the majority of air quality issues at airports stem from cars, not from planes.
The NPS also sets out specific measures to address noise impacts, including the provision of more predictable periods of respite through a runway alternation programme, an expected six and a half hour scheduled night flight ban, and clear noise performance targets. The details of these measures will be developed through consultation with local communities and will become legally binding through the development consent process. This is a historic moment for this country. It is the moment when we call on the Government and all Members across the House to show leadership. Any failure to support this NPS will have detrimental effects across the whole country. I am delighted, therefore, to urge all Members to support the motion.
Question put.
Justine Greening
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Even though this was a monumentally important vote, the House has had less than four hours to debate it, and in practice there were just over three hours for Back Benchers to contribute. Given how important the vote was, is that acceptable?
Mr Speaker
The determination of time available is not a matter for the Chair. The right hon. Lady has expressed her own view in characteristically succinct terms, leaving us in no doubt as to her dissatisfaction. All I would say to her and to other Members, on whichever side of the argument, who feel similarly, is that I have a sense that there will be a great many more debates on this important matter, in which we will hear from the right hon. Lady and from others similarly aggrieved this evening. I hope that that is helpful to the right hon. Lady.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you had any indication from the Foreign Secretary whether he will be back in time for Foreign Office questions tomorrow?
Mr Speaker
Surprise, surprise, the right hon. Gentleman has not communicated with me today and I feel sure that he has other pressing matters on his agenda. I have received no notification that he will not be present and correct for Foreign Office questions, so I feel sure that he will be. I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will look forward to those exchanges with eager anticipation and bated breath.
Business without Debate
Estimates
Delegated Legislation
Petitions
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I believe that the Government’s first duty is to keep us safe from those who would do us harm, whether here or abroad. Our fantastic servicemen and women sign up to do just that—to look after us—and in turn we ought to look after them. It therefore brings me no pleasure to present to the House this petition, which hundreds of people have signed, online and offline, in just one month. Those who have served our country are facing spurious and vexatious allegations. It must stop.
The petition states:
The Humble Petition of Hampshire and the wider United Kingdom,
Sheweth,
That urgent action must be taken by HM Government to protect British Military veterans from spurious and vexatious historic allegations and repeated prosecutions.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges HM Government to take all possible steps to immediately legislate for a Statute of Limitations that will prevent British Military veterans of the conflicts in Northern Ireland, the Falklands, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and other overseas combat operations suffering spurious and vexatious historic allegations and repeated prosecutions.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
[P002153]
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Those who have protected us deserve in turn to be protected, to live their lives in peace with the full knowledge of their country’s gratitude, and to know that they will not be pursued in old age, and not be the subject of repeated prosecutions over events that occurred many years ago. This petition is signed by hundreds of the residents of West Oxfordshire. The first duty of any Government is to protect their people, but those who actually do the protecting must be assured of a peaceful retirement.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of West Oxfordshire,
Declares that urgent action must be taken by the Government to protect British Military veterans from spurious historic allegations and repeated prosecutions. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges HM Government to immediately legislate for the Statute of Limitations that will prevent British Military veterans of the conflicts in Northern Ireland, the Falklands, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and other overseas combat operations suffering spurious and vexatious historic allegations and repeated prosecutions.
And the petitioners remain, etc. [P002158]
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Over the past four years of knocking on doors in the Camelford area, the No. 1 issue that residents have raised with me is the need for a bypass. The A39 is a very busy road, running down the spine of North Cornwall, connecting some of my busiest towns, with thousands of lorries passing along it every day. Because of the layout of the town centre, the A39 acts as a narrow funnel running through it, with queues of cars, lorries and tractors. This causes lots of pollution, lots of noise and lots of disruption to my local residents. Cornwall Council has had to introduce the only air quality zone in Cornwall to take care of the matter. A bypass is essential not only for air quality and public health, but for the economy. It will allow traffic to navigate the area much faster and the town to be much more attractive to businesses that want to invest. It will also unlock land for potential economic development and housing, progress for which is currently hindered by the congestion on the A39. I am therefore very pleased to be presenting this petition today on behalf of 743 residents as well as of the wider community in Camelford who want something to be done to address the public health concerns and to boost our economy.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of North Cornwall,
Declares that the request for a bypass for Camelford be accepted; further that an options report has been undertaken, which looks at different ways of addressing the congestion and air quality; further that a bypass is thought to be the best long term solution to the issues which locals are concerned about; and further the economic benefits that a bypass will bring to Camelford and North Cornwall. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to support the earliest opportunity for a bypass for Camelford to help ease pollution and congestion.
And the petitioners remain, etc. [P002157]
Veterans and Soldiers: Statute of Limitations
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), I remind those speaking, or hoping to intervene in the debate, that, in line with the sub judice resolution agreed by the House, no reference may be made to cases that are active before the courts.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
I rise to call for legislation to bring forward a statute of limitations to protect soldiers and veterans, in the knowledge that today is the first day of Armed Forces Week. This is a week in which we have an opportunity to celebrate the contribution that our armed forces make to all aspects of our society and our national security, but also to express our collective gratitude to the armed services. This gratitude is universally felt throughout our society, and I know that it is strongly felt in this Chamber. It is for that reason that, when we see instances of soldiers and veterans being mistreated by legal process, we cannot help feeling—as they do—a strong sense of betrayal.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Speaking as someone who spent three years on operations in Northern Ireland, and on behalf of the men and women who served there, may I just say that it is about time that our Government sorted this matter out?
Leo Docherty
I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for his intervention. More than anyone else in this Chamber, he knows what it means to serve.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) and for Witney (Robert Courts), I have brought forward a public petition calling for a statute of limitations, and I have been amazed by the response. Hundreds of my constituents and members of the general public have signed the petition on a daily basis.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman on the public support he has received in his constituency and on the turnout here this evening, which is testament to the strength of feeling in this Parliament, across the Chamber and across colleagues. I commend him for his work and support him in his efforts. The Democratic Unionist party supports him and we will work together to bring this forward.
Leo Docherty
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
When we see instances such as Dennis Hutchings—a man in his late 70s who served in Northern Ireland in the 1970s—being rearrested for an allegation for which he has previously been cleared of any wrongdoing on two separate occasions, we can see that there is clearly no public interest and that this is palpably politically motivated. The distressing point is that this situation is not just a few old men and a few last cases; there are a further 278 cases similar to that of Dennis Hutchings on the books of the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Like others, I served in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, and I know of many cases that could possibly be dragged forward and people who are waiting for that knock on the door. It is invidious. I did not go there because I wanted to. Like my colleagues, I went there because we were ordered to; we were there to protect the civilians from all the terrorism. Does he not think that this is poor reward for the hard work and dedication of the armed forces?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Belfast agreement released men and women from prison—from the possibility of prison—into political life. It was straightforward for them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should be straightforward for our armed forces, who were not terrorists but were following orders just as our soldiers still do throughout the globe? Any soldier with clean hands certainly deserves protection. Those terrorists with blood on their hands got a fresh start in life and appear to be attempting to call the shots.
Leo Docherty
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
This is broader than only Northern Ireland. The House will be aware of the scandalous saga of legal pursuit in recent years of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, 3,500 cases were brought before the Iraq Historic Allegations Team at a cost of £60 million to the taxpayer, resulting in no prosecutions. All those allegations were spurious. A case in point is the experience of Major Bob Campbell, who now faces his eighth investigation, despite having been cleared of any wrongdoing on numerous occasions.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that this is a matter not just for veterans, for whom we rightly have concern, but for our armed forces of today and in the future? The impact that this could have, and is having, on recruitment and retention is palpable, as we know from those we know who are serving.
Leo Docherty
Absolutely. This is not a matter of history: it is a matter of the here and now and of future deployments.
I have two simple proposals. The first is that the Ministry of Defence legislate for a statute of limitations, perhaps for 10 years, meaning that after 10 years, unless there is significant new evidence, no case can be brought against a veteran or soldier. Soldiers and veterans do not wish or seek to be above the law—they just seek natural justice. We must allow veterans to get on with their lives without the constant fear of that knock on the door and legal pursuit.
My second proposal is that we return our armed forces to the legal jurisdiction of the law of armed conflict and the Geneva convention. The intrusion of the European convention on human rights, which was taken into British domestic law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998, set the scene for the legal scandal that was IHAT in the case of Iraq, and Op Northmoor in the case of Afghanistan. Although the Government should be commended for the way that they closed IHAT, hundreds of cases of a similar nature remain outstanding, with private law firms, that may be brought in the near future. IHAT will happen again unless we in this place change the legal jurisdiction of our armed forces.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on this very important Adjournment debate. Does he agree that both the Vienna convention and the Geneva convention need the closest study and early reform because they are no longer up to date?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on introducing this debate. A previous British Government were able to find a legal mechanism to help a specific group of people called the on-the-runs, over 130 of them, who were all in different jurisdictions—the Republic of Ireland, Belgium and the United States—and got “get out of jail free” cards. Surely there must be some way in which Her Majesty’s Government can protect those who are there to serve our nation.
Leo Docherty
I am grateful for that intervention. I agree that the whole resolve of the Ministry of Defence and the legal capability of the Government must be brought to bear to find a legally viable route towards this, because it is, frankly, an issue of national security.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend and neighbour for securing this debate. Does he agree that ultimately there is a simple but important contract that must be honoured, which is that our servicemen and women, whether today or in years gone by, have served us and we should stand by them?
Leo Docherty
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right: it is a contract of trust and we must maintain that.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important debate. Having spent my young years in Northern Ireland, I remember how many times it was British armed forces who kept civilians safe. I am delighted to see so many Members here tonight. I do not want to turn this into a political issue, but is it not sad that half the Chamber is empty?
Leo Docherty
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I certainly agree.
What I am suggesting is not a new idea. As many hon. Members will know, the Conservative party manifesto of 2017 proposed exactly the same thing. On page 41, our manifesto stated:
“We will protect our brave armed forces personnel from persistent legal claims, which distress those who risk our lives for us, cost the taxpayer millions, and undermine the armed forces in the service they give. Under a Conservative government, British troops will in future be subject to the Law of Armed Conflict, which includes the Geneva Convention and UK Service Law, not the European Court of Human Rights.”
We must deliver what we promised. This is a matter of individual justice, but it is also a matter of national security. I regard it as a strategic necessity. How on earth can we deploy military force abroad with resolve if we are in any way doubtful, thinking that the Government may subsequently be challenged legally and that individuals serving on those operations may face legal pursuit?
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not just about recruitment and retention, as important as those are. It is about the confidence to pull the trigger and apply lethal force, using one’s judgment, and having the confidence that the Government will not come after people years later. It is about current operational capability.
Leo Docherty
I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend. This is a strategic necessity, and it guards against the wholesale enfeeblement of our capacity to deploy military power abroad and to execute with resolve our foreign policy and our security policy.
I seek humbly from the Minister two things: first, confirmation that urgent action will be taken by the Ministry of Defence on bringing forward a statute of limitations; and secondly, confirmation that the Government will fulfil their manifesto pledge and ensure that, when troops deploy abroad on combat operations in the future, they come under the law of armed conflict and the Geneva convention.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. I note that, by rough count, there are some 50 Members in the Chamber this evening, which shows the strength of feeling on this issue. I am also pleased to see the Secretary of State for Defence in his place on the Front Bench.
The Defence Committee, on which my hon. Friend and I both serve, has now agreed to look into this complex issue. If the Committee can find a way through this legal minefield, does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers—bearing in mind the manifesto commitment—would be morally obliged to take notice and act on it?
Leo Docherty
I commend my right hon. Friend for his knowledge of the subject and agree entirely with his point. We must show resolve, and the Ministry of Defence must deploy its whole effort to find a legally viable path to fulfil our collective manifesto pledge.
In conclusion, I would like to reflect on the damaging impact that the issue has on the morale and trust of those who have served and continue to serve. I have had a lot of correspondence on this subject, as one would expect, because of the petition and this debate. I am alarmed by the number of conversations I have had that involve the use of the word “betrayal”, but what alarms me more is when senior non-commissioned officers and officers who have served dozens of years all around the world in the most intensive and brutal operational environments tell me, after a lifetime of service, that on no account will they let their children serve as they have done. That pains me deeply.
Fundamentally, this is a matter of trust. It is about the Government fulfilling their duty of care to their soldiers, and it is about us collectively repaying the trust our soldiers have in us.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on securing the debate. That these issues were last debated just a month ago in Westminster Hall demonstrates Parliament’s commitment to supporting members of our armed forces, both serving and retired.
The idea of a statute of limitations has recently drawn support from many in this place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) has published a ten-minute rule Bill to provide for exactly that. Having been in the Chamber on that Friday when his Bill was before the House, may I recognise and pay tribute to the quiet and dignified protest of so many veterans out on Parliament Square? It would be wrong not to acknowledge that. Equally, I say to my right hon. Friend that while on that occasion—unfortunately, due to parliamentary constraints—we were unable to reach his Bill, I understand exactly why he chose, for technical reasons, to withdraw it to ensure that we can have a debate on it in due course.
So that there is clarity about what is meant by a statute of limitations in this context, let me set out briefly the key features of my right hon. Friend’s Bill—the Armed Forces (Statute of Limitations) Bill. The Bill would introduce a 10-year cut-off point after which prosecutions of members of the armed forces for the offences of murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide could not be brought. The cut-off point, or limitation period, would apply in circumstances in which the person suspected of the offence had been, at the time it was allegedly committed, engaged in armed conflict or in peacekeeping overseas. It would also apply if the alleged offence took place in the UK, providing that a previous investigation into the events in question had already taken place.
This debate is also timely because, as we have heard, last week the Defence Committee announced a new inquiry into just these issues. It is worth highlighting, because they are key in this debate, the questions that the Committee is seeking to address:
“What are the reasons for investigations into former service personnel?...
What difficulties do the UK’s international legal obligations pose for any attempt at protecting service personnel?
Can a Statute of Limitations, extended to all previous conflicts, be designed in such a way as to be consistent with these obligations?
What should be the cut-off date for the Statute of Limitations?”
These are very important questions. Aside from the question of whether a criminal limitation period is desirable in principle, those who support the idea must also engage with the complex practical reality of the legal framework within which our armed forces operate. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)
The Defence Committee heard evidence in its earlier inquiry that suggested that, in respect of Northern Ireland, any statute of limitations would need to apply to terrorist offences as well as to the armed forces if it were to be lawful under the European convention on human rights. The legal issues to be overcome by a more wide-ranging statute of limitations are more complex still. For example, what offences should be covered? How might it affect the possibility of investigations by the International Criminal Court? How might it be constructed in a way that is compatible with our obligations under the Geneva conventions and the ECHR? If it were to apply to service personnel operating in the UK, what activities would be covered? Should there be any exceptions to the limitation period, such as where new evidence becomes available after the cut-off point? I am really pleased that the Defence Committee will be looking at each of these issues—and more—in depth. The Government look forward to the Committee’s conclusions in due course, and I am confident that this will be a very valuable contribution to the debate.
The principal concerns that the idea of a statute of limitations seeks to address relate to historical investigations taking place in Northern Ireland, as well as to those in Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to say something briefly about each of those issues. First, let me turn to Northern Ireland. It is only due to the courageous efforts of our security forces that we have the relative peace and stability that Northern Ireland enjoys today. This Government are sincere and unstinting in their gratitude to all those who served throughout the long years of the troubles, many hundreds of whom paid a very high price for doing so.
The Government understand the concerns that people have about the way in which the legacy matters are currently dealt with. Historical investigations in Northern Ireland currently include numerous inquests and investigations into the small minority of deaths attributable to the state. Meanwhile, many terrorist murders go uninvestigated. All those involved—not least the victims and survivors of terrorism, along with former members of the security services—deserve a better approach than the current flawed system, which is not working well for anyone. The Government are committed to putting this right.
The Government propose that the institutions set out in the 2014 Stormont House agreement are the best way to ensure a fair, balanced and proportionate approach to addressing the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. That is why the Northern Ireland Office is consulting on the detail of how the Stormont House agreement institutions could be implemented. The institution most relevant to today’s debate is the Historical Investigations Unit. The HIU would be responsible for completing outstanding investigations into troubles-related deaths within five years. That would include about 700 deaths caused by terrorists that are not currently being investigated. In addition, the HIU would be required to act in a manner that is fair, impartial, proportionate, and designed to secure the confidence of the public.
As we have heard, last year the Select Committee on Defence looked at Northern Ireland in particular and recommended the creation of a statute of limitations covering all troubles-related deaths involving the armed forces, alongside a non-criminal mechanism for ascertaining the facts surrounding those deaths. While the Committee’s report demonstrated that there was support for alternative ways of looking at the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland, we must acknowledge—this is my understanding —that none of the Northern Ireland parties felt this was an approach that they could consider.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am glad that the Minister has paid attention to the previous report that we produced on Northern Ireland. I was even more glad that the official response to that report said that the consultation would include a section of alternative approaches that would consider a statute of limitations and a truth recovery mechanism. Unfortunately —and it seems to have happened with the change of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—that policy has been dropped. My impression, having spoken to ardent loyalists and ardent republicans, is that they are trapped by their rhetoric. They cannot say that they would go along with a statute of limitations, but in reality, if the Government took the lead, they would be able to live with it.
Mark Lancaster
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will address that point if he will bear with me.
Because there are a range of opinions, as well as requesting contributions as to how the Stormont House institutions could be implemented, the Northern Ireland Office consultation includes an open question inviting wider views on alternative ways of addressing Northern Ireland’s past. That open question ensures that all those who believe in an alternative way forward will be given a full opportunity to express their views and put forward proposals. As I said in the Westminster Hall debate a few weeks ago, I hope that everyone who has contributed to the debate will find the time to respond to the consultation. I can reassure the House that the Government are committed to considering all contributions carefully before deciding next steps. In that consultation, it is in their response to the open question that hon. Members can express their views on the subject.
Given the time, I should like to move on briefly to Iraq, where the eye-watering number of allegations and the several forms of investigation have created the perception of a witch hunt against service personnel and veterans. While the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision to strike off Phil Shiner shows that many of these allegations were improperly sourced, and some media reports have suggested that many of the claims brought through Leigh Day may be exaggerated, we must not lose sight of the fact that some service personnel in Iraq acted improperly. The death of Baha Mousa, the severe ill-treatment of detainees at Camp Breadbasket, and a small number of other incidents cast a long shadow. It would be remiss of us not to treat all allegations seriously, and we should expect them to be investigated professionally, but no one wants to see prolonged or repeated investigations over many years into the same incident. The Iraq Historic Allegations Team closed on 30 June 2017. When it was established in 2010 it was conceived as a two-year investigation into about 100 allegations of ill-treatment of detainees, but subsequent court decisions here and in Strasbourg opened the floodgates to over 3,600 allegations of ill-treatment and unlawful killing. It was simply overwhelmed, and struggled to identify quickly the few serious allegations and to conclude those investigations promptly and effectively. The service police legacy investigations have fared much better, concluding 73% of their case load within the first nine months. The bulk of the SPLI’s work will be complete by the end of 2018.
On Afghanistan, the number of historical investigations arising from Afghanistan has been far lower. This is due partly to the much smaller number of claims brought by law firms, but also to the more proactive approach taken during operations. By establishing a detention oversight team, which interviewed detainees while in UK custody and following transfer into the Afghan criminal justice system, we were able to ensure that most allegations were identified and investigated at the time. As a result, the Royal Military Police’s Operation Northmoor has had a far smaller case load and has been able to progress its investigations more rapidly than the Iraq bodies. Operation Northmoor has completed over 90% of its investigations, and its case load will be substantially complete by the end of this year.
Today’s debate can have left nobody in any doubt as to the strength of feeling on this vital issue. Inevitably, it is enormously difficult to investigate historical events and to bring those investigations to a satisfactory outcome for the armed forces, for bereaved families or for wider society. I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, and to all hon. Members who have attended tonight’s debate, for providing the House with the opportunity to debate this very important issue. I look forward very much to the Defence Committee’s inquiry, because I believe it will play a valuable part in helping to move this issue forward. Finally, I again encourage everyone to engage with the consultation in Northern Ireland. I reassure the House of the Government’s determination to try to find a way through this minefield and come to a satisfactory conclusion.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Digital Government (Disclosure Of Information) Regulations 2018;
Draft Information Sharing Code Of Practice: Code Of Practice For Public Authorities Disclosing Information Under Chapters 1, 3 And 4 (Public Service Delivery, Debt And Fraud) Of Part 5 Of The Digital Economy Act 2017
(5 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
For clarity, we are considering both the regulations and the code of practice; I will call the Minister to move the motion, and speak to both. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion, and ask the Minister to move the remaining motion formally.
The Minister for Digital and the Creative Industries (Margot James)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Information Sharing Code of Practice: Code of Practice for public authorities disclosing information under Chapters 1, 3 and 4 (Public Service Delivery, Debt and Fraud) of Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017.
Margot James
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The purpose of the regulations is to allow information sharing between specified bodies for specific purposes. They will also amend the Digital Economy Act 2017. Alongside the regulations, an information sharing code of practice for the public service delivery, debt and fraud provisions has been laid before Parliament, to be approved by a resolution of each House.
The public service delivery power supports the improvement or targeting of public services. In order to exercise the power, the Government must set specific purposes for data sharing via regulations. Those purposes must meet criteria defined in the primary legislation. The regulations seek to establish four objectives for data sharing under the public service delivery power. Those objectives will address multiple disadvantages, fuel poverty, water poverty and targeted assistance in retuning televisions.
I am sure that hon. Members would agree that the Government have a duty to support the citizens we serve and to ensure that the most vulnerable in society get the help that they need. The formulation of each of the public service delivery objectives has been guided by that principle. Data sharing is an effective and sometimes vital way of identifying individuals and households experiencing problems that reduce their life chances.
I will provide hon. Members with some details about each of the four objectives. First, the multiple disadvantages objective would allow for data sharing between specified public authorities to help to identify individuals or households that face two or more disadvantages. Disadvantages could include factors that in combination with each other limit the life chances of individuals or households, for example by affecting their health, emotional wellbeing or social and economic chances. The objective was initially developed to support the troubled families programme, which supports the identification of families across England for targeted support. It is also intended to be available for similar programmes across the UK.
On television retuning, to meet the increasing demand for mobile data, the Government have agreed to £600 million of funding so that the 700 MHz band —currently used for digital terrestrial television— can be allocated for mobile broadband. As a result, 150,000 households might need to either replace or realign their aerial to continue receiving all channels. The powers will help to identify those who are on certain benefits and might require further support to ensure that they continue to receive digital terrestrial television services.
The fuel poverty objective will provide a gateway for specified public bodies to share information between themselves to help to identify households living in fuel poverty, to ensure that they get the support that they need. It will also enable specified public bodies to flag to energy suppliers those who are eligible. The aim is to enable more vulnerable households and families to receive automatic rebates in the same way as more than 1 million pensioners do through the warm home discount scheme. However, that can happen only if the state can inform energy suppliers which of their customers should receive the benefits.
The water poverty objective would allow the sharing of information between public authorities to help to identify those who may be living in water poverty and help to ensure that they receive the necessary support. The information could be shared by public authorities with water and sewerage companies to help them better to target their support schemes, such as social tariffs, as allowed by powers in the Digital Economy Act. That Act specifies the conditions for disclosure of information to energy suppliers. One condition is that information disclosed under the powers must be used by the recipient in connection with a specified support scheme. The amendment is designed to enable information to be shared to identify, for coverage by price protection, vulnerable customers at risk of fuel poverty. Five million vulnerable households are already protected by a safeguard tariff, and we are keen to ensure that the delivery of such protections can be assisted through the ability of suppliers to match customer data with the data held by Government.
For the data sharing powers in part 5 of the Digital Economy Act to become operational, codes of practice must be approved by Parliament. The information sharing code of practice provides guidance on the use and disclosure of information under the public service delivery, debt and fraud provisions, as well as explaining the legal framework. We worked with other Departments, the devolved Administrations and the Information Commissioner’s Office, as well as civil society groups with privacy interests, to develop the code. The four relevant instruments were all subject to a six-week public consultation in autumn 2017, ahead of their being laid in May of this year. They were also made available in draft form for parliamentarians to consider during the Committee stage of the Digital Economy Bill in November 2016. The aim of those efforts was to strike the right balance between supporting practitioners to ensure that they can make use of the powers and building in safeguards to protect individuals’ privacy and prevent the unlawful disclosure of data.
Public authorities and other participants intending to use the information sharing powers in chapters 1, 3 and 4 of part 5 of the Digital Economy Act must have regard to the information sharing code of practice when disclosing or using information under those chapters. Failure to do so may result in loss of the ability to disclose, receive and use information under the powers.
I commend these provisions to the Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I have been writing about the need for Government to join themselves up a bit better for 22 years and so the Minister will be delighted to hear that we can give these measures—they are humble measures but none the less a step forward—our full support this afternoon.
There are, though, three questions on which the Minister could helpfully brief the Committee. First, she is seeking much broader powers for various Departments, and it is a well established principle in the House that where broader powers are given to the Executive, greater powers of oversight and scrutiny should be applied to those agencies, so we would be grateful if she said a little more about what additional oversight comes as a result of these regulations falling into place.
Secondly, the reality is that not a lot of public services are delivered proactively any more, because not many public services are left in many of our communities. None the less, where there are opportunities for local councils to join up with the Department for Work and Pensions, that is a good thing. It has been a real problem for many years that sometimes it is easier for an officer in a local authority to join a temping agency and get a temp job with the DWP in order to get hold of information from the Department. Will the Minister lay out with some clarity this afternoon that local councils will now be able to share information with the DWP and the DWP will share information with local authorities, and will she tell us what steps her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will take to ensure that frontline managers in the DWP understand the new legal latitude available to them to join together to deliver what public services are left in this country?
The final point that the Minister might just say a word about is a problem that was raised before the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the other place, which I do not think we have had a particularly good answer to: why, under these regulations, can data be exchanged about the whole household even if only one individual in the household meets the criteria she has set out? These are sensible regulations and they should have been put in place a long time ago, but there are a number of assurances that I know the Committee will want to hear this afternoon.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I hold the view that it is essential to maximise the quality and impact of data to reduce the burden on individuals, particularly vulnerable individuals, and on businesses, and that data sharing, while beneficial, must be proportional to individuals and safeguard them. I am reasonably satisfied with what I have heard today and what I have read in both instruments, and on that basis I will not oppose them and am happy to support them.
Margot James
I thank both hon. Gentlemen for their remarks. In addressing some of the questions raised by the shadow Minister, I will first point out that we have made great efforts to protect the welfare state and public services as we sought to deal with a very challenging deficit. I would like to see the public services in the context of our abilities to direct those services more towards those who really need them. That is the strategy we have adopted.
For example, in the area of energy, which I spent some time on in my opening remarks, we are talking about benefits such as winter fuel payments, cold weather payments and warm home discounts. Those benefits are alive and well, and valued by the several million people who receive them. What we seek to do through the safeguards is to ensure that, when there is discretion from energy companies about how to target some of those benefits, they can use intelligence about the people who are likely to need them most to deliver those benefits even more effectively. That is what we are debating.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly points out that we need safeguards. We need to ensure that information sharing is proportionate, that it is only used by the recipient for the purposes for which it is intended and that it is not retained for any longer than necessary. We are putting a number of safeguards in place. The data sharing powers must be exercised in compliance with the safeguards under the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Human Rights Act 1998. There is also a minimum amount of data required to meet the objectives for sharing information; that is another safeguard that we have put in place.
Any further changes to the list of public authorities permitted to share data under the codes of practice can be made only via regulations that are subject to the affirmative procedure, and we have involved the Information Commissioner’s Office throughout the development of those codes. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we have given great consideration to safeguards and that they have been put in place. He also asked about the question of data exchange on the whole household if only one individual meets the criteria. The purpose of the objective is to assist individuals or households with a combination of disadvantages. The problems of one household member can affect the outcomes of others in the same household; in particular, children growing up in a workless family are almost twice as likely as children in working families to fail at all stages of their education.
As a result, 150,000—I am so sorry. You will be pleased to know that I was about to wind up, Mr Hosie, and—
Margot James
I have given the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to intervene. I apologise to my hon. Friends for that.
Liam Byrne
Will the Minister confirm what latitude she is giving councils and the DWP to share information? I think that that is the principle clarification that we were looking for.
Margot James
The right hon. Gentleman did indeed raise that important point. It should not be the case, of course, that people need to job-hop to find out what is going on when they have only the good of citizens in mind. What is important is that the DWP will, according to the safeguards that we have built in, be able to share information for certain purposes. For example, if the Department has information about someone’s fuel poverty status they will be able to share information with local authorities. Likewise, if it has information that meets any of the other objectives that I outlined, it will be permitted to share it directly with local authorities.
Liam Byrne
I did not mean to intervene again, but my constituency has the highest youth unemployment in Britain and down the years we have been bedevilled by a lack of co-operation between the DWP and the city council. The city council often wants to target young people who need local authority-run job and employment creation schemes. It is unable to run outreach schemes that target individuals effectively, because it cannot get the information from the DWP, so it has to resort to the rather inefficient approach of targeting whole postcodes. That is the sort of thing I am driving at.
Margot James
The right hon. Gentleman eloquently underlines the need for the measures that we are putting in place. We should not have to target whole populations to find the percentage of people, whatever it may be, who would particularly benefit from a programme that a local authority might want to put in place.
As long as the various protections in the information sharing code of practice, which I have gone through, are met, there is no reason why the DWP and local authorities will not be able to work together. They are permitted to share information under the Digital Economy Act 2017—and the powers in question are permissive. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that we may need to raise awareness of the powers that the DWP now has under the provisions, and I take that on board as something to which my Department can contribute.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT INFORMATION SHARING CODE OF PRACTICE: CODE OF PRACTICE FOR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES DISCLOSING INFORMATION UNDER CHAPTERS 1, 3, AND 4 (PUBLIC SERVICE DELIVERY, DEBT AND FRAUD) OF PART 5 OF THE DIGITAL ECONOMY ACT 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Information Sharing Code of Practice: Code of Practice for public authorities disclosing information under Chapters 1, 3 and 4 (Public Service Delivery, Debt and Fraud) of Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017.—(Margot James.)
Ministerial Corrections
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to make a statement on the announcement by Rolls-Royce of 4,600 redundancies over the next two years.
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Rolls-Royce is one of our most important companies. It is a world leader in new technology, and plays a vital role in our industrial strategy. I spoke to Warren East, the chief executive, yesterday evening. Mr East explained that the company’s view is that the job losses are a necessary part of a drive to make the business more efficient and therefore more competitive. The jobs are principally in management and corporate support facilities rather than engineering and operational roles. Rolls-Royce has informed me that the announcement does not reflect a reduction in growth by the company; indeed, it reflects the reverse. It has a growing order book amounting to more than £170 billion, and Mr East told me that it would need more staff directly employed in both the manufacture of components and assembly to meet that demand.
[Official Report, 14 June 2018, Vol. 642, c. 1088.]
Letter of correction from Greg Clark.
An error has been identified in my answer to the urgent question on Rolls-Royce Redundancies.
The correct response should have been:
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Rolls-Royce is one of our most important companies. It is a world leader in new technology, and plays a vital role in our industrial strategy. I spoke to Warren East, the chief executive, yesterday evening. Mr East explained that the company’s view is that the job losses are a necessary part of a drive to make the business more efficient and therefore more competitive. The jobs are principally in management and corporate support facilities rather than engineering and operational roles. Rolls-Royce has informed me that the announcement does not reflect a reduction in growth by the company; indeed, it reflects the reverse. It has a growing order book amounting to more than £78.5 billion, and Mr East told me that it would need more staff directly employed in both the manufacture of components and assembly to meet that demand.
Defence
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the awarding of the defence fire and rescue contract to Capita.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record the justification for the awarding of the contract. The defence fire and rescue project has been examining potential improvements in how fire and rescue services are provided to the Ministry of Defence, both here in the United Kingdom and overseas. The total value of defence fire and rescue operations is around £1.3 billion. We intend to award a 12-year contract worth around £400 million to Capita Business Services Ltd. However, this is open to possible challenges—the normal process ensues—following the issuing of the contract award decision notice and possible parliamentary challenges to the contingent liability.
[Official Report, 21 June 2018, Vol. 643, c. 467.]
Letter of correction from Mr Tobias Ellwood.
An error has been identified in my answer to the urgent question on Defence Fire and Rescue Project: Capita.
The correct response should have been:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I am grateful for the opportunity to put on record the justification for the awarding of the contract. The defence fire and rescue project has been examining potential improvements in how fire and rescue services are provided to the Ministry of Defence, both here in the United Kingdom and overseas. The total value of defence fire and rescue operations is around £1.3 billion. We intend to award a 12-year contract worth around £550 million to Capita Business Services Ltd. However, this is open to possible challenges—the normal process ensues—following the issuing of the contract award decision notice and possible parliamentary challenges to the contingent liability.
Petition
Closure of Solihull Police Station
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
Football: Safe Standing
(5 years, 10 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 Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
I remind Members that the House has agreed, in its resolution on matters sub judice, that cases that are active before the courts should not be referred to in debate. There is currently a case involving six people who have been charged with offences relating to responsibility for the Hillsborough tragedy. That case and the individuals concerned may not be referred to in today’s debate.
As right hon. and hon. Members can see, this is a very heavily subscribed debate. I am therefore imposing a three-minute speaking limit and suggest that interventions are not made.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 207040 relating to allowing Premier League and Championship football clubs to introduce safe standing.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to open this debate on what is clearly an incredibly important issue for football supporters across the country. The petition was launched by supporter Owen Riches and calls for current legislation to be changed to allow football stadiums in the top two divisions of English football to install safe standing in certain areas. I commend Owen for the hard work and passion he has invested in his campaign and for all the time he has taken to work with my office ahead of the debate.
I represent Yate in South Gloucestershire and my local club, Yate Town football club, was the first in the UK at which supporters watched from rail seats in 2011. Our country has both a glorious heritage and an enduring past in football ground safety. It is therefore vital that we debate the issue with the respect it warrants. It is right that we seek to ensure that football supporters across England and Wales have the best possible match day experience but equally important to remember the lessons the football world has learnt and why changes were first introduced.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman rightly indicates that there is a case to be made. Indeed, West Bromwich Albion, based in my constituency, produced a very well researched case for safe standing at The Hawthorns, looking at national and international experiences. Can he imagine the disappointment when the proposal was slapped down by the Minister?
Luke Hall
I will talk about specific clubs later on. Standing was common practice at football grounds across the country until Lord Justice Taylor’s recommendations were acted on following the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. The findings from the final report in 1990 have shaped supporter safety ever since, and from August 1994 clubs in the English premier league and championship have been required to have all-seater stadiums. This matter remains complex and sensitive, but the debate’s purpose is to explore safe standing in a modern era and new climate of technological advancements.
As football clubs’ capabilities and technology to enhance the security and safety of supporters have evolved, there have been renewed calls for an examination of safe standing options. Paramount in the debate is maintaining supporter safety. Concerns about introducing safe standing have stemmed from genuine efforts to guarantee and uphold supporters’ safety and wellbeing.
Lord Justice Taylor remarked in his 1990 report:
“There is no panacea which will achieve total safety and cure all problems of behaviour and crowd control. But I am satisfied that seating does more to achieve those objectives than any other single measure.”
It is therefore right that the Government have asked for clear proof that an alternative could deliver the same levels of stability and safety.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Taylor report led to no standing areas. He will be aware that Margaret Aspinall, who speaks on behalf of the Hillsborough families, has said that this is a “sensitive time” and that most families of the victims
“don’t want standing ever brought back”.
Does he not agree that those views should be given some weight?
Luke Hall
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting those remarks on the record and commend him for all the work he has done to represent his constituents on this matter.
Rail seating, the most commonly advocated safe standing system, is the method currently operated in all examples of safe standing. It can be found at Celtic Park as well as several top-flight German football clubs. It operates in much the same way as existing seats, with each ticket holder allocated their own seat in the stadium. The rail seating design allows for the seat to be folded and locked upright when necessary, allowing supporters to stand. Each row has a safety barrier, which spectators can hold on to or lean against for stability. Those barriers seek to aid crowd control by keeping groups of supporters separate and restricting movement around the terrace.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
On that point, Nick Dale, Grimsby Town football club’s stadium manager, suggests that weight should be given to the argument that safe standing in small areas should be made permissible and licences more freely available to clubs such as Grimsby Town. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. He referred to rail seating at Celtic Park, which has been in operation since July 2016. Does he agree that, since its installation, there have been no safety concerns whatever and it has been highly successful for the club and its fans?
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting that point on the record. That highlights the potential for devolution. Importantly, Celtic’s application was just for a change in the type of seating; there was no increase in the number of people in the stands. The density of people at Celtic Park was therefore the same, which is important when we look at safety in that example.
The Football Supporters Federation has consistently argued that the controlling of crowds at football games, as well as crowds’ entry into grounds and the ability to monitor capacity, has drastically improved in the last 10 to 15 years. As the hon. Gentleman alluded to, that may be best evidenced by the fact that Celtic football club has reported that there has been no increase in incidents.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, a broad range of supporters have come to me in favour of rail seating. That includes a 24-year-old female Liverpool fan and a much older male Man United fan, both constituents of mine in Leeds, as well as a Leeds United supporter.
Luke Hall
The hon. Gentleman is right to put his constituents’ comments on the record, which are duly noted and replicated by many Yate Town football fans who have spoken to me on this matter.
As we explore the various arguments, we are tasked with comparing a 30-year period of improvements in supporter safety with the relatively early years in the introduction of safe standing and some of the examples already mentioned. The Government are asking for a long period of time to assess the impact of rail seating.
One solution is to devolve responsibility on safe standing to local authorities, who could in turn take advice from the safety advisory groups, which often consist of a local authority, the police, fire and ambulance services, and other relevant groups. We already trust local authorities to listen to SAGs when making recommendations and decisions on rugby matches, horse-racing events and music concerts. It is argued that there is an opportunity for those bodies to take on a new and enhanced role, with the Government allowing the decision for a club to introduce safe standing to be recommended and determined by authorities already in place.
Ashton Gate is the home of Bristol City football club and Bristol Rugby—the matches are held in the same ground. Yet the ground regulations on standing, for each sport, are in stark contrast to each other. Bristol City football club previously applied to the local safety advisory group to consider the possibility of introducing safe standing. Rail seating was considered at the start of the redevelopment of Ashton Gate in the 2013-14 and 2014-15 seasons, when the club was in league one. The possibility of progress on that was part of the reason why Bristol Rugby started to play at Ashton Gate. However, Avon and Somerset police have explained that it never took off following advice from the local safety advisory group. That clearly shows that football clubs already adhere to the advice and guidance of local experts and authorities.
The sort of devolution I am describing would require only for the Secretary of State to direct the Sports Grounds Safety Authority through secondary legislation under section 11 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 to allow safe standing in specified areas of the ground. That would allow clubs to future-proof their grounds in case their league status should change, and would allow for grounds such as Ashton Gate to adapt to their dual purpose. If they moved up or down a division, they could make changes to rail seating and whether seats were locked or not, depending on their status.
With the ability to install such seating, each club could be in a position to comply with the legislation but could also have the opportunity to consult their SAG on whether safe standing in certain areas could be pursued. Introducing safe standing could become an individual case-by-case decision, taking into account the varying opinions at each club, and the differing circumstances. It is argued that local authorities and SAGs are best placed and most suitably equipped to recommend safe standing.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman say that there is an exception in which it might always be important to install safe standing, because away supporters tend to stand? At Newcastle United the away supporters are right up in the gods, and stand in a dangerous position. Might that be an exception for every ground?
Luke Hall
The point that the hon. Lady highlights is right. The important point is that devolving the decision to local authorities, which would take into account the police’s experience of dealing with issues at specific clubs and in specific stands, would provide more flexibility.
The debate centres on enhancing safety and control. It is about the extent to which devolution is required, and to which we trust local authorities to make the decisions in question—while ensuring that supporters get the best possible match day experience. I would welcome clarification from the Minister of the exact evidence that will be required before progress can be made. I would also welcome her thoughts about whether the sport might be best served by devolving the decisions to local authorities, which might be better placed to consider each application to install safe standing on its individual merits. The matter is one of particular sensitivity to people on all sides of the debate, and I hope that the points that are raised during the debate will receive fair and careful consideration and understanding.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
Order. There will be a three-minute time limit on speeches.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I want to thank the chair of the Pompey Supporters Trust, Simon Colebrook, for talking with me about the issue, as well as our excellent shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who has led our party in backing safe standing across the football league. I thank, also, the owner of Portsmouth football club, who has written to me about this important issue today.
In a debate about safe standing in championship and premier league games, Pompey fans will be painfully aware that, despite a prolific history of European and top division football, not to mention multiple FA cup wins, our club are currently enjoying a short break from the pressures of the premier league. Nevertheless, our time in this country’s top two divisions means that, under current legislation, we are required permanently to remain all-seater. Our club is therefore a prime example of the injustice of the Government’s stance on safe standing, because in reality the issue is not whether to bring safe standing into football grounds; it is already there. When Portsmouth fans travel to the grounds of Bristol Rovers, Peterborough United, Wycombe Wanderers and countless other sides in the football league, they see stadiums where fully licensed standing sections are operated. Yet back at Fratton Park they have no choice: standing sections are not allowed. That is all because we previously spent more than three seasons in the top two tiers. I must admit that I am puzzled about why the Government think standing becomes safer as the quality of football gets worse. If that is true, Southampton fans should not be made to sit.
Why should divisional status—and historical divisional status, at that—have implications for whether clubs can have standing sections at their grounds? It is nonsensical, and fans in my constituency are understandably frustrated. Listening to supporters is not just a courtesy. It is important for securing the future of the game. Not every fan wants to stand, but nearly every fan I have spoken to wants to have the choice. I implore the Government to trust fans. They know their clubs best.
The Minister is well respected and highly sensible. However, she is a Spurs fan and so, like Pompey fans, cannot stand safely to watch her team; but her colleague, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), can. Why? It is because the legislation is outdated and unjust. Surely, as a fellow victim of the Football Spectators Act 1989, she shares my frustration and that of Pompey fans. I urge her not to review the issue—which many fans consider to be shorthand for ignoring it—but to listen to fans, listen to common sense and change the law.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman suggested, Cheltenham Town football club is in league two, and therefore we have safe standing. Does he agree that it will be regrettable if, when the time comes and the club is catapulted into the premier league, it has to rip out the safe standing? That would be to snub some of its most loyal and passionate supporters.
Stephen Morgan
I could not agree more.
Opportunities for any Government to do something that an overwhelming majority of people want, and that will boost community assets and generally make people happy—for free—are few and far between. The Government have an open goal. Yet, like a Southampton striker, they have skied it. On behalf of supporters in my constituency I urge the Minister to reconsider and back fans in their call for safe standing across the league.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
Order. Members may remove jackets if they wish.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I shall try to make some comments while ignoring the taunting of the Portsmouth fan on the Opposition Benches to my right—although it is difficult to ignore. If we want to see who is successful in football, we need only note that Southampton has survived in the premier league again this year, while Pompey languishes somewhere closer to the Sunday leagues.
All-seater stadiums have been required by law since 1994. There were good reasons for introducing them, but I think that now is the time to consider whether we can have safe standing as well as seating. Safe standing has been trialled and is now accepted as being safe. In 2011 the Scottish premier league relaxed its requirement for all-seater stadiums and Celtic, as has been mentioned, now has a safe standing space for 3,000 supporters. Next season, league one team Shrewsbury Town will join Celtic and have its own safe standing area.
The stunning St Mary’s stadium in Southampton has a capacity of more than 32,000. Frequently 32,000 fans attend to watch—unlike at Portsmouth, not far down the road. The Saints moved from the iconic Dell ground in 2000. We used to stand on the terraces until the move to the new stadium. Many football fans want to continue to stand, and Southampton fans are no exception. Fans in the Northam stand all too often still stand, although by law they should not. That presents the club with a difficult decision about how to police the situation; thus far it has not managed to do it. However, the situation proves that safe standing, even in an environment where there is standing between seats, has been safe for some 18 years at Southampton football club.
A recent survey by the Football Supporters Federation received more than 33,000 responses and discovered that 94% of fans wanted the choice of whether to sit or stand at English Football League matches. Personally, I prefer to sit, which perhaps is an age thing—but not everyone does, and thousands would prefer to stand. That said, if safe standing can be introduced we must not lose sight of the fact that there are those who want to sit.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that it has become very expensive to attend football matches, and standing areas might allow cheaper access to football for genuine fans?
Royston Smith
I think that has been said—that it may be cheaper if tickets are sold for standing. I have no evidence of it, but there is no reason why it should not be part of the mix.
As a Southampton fan, I am no stranger to nail-biting finishes to the premier league, and last season was no exception. I am not especially vocal, although by all accounts people with offices near mine could hear me shouting my relief when we managed to stay in the premiership for at least one more season—which Portsmouth, of course, failed to do. Many people are vocal and spectators at football like to sing, chant and explain to the referee when he may need to review a decision or change his glasses. That is part of the enjoyment of the match.
There are laws that are made for good reason—goodness knows, this law was made for good reason; no one could deny that—but that, in their implementation, do not always work in the way they were intended. This is one such law, and I am pleased that the Minister is open-minded about changes. With safety as the top priority, of course, I hope that a compromise can be reached to accommodate everyone.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I will start with a fact: standing happens at every football match, whether that is legal standing up the pyramid to league one or the blind eye turned to it in the premier league and the championship. Every match-going fan knows that away from home they will stand whether they want to or not, and they know the areas of their own ground where stewards will let it go. The choice before us is not between football fans standing and not standing; it is a question of how to make it safe and as enjoyable as possible. The rules are out-of-date and we need our Government to act.
It is clear from the turnout how many MPs this campaign has reached. I was pleased to host an event on this important issue for the Football Supporters Federation, safety experts and parliamentary colleagues before today’s debate. Safe standing is an issue whose time has come, a fact borne out by the simple numbers. It is borne out by its successful use outside the top two flights week in, week out. It is borne out by the 94% of fans surveyed by the EFL, who made it clear that they wanted a choice in the type of match day experience they had. It is also borne out by the more than 100,000 football fans and supporters who signed the petition to secure today’s debate. Fans want safe standing even if they do not want it for themselves, and it is increasingly clear that clubs want safe standing, too.
I was delighted that earlier this month my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) announced that the Labour party backs safe standing. I salute her leadership on the issue.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin- Khan) made that announcement in my constituency, at Queens Park Rangers. I am blessed to be probably the only MP whose borough has three top-flight football clubs: my club Fulham, Chelsea and QPR. We hope to see QPR also in the premiership quite soon, making it three out of three. There are two questions to be asked here. Can standing be made safe? Yes, it can. Is it safe at the moment? No. That is why my hon. Friend is right to change our policy and that is why we want to see the Government follow suit.
Alex Norris
I appreciate that intervention and I could not agree more. Now we need the Government to catch up, because they are out of step with public opinion. Two weeks ago the Minister, in response to multiple written questions I had tabled, said:
“An announcement will be made shortly.”
I hope we hear today when that announcement might be.
The crucial thing, from my own experience, is that match-going fans want safe standing to be part of the mix. I have been one of them for 30 years; I will confess to my constituents, although it is not a secret, that I am a Manchester City fan rather than a Nottingham Forest or Notts County fan.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend gives me support from a sedentary position. I am very grateful for it. I have been going for 30 years and I have been a season ticket holder for the last 20. Not long ago, I moved from an area where there was a weekly pitched battle between fans and stewards about standing up, because it stopped being fun. My instinct is not to break rules—funnily enough, I suspect that is the case for everybody here—but I had to stand because people in front of me stood. The stewards, who are often on low wages and just doing their job, have to try to manage an impossible situation. That is no fun for anybody. Anyone who thinks that the current, arbitrary rules on standing are being enforced is kidding themselves. It is a muddle that pleases nobody.
I want to briefly address Hillsborough, because it is exceptionally important and I would hate to think that any of my campaign activities would ever, even inadvertently, cause pain for those families. I rang Spirit of Shankly to talk about the issue. I learned a lot from my conversation with Jay McKenna and I am grateful for it, but what I took from that conversation was his suggestion that we let Merseyside MPs talk about the views and experiences of Merseyside fans. That seemed reasonable to me and that is what I will do. As might be expected, I have talked to Nottingham Forest fans about it; I have spoken at length with both Forza Garibaldi and the Nottingham Forest Supporters Trust. Both are supportive, some because they want to stand and others because they are sick of people standing in front of them.
I will conclude by saying that these calls for safe standing are not only rooted in what fans want, but based on engagement. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting had an incredible event with 40 different clubs represented. The calls are based on research and an understanding of the reality in the stands week in, week out, that the default is not good enough and that we have to change. They make a compelling case for choice, not for a one-size-fits-all approach. We do not need Whitehall to tell us what to do at Meadow Lane or the City Ground. We should let our safety advisory groups do it; we should let our clubs and fans get hold of it and come up with something sensible and safe, because our game would be better for it.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), who opened the debate.
In recent years, the call to change the requirements for all-seater stadiums has become louder and louder. People look at the change of culture within football and the environment within the grounds, which has lost much of its more troubling element, and see an opportunity to return to some standing, whether in the form of terracing or a variation of safe standing.
The overwhelming response that the English Football League received on this issue reflects why we need to change the existing arrangements. In just two weeks, the English Football League received 33,000 responses to its survey on the issue, with 94% being in favour of a choice between seating and standing. That shows the level of interest in changing the current situation and also that fans overwhelmingly support having the option to stand. It is not a marginal decision to have that option, but an overwhelming one.
At the end of last season, Bolton Wanderers just about held on to their position in the championship by their fingertips. If someone is going through a tense game, which will determine the future of their club and whether they stay in the championship, they do not want to sit down. They want to be standing up, on their feet, part of the experience and not merely a spectator to it. It is natural for fans to want to stand up and it is reasonable for us to look at the current arrangements, which are not safe for fans when they stand up.
Fans naturally want to be part of things. Just as when we speak and engage in debates in the Chamber, it is better to stand up to engage with people. If someone is at a rock concert and enjoying music, it is much better to stand up and be part of that experience. That is what we must reflect on for football, because it applies just as much, if not more, when someone is viewing a football match. We have examples in Scotland and further afield that demonstrate that a standing option can not only be safe, but give that far better experience for the fans. There will also be less time spent by stewards telling people to resume their seats.
There needs to be a change of mindset that allows a devolution of decision making to enable collaboration between fans, clubs, local authorities and the police, along with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, to ensure the right provision is made at each and every ground. That may be completely different from one ground to another; we have to respect and appreciate the local culture within each football club.
I welcome the debate. We need to listen to the fans. We cannot allow a loss of safety, but we can make the football spectator’s experience far better.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I apologise that I may not be able to stay for the end of the debate and the winding-up speeches, because I will need to be in the Chamber.
I am a huge admirer of Brentford football club in my constituency, just around the corner from where I live, although I cannot call myself a football fan and I do not go regularly to football. On the occasions I have been, I have stood on the terraces there and have enjoyed the experience very much, but I recognise that, after the tragedy of Hillsborough, those terraces are no longer appropriate for the 21st century.
When the 2018-19 season kicks off in August, Brentford football club will be the only club in the championship with standing terraces. In June 2018 the club received special dispensation to continue standing terraces for another season, given that they have started construction work on their new 17,250-seater stadium near Kew Bridge in my constituency. The chief executive of Brentford football club, Mark Devlin, recently said:
“It is clear to us from our discussions with supporters that Brentford fans want the option to stand to watch their football. New stadiums, and even older grounds like Griffin Park, are now very safe places to attend matches. Safety is paramount whenever we hold a game, procedures are rigorous and all our staff are highly trained.”
Brentford will support the Stand up for Choice campaign and would like to be given the chance to gather evidence to inform the debate when they move to the new stadium. They want the change of legislation. They have seen the rail seats. I have seen the rail seats, and I now understand the difference between rail seats and the old-fashioned terraces. There are other clubs around Europe that already have standing areas that we can learn from. Brentford fans are used to standing, so the education process for fans would be minimal. Brentford have designed a brand-new, purpose-built stadium, ready to accommodate dual-purpose seating. They are willing to put in the very latest rail seats to become an effective pilot for standing.
Brentford need a quick decision on this, because of the cost of the rail seats and the project planning for the new stadium. The west stand provides a number of different options and they want to get on with it. They are working closely with the Football Supporters Federation and other groups to understand best practice on safe standing from all clubs and how to work together to deliver it.
The operations team at Brentford is well used to managing standing audiences and already working on detailed operations policies and procedures, including for managed, zoned areas to restrict the amount of movement within a stand or specific rail seat allocation to ensure that all concourses and exits are managed safely at all times. On behalf of the Brentford fans, I would like the Government to support safe standing.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for putting the case for safe standing so clearly. This is a day for huge congratulations to all the fans who have made that case and lobbied with such passion, thoughtfulness and commitment for many years to move the debate to the point that we have reached today.
The first Middlesbrough match I ever went to was a thrilling 0-0 draw with Wimbledon on 26 October 1996. I was hooked. That was the year after the Riverside stadium opened. It was one of the first truly modern stadiums to open in the aftermath of the Taylor review and was financed by Steve Gibson, the man who more than any other has come to embody the saving of Middlesbrough football club. Why did the Taylor review happen? We all know the tragic Hillsborough story and the very good reasons why standing was abolished.
However, I returned to the Riverside a few weeks ago to meet a delegation including Middleborough’s chief operating officer, Mark Ellis, Chris Joseph from the Middlesbrough Supporters Forum, Rob Nichols from the Fly Me To The Moon fanzine and Dave Roberts, the commentator. We enjoyed a really good discussion on the pros and cons of safe standing, which are actually quite complex. Whether the club would even choose to go ahead with it, were it an option, is not a done deal, given that, in essence, the cost of a ticket would not be reduced. Only one rail seat can be installed in place of an ordinary seat, so there would probably be no change in the cost of a ticket for a fan.
None the less, this comes down to other things, including safety—it is not safe to stand in an all-seater stadium; the trip hazard of a low plastic seat in front of a fan is very real—atmosphere and the fan experience. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), it is simply not sensible to expect people in a highly passionate environment to sit down politely throughout the experience.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Several Crewe Alexandra supporters are currently in Russia enjoying the World Cup and are tweeting at me all the time about the atmosphere. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as football fans around the world and in Europe enjoy safe standing, UK fans should be given the same choice?
Mr Clarke
I agree. The case that rail seats work has been well made in Germany over a number of years, so the idea that we would be taking a step into the unknown is simply untrue. We see that this works abroad; indeed, I think most people would say that the atmosphere in German stadiums is better than in ours. The case for safe standing has been made. We will obviously need to consult on this change if we are to make it; it would not be appropriate for us politicians to prejudge all the different aspects of this debate. I hope the Minister will encourage a review of this, because the case deserves sensible consideration.
In that meeting at the Riverside, we watched a really impressive presentation put together by a Bristol City fan. I can certainly obtain it and I urge hon. Members to watch it, because it sets out that case very clearly and emphasises that we are not returning to the bad old days of the ’80s and terraces. This debate is obviously in the shadow of history and it is all too easy to imagine that we are calling for a regressive step, which this is not. It is absolutely about embracing the latest technology.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has actually taken the words about those ’80s terraces right out of my mouth. There is a perception among some that we are going back to crowded terraces with far too many people being admitted. I thank the Huddersfield Town Supporters Association and Stand Up For Town. I was initially very cynical about safe standing, but they taught me about what it involves.
Mr Clarke
I think that that is right, and I absolutely agree that this is something about which we need to listen and learn. The ground has moved.
A favourite story of my family’s is about my grandfather taking my uncle-to-be to watch Hartlepool United in the late ’70s. He famously remarked, “We are probably going to win today; our star striker is back.” My uncle asked, “From injury?” My grandfather replied, “No, from prison.” The days of that sort of culture in football are long gone, as I think the debate has reflected. We have heard Members from across the parties express passionately that our fans want to see safe standing. I hope the Minister listens and responds with favourable news in due course.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. My constituency is home to some of the most passionate football fans in the world. Manchester City and Manchester United—the premier league’s top two teams last season—have large fan bases in my constituency, and supporters of both clubs have been in touch with me in recent months to voice their concerns about the current legislation on safe standing.
Those fans are not as fortunate as fans of another local team, Rochdale AFC, who have a standing section in their Spotland stadium. The Minister will recall that I recently questioned her about the dual use of that stadium for football and rugby league and the differing attitudes to safe standing dependent on the type of game being played. It is therefore particularly important to me to make the case for safe standing in the debate. It is important to say that there are understandable sensitivities owing to the Hillsborough disaster. We are all aware of the tragedy of Hillsborough and we respect the views of the families. However, we are debating the introduction of safe standing, which has the support of many fans, and much evidence to support it.
It is also important to look at the technological advancements that have developed since the Taylor report. We have seen the introduction of rail seating in several European stadiums, particularly in Germany. Notably, seats in Borussia Dortmund’s stadium can be locked upright, allowing supporters to stand, and each row has a safety barrier to improve crowd control. Dortmund’s fans have a reputation for being among the most boisterous in the world, so if Dortmund can have good crowd control in a safe standing environment, it sends a clear message to the rest of Europe that those advancements are working.
We must also look at our own stadiums and how they are adapting to the modern game. My recent visits to Old Trafford have involved standing in the singing section, and as somebody said to me earlier today, there is a reason why people stand up in church to sing hymns. The seats in that singing section are not used by anybody, and those fans would be far safer in a railed safe standing area than being hemmed in by tip-up seats. Hon. Members who have visited Wembley stadium will have encountered this problem too, and I am told that the same thing happens at Manchester City’s Etihad stadium, although I am not a frequent visitor to that particular ground. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) says that they would not have me.
Football supporters have made it clear that they want this choice, which is provided at rugby matches, music festivals, horse racing and other events. The Government now need to listen to supporters who, along with clubs and safety experts, want reform of the all-seater legislation.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Safe standing has been a somewhat vexed issue for many years; it actually predates the times that hon. Members have talked about. I think back to when I first started getting interested in and following football. Sometimes we do not know why we have done some things, but I decided to become a fan of Coventry City. That was around the time in 1981 when the late, great Jimmy Hill, who was Coventry’s chairman, decided to change the Highfield Road ground in Coventry from being mainly all standing to an all-seater stadium. That was seen as revolutionary at the time. Sometimes we do not like revolution that much in this country, and that decision was quickly found to be very unpopular. The upshot was that the all-seater stadium lasted for approximately two years.
I commend to the Minister a very interesting report released by the University of Leicester’s sociology department in 1984, which actually looked into that experiment and discussed it at some length. While things have moved on greatly since that time, some things in that report are extremely pertinent today. However, we all know the events that took place following that decision and the deeply distressing disaster at Hillsborough in 1989. Although I do not want to go into the detail of that, when we look at the context for this debate, we need to look carefully at the history and why we went to a system of all-seater grounds in the top two leagues in 1994.
I have been watching football for 30 years and I know that, back then, at many grounds that were all-seater, most people sat down, but there is a challenge now. I take my son to watch Coventry City—some people would think that is a good thing; he seems to enjoy it. When I took him to an FA cup game against Arsenal when he was only eight, he spent 90 minutes standing on a seat because we could not see, and he would not have seen a thing if he had not done so. We went to Brighton this year in the FA cup, and he stood for another 90 minutes. Fortunately, he is nearly as tall as me, which is not that tall, and he managed to see.
The point is that there are large sections of our football grounds where people choose to stand in seating areas, and we should consider that in the context of this debate. I ask the Minister to reflect on that choice that people are making and on whether, as many hon. Members have said, there is another way of doing things, given the more modern technology and the advances that we have made in football over the period from 1989, the time of the Hillsborough disaster, to where we are now.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I should start by declaring an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters, as the Football Supporters Federation has been the driving force behind the campaign to allow standing safely at premiership and championship grounds in England and Wales.
I have canvassed the views of football supporters in my constituency of Cardiff Central—it will not be a surprise that many are supporters of Cardiff City, newly promoted to the premiership—through face-to-face discussions and through social media with the different stakeholder groups, such as the supporters club and trust, but also through discussions with Cardiff City directors and senior management. I am delighted that Cardiff City’s operations manager, Wayne Nash, and supporter liaison officer, Adam Gilliatt, are here listening to the debate.
Much of the debate will rightly concentrate on safe standing through rail seating. For those clubs with grounds that can accommodate rail seating, it is an obvious choice to make, but my club, Cardiff City, has taken and will continue to take a different approach to standing safely. Cardiff openly allows standing in designated areas and has published a sixth update to its 2013 report, “Management of Persistent Standing at the Cardiff City Stadium”—I recommend it to colleagues—saying why it believes that the current law does not preclude it from offering standing areas.
Cardiff City has been on what it describes as an incredible journey since the wake-up call that it received in 2001. From a near-bankrupt club, in an antiquated stadium, with management constraints, cultural apathy and infamous supporters, it has been transformed into an award-winning, supporter-friendly business, and our fans have a vastly improved reputation. The club’s success is demonstrated in season ticket sales and other revenues, awards won and record low arrest figures.
We have two famous stands at the City ground: the Canton and the Ninian. The majority of fans in the Canton stand want to stand to watch a match, and the majority in the Ninian want to sit. Since 2013, the club has enabled both things to take place safely by ensuring that any security and service risks are actively and properly managed. The club takes reasonable and proportionate action through stewarding against the tiny minority of fans in the Ninian stand who continue to stand despite it being a seating area. If someone is standing persistently and will not respond to advice from stewards, their seat number is sent to the control room. The identity of the spectator is verified using CCTV and the club’s season ticket database, and they are sent a text message to warn them of the implications of persistent standing.
I have chosen today to focus on Cardiff’s approach to emphasise one specific aspect of the campaign for safe standing. This must be about choice. All clubs want to deliver the best possible experience for supporters and visitors, and to do that by offering a choice.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I, too, declare interests as a member of the Cardiff City Supporters Trust and Cardiff City Supporters Club, as an ambassador for the Cardiff City FC Foundation and as someone who has been a fan for 31 years. I have stood and sat at games home and away during that period and I have seen remarkable change. I will be frank: some of the experiences that I had as a youngster going to watch Cardiff games were quite scary, particularly at some of the away matches. I have seen an absolute transformation, not only in the club at home but at away matches, during those 31 years. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) spoke of the incredible journey that Cardiff City has been on, and I absolutely second that. It is why the family stand—the Grange stand—was nominated for and won the best customer experience award at the StadiumBusiness summit in Barcelona in 2011. The same year, the club won the family football club of the year award, and it has won the family club award every year since 2011. In 2018, we won the EFL family club gold award. That shows the transformation that we have been through as a club
I commend the club for the steps that it has taken in encouraging standing safely. It has commissioned a series of independent reports and has been working with academics and experts. There is a fantastic team at the club. My hon. Friend mentioned Wayne Nash and Adam Gilliatt, who are here today and who have worked with supporters and the relevant authorities to ensure that we can facilitate a differentiated customer experience for all fans, so that everyone can enjoy the matches.
We have referred to the difference that the club facilitates, particularly between the Canton and Ninian stands. That shows that things can be done—that clubs can have different approaches and meet the different needs of fans. A club can introduce proportionate and differentiated responses to ensure that the experience is safe for all involved. The reality is that safe standing already occurs up and down the country. There are many aspects to that success. Examples include ensuring an even spread of fans throughout the stand by checking tickets and stopping that movement towards the back, as we have seen at Cardiff City, ensuring that gangways are kept clear and that fans are encouraged not to overflow into gangways, and looking at issues in stand design—for example, the differences in rake at different stadiums. Our rake is below 25° in all our stands. That enables, I believe, a safe environment. It is obviously not the case at all clubs. People have to look at those issues. There are also the issues of the wideness of seats and seating row depths and the ticketing policy overall and whether stands are being sold to capacity. Of course, safety goes much wider than whether there are seats or no seats. It is about a whole series of other issues, including access points and safety arrangements with the relevant authorities.
All the things that I have mentioned need to be considered by the Government, but fundamentally I very much support the position taken by the Football Supporters Federation. We have already seen the example of the Scottish premiership. We have seen the response in the EFL-FSF survey, with 94% of fans wanting a pro-choice situation. Fundamentally, just as the technology and the evidence have evolved, so too the Government’s policy needs to evolve. I fully support the campaign.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I have taken particular note of the advice that you gave at the beginning of the debate, about what can and cannot be mentioned.
I represent many members of the Hillsborough Family Support Group executive committee. That group represents the majority of the families bereaved at Hillsborough. It has recently considered this matter privately and still opposes standing at football grounds.
As has been mentioned, all-seater stadiums were one of the main recommendations—a really important one—that came out of the final report of the Taylor inquiry, which was the public inquiry designed to establish the cause of the disaster, in which 96 people were crushed to death on the terraces while standing at the Leppings Lane end of the football ground. No one has been crushed to death at a football ground that is all-seater since then in the UK.
That matters to the Hillsborough families. Safety at football grounds is one of the biggest issues for them and has been for almost 30 years. I would say that they have the most locus of anyone. They have opinions, experiences and views that deserve to be heard and taken into account in this debate. However, they cannot say what they think, and why they think it, publicly at this time, and the House will understand why. I cannot engage in the merits of the debate today and the merits of this case, because I cannot say what I think at this time as a result of the sub judice rules to which you have referred, Mr Robertson—quite properly, I might add. I do not believe it is right for the debate to be concluded and for changes to be made to the current arrangements without those affected by the Hillsborough disaster being fully consulted, their voices being heard and their views being considered.
How can it be right that those who have the most to say about this matter cannot publicly say what they think or why, while those who wish to promote the change have no such constraints on them? I do not criticise those who are campaigning for the changes that they want. I congratulate them for the effort and work they have put in, and both Front Benchers for the work that they have done. I criticise nobody. It would be wrong, however, to make changes to the rule without those who have been most affected over the last 30 years having a full say in what those changes ought to be and being able to say fully why they believe what they believe.
I know that it is frustrating for those who have been campaigning to contemplate any kind of delay, but the Hillsborough families have faced frustrations over the last twenty-nine and a half years. I promised my constituents that I would put these points in the debate. I hope that both Front Benchers, whom I commend for their receptiveness to these difficulties, will understand and act on those concerns in a way that ensures that the bereaved families of the 96 can be at the heart of the consideration of this issue, as I would say they must be.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). It is an honour for me to represent the constituency of Liverpool, Walton, which is home to our two great football clubs. This issue is of enormous significance to the people in my constituency and my city. The solidarity shown by both clubs, their fans and the city as a whole following the Hillsborough disaster will forever remind us that the power of the people is greater than the people in power. Twenty-nine years later, however, the issue of standing at football grounds sharply divides opinion across the city.
I welcome the Chair’s guidance to hon. Members to avoid commenting on matters that might be considered to have a bearing on the responsibility for what happened on that terrible day in 1989. I simply want to set out briefly the position of those groups that I have met and which I represent in my home city. I have met with the Hillsborough Family Support Group, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood. I have spoken to the Hillsborough Justice Campaign and Liverpool supporters’ groups. It should be noted that the Hillsborough Family Support Group committee asked for this debate to be postponed. I, too, ask for all hon. Members to be vigilant in their contributions. In any event, hon. Members must be mindful that we are having this debate at a time when the families themselves are unable to engage fully and frankly with it.
I will briefly relay the positions of the groups in my constituency that have asked for their views to be heard in this debate. The HFSG position has been set out thoroughly. The Hillsborough Justice Campaign has not taken an official position on standing at football grounds. A spokesman for HJC told me:
“Safety will always be paramount to the HJC, but equally so is respecting the choice of supporters. It has never been our role to dictate on wider football issues.”
The Spirit of Shankly supporters union, after consultation with fans, fully supports the introduction of safe standing rail seating at football grounds.
Hon. Members will appreciate that my constituency, like others, is at the heart of this debate. For my part, I ask the House to bear in mind the sensitivities surrounding this issue, particularly for the Hillsborough families and survivors, who have fought so valiantly over the last 29 years in pursuit of truth and justice. Although we now know the truth, the fight for justice goes on to this day.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I pay tribute in particular to the previous two speakers, my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). They speak from experience and their discussions with people who have been through a huge amount.
I do not want to talk specifically about the principle of safe standing, but an issue related to the design of football grounds that crops up in this general policy area. It is an issue of great importance to supporters at the largest of my local football clubs, Oxford United FC. Oxford United currently plays in League 1 and is hoping soon to move back up into the championship, where it used to play. There are a number of fans at Oxford United who consistently stand. A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have made that point. From my discussions with the club, it is clear that it is difficult to prevent some of those fans from standing. We have heard interesting examples from parts of the country where that process goes better and from others where it is harder.
In many areas of the country, we are asking stewards—who are relatively low-paid people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said—to carry out a difficult and potentially quite confrontational task, when they have many other activities to conduct at the same time. That is not the case at Oxford United FC, where the stewards are paid the living wage—I am pleased that they are—and where the approach to safety generally is very consistent.
Oxford United wants to put in place a special system of rails in the ground. Known as the Ox-rails method, it involves the erection of rails, independent of the seats, as an additional control measure. That is not on the assumption that everybody will stand—quite the opposite —but it could give additional support to fans who end up standing, thereby hopefully obviating some of the safety problems that have occurred in other places. It also enables banners to be hung on the rails, which is obviously important to a lot of fans.
The Ox-rails approach has been supported by local fans and has largely been supported by the local safety advisory group. The problem is that the club cannot get a guarantee from the Sports Grounds Safety Authority—and, by extension, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—that if it moves up to the championship, it can retain the Ox-rails. I find that pretty ludicrous, because it is a safety measure. If it is good enough for League 1, surely it will be sufficient when the club moves up into the championship, but it cannot get that guarantee.
It is unclear to me what the logic behind that is. From what I can see, the rules for voluntary and compulsory all-seater orders have identical implications for the Ox-rails approach, which is quite a bit fairer than the approaches adopted in some other places, so it would be helpful if the Minister spoke specifically about the Ox-rails method in her response.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I have been contacted by many constituents and by my local football team, the Imps. They all support giving fans a choice on safe standing. Lincoln has one of the highest numbers of respondents in support of this e-petition of any area. A huge proportion of my local community are Imps fans. Weekly games at Lincoln’s Sincil Bank bring our whole community together. The atmosphere is electric.
Lincoln Imps are a club on the up. We were promoted in 2017 to league two and earlier this year, we won the Checkatrade Trophy. We are really proud of that. The managers won the Lincoln civic award, too.
Danny Cowley—an Essex lad, actually—who manages the Imps with his brother Nicky, has said many times how struck he is by the allegiance people have to their club and city, and how proud people are to be Lincoln. The bottom line is that communities identify with their football clubs and football connects communities. That is why we have to get it right with safe standing.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Norwich City football club supports safe standing, as do many of the fans. One concern many fans have, however, is that some clubs may use the increase in supply as a cash cow, to generate more money from sales, rather than increase the supply of tickets for those loyal fans, who are currently priced out of many football games.
Karen Lee
Coincidentally, I was just coming to the point that in my view, safe standing spaces should be capped to keep numbers at a safe level. Safe standing zones would then be more safe than they currently are.
Anybody who has been to a football match knows that people still stand in narrow seated areas that are dangerously unsuitable for 90 minutes of standing. That obstructs the view of people who want to sit, which is particularly unfair for children, families and elderly fans. The Lincoln people who have contacted me, like a lot of football fans, believe that they should have the option to stand in safe areas of football stadiums and safety experts support their view.
I believe we should listen to our constituents—the fans—and grant them the choice to support their team in a manner that is safe and preserves that special atmosphere which brings communities together at Sincil Bank and stadiums across the UK. I will be cheeky here and say, “Up the Imps!”
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. It is always nice when parliamentarians can bring their personal experience to debates. I can bring thousands of hours of lived experience as a Manchester City fan, going back to the ’70s and ’80s, standing and sitting on terraces.
The first point is that nobody wants to go back to those bad old days. I have stood on terraces in the past, in the old days, where I was genuinely fearful for my safety. There must be no return to poorly managed, overcrowded and badly designed terraces. The football environment, however, has changed. Crowds have changed. Stadium design has improved and we have learnt the lessons of the past. In my view, the standing ban is a 1990s solution to a problem the nature of which has changed in recent years. In my view it is time for change.
There are good reasons for change, including choice. The overwhelming evidence is that fans across the country in almost all clubs support safe standing—it is one of the few things that unite United and City fans in Manchester. Other reasons include the betterment of our national game’s atmosphere and the lack of logic in the current regulations.
None of those reasons would be enough in themselves if safety were compromised in any way, but I agree with many hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who made an excellent contribution, that the key point is that at the moment, in almost every ground in the country, people are standing on terraces designed for sitting, which must be less safe than people standing on terraces designed for standing. When I am at the Etihad, the seat in front of me comes to just about halfway up my shin. I do not stand, but if I did and somebody pushed me, I would tumble straight down on to the person in front of me. It is even worse for people in the steeply raked terraces in the third tier at the Etihad and at St James’ Park. The potential for an accident if people are standing in those sorts of sitting areas is a consideration.
The other point to be aware of is the difficulty of maintaining order and peaceful relationships on terraces. Many hon. Members will have experienced the friction that develops when people who want to sit and people who want to stand are next to each other on the terrace. It cannot be properly managed by the stewards and it is very unsatisfactory for older people, disabled supporters, children and anybody who wants to sit but who ends up on a terrace where the majority stand, as we have heard. That is a big problem at the away end.
Given that the current rules clearly do not make grounds safer, the status quo is no longer justified. I add my voice to the overwhelming number of hon. Members we have heard today, and fans across the country, who say that it is time for change and time for safe standing on our terraces.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am proud to represent Burnley, not least because of our fantastic premier league team, the mighty Clarets. Burnley were founding members of the Football League. They finished seventh in the premier league this season, and next season, for the first time in 51 years, they will compete in Europe—a tremendous achievement for a town of fewer than 100,000 people. I put on record my thanks to our manager Sean Dyche, the players, the board and everyone at Burnley football club.
On behalf of all Burnley football fans—I must declare an interest because I am a season ticket holder—I support the introduction of safe standing areas. I have been going on Turf Moor since I was six years old and for many years, I stood on the terraces with my dad and brother. The atmosphere was terrific even though, as a little girl, I was regularly lifted off my feet as the crowd surged forward.
It was clearly right that steps were taken to make stadiums safer after the Hillsborough disaster. Now, however, it is time to revisit the issue. It is a fact that many fans prefer to have the option to stand; some fans would like to stand throughout the match and others would like to stand for parts of the action. In all-seater stadiums, the situation is that some fans stand for long periods, which leaves fans behind with no option but to stand as well, so large numbers of fans are standing with no rail to hold on to. In an animated crowd, there is a real chance that fans will fall forward over the seat into the next row, which could create a domino effect that pushes more people forward. It is incredibly dangerous.
Introducing designated safe standing areas with rails would be a sensible option for fans who wish to stand. There are many examples of that, as we have already heard. I would like clubs to be given the right to introduce safe standing areas as part of a package that would include a requirement to ensure that people in seated areas remain seated throughout the game. I would also like clubs to see it as an opportunity for some increased capacity and to offer less expensive match tickets. Football used to be the people’s game, but many people have been priced out. I want to see more families and children enjoying the beautiful game in the certain knowledge that their safety is prioritised.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
Order. Because hon. Members have been disciplined, I will relax the time limit on speeches to four minutes, but that change can be reversed.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I only wish Scunthorpe United’s finishing was as good as England’s last night. During my time supporting the mighty Iron, they have played in leagues one and two of the Football League, with occasional visits to the championship. When Scunthorpe moved from the Old Showground to the newly built Glanford Park in 1988, it was the first new Football League stadium to be built for 33 years. Home fans have enjoyed standing there for the last 30 years.
An examination of the league one play-offs this season illustrates the problems with the current legislation. Sadly, Scunthorpe lost to Rotherham, who went on to beat Shrewsbury and will play in the championship next season. Rotherham’s ground is an all-seater, so they have no issue with the current law and regulations, but had Shrewsbury been promoted, they would have been able to use their brand new rail-seating area, which was installed in May, for just three seasons. Assuming they stayed in the championship, under the current arrangements, they would then have had the Football Spectators (Seating) Order 2016 served on them, which would have required their ground to provide seated accommodation only. It would have been necessary to replace rail seating with conventional seating in the fourth season. That so-called three-year rule forced Peterborough United to demolish their standing terrace in 2013, despite the fact that the club and the fans wanted to retain it. Needless to say, as many hon. Members have observed, many fans continue to stand in the seated area.
Had Scunthorpe been promoted to the championship next year, the existing regulations would have meant that over the summer, they would have had to install seating on the terrace that has provided safe standing for thousands of fans for 30 years—clearly nonsensical.
Football fans want a choice between sitting safely and standing safely. The Sports Grounds Safety Authority and safety advisory groups are expected to enforce legislation and regulations that are not viable and have failed. Some fans will always stand. The time is right to review and change the legislation, which was introduced in 1989—an age ago—to try to solve problems that existed then. The right solution is for clubs, along with their local safety advisory group, the police and fans, to be allowed to implement what is safe, risk-assessed and reasonable for their ground. There should be no one-size-fits-all approach.
I support an evidence-based review that will fully involve fans groups such as the Iron Trust, and use the knowledge of people such as John Needham, the Iron Trust’s secretary, and others, who see safety at football grounds as paramount but believe it can be better delivered through rail seating or safe standing.
I hope that the law and relevant regulations will be changed in time for the 2019-20 season, by which time Glanford Park will be going through redevelopment. Hopefully, it will be third time lucky for the mighty Iron and they will be back in the championship. I wish safe standing to continue at Glanford Park, as it has for 30 years.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Now I have four minutes, I can take a bit longer. I have to declare an interest: I was the chairman of Forest Green Rovers. I was then vice chairman until I was re-elected as a Member of Parliament, and standing down from the board was one of the sacrifices that I have had to make. I will make a couple of pertinent points.
I heard what my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) said, and I deeply sympathise with all that has happened as a result of Hillsborough, but the big difference is that directors now have direct responsibility for the crowd’s safety. That was never previously as clear as it is today, and it is a responsibility they take seriously. CCTV, active stewarding and the grading of games, for which clubs rely on the police, make a huge difference; those safety measures allow more flexibility with regards to the crowd’s willingness to stand or sit.
We are a very small club—potentially the smallest club ever to enter the Football League—and this issue matters because we are in the process of trying to get a new ground. One of the problems is the lack of clarity from the Football Association and the Football League about what our future progress should be and what that entails for how we should design our ground.
As someone who has stood for decades, I would always prefer to have safe standing, but we need clarity now. If clubs are looking to move, they need to know what their future requirements will be. It is about time the football authorities realised where the demand is coming from. It is important that we realise that that demand can be satisfied with safe standing, but it has to be designed into the ground. As we all know, it is much more difficult to do so retrospectively, and that is where some problems may arise. For football to flourish, however, we need to allow it.
I say this without a note of irony, but rugby supporters and cricket supporters can drink to their hearts’ content in the ground without anyone thinking that that is in any way alien. Anyone who takes a glass into a football ground is immediately thrown out, so compared with other sports, our standards and requirements in football are much tougher. All we ask for is a degree of flexibility. We have to remember that fans are on CCTV, so the days when they could just get away with it are long gone. They will get a lifetime ban if they misbehave. The clubs are responsible if they fail to organise what happens at their grounds efficiently. That is why things have moved on. It is about time we gave the fans what they want, which is the ability to stand as well as sit, if they so desire.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. This year it is 60 years since I first went to Hillsborough to watch Sheffield Wednesday. For more than 30 years, I had a season ticket on the Kop. I stood watching Wednesday play along with friends and family, including my father until he died at the age of 84. Standing at football grounds is a different experience and a different atmosphere, and I enjoyed it most of the time. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) said, there were concerns at the time about standing at all grounds in the country. Frequently, there was at least a degree of discomfort around it, if nothing else. No one is talking, however, about going back to having that sort of standing in that sort of way. Indeed, I was at Hillsborough on the day of the disaster. I thoroughly understand the views and feelings of survivors, families and friends. We have to respect and understand that.
I did not really read the Taylor report, but I spoke to Lord Justice Taylor after his inquiry. He clearly believed that seating was the safest way, but he did not say that standing was inherently unsafe. We also have to remember that he was dealing with a situation where it was compulsory to have fences around grounds. I hope that that is a very different sort of arrangement from one that anyone is suggesting for the future.
I want to pick up on two points. Other Members have referred to the fact that all-seater stadiums are compulsory in some leagues, but not in every league. If standing is safe in some grounds in some leagues, why is it not safe in others? That point has to be addressed, but I want to speak in particular about standing in seated areas. As well as being a home season ticket holder at Hillsborough, I am also an away season ticket holder, so I have been to most football grounds in the country. Last season, I do not think I sat down once in an away ground. A few years ago, stewards and police tried to get people to sit down, but frankly they have given up these days. It is not possible to do it.
We have a situation that is fundamentally discriminatory, because it depends on someone’s size. Women are likely to be smaller than men and therefore have the most problem seeing when stood up in a seated area. As the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) said, children have the same problem. Whatever the dangers of standing in seated areas, it is really dangerous for children to have to stand on tip-up seats, and that happens. I have taken my godson Dan to games for many years. When he was younger, he had to stand on a tip-up seat. At Charlton one day, a steward came over and said, “Get him sat down. It’s unsafe.” I said, “He will sit down when everybody in front of him sits down, because he cannot see otherwise.” That was at the age of eight, nine or 10, and that problem has to be addressed. Not allowing standing is also discriminatory against people with disabilities. If someone is not disabled enough to go in the disabled area—they might have bad arthritis, a problem with their back or a heart condition—but cannot stand up for 45 minutes, they cannot go and follow their team at an away ground. That is the reality at present. It is discriminatory, and we have to address that.
I hope we can have the discussion. The answer could be rail seating. I had emails recently from Grand Stand Seating Systems, which has another way of looking at the problem. In the end, we have to find a way of having safe standing and safe seating at football grounds so that everyone can enjoy the game they love in the way they want.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I will never forget my first proper experience of football. It was Christmas 1989. I remember the anticipation walking through the streets to get to Roker Park. I remember how close I felt to the action once I was inside. I remember the freezing cold wind off the North sea that used to hit me on the terraces. What I genuinely do not remember was feeling unsafe, because I have never felt unsafe in a football ground. I tell that story not because I am nostalgic about the past—I think Members have correctly said that we are not trying to look back to the past in this debate; by the way, there is far too much nostalgia in some of our policy debates in this place—but because it is a reminder of what football is really about. I did not just discover football as an experience that day; I discovered my tribe. Football is about sport, of course, but it is also much more than that. It is about culture, family and identity. That is why it is so special, why it matters and why so many of us are here today when some serious business is going on next door.
It would be wrong to say that such issues as hooliganism and racism, which scarred football in the 1980s, have gone away entirely, but the situation today is fundamentally different. This country is fundamentally different—for the better—from how it was in the 1980s. Most of all, policing is fundamentally different. I am proud to see my predecessor Lord Pendry of Stalybridge in the Gallery, because I know he tried to influence the Taylor report at the time to allow for safe standing. As shadow sports Minister, I think he tried to introduce a policy similar to the one our current shadow sports Minister has introduced.
Football fans like me would like two things: first, to be treated with respect, and secondly, to have the choice that so many Members have talked about today. If I go to a football match, ideally I would stand if I could, because football is a participatory event. At a music gig —this is not as good an example as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who talked about singing in church—people can be seated at the sides or be in front of the stage standing up. Where is the best place to be? It is standing up, being right in the centre of the gig. I want to jump up and down when we get a chance or a corner, because as a Sunderland fan, you have to take what you can get, frankly. I want to sing songs. I do not just want to go and watch a live version of what we see on TV. I want something different from that. I want to be with my people, sharing in that collective experience.
A lot of people have mentioned the World cup, and how much we are enjoying it so far in this country for once—I have probably jinxed it. It sounds ridiculous, but it is a proven fact that while the World cup is on, suicides decline in participating countries. That is not because a country is doing particularly well or badly, but because that shared experience is genuinely good for people. There is a book called “Soccernomics” that looks through some of the data around football. That fact is also true for big collective events, such as when Princess Diana died or when JFK was assassinated. The shared experience makes the game what it is. It is why I can sit next to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who is a Newcastle fan. The derby games are so important for that.
In terms of the practicalities, people can stand up and watch horse racing or rugby, or football in Germany and now in Scotland. They can stand up and watch football in the lower divisions. It seems particularly egregious that league one clubs that have been promoted and sustained that success have to remove their standing areas. In reality, as so many Members have said, people stand up at matches anyway. That is particularly so for away matches, which are by far and away the best way for someone to watch their team. We need to look at the law, and we need to change things. We need to consider just how far we have come from the 1980s and celebrate what football means for this country. Most of all, we need to give football fans the respect and choice that they deserve.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I remember going to the football with my dad when I was a child, holding on to his hand as we headed for the terraces, wearing our team’s colours, laughing and joking with other fans, and the whole stadium would be standing cheering the team on throughout the match. The excitement and the atmosphere were electric. Everyone should be able to enjoy supporting their team, whether standing or sitting.
Having heard Huddersfield Town Supporters Association’s views about safe standing last summer, the demand and support for the campaign has become more and more apparent. My local team, Huddersfield Town football club, is the first premier league club to survey season ticket holders about standing tickets, and 96% of those who responded were in favour. The Premier League’s research shows that 70% of people surveyed are in favour.
There are times during matches when the whole crowd are already on their feet, but, as stadiums are seating only, no safety precautions such as rail bars are currently in place. We have had tragedies in our stadiums where safety has failed, and we must never forget the victims and their families. Technology, design and safety standards have moved on since then, and our stadiums are hopefully safer for it.
Standing at sporting events happens across the country. Teams such as the Leicester Tigers, who are in the rugby union premiership, still have terraces where fans can enjoy the thrill of cheering on their team without being confined to a seat. Further afield, there is evidence of effective safe standing practice. In Germany, the Bundesliga team Borussia Dortmund has a stadium that has a rail between each row of seats, and there have been very few incidents or accidents since they were introduced. The solution is simple: if there is sufficient evidence that standing can be safe and fans are in support, it should be introduced. I would argue, however, that it should not be enforced across the whole stadium but in designated parts, as some people would prefer or need to be seated and it would not be fair on those fans if they had people standing in front of them.
We need to catch up with practices in Europe and deliver on an energetic but safe environment for spectators. They are integral to their clubs and should have their voices heard. Let us make sure that a generation of children can experience the excitement and enjoyment of standing at a football game, as I had the opportunity to do with my dad.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I have a confession to make. When the idea of safe standing—
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry; my voice did not carry. Gerald Jones.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I started having an identity crisis there, Mr Robertson. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as we debate the e-petition on allowing premier and championship football clubs to enable safe standing. I will be brief because I know other Members want to speak. May I say at the outset that I am not a typical premier football supporter? However, I am a season ticket holder at Merthyr Town football club and enjoy spending time watching home games at that club and supporting the many activities that it organises in our community. Whatever the outcome of the current discussions, any decision on safe standing will have no direct impact on supporters at Penydarren Park, Merthyr Tydfil—at least until they graduate to the premiership in the perhaps not too distant future—or at any other clubs in my constituency. Many people from my constituency travel to support premier and championship matches, and my contribution to today’s debate reflects my conversations with them.
[Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]
As we know, there has been much in-depth consultation with football clubs, fans and safety authorities, and the outcome of that consultation suggests it is time for change, as recognised by Labour’s recent policy announcement. I share the view that it is important to give the power to fans and clubs, in consultation with and with guidance from local safety authorities, to allow safe standing areas to be designated in stadiums. As with most grounds, it is the clubs, local fans and local authorities who know their stadium far better than anybody else. It is therefore sensible that the decision should rest with them, and that they are empowered to take such decisions.
I am sure we all agree that safety has to be paramount. We have to recognise that the current system, as we have heard numerous times this afternoon, is not working. People routinely stand in seated areas and that creates dangers in itself. I have seen evidence of that. In seating areas that are not designed for standing, seats are often damaged, potentially making them more unsafe.
I feel, Ms McDonagh—we have had another change of identity this afternoon—that the proposal for the installation of specialised rail seating where appropriate, or standing in current seated areas where it can be made safe to do so, is a sensible approach. Surveys from the Football Supporters’ Federation demonstrate that fans want that choice, with 94% in support.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Fans have told me that they want that choice, not least because they see specifically designed safe standing areas as also offering the potential to offer better sightlines than is currently the case when smaller fans like me stand up in seated areas.
Gerald Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She outlines a point already raised today and I totally agree with her.
We have heard about the Government’s planned review of the issue. However, the Government’s actions do not suggest that they are addressing the issue with any urgency. We need to make progress, and I urge the Minister to hear the calls from football fans and supporters’ organisations across the country and to respond positively and in good time.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), I have stood in the Roker end and felt very unsafe indeed. [Laughter.] As a founder member and chair of the all-party group for football supporters, I felt it was vital for me to be here today to represent the interests of football supporters.
I attended my first game at St James’s Park in Newcastle in the 1966-67 season, so not quite as long ago as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). I have visited 70-plus football league and premier league grounds and dozens upon dozens of non-league grounds, many of which I have heard mentioned today. For me the issue is not an abstract concept. It is something that I and many fans experience week in, week out through the football season. Standing in football grounds in all-seater stadiums happens now. The problem currently exists. We are not advocating a return to the large open terraces of the past.
Hillsborough was a tragedy, but it is not the only tragedy to befall football fans in this country. Ibrox in Glasgow has had two significant disasters in the past century. Bolton Wanderers had a significant disaster at Burnden Park. Bradford had a dreadful fire that took many lives. There have been other smaller incidents where walls have fallen down or crush barriers have gone.
When I was a young person going to football matches, I remember people being crushed on crush barriers on open terraces on a regular basis, and the accident and emergency wards of our local hospitals were testimony to that. However, 27 years have passed since the Taylor report. Grounds, fans and football have changed, but there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Having seen the improvement, I was a fan and MP who remained to be convinced about safe standing at football grounds, but now—regularly attending football games at St James’s Park where I am a season ticket holder, and travelling round the country going to away games—I am part of the experience where fans stand week in, week out in the away ends and in many parts of home grounds as well. Safe standing is much safer than standing in designated seating areas; there is no doubt about that whatever. In designated seating areas where fans are standing in numbers, the seats in front of them are undoubtedly a trip hazard. I myself have tripped over seats, and seen many others doing so as well.
It is unlikely that safe standing will reduce ticket prices. In the Bundesliga, Dortmund, for instance, has one and half people standing for every seated place, but at Celtic—the experiment in Scotland—it is one for one. There will not be any real return from the football clubs’ perspective, but there is demand. No one wants it to become compulsory; it will be in selected parts of football grounds. However, there is no doubt that standing in sitting areas is less safe than safe standing. We need to think about it, and do something about it as soon as we can.
Several hon. Members rose—
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. Owing to the previous Chair’s great chairing and the great behaviour of all Members, I am unprecedentedly extending the length of speaking time. Members may now speak for five minutes, and if anybody wants to take interventions that will be okay as well. I call Clive Efford.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms McDonagh. I think this is the first time I have spoken in a debate with you in the Chair, so it is a pleasure to see you in your place.
In this debate we must listen to fans, because the fans we are talking about are those who commit themselves passionately to their club. They give up their time, go to the matches and create the atmosphere in the grounds that makes football in the British Isles a brand that is popular across the globe. People are prepared to pay money to watch the English Football League, English football matches and British football clubs, because of the atmosphere created in the grounds by those fans. Imagine if those games were played in empty stadiums and then broadcast around the world. They would not be as attractive as they are, so the fans are incredibly important to the future of football, and we need to listen to them.
We are speaking particularly today about those fans who go to away games—the ones who make that extra commitment—because they are the ones who predominantly stand. I am a Millwall season ticket holder. I do not have to stand when we are at home games, but people in large sections of the ground do. When I go to an away game, I have to stand. If anyone wants to go to an away game who cannot, or does not want to, stand, they are discriminated against, because they have no choice. If they want to go to the game, they have to stand, so what about those fans?
We need to create these designated areas. I pay tribute to the Football Supporters Federation and Supporters Direct for their persistent campaigning to get recognition for the voice of fans. It is not about recreating areas where clubs can cram people into a standing area; this is about creating rail seating where someone will stand in the place of a seat. We can therefore designate areas where people who choose to stand can do so safely, and those who want to sit can do so without the interference of those who want to stand.
The question we have to ask ourselves is whether the current situation, where people stand in areas that are designed for seating, is safe. The answer to that is clearly no, so the next question to the Minister has to be: “What are we going to do about it?” The Government cannot continue to put the telescope to a blind eye and say, “I see no fans standing.” They are, and they are standing in areas that are dangerous and not designed for it. We should deal with that.
When fans have been asked whether they want to stand, they have said in large numbers that they do. More than 3,000 Middlesbrough fans were consulted, and 99% of them said they wanted to stand. More than 7,000 Arsenal supporters were consulted, and 96% of them said they wanted to stand. Spirit of Shankly consulted 20,000 of its fans, and the overwhelming majority wanted to stand. Consistently, throughout the football league, fans are telling us that they want to stand in safe areas.
The Minister could allow a relaxing of the regulations to allow rail seating to be introduced in grounds. For games where the regulations demand that fans have a seat, seats could can be put down and it would become a seated stadium. For those games where an area is designated for standing, those seats could be locked back by the grounds staff and the area could be used for standing. When we have consulted with the local authority, the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, the police, the fans and the local club, I do not see why we cannot designate safe areas where fans can stand. I do not see why we cannot relax the regulations to deal with a situation that is currently unsafe.
In answer to some questions last week, the Minister very helpfully said that she was looking to hold a fundamental review of safety in football stadiums, but over the weekend we heard rumours of No. 10 pushing back against that. Can she assure us that that did not happen over the weekend, and that we will get a full, fundamental review of safe standing in football stadiums?
Mr Roger Godsiff (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on initiating the debate. In the late 1990s, I initiated a similar debate and introduced a private Member’s Bill, which the Government of the day, in their wisdom, talked out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has better luck with his current campaign.
Every week, hundreds of thousands of people attend football matches in leagues 1 and 2, and non-league games. They attend rugby matches, rugby league matches and horse racing, and they can stand up at all those events. Indeed, if one wishes to include fishing as a sport, one could say that for fishing—the most popular participatory sport in the country—one can choose to stand or sit. However, at championship and premiership matches, one cannot choose to stand. Furthermore, literally hundreds of thousands of people attend pop concerts such as Glastonbury, many of which are held in football grounds where the fans cannot stand up to watch a game. Yet they can stand up to watch a concert. They can jump up and down, and that is perfectly legal.
The Minister is on record as saying:
“While I appreciate there is a vocal minority who want a return to standing, I don’t think they speak for the majority and I remain to be convinced of the case. The clubs aren’t convinced either. I know there have been surveys done and there is no desire among the top clubs to change this policy.”
That is just not true. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and other speakers pointed out, club after club have asked for the right to have a safe standing area.
Reference was made earlier to the fact that West Bromwich applied to the Minister when they were still in the premiership to be allowed to have a safe area for 3,800 people. She turned it down. The great club of Aston Villa, on the edge of my constituency, wrote to me saying, “Here at Aston Villa, we believe that existing legislation should be changed to afford all EFL clubs the opportunity to offer their supporters the choice to sit or stand at matches in safe, licensed stadiums.” One after another, clubs in the championship and premiership have said that they would like to have that option.
Ever since I initiated, many years ago, the debate that I referred to, I have never had a satisfactory answer from any Minister to this question. How can it be safe for hundreds of thousands of pop fans to jump up and down at pop concerts, but not safe for a few thousand football fans to stand up behind rail seats? It happens in the Bundesliga and other European leagues, and it is perfectly safe. Nobody has ever given me a convincing argument about why it is safe for hundreds of thousands of people to jump up and down and not safe for a few thousand people to stand up.
The Scottish Parliament rightly recognises that ridiculous contradiction and has allowed clubs in the Scottish Premiership to trial safe standing. Celtic, which 50,000 supporters watch every week, has introduced safe standing in a small segment of the ground, and it has proved very popular. It is about time that we in England caught up with Scotland. It is about time that football fans in England were allowed to stand up.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for her work on raising this issue.
When I was a child, it was evident to everybody who came to my house that I had an incredibly obsessive football-supporting father. They spotted it from the moment they stepped into the lounge and saw the football shrine made up of memorabilia collected over years, which outgrew the area it was originally assigned to. The evidence of my father’s support for his team even pushed away the family photographs. If people failed to miss that, they would notice the football programmes in frames throughout the house and up the stairs, which my dad would happily point out to anyone who showed a bit of interest in them. I witnessed the weekly rituals he went through. Every time his team played a match, we had to make mum sit upstairs in the bedroom, because if she set foot in the lounge, the opposition would score against the team we were all cheering along. I learned from a very young age how important football is. I believe that the vast majority of football fans are entirely decent, law-abiding people—although some, like my dad, are utterly obsessed.
I am very proud to have Hull City in my constituency. In 2012, it announced that it supports safe standing in principle. In June, representatives of the club came to Parliament to lobby MPs about this issue, although I was sadly unable to attend that event. Geoff Bielby, the chairman of the Hull City Supporters’ Trust, and Barbara Wilkinson, the secretary of Senior Tigers—a supporters’ group for over-55s—expressed a preference for safe standing. They suggesting designating a small area of the KCOM stadium for safe standing—they suggested it could accommodate 7,500 people.
A survey has shown that 47% of fans would be more likely to attend a football match if there was safe standing. I cannot speak for everyone else’s team, but Hull City certainly want to encourage as many people as possible to come down and cheer it on. If this is one way to do it, I say, “Let’s go for it.” If more fans come to matches, that will hopefully bring in a lot of extra income.
As many hon. Members have said, people stand anyway. A Hull City supporter who is unable to stand as he finds it difficult told me that he wants safe standing. I asked him why, and he said that he wants to be in a seated area where the stewards can enforce sitting and can make sure people in that area sit down. He said that, at the moment, people stand all over the place, but giving people the choice and saying, “If you want to stand, go here. If you want to sit, respect the fact that everybody in this area wants to sit,” would be a practical solution to the problem.
It is time that we allow local clubs to make these decisions, based on local information. I am not saying that we should create a rule that affects every club in every city, but for clubs such as Hull City, surely it should be up to the local authority, the police and the football club to work together and think about what really works for our football fans and our city. I do not believe that one size fits all. Allowing a local decision-making body to decide on the amount of safe standing means that it can adapt quickly to changing circumstances. We would not need to have a big debate if, a bit further down the line, we want to reduce or increase the amount of safe standing. That would be the best solution and the best decision for obsessive fans such as my dad and clubs such as Hull City.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I have got it this time. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.
I confess that, when I was first approached by constituents who said, “We would like safe standing,” my gut reaction was to say, “I really don’t think so.” I remember replying to, I think, the first person who ever wrote to me on the subject, that, “Nothing we do should in any way jeopardise safety, because we all remember the horror of Hillsborough.” I am here today because I changed my mind.
I pay tribute to the Leeds United Supporters’ Trust for its work—Jon Darch is its lead campaigner on safe standing. It polled its members—to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) just said, 97% were in favour—and recently organised a safe standing roadshow at Elland Road. Angus Kinnear, the managing director of Leeds United, wrote to me, as the local Member of Parliament—it is a great honour to represent Leeds United and Elland Road—and said, “The club wants to see a change in the law.”
My initial reaction was as it was for the reasons that my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) set out. It should be obvious to the Minister, who is passionate about football, that two truths have been expressed in this debate: the current situation is not working and it is not safe. It is not working, because fans are standing. We have heard evidence about that. Everyone can see it with their own eyes when they go to matches or watch them on the telly, and hon. Members have talked about that today. It is not safe for reasons that my hon. Friends the Members for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Burnley (Julie Cooper) set out very clearly. I am quite tall, and it is a terrible risk for me to stand with a seat in front of me, because if I am knocked, I will tumble forward. I do not see how we can accept the reality that some fans want to stand, but allow the safety risk to be incurred.
I had never heard of rail seating—I did not know what it was—but as part of my education I saw the pictures and read the evidence, which has been referred to today, from places where rail seating has been used. It is not a return to the standing of the past; it is a completely different method. It is safe and gives fans the choice.
I simply say this to the Minister: this is an idea whose time has come. I hope very much that, after listening to the debate, she will respond in a similar way to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who has announced our party’s support for safe standing. If she wants to have a trial in the premiership or the championship as a way of demonstrating its safety in that context, fine. I, for one, look forward to the day when Leeds United fans who want to stand are able to do so, and when those who want to sit are able to do so and see, because they are not sitting behind people who are standing.
This point will appeal particularly to the Minister—I am revealing my true passion, as well as my representative pleasure and privilege. I look forward to the day when safe standing is also permitted at the new White Hart Lane.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I genuinely appreciate your including me in today’s debate, Ms McDonagh. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) for bringing this timely debate to the House.
This is another good example of where we as legislators are not slightly but significantly behind public opinion. It is clear from the evidence that many football fans are pressing for a change to the situation in our stadiums. Something like 69% of football fans—96% of Arsenal fans according to one colleague—would prefer to have a safe standing area. Right across the country there is a real movement for safe standing, which we need to respond to.
I have been to many grounds, although not as many as some hon. Members in this debate. I have been to a great number of non-league clubs, such as Barnet, Brentford, Leamington football club obviously, and even Nuneaton Borough on three occasions. There is a terrific atmosphere on the terraces, as is to be expected at those sorts of grounds. I have been to the San Siro stadium, home of AC Milan, and to some of the other larger stadiums in Europe, but the most unsafe and threatened that I have ever felt was on steeply tiered seating areas such as at the Parc des Princes , watching Paris Saint-Germain. It can be so dangerous if there is a movement from behind in some of these seated areas. Some sort of tragedy could happen so easily. We need to be cognisant of changes in fan behaviour.
The all-seater stadium is a hangover from another era. Some of us remember those dark days in the 1980s. We are here, 27 years on. It is a significant length of time, and it is worth reflecting on how much the game has changed, particularly since 1990: the approach, the professionalism and the ownership of the game but also how fans engage with it.
Other hon. Members commented about the use of stadiums for all manner of different sports events and for rock concerts. I have been to the Ricoh arena recently to watch Coventry City and also to see the Rolling Stones. I felt no threat and no sense of risk in the crowd in the centre of the stadium. Let us look to Germany and abroad at what happens there. In the Bundesliga, 10 of 18 stadiums have safe standing areas. Borussia Dortmund and other clubs are so far ahead in club ownership, in terms of not just safe standing areas but the introduction of railed seats. There is so much we need to do to change our game in this country. As I said, 27 years is a very long time. It is long overdue that we change our approach to fans’ enjoyment of our beloved game. I very much support the petition.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
There are many things I would like to say and many things I would like to challenge. Ten MPs made a point that I would like to challenge, but I am not able to do so because of the ongoing court proceedings. I point that out as a fact but also because there are people with far greater expertise, such as one of my constituents, who has a dramatic amount of expertise in this area and could contribute greatly, who cannot speak because that would compromise court proceedings. The timescale is important, because some issues need to be discussed. I refer specifically to the comments made by 10 MPs today that it would be highly inappropriate for me to respond to.
As it happens, I am a football fan who for 25 years has sat only twice. Because one of those occasions led to a very unlucky defeat, I refuse to do so other than when one could only get a ticket at Wembley. There is not a corner, wall or even roof of Elland Road where I have not stood. The concept of standing is very pleasant and the concept of seating is not.
Spiritually, I am totally in support of what the Football Supporters Federation wants to achieve and the practical way it is going about it, but there are some issues that the Minister ought to consider. First is the safety or otherwise of current football stadiums, which has been raised in a different context. Many MPs have suggested that they are much safer than they were, but I challenge that notion. The ability to get out of a football stadium in a disaster has not been tested in real time in any stadium in this country. Seating is probably worse than railed standing would be. The Leeds University model that is used to test the design of stadiums is flawed. I would like to illustrate my point by giving precise examples that are unsafe, but it would be problematic to do so. When I have challenged football safety officers and owners on this, I have been given confirmation that there is no system. Therefore, there needs to be a review of all aspects of safety, including the remaining banks of seating and the inability to get out of stadiums quickly in an emergency.
Secondly, 11 MPs mentioned Germany. I have been to most of the Bundesliga grounds with the chief safety officer, the chief family liaison officer and with the ultra leader. I went to quite a number of major Italian grounds last season with the safety officers. Safe standing is quite possible, but other issues emerge. The Minister should talk to the safety officers in Italy; there, the big safety issue is the firing of pyrotechnics as missiles from one end of the stadium to the other. That is a major issue in Italy. The supporter who fell to his death in a stadium this year and the racism at Lazio compound the safety issue.
Let us be clear: in the Bundesliga, there is a whole series of safety problems—some in the seating but some in the safe standing areas, too, which the safety officers have to deal with all the time. Fans have to have a season ticket. The amount of alcohol provided is significantly less in standing areas than in seating areas. The body checks at the entrance are significantly greater because of the risk of pyrotechnics. Culture changes over time. I am not against standing at all—quite the opposite—but I hope the Minister will visit Italy, Germany and perhaps Ajax in Amsterdam and look at what the safety officers say of the problems that they face, so we get it all right, not partially right.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Do any other Back-Bench Members wish to speak?
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
No, Mr Efford, I think you will find you have spoken already. I call Sandy Martin.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Thank you, Ms McDonagh. I will not speak for long because I was not here at the start and I cannot be here at the end. I just want pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) for introducing the petition, and for being an Ipswich Town fan.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh, for the first time, I think. I am pleased to take part in today’s debate. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on setting out the case and the current situation so well. I add my thanks and congratulations to Owen Riches who launched the petition and all who worked so hard to get this issue brought to the House.
Throughout the debate a number of Members have been dreaming—I use that word advisedly—of the day that their local club will reach the heights of the premier league. Some Members took the opportunity to indulge in a bit of local football banter. The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) claimed that he would not retaliate against taunts from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) before describing Portsmouth as playing closer to the Sunday league than the premier league. As always, politicians are lying.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) made the vital point, since made by others, that standing is happening anyway and we should get on with making it safer. I agree with him and others that in doing so we must remain sensitive to the Hillsborough disaster and the families of those affected by that awful day.
Like the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters. Despite that, the sport I played week in, week out for 17 years was rugby. My first love was football, and for my sins I am a loyal St Johnstone fan. The Saints are going through what is probably the club’s most consistent and best footballing spell in their history, having qualified for Europe numerous times in recent years and—touch wood—been a regular fixture in Scotland’s top flight for the last 10 years.
When that top flight was formed in 1998, it followed the Taylor review in England in stipulating that all grounds must be all-seater, with a minimum of 10,000 seats—although that has been reduced to 6,000. That measure cost many Scottish clubs dearly: many are still in debt as a result and some have gone into liquidation. Coincidently, St Johnstone were the first club in the UK to open a purpose-built all-seater stadium, just weeks after the Hillsborough disaster. Indeed, Lord Justice Taylor visited the stadium during his inquiry into that disaster.
The debate has been brought about by the growing appetite across these islands for safe standing sections to be introduced at grounds throughout the country. More than 110,000 people signed the petition, high- lighting that growing demand. The Football Supporters Federation, referenced heavily throughout the debate, has done an excellent job in championing safe standing areas in grounds. That grassroots campaign has even managed to unite Manchester United and Manchester City supporters—no mean feat, though not quite Rangers and Celtic, or St Mirren and Morton in my area.
Standing at football has always been part of the game. Even after the Football Spectators Act 1989, supporters have chosen still to stand. Indeed, my first recollection of football was, I think, 1986, for the Stanley Rous cup, standing on the terraced slopes of Hampden against the auld enemy, England. My selective amnesia forbids my telling the House the result of the game. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is correct.
Ninety-four per cent. of respondents to the survey that has been mentioned believed that fans should be able to choose whether to stand or sit at football matches. That does not surprise me in the slightest. However, not one single football supporter would place the safety of other fans at risk. This debate is so important because it is fan-led. Fans can provide a range of examples of where safe standing has been produced in other countries across Europe, including Scotland. I would be grateful for the Minister’s expanding on any recent conversations she has had with the footballing authorities in Scotland, Germany or anywhere else in Europe on that point. In addition, what assessment have the UK Government, FA or premier league carried out on any individual stadiums across Europe that allow safe standing as a means by which to judge whether the policy in England and Wales can be relaxed in some way?
I mentioned that the Scottish Professional Football League’s seating requirements were relaxed. At the time that announcement was made, the chief executive of the then Scottish premier league, Neil Doncaster, said the decision was driven by “supporter demand” and that
“Whenever we talk to supporters about what they’d like to see, safe standing comes up as one of the things they’d like to see”.
Scottish football is doing a lot of work to improve the fan experience for those attending a game at the weekend. I should note that that is not being done at the expense of fan safety. In making that decision, the SPFL not only listened to its member clubs and to supporter groups, but gathered information that allowed it to make an evidence-based decision. It assessed the systems in place in Germany, specifically looking at Borussia Dortmund’s ground, where Mr Doncaster found that they have a fantastic set-up that improves the fan experience and creates a great atmosphere.
In response to fans’ demands, Celtic made history in 2016 by being the first club in the UK to install a safe standing system in their stadium, as was referenced, with 3,000 rail seats put in place at Parkhead. That installation was warmly welcomed by Celtic fans and endorsed by Jon Darch of the Football Supporters Federation. Celtic manager Brendan Rodgers also said that the installation of safe standing at Celtic Park has helped to create an even better atmosphere in the ground.
With its design based on barrier technology and its robust seat and high back, the rail seat forms a strong and continuous handrail to facilitate safe standing. The seats are compact and have been approved for use by both UEFA and FIFA for champions league and World Cup matches. Indeed, St Mirren, Paisley’s newly promoted top-flight club, have visited Celtic Park and are looking very seriously at introducing a safe standing section at St Mirren Park.
It is vital that we ensure the safety of all supporters who trek through the turnstiles each and every week. The memory and legacy of Hillsborough demand that. However, now is surely the time to review safe standing in football stadiums. I hope the Minister hears the demands of supporters and announces a review that assesses the examples in Scotland and across Europe of safe standing at football stadiums.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their fantastic contributions to this important debate.
I start by paying respect to the 96 fans who went to a football match but never came home after the tragic events at Hillsborough. I pay tribute to those hon. Members who have not only spoken today, but campaigned for justice for many years, even decades. Their continued courage and determination will bring about justice for the 96. I extend my thanks to Mr Speaker and to the Petitions Committee for issuing guidance around the ongoing court case, and I am grateful to the Chair for keeping a close eye on proceedings today.
I also thank Owen, who is here today. For those who do not know, Owen is 17 and he started the safe standing petition online just a few months ago. He is already making footballing history. I am sure my colleagues will join me in thanking him for his contribution to today’s discussion. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
As many colleagues from all parts of the House have said, when discussing safe standing it is vital to understand and acknowledge that it is not a step back for football or a return to the terraces of the ’80s; it is the opposite. It is about moving football spectating forward and into a new era—into the future—so that it becomes safer, more inclusive and gives fans this choice.
The data and extent of the surveys provided by the English Football League and fan groups clearly show that fans want a safe standing option. More than 50 representatives from supporter groups joined me at my parliamentary roundtable, where I heard about a fantastic example of safe standing being used in Orlando. It is an inclusive area that puts wheelchair users at the heart of the action—not seeing them as an afterthought. They are in among the crowd and can experience football along with every other fan. It is a fantastic example of how safe standing can make football more inclusive for all.
However, at the heart of the debate is safety. It always has been and always will be, and it is not something that I will ever compromise on. The safety of fans at football matches is the first and foremost factor that we looked at when discussing safe standing. As many colleagues have already pointed out with interesting examples, the current system is not working. It is not safe. Week in, week out, fans like myself stand in seated areas, which is not safe. Owen himself started the petition because he was injured at a football match by people behind falling on top of him. Stewards are powerless. Clubs do not want to get involved and the police will intervene only if an argument escalates. Anyone who has travelled away with their club will have had the experience of steep upper tiers, where the seat in front barely comes above their socks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) said, it is simply not safe.
I cannot and will not stand by while fans are being injured, especially when we have alternative ways to improve things and minimise risk. That is why I am proud to support the installation of specialised rail seating, where appropriate, or standing in current seated areas where it can be made safe. That could be by the addition of bars or by other means. It is a matter of converting a small section of a stadium to be designated for safe standing—capped at 7,500 safe standing spaces. That is in line with what the EFL has proposed. We want to give fans, clubs and the safety authorities the power to allow a small area inside a stadium to be designated for safe standing. Clubs, fans and safety authorities know their stadiums better than anyone in Whitehall. The decision should rest with them. A different set of rules applies to football fans, and it is not right. At the time of my parliamentary roundtable, the Sports Grounds Safety Authority told me that the last time it met a Minister was more than three months ago. Every supporters group that I speak to tells me that every Minister has refused to meet them in the past few months. It is time that the Government stopped taking fans for granted, and started listening to them.
People who go to a football game at the Emirates or Etihad stadiums on a Saturday will be asked to sit down. At the same stadiums a few days later people can, without the threat of being evicted, stand at a pop concert and jump up and down. They can go to the rugby, stand and enjoy supporting their team without the threat of being evicted. Three weeks ago I was pleased when the Sports Minister announced a review of safe standing; but we have heard nothing since—no details and no timetable. Nothing. I am told there is a rumour—I hope it is wrong—that the Minister will announce the postponement of the review. We must all remind ourselves that while the debate is about how we enjoy football it is also about how we make the current system—which is not safe—safer for all, including the elderly who want to enjoy the national game, families who want to attend with children, and everyone who wants to enjoy football.
Today’s debate is about safe standing in 2018, not the terraces of the 1980s. It has been about how fans can stand safely at a football match and prevent serious injury. There are 112,000 people who have filled in a petition online, and almost 6,000 people responded to my fan survey. More than 30,000 fans gave their views to the English Football League. More than 4 million Twitter uses have seen a tweet relating to safe standing in the past month. The premier league has spoken about safe standing. So have the EFL and the Football Association; and finally so have we today in the Chamber. If the Minister is thinking about postponing the Government’s review of safe standing, I strongly urge her to reconsider.
Football can, as has already been shown, have a sensible debate about safe standing that focuses on safe standing in the future. The Minister, for whom I have great respect, has an open goal. She can listen to the vocal majority or choose to ignore us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
It is as always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.
I have been a football fan for as long as I can remember. I played football, I collected the sticker books —I still do—and as soon as I was old enough, I started to go to football matches. I used to walk across the rec to Reachfields to watch Hythe Town. If I had earned extra pocket money, I used to jump on the bus to watch Folkestone play. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) will be pleased to hear that when I was at university I watched Hull a few times a season. Finally, when I started to earn money, I began to watch Spurs, the team I began idolising at the age of eight.
Why do I say that? It is not because of the nostalgia that many have said we should employ in our discussions. I say it to explain that football runs through my veins. It is only because I care so much about the game that I felt so disappointed with my own loose language on safe standing, which rightly led to outrage, but which sadly turned into abuse and threats of violence, both physical and sexual. I did not expect that from those with whom I have stood shoulder to shoulder throughout the years.
Let me say from the outset that I did not mean to suggest that only a vocal minority support safe standing—surveys show otherwise, but they also show that only a small percentage would want to stand throughout the match. I confused the two and we are here today as a result, but the debate gives us the opportunity to talk about the future of all-seater stadiums. In my speech, I will try to reflect some of the comments made by 33 colleagues during the debate, set out Government thinking and explain some of the challenges we face.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I want to reflect on what the Minister has just said. I implore everybody to ensure that all sides can be heard in the debate. That is what is important. We need conduct that enables the broadest possible debate.
Tracey Crouch
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I still feel quite scarred by the response I received on social media to my initial comments. They were loose and wrong, but were not a reflection of my views on football. It was certainly unfair of people to say that I did not understand the game with which I have been personally involved since I was knee high to a grasshopper. That shows a lack of understanding that Ministers and Members of Parliament have views and sometimes make mistakes.
It is useful to start by summarising very briefly the framework in which we operate. As colleagues have heard, Lord Justice Taylor’s report following the terrible Hillsborough disaster ushered in the all-seater policy for the top two divisions of English football, as well as Wembley stadium and the Principality stadium in Cardiff. The wider safety regime, which includes the all-seater policy, also took into account other tragic events, such as that at Bradford. No Government of any political persuasion should ever be complacent about safety or other measures that have enabled us to achieve such consistently high levels of safety since the all-seater regulations were introduced. That must be paramount in our considerations.
Ian Mearns
One thing that has changed since Hillsborough is that the Government and the establishment have taken safety at football grounds much more seriously. Ibrox had two disasters in the space of less than 50 years, and Bolton Wanderers had a significant one. Crushing injuries occurred week in, week out at football grounds. The evidence of earlier years shows that football’s fans and their safety were not taken seriously by people in the halls of power.
Tracey Crouch
I was about to say that the all-seater policy has served football and football fans well over many years—the hon. Gentleman makes that point. It is not just a domestic measure: FIFA and UEFA both mandate that host stadiums for their main competitions must be all-seater. Let us not forget that all-seater stadiums provided the impetus for clubs to transform their grounds after years of neglect, which meant the widespread improvement of facilities for fans, which has brought about a welcome increase in the diversity of those choosing to attend.
I recognise the increasing support for the Government to change the all-seater policy in the top two tiers of English football, and the interesting innovations in spectator accommodation in recent years. They include various forms of seats incorporating barriers, or seats with independent barriers, which provide both a safety rail and a seat. They have been installed at grounds in Germany and at Celtic Park. More recently, they have been installed at Shrewsbury Town in League One. Those developments led the then premier league club West Bromwich Albion to make the request to the Sports Ground Safety Authority to run a rail seating pilot. The request to install rail seating made it clear that the intention was to create a permanent area within the ground where supporters would be freely permitted to stand. That would have been in breach of the licence conditions imposed on all clubs in the top two divisions under the powers set out in the Football Spectators Act 1989, the current legislative framework.
Ministers make decisions based on the evidence put in front of them within the legal framework permitted. Contrary to media reports, I did not receive a recommendation from the SGSA to approve the application. The club’s request would have required an immediate change in the law as it stands. As the application was for permission to start this coming season, colleagues will appreciate that the processes required would have taken more than the few months that Albion wanted them completed in. However, more significantly, the current legislative framework means that I cannot allow for any pilots. There is no wriggle room. It is either the status quo or changing the legislation.
So, what next? What are we going to do? The one thing we need to do is to collect and analyse the evidence that exists and ensure that all views on this issue can be heard and considered before we make any decision on changes to the all-seater policy—a point that many hon. Members have made today. We need proper evidence and solutions about how risks associated with standing would be addressed and what systems might be needed to achieve this. The first step is to gather that data and to conduct further research if necessary.
Today I can announce that we will commission an external analysis of evidence relating to the all-seater policy. My Department will be going out to tender for this piece of work shortly, and my aim is that the initial analysis work will be completed by the end of the year. As well as looking at what evidence already exists and assessing its reliability, that work will look to identify any important gaps in data, including injury data, and recommend the best ways of filling them.
The premier league has already shared some of its injury data with me, collated in the SGSA format from its clubs. What is clear is that not enough information is collected to determine the circumstances, severity or outcome of injuries. For example, data collected so far shows that, of the 1,550 injuries reported over the season at 19 premier league clubs, none related to persistent standing and 242 may have been caused by some standing—the equivalent of two injuries per 100,000 match attendances. Hon. Members have today made it clear that people are standing in unsafe ways, yet the current injuries log suggests otherwise. Some colleagues have outlined their own experiences of being injured at football matches, yet the injuries log says otherwise. Given that that fan experience is very different from the data, it is clear that the data needs further probing, and that is what I am announcing today.
The precise scope of that work will be defined in conjunction with the SGSA and other expert stakeholders. I am grateful to the Premier League and English Football League, with whom we have discussed this approach, and with whom we will work to improve the evidence base from the start of next season.
Clive Efford
I associate myself with the comments made earlier. The Minister is a passionate supporter of Tottenham and dedicated to football, and I know that she is passionate about it. I am sure that we all oppose those who have attacked her on social media. Does she agree that football clubs need to report where injuries are taking place within their grounds? If they are in locations where people are predominantly standing where they should be seated, that may give us a better idea of how those injuries are coming about. I suspect they are not be being recorded properly.
Tracey Crouch
That perfectly outlines the challenge we face. At the moment, we do not have the data or the evidence to make a decision either way on the issue. What I am announcing today is that we will start the data and evidence collection, because as the hon. Gentleman says, it is clear that there are gaps in the injury data. We know that the current format of data collection does not allow people to specify some of the issues around the injuries that are happening at football matches.
I look forward to working closely with the Premier League, the English Football League and other organisations, including the Football Supporters Federation, which I met last week, to make progress together. I would like to thank the FSF, the Premier League, Mike Davis from Shrewsbury Town Supporters and the Plymouth Argyle management, who, in the middle of all the abuse, were kind and considerate in their conversations with me about the issue, which I appreciate. I also thank those at Spurs, and the chairman of Norwich City, for explaining the pragmatic approach that they are taking to ensure fans’ safety while still adhering to the law.
I acknowledge the evolution of stadium design, seating technology and modern crowd management approaches that has taken place in recent years. The data-gathering work will look at the impact of those changes and consider any existing data on the wider impact of introducing the type of rail seating accommodation used in Germany and elsewhere on attendances, ticket prices, the atmosphere, the diversity of supporters, fan behaviour, the management of various parts of the stadiums and, of course, safety.
Mr Betts
In the review, will the Minister look at the discrimination that occurs at present? If there is no standing area and people insist on standing in seated areas, it means that there is no alternative for smaller people, such as women and children, who are prevented from enjoying the game and viewing it properly, or for people who have a disability and simply cannot stand up for 45 minutes.
Tracey Crouch
That is why I praise Norwich City’s pragmatic approach in recognising that some fans who were persistently standing in a family section were causing a great deal of distress to people who pay a significant amount of money to watch their team with young children. It has effectively moved those fans to a different part of the stadium, which allows the family supporters to continue to watch the football match.
Tracey Crouch
No, I will carry on.
On top of what I have already announced, the SGSA is currently revising the “Green Guide”, which sets out the standards of sports ground safety that apply in this country. It is influential around the world, as it is absorbed by sports bodies and Governments looking for authoritative advice on sports grounds safety. The revised guide is due for publication later this year, and will offer refreshed technical guidance that sets out the standards for seats incorporating barriers and seats with independent barriers within the prevailing legislation and competition rules.
Clubs and local authorities are responsible for managing their grounds, and I and the SGSA will expect them to continue to apply the all-seater policy while we gather the evidence and data. To be clear, no one expects any fan to stay rooted in their seat for 90 minutes through goals, near misses and last-minute match-winners—or, in the case of Spurs fans, usually match-losers. That was never the intention of the all-seater policy.
There are many different views about the future of the all-seater policy and they all need to be heard. Some people feel unable to contribute to the discussion while legal proceedings are under way, as outlined by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle). We need to be mindful of that. While the proceedings continue, we shall gather the missing data and evidence by working with the authorities, leagues, supporter groups and others.
With something as serious as football ground safety, change cannot and should not happen overnight, but, contrary to the reports on social media, my mind is open about the future of the all-seater policy. However, due process must be followed to ensure the safety of fans now and in the future—fans who, like me, stay loyal and true through the good times as well as the bad, and who spend a lot of money providing the lifeblood of their clubs up and down the country.
A million people watch football every week. I conclude by thanking those who signed the petition and hon. Members for reflecting their views and those of their constituents. I hope that we can move forward with the required data gathering, continue the discussion with key stakeholders and develop the “Green Guide” so that we all know where we stand.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 207040 relating to allowing Premier League and Championship football clubs to introduce safe standing.
Written Statements
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Childhood Obesity: Plan for Action Chapter 2
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
Today, Government have published the second Chapter to the Childhood Obesity Plan. This plan is informed by the latest evidence and sets a new national ambition to halve childhood obesity and significantly reduce the gap in obesity between children from the most and least deprived areas by 2030.
A copy of the plan can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childhood-obesity-a-plan-for-action-chapter-2.
[HCWS794]
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill: Standing Order No. 83L
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I am today placing in the Library of the House the Department’s analysis on the application of Standing Order 83L in respect of the amendments tabled during the progress through the House of Commons for the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill.
[HCWS792]
Personal Independence Payments
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)
I am pleased to inform the House that two review exercises will begin today. One with regard to the MH and RJ judgments and one for claimants whose main disabling condition is haemarthropathy. The first payments will be made in late summer.
The Secretary of State made a commitment to keep the House updated on MH. This statement is fulfilling that commitment and is the third update so far.
On 21 December 2017 the High Court handed down its judgment in the judicial review challenge against regulation 2(4) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 S.l. 2017/194. This regulation reversed the effect of the upper tribunal decision in MH. This decision broadened the interpretation about how symptoms of overwhelming psychological distress should be assessed for the purpose of mobility activity 1 in PIP.
The Secretary of State informed the House on 19 January 2018 that after careful consideration she would not be appealing the High Court judgment, in order to provide certainty to claimants. Since then the Department has been working at pace and taking the necessary steps required to implement the decision in MH.
I am pleased to tell the House that this work is now complete and I have today published the new guidance required in order to implement the change. The guidance can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/personal-independence-payment-assessment-guide-for-assessment-providers
On 2 November 2017 the Department published updated guidance following an upper tribunal judgment on RJ that was handed down on 9 March 2017 on how the Department considers a claimant to be carrying out an activity safely and whether they need supervision to do so. The review exercise will now also look back at PIP claims to consider whether an increase in entitlement should be awarded as a result of RJ.
In addition, the Department is also beginning a review of approximately 420 PIP cases where the main disabling condition is haemophilia to identify and review claimants with haemarthropathy, following feedback from external stakeholders that the functional needs of claimants with haemarthropathy were not being adequately assessed. We expect this exercise to be completed in six weeks.
I will continue to update the House.
[HCWS793]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Pickles
Introduction: Baroness Sater
Apprenticeships: Levy
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the apprenticeship levy is an important part of our reforms to raise the quality of apprenticeships. We are seeing real improvement in the quality of apprenticeships as a result of our wider changes. The number of people starting on new employer-designed standards is almost 10 times higher than last year, but there is still more to do and we continue to engage closely and regularly with businesses as they plan their future apprenticeship programmes.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer but, if he will excuse me, it is papering over the cracks. Last autumn we saw a big fall in the number of apprenticeship registrations, in February they were down 40% and in March—the latest numbers we have—they are down 58%. This is not a blip; this is a trend. When will the Government abandon their completely unreachable and unworkable 3 million target and really focus on quality?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We are certainly not going to abandon this: we believe that it is working well. We have explained already that it takes time to bed in. Yes, I acknowledge that starts have dropped, but we make a comparison year on year to last March when there was a considerable spike in the old apprenticeships. At the moment, 37% of people doing an apprenticeship are now starting on standards, compared to 3% last year.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that apprenticeships at 16 and 18 have fallen in the last two years? To call people in their 40s, 50s and even 60s apprentices is not really a meaningful expression of what they are doing. Is he also aware that youngsters at 16 will not be employed as apprentices by companies because at school all they are studying is a narrow, academic curriculum and all technical subject are being squeezed out of our curriculum? We are the only country doing this and it should be stopped.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The whole gist of our programme is to ensure that anybody who wants to become an apprentice can do so, but the main thing is quality. We are very much focusing on standards and the Institute for Apprenticeships has a mandate to focus on quality. Quality is important, rather than quantity.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister say how long it will take for the British system to come up to the same level as Germany’s?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We are in a very favourable position in comparison to Germany because, for example, it has 30% off-the-job training and we are going for 20%. As the noble Lord will know, this is part of a two-year programme, so we have deliberately given employers who pay the levy two years in which to bed in these new changes and get used to the process. We believe that that is happening.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, is the Minister aware that for small businesses and voluntary organisations the process of drawing up the standards is very complicated and time-consuming, that there is little guidance on this and no financial help for it from government, and that since the levy was introduced the grant for apprenticeships has fallen from £6,000 for an 18-year-old to £2,500, so the YMCA tells me? That makes it unviable for the YMCA to offer apprenticeships.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I understand what the right reverend Prelate says. However, we have increased the funding for providers, particularly on the non-levy side. I hope that he can be reassured that small businesses are being helped by our encouraging better providers for them.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, apprenticeships and the levy are a key element in delivering the UK’s vital needs for skills and human capital, but they are not the only element. What are the Government doing to develop an overarching skills strategy, embracing not just apprenticeships but all the different elements of skills development, including the proposed T-levels? How do they plan to monitor progress towards reaching the overall goals of such a strategy?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is quite right that although the apprenticeships programme is a major one for us, it sits alongside other programmes. He will know that we announced in our industrial strategy in November 2017 that we wanted to up the progress, covering technical education. For example, we are investing an additional £406 million in maths, digital and technical education to address the shortage of science, technology, engineering and maths. This is a complementary programme.
Lord Storey (LD)
The Minister will know that the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development says that a fifth of employers and a third of SMEs are writing off the levy as a tax, rather than investing it into apprenticeships. Will the Government consider extending the deadline for spending the apprenticeship levy from 24 months to 36 months, to give sufficient time to develop new and more rigorous apprenticeship standards?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We have already extended it from 18 months to 24 months and we think that that is fine. We are seeing strong signs that it is picking up, with the employers buying into the system. We always said that it would take some time, as I think the noble Lord knows. For example, we are seeing vacancies up and that is very encouraging.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, the apprenticeship levy offers organisations the chance to review their workforce strategies, diversify their workforces and address skills shortages. Does my noble friend the Minister therefore think that any underspend of levy money should be ring-fenced to be invested strategically, to tackle identified sector skills challenges?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I think we made it clear that if there is any underspend, it will become apparent probably no earlier than May 2019. It is clear that if there is any underspend, the money available will go back into apprenticeships, so it is important that the focus is on these new level standard apprenticeships.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that most business schools have set up management courses to be paid for by the levy. These courses are for mature managers. Was this part of the Government’s intention?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
No. I know that the possibility of MBAs being attached to apprenticeships has been raised in the House before, but that is not the case. It is clear that the system is rigorous so it can check that apprenticeships are up to the right standard and are launched so that they cannot be dressed up as other types of qualifications.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, under the co-investment rule that applies as part of the levy, the 10% that members have to pay towards the cost of apprenticeships means that many of them are unable to access the levy funds. Given that the Government have next to no chance of achieving their target of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020 without the support of the small business sector, will they consider piloting the suspension of co-investment in order to let small businesses play their full part in boosting the number of apprentices?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord makes a good point about the 10%, but we want to introduce the transfers in a gradual and well-managed way, allowing levy payers to benefit from the added flexibilities while protecting the integrity and affordability of the programme and the interests of non-levied employers. I reassure the noble Lord that we are carefully monitoring the implementation of the transfers, including how the 10% is working.
Northern Ireland: Executive and Assembly
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Northern Ireland officials maintain a regular dialogue with officials in the Northern Ireland Civil Service about the impact of the lack of devolution on Northern Ireland’s vital public services. That dialogue informs ongoing UK Government work as part of the Secretary of State’s commitment to ensure good governance and the continued delivery of Northern Ireland’s vital public services.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that not having a functioning Assembly and Executive is detrimental to the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, who do not have a voice in the Brexit discussions, is damaging to the peace process, and means that key decisions are not being made? May I put this to the Government? Because the Government are so linked to one of the parties in Northern Ireland, they are not able to be a neutral umpire in this. Is it not time that they appointed an international figure of the same stature as Senator George Mitchell to bring the parties together and move the peace process onwards?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. It is long overdue, and we need a fully functioning Executive for the very reasons raised by the noble Lord. Right now, we have two parties who are inching closer to some of sense of being back in the room. That is how we are making progress—not that we are getting an outcome from the room; we are just trying to get them back into the room. We will close off no doors in trying to ensure that we bring them back to the table and that they leave the table with a fully functioning, sustainable Executive.
Lord Lexden (Con)
How much additional funding will be supplied to the health service in Northern Ireland as a result of the Government’s 70th anniversary boost to the NHS, and who will be responsible for determining how that money is allocated within the Province?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
There will be a significant increase in the funding for the National Health Service in Northern Ireland. It has been deemed one of the areas that requires significant investment. To ensure that money is spent wisely, we will be relying on the Civil Service of Northern Ireland. I would much prefer that the answer to the question was not the Civil Service but rather politicians. If my noble friend will permit it, I will give him the exact figures in a written response.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will know that one of the sticking points for an agreement is the status of the Irish language. Is he not able to point out to the DUP that as minority languages are accepted as equals in Scotland and Wales, there is absolutely no reason why the Irish language should not be accepted in Northern Ireland?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, if the answer was as simple as that, we might have been able to achieve some progress by now. Unfortunately, it is a little more nuanced and a little trickier, but I am fully aware that both sides recognise the value and vitality of the languages in the Province of Northern Ireland.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, only 7% of pupils in Northern Ireland are currently in integrated education. In the absence of an Executive, what is the Government’s strategy on delivering new integrated schools? Does he agree that moving away from segregated schools plays a significant role in helping society move on from the past in Northern Ireland?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness is right to raise such an important issue but, of course, this is a fully devolved matter. It should not be the Government of the United Kingdom who seek to impose such changes on the school structure in Northern Ireland. None the less, Northern Ireland’s Executive must grapple with these issues when they resume their role.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, political parties and Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly have failed to agree on devolution and power-sharing. Will the Government now consult the elected Northern Ireland MPs to see whether they can find a way forward?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The Government are speaking to one and all in an attempt to reach that magical moment of bringing the key parties back to the table. No party can be left out. We shall listen to all who have something to say.
Baroness Blood (Lab)
My Lords, the Question asked was about the effect on the people of Northern Ireland. The Minister has just answered by saying that civil servants are civil servants. We have a practically non-functioning Civil Service in Northern Ireland, and an almost invisible Secretary of State. When will they ask the people of Northern Ireland about the effect that is having?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I cannot give enough praise to the civil servants in Northern Ireland, who have been asked to stand above and beyond what they are expected to do. They are in regular dialogue, and we are in regular dialogue with them. The key issue now is that it does not matter how much dialogue you have, if you do not have a functioning Executive, what you hear cannot be taken forward in a meaningful way, and that silences the voice of the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, while acknowledging that progress is difficult without a functioning Executive and Assembly, will my noble friend take the opportunity to welcome the fact that some progress can be made: for example, the decision of Arlene Foster to meet LGBT representatives later this week?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Yes, that is quite extraordinary. It is the beginning, not the end, of a journey. I shall be joining Arlene Foster in meeting them in Belfast on Thursday evening.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is always an emollient voice on these issues, but we are in a serious situation. The courts have already made a judgment that civil servants exceeded their authority in decisions made. We have had the hyponatraemia case, which was a public inquiry that I set up in 2004. It did not report until 2018, and we do not know how many, if any, of the inquiry’s 96 recommendations—following the deaths of five children—will ever be implemented, because it has not been considered by elected representatives. We have the issue of abortion for victims of sex crimes and in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, and we have Brexit talks where there is no one from the Northern Ireland Executive representing Northern Ireland, although we have someone from the Scottish Executive and someone from Wales. How much longer can this be allowed to go on? More importantly, how many other cases and examples are there where Northern Ireland is suffering and not functioning because of a lack of elected representatives taking the positions they were elected to perform?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I can be very frank and say that Northern Ireland will be suffering in the absence of an Executive; of that there can be no doubt. It is not for me to try to work out what is happening in the Province of Northern Ireland; it is for the elected representatives, who listen to the voices of Northern Ireland, to move forward. The issues raised by the noble Baroness are absolutely correct: there needs to be a voice for the political communities of Northern Ireland inside Brexit. The Government do all we can to reach out to all those elected parties, but there is no functioning Executive. Until we have that, we cannot make the progress required for the people of Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness asks how long we can go on. The reality is: not much longer.
Legislation: Gendered Pronouns
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will adopt the use of “they” as the singular pronoun in all future legislation in preference to gendered pronouns.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords—if I may so use a gendered noun in defiance of my noble friend’s Question—the Government are committed to gender-neutral drafting in legislation. There are a number of ways to avoid gender-specific pronouns, and the use of “they” in the singular is certainly one of them. Other ways to avoid gender-specific pronouns are discussed in the drafting guidance produced by parliamentary counsel.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer, but does my noble friend agree that the drafting guidance, which followed a debate in this Chamber some while ago, is very much a half-way house? We still permit repeated use of the “Secretary of State” and the phrase “he or she”, which is a binary rather than a unitary gender expression. In view of the forthcoming review of the Gender Recognition Act, and the expectation that that will further ease the ability of people to change gender, should we not be reviewing the whole aspect of gender in legislation and in public practice?
Lord Young of Cookham
My noble friend highlights the tension between etymological orthodoxy on the one hand and political correctness on the other. I was brought up to believe that “they” was a nominative plural pronoun and “he” or “she” was the singular. But that was a long time ago; popular usage has moved on, and so have the grammar guides. Indeed, the singular “they” is now used in legislation. It was used in the Terrorism Act. But, to go as far as my noble friend has suggested and use “they” in all circumstances would, I think, be a step too far. In many cases, the use of “a person” would do just as well.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, while we are talking of nomenclature, is there anything the Government can do to discourage the growing and irritating replacement of the relative pronoun “which” by the demonstrative adjective “that”? How can we get back to using “which” when we mean it without having so many “thats” all over the place?
Lord Young of Cookham
So far as drafting legislation is concerned, I hope I can assure noble Lords that parliamentary draftsmen will use the correct grammar whenever it is possible. The main purpose of drafting legislation is that it should be clear, but I agree that, wherever practicable, we should also use conventional language as long as we do not upset people’s sensitivities.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, my former students would tell you that I care greatly about grammar, but will the Minister explain why using “they” would be a step too far?
Lord Young of Cookham
The suggestion from my noble friend was that it should be used in all cases. I have conceded that we should use it in some cases, and I cited an example from the Terrorism Act, where we do indeed use the word they in the singular:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action”.
But to insist that it should be used in every case would be to deprive parliamentary draftsmen—parliamentary drafters—of the flexibility they need.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, trans activists who I know very well do not wish to stop anybody using gender pronouns; they simply wish to add more ways in which people can use terms that describe them more accurately. Private sector companies are way ahead of us and are latching on to this. Will the Government review gender markers which they use in official documents to stop the practice of asking questions out of habit to solicit lots of information that is never used?
Lord Young of Cookham
I understand the issue that the noble Baroness raises. We will soon be publishing a consultation on the Gender Recognition Act, and we will also be publishing the results from our national LGBT survey, which received over 7,000 responses from non-binary people. I hope that that reassures the noble Baroness that we take this issue seriously.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, as important as it is to think about language and treating members of each sex equally and fairly, is it not also important to think about the range of experience in Parliament? Is the Minister shocked to learn that while midwives, health visitors and early years professionals provide a vital role of support, particularly for women, there is, according to my Library research, only one qualified health visitor—the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor—in both Houses? I am not aware that there are experienced early years practitioners, health visitors and midwives in Parliament. Does the Minister think that that should be looked at as well?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am sure it should be looked at, but it goes slightly wider than the Question about parliamentary drafting.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend recall that the Interpretation Act states that the male embraces the female? Do the Government intend to revisit that Act?
Lord Young of Cookham
Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 says that:
“In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,—(a) words importing the masculine gender include the feminine; (b) words importing the feminine gender include the masculine; (c) words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular”.
That remains on the statute book in order to assist the interpretation of legislation before 2007. After 2007, as I said earlier, all new legislation has been drafted using gender-neutral language.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it did seem at that point that the Minister was competing with the Clerk Assistant for long explanations. I return the Minister to grammar, which he mentioned earlier. An area over which he has some authority is Hansard. Whenever I say “the Government has” done something, it is reported as “the Government have”. This is a great inconvenience for a number of noble Lords. Might the Minister look, not at my words, but at all the stuff that we write which is still, I think, grammatically incorrect?
Lord Young of Cookham
If there is one group of people who have listened to what the noble Baroness has just said, it is Hansard. I am sure they will take on board the proposal that she has just put to the House.
Brexit: Identity Cards
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have assessed the value of introducing identity cards following Brexit.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, in 2010 the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition decided to scrap the identity card scheme and the associated national identity register because it was expensive and represented a substantial erosion of civil liberties. The Government have no plans to revisit that decision.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, a very interesting question was asked on 3 May by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who is a convert to ID cards. Recognising the possible difficulties post Brexit for unionists in accepting a de facto border with the rest of the UK at Northern Irish ports, would the introduction of biometric ID cards, across the UK—which includes Northern Ireland—further emphasise their identity and entitlements as UK citizens and help alleviate unionists’ concerns by underscoring their national identity within the United Kingdom? In a way, passports in Northern Ireland will not always be able to do that in the future.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. The status of Northern Ireland’s citizens will remain the same post Brexit and they will still have access to the same identity documents. The Government are committed to protecting the Belfast agreement. One of the successes of that agreement, and the peace process, was to protect the ability of the people of Northern Ireland to identify as British, Irish or both.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, the last time this question came up, last year, we were told that this was 20th century stuff, not 21st century. I have never personally met a police officer who does not feel that identity cards would be more than helpful. I am of an age to remember them during the war. There is another factor which all in this House are interested in. Last week, the Office for National Statistics brought out the results of their “surveys” about what the future will be. It would undoubtedly consider that identity cards would be a huge improvement in enabling us to forecast the future more accurately. That would be in all our interests: might the Minister consider it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for that question, and for forewarning me of it. I have talked about cost and civil liberties but, in addition to the things which my noble friend talked about, I draw attention to the fact that an increasing number of transactions and interactions, including the majority of identity frauds now occur online, where documents are far less effective in proving identity. I will take back what my noble friend said, but we should recognise that there is now a thriving market in fraud with actual, physical documents.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in 2005 experts at the London School of Economics estimated that the introduction of an ID card scheme would cost up to £18 billion. Taking account of inflation and the total absence of any Brexit dividend, does the Minister agree that £26 billion would be better spent on the National Health Service?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The quite swingeing costs were certainly a consideration when the coalition Government decided to scrap identity cards or take them no further. I do not know about the £20 billion figure, but abolishing the scheme saved the taxpayer at the time £86 million and removed the need for a total investment of £835 million. What the Government choose to spend the money on will be a collective matter for the Government.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, this is not a question about identity but identification. Is it not quaint that we still have people who imagine that ID cards are a threat to civil liberties, who walk around with mobile phones, which constantly give away far more information than any ID card I have ever heard of? When will the Government recognise that being able to show who one is is seriously important, matters particularly for people who may not be entirely sure about their place of birth, and is necessary for people in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I hope that I have just addressed the Northern Ireland point. However, I totally concur with the noble Baroness that with mobile phones and on forums people give away information about their personal identification that they would never dream of telling the state or their banks. That is why I pointed out the more serious development of online fraud and the importance of proving identity in a lot of different situations. Whether it is proving your age in a nightclub or proving the right to rent or work, they all need different solutions.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Has the Minister noticed, over the period of time when questions on the subject have been repeatedly raised—by, to his great credit, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours—that the mood in this Chamber, if not more widely, has tended more towards recognising the necessity of ID cards? Has she noticed that no one these days defends it on grounds of principle—not even the Liberal Democrats—
Lord Grocott
The question from the Liberal Democrats was entirely on an issue of cost, which is not irrelevant but not an issue of principle. To clear this thing up, and in the interests of transparency, can the Minister tell us, as this was done during the coalition Government, which party in the coalition she most blames for the decision to scrap the scheme?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not blame either of them. However, I do not disagree at all with the noble Lord when he says that the issue of proof of ID and identity assurance is becoming more and more important. I am making the point that different identity assurance proofs are required in different situations. One would not expect to go into a nightclub and have to prove one’s immigration’s status, and similarly, in other situations you might not have to prove other things. Therefore we are trying to get to both a proportionate and reasonable proof of identity.
European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Canada Trade Agreement) Order 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Fairhead
That the draft Order laid before the House on 21 May be approved.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, this order designates the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA, as an EU treaty pursuant to Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. This is a necessary step towards UK ratification of the agreement and part of the process to be followed in laying the treaty before Parliament for 21 days as set out in CRaG, the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I am delighted that we have the opportunity to debate this agreement. It follows on from the thorough and constructive debate last year in the other place and the overwhelming support shown in a deferred Division. I very much hope that your Lordships will also agree to support this ambitious and progressive FTA today, and that the other place will again support the agreement when it is debated there tomorrow.
This Government are clear that CETA is a good deal for Europe and a good deal for the UK. Our total trade with Canada stood at £16.5 billion last year, up 6.4% on the previous year, and with a services surplus of £1.9 billion. CETA will improve on this already strong economic partnership. The agreement has the potential to boost our GDP by hundreds of millions of pounds a year: it will bring down trade costs by reducing burdens in the form of both tariffs and procedures; it will boost trade and investment; it will promote jobs and growth; and it will increase our ability to access Canadian goods, services and procurement markets to the benefit of a wide range of UK businesses and consumers. Canada is an important strategic partner too: as one of the Five Eyes group and a member of NATO, the Commonwealth, the G7 and the G20, we have bonds that go far beyond just our trading relationship.
As this House will know, CETA was provisionally applied in September last year, removing 98% of the tariffs previously faced by UK businesses at the Canadian border. Already, UK firms are benefiting from this. We have seen drinks exporters such as Dorset’s Black Cow Vodka and Kent-based sparkling wine producer Hush Heath Estate improve their market access and profitability following the reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers. We are seeing new UK exporters to Canada, including Seedlip, the world’s first distilled non-alcoholic spirit. Under the agreement, Seedlip does not pay the 11% pre-CETA tariff on its product. Yorkshire-based Moordale Foods entered the Canadian market in March 2017, helped by CETA duty elimination. In services, the UK and Canadian architect bodies, ACE and CALA, have notified the EU Commission that they are in discussions on future mutual recognition.
In September last year, during her visit to Canada, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Trudeau reiterated their intention to seek to swiftly and seamlessly transition CETA to a UK-Canada deal once the UK has left the EU. To ensure as seamless a transition as possible, they formally announced a working group to take this forward. Officials from our two countries have already begun to meet to discuss transitioning CETA. It is important as a first step that we prevent a cliff edge for British and Canadian businesses. Of course, while we remain in the EU we continue to support the EU’s ambitious trade agenda. Free trade is not a zero-sum game, but rather a win-win. Ratifying CETA will send a strong message about our determination to champion the cause of free trade. This is a key part of the Government’s vision of delivering a prosperous and truly global Britain as we leave the EU. It is important to the UK that CETA is ratified successfully by all EU member states.
During the implementation period, the United Kingdom will retain access to EU free trade agreements but we will also be able to negotiate, sign and ratify new UK-only free trade agreements for the first time in more than 40 years. In doing so, we will safeguard the benefits already achieved in CETA for UK businesses and consumers and lay a foundation for an even stronger relationship.
Those areas of the agreement that were not provisionally applied in 2017 include a large part of the chapter on investment, including the new investment court system, on which there has been extensive discussion both in Parliament and in wider civil society. The UK supports the principle of investment protection and looks forward to engaging further with the Commission on the technical detail of the investment court system. We support the objectives of obtaining fair outcomes of claims, high ethical standards for arbitrators and increased transparency of tribunal hearings. Investment protection provisions protect investors from discriminatory or unfair treatment by a state. They apply only to investments in place, not to speculative future investments. We have more than 90 such agreements in place with other countries and there has never been a successful investor-state dispute settlement claim brought against the UK, nor has the threat of potential claims affected the Government’s legislative programme. Moreover, the agreement provides that member states should not reduce their labour and environmental standards to encourage trade and investment, ensuring that our high standards are not affected by this agreement.
Nothing in CETA prevents the UK regulating in the pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives—and that, of course, includes the NHS. The Government have been absolutely clear that protecting the NHS is of the utmost importance for the UK. The delivery of public health services is safeguarded in the trade in services aspects of all EU FTAs, including CETA. The UK Government will continue to ensure that decisions about public services are made by the UK and not our trading partners. This is a fundamental principle of our current and future trade policy.
On scrutiny, we have committed, through our White Paper published last year, that we will ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements as we move ahead with our independent trade policy. The Government can guarantee that Parliament will have a crucial role to play in the scrutiny and ratification of the UK’s future trade agreements and we will bring forward proposals in due course.
I welcome the opportunity to make the case for CETA today and to give the opportunity for full scrutiny of this important agreement, as the Government have done for previous EU free trade agreements. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ contributions. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I certainly do not wish to oppose an agreement with Canada in this way but I have a number of questions—to some extent the noble Baroness has anticipated me—for two reasons. First, the Government have made it clear that on the one hand they regard CETA as a template for future UK-third party agreements around the world post Brexit and, on the other, they intend that CETA will be rolled over post Brexit into a UK-Canada free trade agreement. Both of those may or may not happen, but two slightly troubling points arise.
My second reason for raising this is the same as I gave in a slightly rambling intervention in a debate initiated last Thursday by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The proponents of free trade, among whom I include myself, need to recognise that there is a negative political reaction in many countries around the world to the prospect of greater free trade. We have seen this in Britain in terms of the Brexit vote, in my opinion, and of course very strongly in America, which has effectively stymied the G7 from making a step change in terms of multilateral free trade around the world. Given that political difficulty, it is important that key sections of our population do not regard the extension of free trade as a threat to their security or to their position.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, following on from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, which essentially I support, obviously it is a matter of regret that, if I understand it correctly, the agreement does not include services. That is a major omission. Also, on the Canada-US border, which I realise is not covered by discussions today, there is already tension, in particular over the flow of food and agri-food goods. This was raised at the G7 summit.
My noble friend said—I welcome this most warmly—that there will be proper scrutiny of the agreement. I wonder whether she will be in a position to share with the House this afternoon what form that scrutiny will take, and perhaps give a commitment that scrutiny will take place while the House is sitting—because I gather some procedures are being considered by the Procedure Committee that will allow some of the regulations flowing from the EU withdrawal Bill to be considered while the House is in recess. I do not know about other noble Lords, but it concerns me greatly that we were promised proper scrutiny and have given vast powers to the Executive to bring in regulations. My understanding was that all the regulations and statutory instruments would be considered while the House was sitting—and we have the September sitting, when we could give instruments close consideration.
My noble friend also said that no case in the investment sector against the UK had yet been successfully prosecuted. When we had the little debate last Thursday on the G7 summit, I pressed my noble friend on what the dispute settlement would be—this is in the White Paper—in relation to the free trade agreement that we seek with our current EU partners, and indeed other free trade agreements that might be agreed. In the context of concerns raised, certainly by the Belgian Government, this obviously is a source of concern that may have greater credence the closer we come to reaching an agreement with the EU, or indeed more broadly.
I take some comfort from the reassurance that my noble friend has given the House this afternoon that public services will remain a matter for the UK Government. Perhaps she could give a bit more substance to that commitment, because a lot of scare stories were going around at the time the TTIP agreement was being discussed, and it would be most unfortunate if, in the context of the CETA agreement, such scare stories were to persist.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was right to highlight consumer and voter concerns about such matters—but I should point out that there are also business concerns about the Government’s stature in the trading environment. It is not just the content but the body language that goes with it. At the weekend we saw some appalling body language from senior Ministers about business and some of our most important exporters, so it is good that we can ameliorate that at least in some way with some positive body language here. It is good for us to be discussing this. Perhaps it is churlish of me to point out that the reason why we are discussing it is that we are in the EU, which has worked hard to deliver this treaty.
It is also heartening that we are discussing something that fits within the WTO legislative procedure rather than—sadly, and increasingly—within a worldview that is moving outside the WTO. So it ticks a number of multilateral boxes. As we have heard, Canada is of course an important current trading partner, and one that we hope to make larger. So CETA and its ratification are to be welcomed. It is a good arrangement and, clearly, as the Minister pointed out, the Canadians have made it clear that this is a framework by which a transition in the event of Brexit can be moved into a bilateral agreement between ourselves and Canada.
As the noble Baroness who spoke before me pointed out, it is clear that this does not include services—that is my understanding. I see that the Minister is shaking her head. Perhaps she might indicate which services are in and which are out. My sense is that very few are in. What would be the attitude towards a bilateral agreement on services between our two countries?
The Minister also pointed out that a working party to transition this has already been set up. Perhaps she could give us some sense of how long “swiftly and seamlessly” really means in terms of moving from one to the other. She used some examples; quite a lot of them were agricultural and food products. Clearly, Canada has a very strong agricultural industry. I would be interested to know what impact analysis has been done of the relative flows in both directions of agricultural and food products between our two countries. The Minister talked about growing trade—I think she used the phrase “hundreds of millions” in extra trade. What kinds of targets do the Government have for increasing the flow between the two countries?
It is all good—except the context in which CETA could be transitioned between our two countries really does depend on the nature of the arrangement we have with the European Union. Canada has already made that clear and has expressed unhappiness on, for example, the division of quotas and other such issues. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how these kinds of things feed in to our negotiations with the European Union.
The investment court system—ICS—has already come up. The Minister mentioned it, as did both the previous speakers. This is clearly an area that has raised people’s concerns. There is a perception that large multinationals will have an advantage in such a system. It is easy to understand that perception because this will be a complex and expensive process. How can the Government allay the fears of smaller traders and individuals that this will not be a charter for the larger, deeper-pocketed companies to play the system? Can the Government confirm that the ICS will be rolled over into any bilateral agreement should CETA be transitioned post Brexit?
Finally, the major exports between the two countries are in the engineering sphere, specifically nuclear reactors, boilers, machinery, vehicles and aircraft. I note that all these sectors could suffer severely under Brexit; for example, due to border friction, the restriction of movement of people, and exiting Euratom. There will be pressure on those businesses, so what assurances can the Minister give them? I note the particular importance in the aircraft industry of the Anglo-Canadian relationship at Bombardier in Belfast. Again, what assurances can the Minister give the workers there?
It is good that, instead of attacks on business by the Foreign Secretary or the Health Secretary, we are having a positive debate about business. CETA adds a long-term view to things, in respect of which business is desperately looking for stability. Within the context of those questions, we welcome this statutory instrument.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the draft Order in Council which classifies CETA as an EU treaty, and to the others who chipped in to this debate. It is the second week running we have had a debate on trade. Let us keep the momentum going and have more of this. It is a good topic and will become even more so as we get on to the Bill that has been prefigured. This debate is important in itself but, as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, it is also a harbinger of how we might do deals in the future; in particular, how the Government might bring Parliament into the process.
It is interesting and therefore a bit ironic that this order is a draft of an Order in Council—one of the most obscure aspects of our legislative structure—and does not actually deal with the content of CETA at all. The Minister was kind enough to go over some of the main points in it, but of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, we lack an opportunity to discuss in detail some of the ways in which this framework agreement has been created. I hope that by the time we get to a rerun of this, or to any other free trade agreement that will be brought forward, we will have a much more substantial, engaged and expert debate on the mechanisms being created, the detail of what is or is not included in the free trade agreement and some idea of the process that we will be involved in.
Baroness Fairhead
I thank noble Lords for their contributions today in what has been an interesting debate on CETA. They have talked about the benefits of CETA and free trade agreements. I recognise the concerns, which I shall come on to, but I am happy to hear the enthusiasm about there being shares for free trade based on rules, with some of the requirements to uphold standards that the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Stevenson, focused on. I will touch on as many of these points as I can in the moments that I have.
The numbers that I have on our current trade and investment are that our exports are £9 billion and our imports are £7.5 billion. From my information, we have a slight deficit of £265 million on the goods side but a trade surplus of £1.9 billion on our services side. I am also happy to say that CETA includes services but possibly not as many as we had hoped at the beginning of the process. However, there are new opportunities in areas such as telecoms, finance, professional and environmental services. It will also allow UK firms to bid for a much broader range of Canadian public services, once Canada decides to open them up for such bids. Except of course for the public services, we will try to ensure that CETA guarantees the existing services’ liberalisation. There are some ways of helping SMEs, particularly on the processes. There are rapid ways of processing below €6,000. There is also a certification where you just have to put your name forward, and HMRC has pre-certified around 12,000 of those.
I turn to the future trading relationship with Canada. As I said, we will begin to transition CETA into a UK deal once the UK has left the EU, following a clear commitment. We believe that is important because it will prevent the cliff edge and, while we remain in the EU, we will continue to support the ambitious trade agenda of the EU. This provision was undertaken within that agenda, so it will ensure that during the implementation period we retain full access to CETA and other EU FTAs. An independent trade policy will allow us to be more ambitious, particularly in services.
I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who asked me what would happen if the treaty was not ratified by all member states. I apologise; it was the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. We expect ratification to take a number of years. We have noted Italy’s current position and will seek to ensure that everybody ratifies it. As it is currently provisionally applied, that will continue and we will be able to transition on that basis. It does not require such ratification for us to ratify it ourselves and transition that deal.
A number of noble Lords discussed ICS. Let me be clear that neither ICS nor any other investors’ dispute resolution can force the privatisation of public services. We alone retain the right to regulate. None of these tribunals can overturn Parliament or laws, as has sometimes been claimed. If I may deal with ICS first, there was a question about whether we are in front of the ECJ tomorrow. The answer I have is that we are not on that issue. However, we are aware of the concerns that some parties have with the proposed ICS. We believe in investor protection only where they are treated unfairly or with discrimination. ICS is part of this CETA but in looking at the future, we will look at a number of options of which ICS is one. There are others, which we will bring forward to the House. To be clear, the practical details of ICS have not currently been fully worked through by the Commission but it has committed to consult fully when that has happened.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the scrutiny process. There is an impact assessment that we have made public, and I will write to noble Lords to give them exact details of how to access it. We are working to make sure that in future the process of negotiating and implementing new trade deals is transparent, efficient and effective because we want a legislative framework that will enable future trade agreements to move quickly from agreement to ratification while supporting due processes for full parliamentary scrutiny. We are currently considering the legislative framework, but Parliament will have a crucial role to play in the scrutiny and ratification of future trade agreements and deals. The Government will bring forward those proposals in due course.
The EU has high labour and environmental standards. They are not affected by CETA, and we sign up to them with CETA. The agreements provide that member states should not reduce their standards to encourage trade and investment. I think that is important. We are determined not to compromise food safety or the environment or to reduce labour standards in pursuit of trade agreements. We will be rolling over all the current agreements when we transition CETA into a direct UK-Canada deal. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made a serious point about enforcement. We are looking at ways to improve compliance and enforcement. That remains something we are actively working on.
On the economic benefit figures, I referred noble Lords to the impact assessment. We have looked at impacts in a number of sectors. The total benefit to the UK is expected to be more than £730 million. The sectors that are likely to benefit the most are motor services and financial services. We see increases of £280 million and £70 million respectively. Detailed work has been done, so I would not like to believe it does not exist.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to geographical indicators. We expect CETA to be positive for UK agriculture. We have been in consultation and were in consultation when the geographical indicators were discussed. We think CETA is positive. It gives access to a market of 35 million people. The protected food names scheme remains in place in the EU. It is true that no UK GIs were included in CETA. That was because there was a process within the EU that it had to reach a certain hurdle. We consulted widely with groups and none of them at the time went above the hurdle that was eventually decided upon by the Commission. However, there is a mechanism to add new GIs in future, which I think will be actively pursued by a number of states. I know that a number of people have raised the question of Scotch whisky outside this House. It is not included because it is already protected. It has been formally registered in Canada since 1998, and it is also protected by the EU-Canada wine and spirits agreement.
I have tried to answer as many of noble Lords’ questions as I could in the time available. I recognise their concerns; we are working on a number of them and developing our strategy for the future. I realise that their concerns are heartfelt, and we will be working with noble Lords on that. However, I believe that this is a good deal for UK businesses—SMEs as well as larger businesses—and for consumers, and in our national interest to ratify this agreement.
I thank noble Lords for our debate today and hope that they will feel able to support the ratification and the positive signs that it will send to our future trading partners. I commend the order.
Nursing and Midwifery (Amendment) Order 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord O'Shaughnessy
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 May be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, today we are debating legislation that puts in place provisions to regulate the nursing associate role in England.
Health Education England’s Shape of Caring review made a series of recommendations to strengthen the capacity and skills of the nursing and caring workforce. The report identified strong support from employers, managers and staff in the health and social care sectors for a new nursing support role that would act as a bridge between the unregulated care assistant workforce and the registered nursing workforce. Health Education England undertook a public consultation on introducing the nursing associate role in England. The majority of respondents, a large proportion of whom were registered nurses, supported the new role, and there was strong support for it to be regulated.
Nursing associates will have their own defined role, augmenting and supporting the work of nurses in carrying out critical functions. They will deliver hands-on care, enabling registered nurses to spend more time using their specialist skills to focus on clinical duties and take more of a lead in decisions on patient care. We do not expect nursing associates to be primary assessors of care, but they will monitor the condition and health needs of those in their care and be able to recognise when it is necessary to refer to others for reassessment.
Although this new role will open a new career pathway into the nursing profession, I reassure all noble Lords that nursing associates are not substitute nurses. We want more not fewer nurses, which is why in October 2017 the Government announced a 25% increase in funded training posts for nurses to ensure that the NHS meets current and future nursing workforce needs.
It is vital that the right safeguards are in place. The Government’s view is that the most appropriate way to achieve this is through statutory regulation. This will support employers to use the role to its full potential and help ensure patient protection.
First, the effects of the proposed amendments to the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001 are to give statutory responsibility to the Nursing and Midwifery Council to regulate the nursing associate profession in England. Secondly, they are to extend the NMC’s current powers and duties contained in the order to nursing associates, in particular the key functions of: registration of nursing associates in England; setting standards of proficiency, education and training and continuing professional development and conduct for nursing associates in England; approving nursing associate programmes in England; operating fitness-to-practise procedures in respect of nursing associates; and recognising Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh, European Economic Area and international qualifications for the purpose of registration to the nursing associate part of the register.
Thirdly, this order amends the offence provisions in the Nursing and Midwifery Order. These amendments provide that a person commits an offence when falsely claiming to be on the nursing associate part of the register, falsely claiming to hold a nursing associate qualification or using the title “nursing associate” when not entitled to. The offences have been drafted to reflect that nursing associates will be regulated in England only.
Fourthly, the order makes provisions that allow admission to the register for those who have completed or commenced their training by 26 July 2019 through the pilot courses being run by Health Education England or an apprenticeship route. Fifthly, it excludes nursing associates from being given temporary prescribing rights in a time of national emergency, such as a pandemic flu outbreak. Sixthly, the order also removes the screener provisions from the Nursing and Midwifery Order 2001, as these are now redundant. Seventhly, it makes consequential amendments to the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s rules and to other legislation.
Finally, the order closes sub-part 2 of the nurses’ part of the register by amending the Order in Council which determines the parts of the NMC’s register and the titles which may be used by persons included in the register.
These are important changes to the governing legislation of the Nursing and Midwifery Council which introduce the nursing associate role into regulation. Employers have told us that they need a more flexible workforce to keep pace with developments in treatments and interventions. This role will enrich the skill mix available to employers within multidisciplinary teams and support the increase of nurse numbers by providing a clear pathway into the nursing profession.
Once the order comes into force, it is proposed that the Nursing and Midwifery Council will open the new nursing associate register in January 2019. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his excellent explanation of this order, which provides the Nursing and Midwifery Council with the necessary legal powers to regulate the nursing associate profession. On these Benches, we will be supporting the order, and I thank the Nursing and Midwifery Council and the RCN for their excellent briefs.
We are ready to accept that the creation of nursing associates is a welcome addition to building capacity. Some of us who are long in the tooth—there may be one or two in the House today—will remember SRNs and SENs and wonder whether we have gone full circle to move forward. However, I accept that there is some urgency to get this on the statute book because, initially, 2,000 nursing associates were training at 35 Health Education England test sites, with a further 5,000 starts planned for this year. The first nursing associates will qualify to apply for registration with the NMC from January 2019, so I accept the urgency to implement this order.
The Minister says that the nursing associate role is a defined care role to act as a bridge between unregulated healthcare assistants and the registered nursing workforce. Now that that role has been created, we agree with the Royal College of Nursing that,
“there must be absolute clarity that the nursing associate … is not a separate profession, but a new role within the nursing family that works under the delegation of the Registered Nurse”.
It went on to ask for “urgent guidance” to be published on “the precise relationship between” nurse associates and registered nurses,
“in terms of delegation and accountability”.
I hope that the Minister has taken that on board.
It is important to recognise that this new role is not the answer to the huge workforce challenges faced by the NHS and the social care system. Last week when the Government announced their funding proposals for the NHS, and the creation of a 10-year plan, many noble Lords said—we agreed—that it would be meaningless if this does not cover healthcare workers and social care workers together, given their importance in the future of our healthcare and social care system. Given that Health Education England has had its budget slashed, that we have a huge decrease in healthcare workers from the European Union, and the soon-to-be-removed—I hope—ridiculous visa system for non-EU health workers, the fact is that more nurses are leaving the profession than joining it, and there is a demographic challenge in that one in three nurses is due to retire in the next decade. In that context there is a well-founded anxiety that nursing associates could be used as a substitute for registered nurses.
Also in that context, has this new role been thought through, or is it a quick response to nursing shortages, with unfilled nursing posts which, as we know, are at a record high? Linked to that, how do we ensure that this new role does not impact negatively on the social care workforce? The head of Health Education England has highlighted that problem.
The role of a nursing associate was created before this SI was even introduced. Has there been enough time to consider the standards and levels of training for nursing associates to be registered with the NMC? I have to say that I am comforted by two things. One is the comprehensive brief from the NMC which suggests that it is on top of this, and indeed the notes accompanying the amendment order itself. I want to raise two things with the Minister, which are on page 5 of the accompanying notes and concern the cost-benefit impact analysis and the regulation of the nursing associates. Two risks are identified:
“First, there is a financial risk that the agreed initial set up costs escalate beyond those currently agreed with NMC. Second, the unquantified costs mentioned above relating to setting up and/or amending existing nursing associate courses as well as the accreditation of education providers”.
Those risks need to be mitigated before this moves forward in an orderly fashion. Finally, I think that there is provision in the order to take account of European Economic Area nursing associates, but I understand that this is not a uniform description or role that fits the narrative across the board. Will the Minister also comment on that?
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)
My Lords, I rise from the second Bench—I am not quite trusted to be on the front yet—
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
Thank you for your commiseration. I support the Nursing and Midwifery (Amendment) Order 2018. I do so with a very personal endorsement and declare my interest as an honorary fellow of the RCN; as a consultant to HEE and the NMC, with which I have been working on these regulations; and as the author of the Shape of Caring report, which is the origin of the nursing associate proposal. I recognise the work of two people in particular. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, kindly and quite rightly mentioned the NMC and the work that Jackie Smith has done to bring this through the process. The NMC was presented with two big issues: the new standards for nurses and those for nursing associates, which it took on at the request of the Government. She has led both those processes admirably. Although she is leaving her post next month, this House, and the profession, owe her a great deal of gratitude for what she has done.
I also want to mention and put on record Samantha Donohue, a registered nurse currently studying for a PhD. Her job has been to deal with all the pilot sites, the 8,000 applicants and the 2,023 colleagues who have started training. This has been a Herculean job; at every stage there has been some objection to overcome. I hope that, when he responds to this debate, the Minister will recognise that at times we have in our midst people who do fantastic jobs and do not require to be told how to do them by people elsewhere: they just get on and do it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, suggested that this matter has been rushed through. I understand that the regulation has followed the start of the pilots but, as independent chair of the Shape of Caring review, it took me over two years’ work to produce the 34 recommendations that led to this process and the recognition that nursing standards needed to change. Quite often, we look at the healthcare workforce in silos, instead of looking at it as a complete, interdependent ecosystem. There are also silos within silos in every section of the healthcare workforce—medics, consultants, physios, care workers or registered nurses—each of which fights for its space. When I was doing this work, particularly when I visited the United States and looked at the Magnet hospital set-up, I was drawn to the fact that nurses are right at the centre of and pivotal to a 21st-century healthcare system. Unless you put them at the centre, the rest of it will not work as smoothly as it should.
I totally support the move of the workforce to graduate status, but we have not fully realised the potential of a graduate nurse workforce. This role frees the registered nurses for the leadership in care that they have been prevented from doing because they are bogged down—I do not mean that in a disrespectful way—by the host of other tasks they have to do. The idea of being able to lead this care while safely delegating is at the heart of the report’s recommendations. Both Robert Francis, in the Mid Staffs report, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish, who produced the superb report on care workers, recognised that unless those two groups of workers—the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned them, too—are properly trained and get a recognition within the training organisation, you cannot safely delegate to people when you cannot rely on their having the skills to carry out those tasks. The nursing associate fills that gap. It liberates the registered nurse and at the same time makes sure that there is safe regulation. The establishment of the nursing associate is not, as the Minister rightly says, a substitute for a registered nurse; nor is it an investment in their long-term career. It is a point of registration—that is all. This is not the time for this debate, but unless we make provision for ongoing professional development of the whole of the nursing and care workforce, we will not get the benefit from either the nursing associate or the new role of the registered nurse.
I shall ask the Minister a number of brief questions. The first is about the apprenticeship route. I support that route, as I think most Members of the House do, and the apprenticeship levy is an obvious route for employers to take when expanding the nursing associate workforce. There will be a temptation, however, which the apprenticeship route encourages, to tailor the experience of individuals to the needs of the organisation, rather than to recognise that huge strands are working through this role which need to be applied elsewhere. We must not fall into the trap of having people who can work in only one organisation. They need to be able to develop skills that are transferable to wherever they are expected to work. Will the Minister therefore confirm that apprenticeships, in common with other routes into nursing, must be NMC-approved programmes and must be delivered by NMC-approved providers? Will he also confirm that the requirement in the pre-regulation apprenticeship standard that programmes are delivered by NMC-approved AEIs that deliver nurse education will continue? Will he also confirm that any change to those processes will be reported to Parliament for debate?
My second question is on overseas applications. How we deal with that will be a real challenge as we move forward past Brexit. Will the Minister confirm that such applicants will not be eligible for the nursing association register unless they have comparable qualifications from a higher education establishment and have passed a competence test set out by the NMC? I hope the House will appreciate that I am trying to guard against a second class of nurses. We want people whose standards are set and we want to maintain them, wherever they come from. That is important.
Thirdly, on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I was disappointed—like I think many people in the House—that they are not part of this process. The NMC regulates across the United Kingdom, not just in England, and it is a sad state of affairs that we now have this separation between England and the other three countries. If the countries decide to introduce a similar post, will they be able to instruct the NMC separately to regulate it, or can they introduce a post with identical requirements—let us call it a nursing assistant—without regulation? It would be wrong if we found ourselves within the United Kingdom having different regulatory or non-regulatory systems around the same post in different jurisdictions.
There has been much concern about the new nursing associate role being a role in its own right or an adjunct to a registered nurse. The issue is clarified in paragraph 7.20 of the Explanatory Notes, but I think it will remain an issue. Therefore, will the Minister confirm that nursing associates will not simply be the handmaidens of registered nurses? That cannot be the case. This is part of the nursing profession, full stop. It is part of that family, with a distinct role, primarily to underpin the work of the registered nurse but also to carry out functions in its own right wherever needed. A classic example is nursing homes. At the moment, a host of relatively poorly qualified people are working in nursing homes, often under the direction of just one registered nurse. At night, that provision is often only at the end of the phone. We really must not have that. We must simply say that we want people we can rely on, who will have the confidence of patients and their families.
With those comments in mind, I say to the Minister that in 10 years’ time there will be some 70,000 nursing associates registered and working in the system. What a present it is that, on the 70th anniversary of the NHS, we are establishing a new workforce to supplement and support the existing workforce to deliver an even better NHS.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support the Minister and the Motion to approve the Nursing and Midwifery (Amendment) Order 2018. I acknowledge the challenges that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has raised, in particular those that the Royal College of Nursing is concerned about, but believe that they are capable of resolution. I believe that the registered nurses who stand today will ensure that substitution does not happen for the roles that they really must undertake themselves.
I qualified as a nurse in 1976, when we still had enrolled nurses. For some time, I led a team that included enrolled nurses, but I was very clear, both as a district nursing sister and as a ward sister, that I was accountable for the elements that I delegated. That did not mean that enrolled nurses were not able to undertake routine care by themselves unsupervised, but rather that they were very aware of how to get help when they needed it. I believe that, if we get the nursing associate role right, a similar structure will occur.
I applaud the fact that nursing associates will have a clear ladder—probably through the apprenticeship route, as the noble Lord has just raised—to enable those who want to and who are capable to get university-level associated registration as a nurse. I do, however, regret that we have not called this new role a “healthcare associate”, because I believe that some of the work they will do will be undertaken in social care as well as in routine nursing care. We may need to reflect on that in years to come.
I also want to make it clear that this route should enable people to come relatively young into an adjunct profession that is associated, without them necessarily having A-levels on entry. That is important, because we know that a lot of young people would like to go into nursing or associated healthcare roles but are not able at that point to enter a three-year degree course. This is why I am so supportive of the structure.
The order makes provision for the new role of nursing associate to be subject to professional regulation by the Nursing and Midwifery Council. As has been explained, the first cohort should qualify in January 2019 and it is important for this legislation to be approved in sufficient time for the Nursing and Midwifery Council to open the register and put in place safe and effective standards and requirements for new staff entering the workforce. By regulating the role, the Nursing and Midwifery Council will contribute to the protection of the public by ensuring that nursing associates have high standards of education, will be required to keep their skills and knowledge up to date, and will be held accountable to a code of conduct.
As others have said, this new role has been rapidly developed as the result of successful work between employers and educational providers, with leadership from the CNO for England, Professor Jane Cummings, and the lead nurse at Health Education England, Professor Lisa Bayliss-Pratt, both of whom should be commended for their tenacity and work to achieve this end despite reluctance in some areas of the profession.
To reiterate an issue recently raised by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, many overseas applicants will want their qualifications recognised in relation to the nursing associate qualification, particularly licensed vocational nurses from a variety of Commonwealth countries. I urge the Government to ensure that proper funding is made available to map similar qualifications across the world so that we can make sure that we protect our own public if we allow overseas registrants to apply for this kind of qualification. It may be that they will need some kind of top-up, depending on the final standards that are agreed for nursing associates here.
I am aware that there have been challenges at the NMC recently but I echo the point of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and acknowledge the commitment of the Chief Executive and Registrar, Jackie Smith, which has ensured that nursing associates will be registered at the NMC in order not only to protect the public but to achieve a proper career route for nursing associates if they wish to proceed to study for registration as a nurse in the future. In the longer term, I hope the nursing associate route may provide a successful apprenticeship approach for some members of the public to become registered nurses, without necessarily having to enter graduate-level study at a time that is not suitable for all.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the order; I am struck by the knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, obviously, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, from her own practical experience. It is right and proper that we have this debate because a number of questions ought to be raised. To be fair to the Government, they have not been able to answer all the questions beforehand because, as we all know, this order is somewhat rushed. I understand the reason why and I concur with it.
As the Minister mentioned, the order was laid on 17 May; that is absolutely right, but it was first laid on 11 May and had to be withdrawn because it was inaccurate. That is an example of how the legislation has been rushed. It is therefore important that we, as a legislature, challenge the Executive on a number of issues. As has been indicated—the Minister understands this—the Government have consulted widely to try to get the feeling that, if the report by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, was implemented, it would be done in a sensible and correct manner. However, there has been a problem in that a number of the consultees have a vested interest. For example, the local commissioning trusts have an interest about who is going to pay for this. Will the funding come from the centre or from them? I shall come back to that point in a moment. Obviously the providers—the universities—have an interest because they need the income from running these courses. But of course I now see, and this is slightly worrying, that it is not only higher education institutions which are involved—further education institutions are too. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, possibly referred to this point when he said that he was “slightly concerned”—I emphasise the word “slightly”—that there could be some downgrading of the teaching input.
However, one group has not really been represented in these consultations: the nurses themselves. People will refer immediately to the Royal College of Nursing and its equivalent for midwives. But the trouble is that that organisation, in terms of this area, also has a vested interest. It is a registration body for nurses, yet at the same time it is a member organisation and there can be a conflict of views which I have come across quite often. I have no problem with the RCN registering nurses because it is both right and sensible, but we must recognise that there is a potential difficulty. I have talked to a number of nurses who are concerned about nursing associates. However, they can be reassured by this order. As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, have both said, nurses are professionals. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, made a very wise point. The pivotal role of caring in hospitals ought to rest with registered nurses. That is where we ought to begin because they are professional people.
Even so, nurses are concerned that their views have not always been represented in this consultation. I am therefore pleased to note that paragraph 7.20 of the draft Explanatory Memorandum makes that clear. I shall repeat that because it is important that it is on the record and nurses can see what the position is. The Government say, quite rightly:
“Nursing Associates are identified as a separate profession with different qualifications and education and training to nurses and midwives”.
Nursing associates are not nurses. They are not fully qualified and registered so in that sense they do not represent a challenge to nurses. That point must be rung out aloud because we need to ensure that a profession which is under pressure and suffering from low morale is reassured.
Paragraph 7.9 provides even more reassurance when it makes it clear that nursing associates will not be capable of,
“providing, supplying and administering medicines”.
That too needs to be shouted out. Moreover, I assume—perhaps the Minister can confirm this—that this includes giving injections. I should think it does because it refers to “administering medicines”, but we need clarification. The point is reinforced where the draft memorandum talks about situations of national emergency, when nurses and midwives can be empowered to prescribe. A flu pandemic is cited as an example. That is very sensible because we need the hands and brains of these people to do the job. Nurses help doctors, but it is made quite clear that the education and training of nursing associates is not of the same high standard as that of registered nurses. They will not be allowed to prescribe medicines in a national emergency situation or even a hospital emergency situation. I have spoken at some length, more than I would normally, but this House perhaps needs to help the Government to reassure qualified nurses that their status is not under threat.
I will deal with one or two other points. Paragraphs 7.14 to 7.16 talk about the two-year pilot courses. We understand why they were brought in, and I hope that we have learned a lot from them. Perhaps I might press the Minister on the number of people pursuing nursing associate courses at the moment. The Health Education England plan is for 5,000 nursing associates in training this year. I recollect a debate not long ago in this House in which the number of nurse associates in training was given not as 5,000 but 30—not 30,000 but 30. The Minister said, “I’m pretty sure those figures are wrong—they are too low—but the figure is disappointing”. I wonder whether he has up-to-date figures for the number of students expected to be on NA courses this year, because the projection is important in planning ahead for the workforce.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough
Perhaps I might help. Some of the thinking behind the funding model, in particular for apprenticeships, relates to the levy. It will not apply to very small trusts, but most large trusts have a 0.5% employment levy, and to apply that through the apprenticeship route seems very logical. Whether it will work is a different matter, but that is the logic.
Lord Clark of Windermere
I am very grateful for that—and I understand that many trusts contribute to the levy. Perhaps the Minister could give us an indication of what the breakdown will be between the conventional course and the apprenticeship course for nurse associates. That would be helpful, because one has to bear in mind that the cost to a registered nurse undergraduate is £9,000 a year. That is what they have to pay—which means that they will pay £27,000 to get their qualification.
We need to continue at a high level. As the Minister said, we have increased the number of nurses in training; I found that very encouraging. He is absolutely correct. But why should somebody who wants to become a registered nurse spend £27,000 over three years when they could do a conventional NA qualification for two years at no cost, then do another year to become a fully qualified registered nurse? It just does not make sense. The Government have to look at the funding of nurse support training as a whole. I hope that they do so.
I felt that it was right and proper to raise these difficulties as they have not been raised elsewhere because, as I said, many of the consultees have other interests in putting forward their points of view.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Willis, asked about the impact of this new profession on the wider healthcare workforce. I wonder whether it is helpful to ask the Minister at this point a little about possible impact, if any, on health visitors. There is real concern about the decline of health visitors; they had a resurgence in recent years but are in serious decline now. I do not wish to detain the House for too long if this seems a bit beyond the main business.
I am a patron of the charity Best Beginnings, which provides mental health and perinatal support for parents. I spoke with the chief executive last week. We recognise that health visitors are very important, as healthcare professionals working in the vital perinatal period to ensure the best attachment between parent and child. I recently spoke with the president of the Institute of Health Visiting, Dr Cheryll Adams. Again, she expressed concern about the decline of the number of health visitors. As we establish a new healthcare profession, do we not need also to think about this other, declining profession under the healthcare umbrella?
I imagine that there is no plan to replace health visitors with these new healthcare professionals, but sometimes there is a misunderstanding that health visitors are just there to weigh the baby, when anyone could do that. In fact, when family-nurse partnerships were introduced to support vulnerable parents, the outcome was significantly better when higher qualified practitioners worked with the families. This job is challenging, because people are often working with vulnerable families in poor housing and poor conditions. It is a demoralising profession, unless one has a good professional foundation.
I emphasis the importance of the vital early years. As Graham Allen and Mr Field MP have established, the first 2,000 days in a child’s life are the most important. We need to ensure that the best professionals are available to them. Two or three years ago, health visitor funding went from the Department of Health to local authorities. We all know that local authorities have very little money to spend, so it is not surprising that there has been a significant decline in the number of health visitors. Does the Minister recognise concerns about that decline? Will he assure the House that he is keeping in mind the health visiting profession and what can be done to sustain it and ensure its continued health?
I have a final question. This particular new brand of healthcare professional gives rise to the problem of professionals from the developing world being pulled in to fill the niche. I am sure that the Minister can assure us that we will not poach healthcare professionals from Nigeria, Ghana and elsewhere, but the possible risk of that certainly comes to my mind. I welcome the order and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, my contribution will be very short, as noble Lords have already said everything. We, too, welcome the role of the nursing associate. I commend the work of my noble friend Lord Willis of Knaresborough in making this happen and say to him that he can have the Front Bench if he is happy to take all that goes with it.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made the point about impact. I just make one extra point. In remote locations—I live in Cornwall, but this could account for anywhere far-flung where there are hospitals and health establishments—there will be uptake from healthcare assistants who feel that they cannot leave home to train as a nurse because the distance is too great and they have family responsibilities or other commitments, but they could manage the two-year course. That would be really positive. Nursing associates would then improve in those establishments the quality, but also the skill mix, of nursing teams in areas where it is also particularly difficult to appoint.
I understand the timing of this SI. The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, said that perhaps there was still stuff to look at. It is really important that it gets on to the statute book, because we will have real live trainee nursing associates who need to register next year. Sadly, we cannot take any more time to do this, but from these Benches we really welcome the role of the nursing associate and the help it will give the NHS.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My Lords, I sincerely thank every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate and engaged with these regulations so thoroughly. It has been a really important discussion about not just the new role of nursing associate but its impact on the overall health and care workforce. I am very grateful to all corners of the House for the broad welcome, albeit with questions and conditions, for the creation of this role.
I want to deal up front with the urgency of these regulations. I agree that there has been an element of rush, and I think we are all agreed on the requirement for it. But like all overnight successes, this has been a long time brewing, as the noble Lord, Lord Willis, pointed out. A lot of work has been done, and I salute, along with all noble Lords, the many people at the RCN, the NMC and others who have contributed to this, and the many people behind the scenes. It is quite right to acknowledge them. No doubt there is more work to come.
The primary debate, or part of it, revolved around the distinction between the nurse role and the nursing associate role. It is very important to be clear, as I hope I was in my speaking note, that these are distinct professions. They may all be part of the same family—there is a certain amount of semantics involved here—but they are distinct professions, which will be regulated distinctly, albeit in a joined-up way through the same regulator, which is quite right. The NMC is currently consulting on standards of proficiency. The department, with all the necessary arm’s-length bodies and others, will develop guidance for that separate profession. While nursing associates can inevitably support nurses, doctors and others, they will not just be the handmaidens to others, in the evocative phrase of the noble Lord, Lord Clark. They will be professionals in their own right.
It is also worth pointing out that, in the consultation going on at the moment on standards and proficiency, the NMC is also looking at the code of conduct and amendments to it. That consultation ends on 2 July so, again, I warmly encourage all noble Lords to contribute to that, because some of the ideas set out today could have an important role in getting that right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the financial risks involved in setting up the courses—making sure that they are properly constituted and so on. My department has a memorandum of understanding in place with the NMC to keep the costs of the set-up within agreed cost parameters. The costs of accrediting nursing associate courses are met from the annual registration fees paid by the NMC’s registrants. Therefore, the financial modelling has been investigated and we understand what we need to stick to.
Lord Clark of Windermere
May I press the Minister a little further on the training costs? Is he saying that all students on the nursing associate courses will be apprentices and that no student on the nursing associate course will pay towards the cost of that course?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Lord for that question. My understanding is that the nursing associate is a two-year apprenticeship that provides a level 5 qualification. Therefore, there is currently a consultation about the nature of the role—the balance between work and training and so on—but obviously if it counts as an apprenticeship any organisation providing it can draw down on the apprenticeship levy fund to pay for those training costs. Whether it is in theory possible to train through an alternative route that would involve the paying of fees is something I will need to investigate and write to the noble Lord about. Of course, I will put that letter in the Library. The funding is there and the NHS is paying it. It is not necessarily drawing it down at the moment; this is an opportunity for us, with a course that is tailor-made for apprenticeships, to take advantage of that money to fund the courses.
I hope I have been able to answer noble Lords’ questions. This is an exciting moment in the development of the workforce. It provides an extra gear to the workforce to provide for the ever more complex care needs of our population. This is a good step forward. We are moving quickly and I look forward to working with noble Lords in the coming months to make sure we can put this course and its regulation on a statutory footing, attract many thousands of people into it and welcome a new profession into the health and care family. On that basis I commend the order to the House.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, E, F, and H) Order 2018
Baroness Manzoor
That the draft Order laid before the House on 21 May be approved.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, clearly I am not my noble friend Lady Williams, in whose name the Motion stands on our Order Paper. I will be taking forward this SI today.
This order will bring into effect four revised codes of practice issued under Sections 60, 60A and 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which I shall call PACE from now on. These are: Code C, which concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of persons detained under PACE; Code E, which concerns the audio recording of interviews with individuals suspected of committing offences; Code F, which concerns the visual recording with sound of interviews with individuals suspected of committing offences; and Code H, which concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of persons detained under terrorism provisions. I shall now briefly describe what the PACE codes are, how the revised codes came before us today and the changes they introduce.
For England and Wales, PACE sets out the core powers of the police to prevent, detect and investigate crime. The exercise of these powers is, however, subject to codes of practice, or PACE codes, which the Secretary of State is required to issue under Sections 60, 60A and 66 of PACE. The PACE codes do not create powers but put in place, among other things, important procedural safeguards for the public when the police exercise their powers. Together, PACE and the codes are designed to strike a balance between the need for police to have powers to tackle crime and the need for safeguards for suspects and members of the public.
Periodically, as a result of policy development, new legislation, case law or operational developments, and subject to parliamentary approval, revised PACE codes are issued. A statutory consultation on the draft codes took place last year. In addition to the bodies that the Secretary of State is required to consult, bodies such as the Crown Prosecution Service, Liberty, Justice, and the Youth Justice Board were invited to comment. The draft codes were also published on GOV.UK to enable the public at large to respond. This order was approved last week in the other place. Subject to it being approved by this House today, the four revised codes will come into force 21 days after the order is signed.
The main revisions to code C concern safeguards for vulnerable suspects, voluntary interviews—which are interviews with suspects who are not under arrest—and the use of live link technology introduced by the Policing and Crime Act 2017 to interview detained suspects and authorise extended detention before charge. There are revised safeguards for vulnerable suspects which introduce a new definition of “vulnerable”. It replaces references to persons being “mentally vulnerable” or having a “mental disorder”. Instead, the revisions describe a range of functional factors for assessing an individual’s ability to understand their position and exercise their rights and entitlements. If there is any reason to suspect that any may apply, the police must secure an appropriate adult for that person. The appropriate adult’s role is to help ensure that the suspect understands what is happening and why, and that they are able to exercise their rights and entitlements under PACE. There is a new requirement for the police to take proactive steps to identify and record any functional factors which indicate that an individual of any age may require help and support from an appropriate adult and to make that record available for police officers and others to take into account when they need to communicate with that individual. The requirement extends to juveniles to ensure that specific relevant factors are not overlooked simply by virtue of their age alone. An appropriate adult must always be called.
Other changes update the role description of the appropriate adult and who may or may not act in this capacity. These changes reflect established good practice and take into account the work of the Home Office-chaired working group on vulnerable people and the responses to the statutory consultation on the codes. These changes are mirrored in Code H.
For voluntary suspect interviews, the rights, entitlements and safeguards that apply and the procedure to be followed when arranging for a voluntary interview to take place are strengthened and extended. These changes take account of concerns that a suspect might not realise that a voluntary interview is just as serious and important as being interviewed after arrest. For example, this may be particularly applicable when the interview takes place in a person’s home rather than at a police station. The approach mirrors that which applies to detained suspects on arrival at a police station, with the interviewer standing in for the custody officer.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose and content of the draft statutory instrument that we are considering, which is applicable to England and Wales. We support its objectives. The revisions to the codes of practice are intended to reflect changes in the light of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 and current operational policing practice. The changes cover the audio and visual recording of interviews with suspects and the detention and questioning of persons by police officers, including under terrorism legislation. All four codes have been previously revised, two as recently as, I think, February last year. Has it really been necessary to revise Codes C and H twice in 16 months, when the revisions we are discussing relate in part to a 2017 Act? Surely, frequent revisions are time-consuming and hardly encourage an understanding of what the codes say at any one point in time by those who are expected to pay regard to them.
I want to raise the question of resources. No impact assessment has been prepared. Can the Minister confirm that none of the revised codes of practice will require any additional police resources to implement them, whether human or financial, in any police force or organisation, and that they will take up no more police time to implement than that already required for the existing applicable codes of practice?
The revision to Code C also reflects the provision in last year’s Policing and Crime Act to ensure that 17 year-olds are treated as children for all purposes under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. When this order was considered by the Commons, one of the issues raised was whether this change meant that children aged 17 could no longer be named in media reports when they are a victim, as applies to children up to the age of 16. I believe the Government said in the Commons that they would take this matter away to see what more could be done. What has so far happened in respect of this undertaking, albeit I accept that it was given only pretty recently?
Codes E and F introduce what the Explanatory Memorandum describes as,
“substantial changes to the approach to audio and visual recording of suspect interviews”.
The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to say:
“The new and revised provisions cover all interviews for all types of offence, for all suspects—whether or not arrested and irrespective of the case disposal outcome”.
How many extra audio and visual recordings per year is it estimated that this provision will lead to compared to the current figure? Does this have any additional resource implications, after taking into account any expected decrease in written interview records?
Finally, paragraph 8.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the outcome of the consultation, which,
“prompted a number of significant changes to the original proposals”.
Were any concerns or proposals in the 32 separate responses not reflected in those changes to the original proposals to which the Government refer in the Explanatory Memorandum and, if so, what did those concerns or proposals relate to?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for explaining these measures but I want to take up the theme that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned about resources. While we welcome the tightening of safeguards for children and vulnerable people, we are concerned that some of these measures are a worrying sign of the pressure the police are under. I shall come to that in a moment.
In the meantime, is the Minister aware of the difficulties in the police securing appropriate adults to attend police stations? This has arisen out of the centralisation of charging, meaning that appropriate adults are having to travel much longer distances than when they simply used to attend a local police station. Has any work been done to quantify the problems of centralised charging, set against a potential need for more appropriate adults to attend interviews as a result of the tightening of the guidelines in these codes of practice?
A worrying sign of the times is the fact that a superintendent could potentially authorise an extension of detention of up to 36 hours using a live link. This is an indication of the worrying reduction in the number of senior police officers. The noble Baroness will agree that this is a serious decision. Bearing in mind the rank of the officer required to authorise the detention, is it really appropriate that this be done via a live link rather than by the superintendent attending the police station in person? The lack of detectives in the police service has been in the news recently. There is a national shortage of detectives. Allowing a live link to be used so that a detective can question a suspect, even if the detective is not at the police station, seems a retrograde step. I speak from personal experience when I say that nothing beats being in the room with the suspect when you are trying to determine whether he or she is telling you the truth. Have any concerns been raised by police detectives about the extension of the use of a live link in the way suggested in this order?
Clearly, we welcome the fact that 17 year-olds are going to be treated as children for all purposes under PACE, but that goes back to what I was saying about the need for more appropriate adults and the difficulties that have been brought to my attention in securing appropriate adults.
It is very important that suspect interviews are recorded, except in exceptional circumstances, and therefore we support this order. However, recordings have to be made on suitably compliant authorised recording devices. Has any work been done on whether there will be additional cost to ensure that these suitably compliant authorised recording devices are available in every circumstance, in order to ensure that the interviews can be recorded? The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked this question.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also said, the outcome of the consultation has prompted a number of significant changes to the original proposals. It is to the credit of the Government and the Home Office that the consultation has taken into account these concerns, such as not raising the level required to determine whether somebody is vulnerable to “belief” but keeping it to “any reason to suspect” the suspect is vulnerable. We welcome that approach. Overall, we agree with the changes to these codes of practice, but we are concerned that they may have some operational and financial impact on the police service that is not reflected in any of the surrounding literature the Home Office has provided in connection with these provisions.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her careful and detailed introduction. She probably knows far more than I ever will at this stage about this subject; Chief Inspector Morse was a very impatient tutor, as his long-suffering sergeant always indicated. First, and briefly, the chief constable of North Wales, Mark Polin QPM, is retiring. He has led and leads a very dedicated team of officers. Mr Polin has been a fine professional in difficult times of austerity. He has led with shrewdness and good judgment, and he has served the far-flung communities of north Wales very well. It is a very demanding bilingual, mountainous and industrial area—not the easiest beat to operate in. He must be a fine public servant, because he has accepted the invitation of the Wales Assembly Government to take on the chairmanship of our National Health Service trust, which again means more difficult choices in an austerity climate.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the increased protection for those who are vulnerable, for 17 year-olds and for those who are suspects must obviously be welcome. I share the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about frequent changes to the codes, but they are essential steps to protect those who find themselves engaged with the police. The only further matter that is welcome is the provision of audio-visual recording. In the event of a case going to trial, it will be of great advantage to a jury to see the way in which the suspect, as he would then have been—the defendant, as he will be at the trial—actually answered the questions. It will improve the jury’s opportunity to judge whether the denials made in the interview are genuine or, indeed, whether the confession is a true confession made voluntarily. I therefore welcome the proposals.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, the interest in your Lordships’ House in these codes of practice is far less intense now than it was in 1984, when they were born. I was the Minister in charge of the Bill at the time, and I carry away a clear memory of the two focuses of the House’s interest. One was on stop and search—what happened between the police and the public on the street—and the other was what happened in the police station and the bearing that that had on the result of a fair trial.
I therefore very much welcome the way in which this work has been carried forward, and not allowed to gather dust and become out of date. I also understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about frequent amendment; on the other hand, I understand the need to bring things up to date without waiting for the next change to come in.
What we have now is immensely detailed, and the complication of what police officers are required to absorb is considerable. The original codes of practice, including stop and search, occupied 97 pages. Today, just the part that we are dealing with takes 192 pages, and that does not cover stop and search.
My sympathy all down the way is with the policeman. I am astonished at the extent to which policemen on the street know their law, when it has taken us so long to make that law and we have found it so difficult to understand in its totality until it was on the statute book. These people have to make decisions on the spot, in a hurry, probably with fairly difficult circumstances surrounding them, and get it right.
That is not covered by the order: in here is what happens in the police station, when the public are most open to suspect what is going on because they cannot see, and the suspect, who may well be innocent, feels most threatened because he can see no sign of help. The extension of the criterion of vulnerability is extremely welcome. The extension of the means of getting evidence of how things went in the police station, not only for barristers or solicitors to ensure that their clients were protected but also for juries to make up their minds, is extremely welcome.
As, in a sense, the godfather of all this, I welcome its coming of age.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, first, I apologise to the Minister for having missed the first two minutes of her speech.
I generally welcome the essential principles of the order. I have one point that is tangential, not central, to the present provisions and gives me a little worry. That is the one to which the Minister referred in passing towards the end of her speech, which is the use of body-worn cameras and videos. This is becoming increasingly the norm, and some of the material may be adduced later in evidence. Will she respond to me now or later in writing as to her level of satisfaction about the protection given to the masses of data that will necessarily be accumulated as the use of body-worn cameras becomes the norm? Presumably the evidence, or at least the recordings, will be retained for some period, and there have been incidents where there has been leakage of such information—not in its normal use through due process but outside that. Can she say a word about her level of satisfaction about the protection given to that data? If she feels that that is tangential to tonight’s debate, will she write to me on it?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for the support that I have heard from around the House. I also give a very warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who is back in his place on the Front Bench. Noble Lords have asked me a range of questions, and I will do my very best to answer them, but if there are any that I do not answer, I will write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library for the House’s information.
It is in the interests of justice and operational necessity that PACE codes of practice are kept under review and brought up to date. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Elton said, it is a necessity that we take account of relevant changes and developments in policing practice and the law to ensure that key safeguards for suspects and citizens are preserved.
I want to move quickly on to the questions asked by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about 17 year-olds and what the Government have done to make sure that their names are not in the press. As the noble Lord rightly suggested, this matter has recently been considered and is still under review by the Government. As soon as I have anything further to add, we will undertake to make sure that it is known. The noble Lord also asked whether it was necessary to change the code so frequently. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred to that, and also to the reason why. The answer is, of course, yes. As I said in my opening remarks, we need to update codes as and when there are legislative changes or changes in case law, and invariably when there are changes in police practice or, indeed, when new technology is available. When changes are made we try to make them all in one SI. It is not always possible to do it in the previous SI.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about safeguards and how we ensure that suspects are not unfairly disadvantaged when a live link is used to authorise extending their detention, or indeed if they are young or vulnerable. A live link cannot be used unless its use has been considered and authorised by an appropriate custody officer and the suspect consents to its use and has had legal advice on the use of a live link. When the person is young or vulnerable, the custody officer and the superintendent should have regard to the detainee’s ability to understand the purpose of the authorisation or court hearing. It will not happen if that authorisation has not been given. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and another noble Lord asked whether the Government did not include in the updated codes of practice measures that individuals recommended in the consultation. Of course, all sorts of things come up during consultations but none arose here that was within the scope of the codes. I have already referred to the two areas that were changed as a direct result of the consultation and the Home Office working group.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also raised the issue of finding an appropriate adult. Having worked in the police force, he has vast experience, and I take on board the point he raised. The Government are aware of the problems and keen to work towards resolving them. We will shortly be introducing a voluntary national framework to address this issue. There will be more work and closer partnerships between PCCs, police forces and other authorities to find solutions to this issue. The noble Lord also asked how forces will afford to implement the changes. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also raised the issue of finance and resources. The NPCC and police have not raised any issues concerning affordability in relation to these codes and, if anything, the provisions enable forces to use technology to ensure that there is greater efficiency and savings. The changes do not mandate live link or body-worn video.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about the number of voluntary interviews in people’s homes. I am sorry but I do not have that data and, as I understand it, the Government do not routinely collect it. I am therefore unable to answer that question, although it is a good point. As more people are interviewed, potentially in the home should they wish it, perhaps forces themselves will routinely start to collect it. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also talked about the safeguards for suspects using live link. I raised that issue myself. If you are there face to face, you will be able to see someone’s body language and what they are saying, so will the police officer concerned or, indeed, the suspect be disadvantaged if it is not? As I said and want to make absolutely clear, before the interview the suspect’s solicitor and an appropriate adult must be asked for their views. If there is any doubt that the suspect can adequately cope with the live link arrangement, it cannot be used unless it has been authorised by an inspector. The onus is on the interviewer to ensure that the interview is conducted in accordance with the codes. If it is not, it may not be admissible in court, so it is very important that authority is sought and given and that due process is appropriately followed.
The noble Lord, Lord Reid, asked an important question. I do not have the answer but, if I may, I will write to him and place a copy in the Library so that all noble Lords can see the answer. I will endeavour to do that. I think that that was all the questions that were asked. I thank my noble friend Lord Elton for his kind comments. I am glad that it is not 96 or so pages of codes. Just looking at the codes as they stand, one might think they pose a bit of a challenge. I conclude by saying, as I did in my opening remarks, that the balance is absolutely right between the codes and safety and security for vulnerable people on the one hand and aiding and supporting the police on the other. I thank all noble Lords for their constructive consideration of the very important issues before us today.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 May be approved. (Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 26th Report).
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the UK and London are world-leading financial centres, providing access to a wide pool of investors and international capital. This is built on the expertise of the UK’s financial services sector in providing products that meet the needs of a variety of economic actors in the UK and around the world. The UK has therefore sought to establish itself as a leading western centre for Islamic finance, illustrated by the UK becoming the first western country to issue a sovereign sukuk, or Islamic-equivalent bond, in 2014. The UK attracts business and investment from Muslim and non-Muslim countries around the world, supporting growth and jobs in the UK, as the UK’s financial services framework accommodates Islamic finance instruments alongside their conventional equivalents.
The Government are committed to ensuring that this continues to be the case. Changes were made to the law in 2010 to define alternative finance investment bonds, which cover sukuk, as a specified investment. More recently, we took measures in the Finance Act 2018 to afford such instruments the same tax treatment enjoyed by conventional bonds when traded on new types of trading venue. This was accepted by the House, but the specified investment definition in financial services legislation requires updating to match the tax change.
The order in front of the House today does exactly that and ensures that there is an alignment of the tax and regulatory treatment of alternative finance investment bonds to provide certainty, clarity and consistency for issuers of these instruments in UK markets. The order adds two types of financial trading venue—so-called multilateral trading facilities and organised trading facilities—to the list of permitted venues for alternative finance investment bonds. Conventional bonds can already be traded in these venues. The order also amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) Order 2001 so that a person administering a benchmark, as specified in the regulated activities order, will be regarded as carrying on the activity by way of business. This technical amendment is consequential on the coming into force of the EU benchmarks regulation which was given effect in February of this year by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Benchmarks) Regulations 2018.
The order tracks an amendment made by the Finance Act 2018 which came into force on 1 April 2018. This left a gap in the treatment of alternative finance investment bonds in financial services regulation. We intend to close that gap as quickly as possible in the interests of certainty, clarity and consistency. Similarly, the amendment to the “by way of business” order is the final part of the legislation needed to complete the implementation of the EU benchmarks regulation into UK law. We wish to reassure issuers of and traders in alternative finance investment bonds that these instruments will be legally recognised in UK markets, giving certainty to the market. The London Stock Exchange has warned that continued failure to update the legislation for alternative finance investment bonds in regulation is causing issuers to look elsewhere.
The changes do not cause any new costs for business, as the regulatory framework for alternative finance investment bonds has been in place since 2007. The Financial Conduct Authority confirmed that there is currently only one firm in the UK authorised to operate a trading venue of the type which might be impacted by the proposed amendments. Instruments of this nature are very sophisticated and highly unlikely to be traded in this manner by anyone without a significant level of expertise in financial services—in other words, firms authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority.
We have a situation where differing treatment in regulation and taxation is afforded to alternative finance investment bonds compared to their conventional counterparts. This is unintended from a policy perspective and the Government want to act quickly to address this gap to protect the competitiveness of the UK markets. For that reason, I beg to move.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assured and persuasive introduction. I recollect him in another place, where I realised that he always mastered his brief. My remarks will be very brief; I have but one question. The Explanatory Memorandum refers, at paragraph 10.1, to the impact on voluntary organisations and charities being minimal. Can the Minister give an instance of a charity or voluntary organisation, to facilitate further understanding of his introduction?
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I shall comment briefly as a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The committee’s recent 26th report drew the attention of the House to this instrument, on the grounds that it appears to make an unusual use of enabling powers conferred by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. It is a long-established principle of the joint committee that, where an affirmative instrument imposes new duties significantly more onerous than those that existed before, and where it requires those affected to adopt different patterns of behaviour, there should be a period of at least 21 days between the making of the instrument and its commencement, to give those affected a reasonable chance to adapt to the changes required. This instrument allows only one day.
My noble friend explained that very few firms—possibly only one—would be affected by this change. He also made clear that the Government were responding to a grave concern expressed by the London Stock Exchange that the continued failure to amend the permitted arrangements for alternative investment finance bonds is damaging the competitiveness of UK markets. The committee was unpersuaded that the changes to the law made by the proposed order are so urgent that they must have immediate effect. If the need for amendments was really so pressing, the draft order should have been laid before Parliament much earlier, with a commencement date of 1 April 2018 to coincide with the tax changes referred to in the Treasury’s memorandum
Because of frequent and recurrent poor practice, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has recently published a special report, Transparency and Accountability in Subordinate Legislation, to remind the Government of the need for new law to be published promptly, so that those affected by the changes it makes are protected from being subjected to them before they have had a reasonable opportunity to understand and prepare for them. That is a general principle to which the Government should always adhere. I commend the committee’s important recent report on the major issues of transparency and accountability to my noble friend and all his colleagues in this House and the other place. I hope the House will have a brief opportunity to consider it in due course.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I think that we all recognise that Islamic finance—the sukuk market—is the fastest growing global financial sector, with growth of 10% to 12% a year. The current stock is some $3.5 trillion, with $100 billion of new issuance a year. The UK plays a very important role, as the most significant western market. As the Minister said, in June 2014 we became the first non-Muslim country to issue a sukuk.
I have no problems with the content of this statutory instrument. It is an “oh, oops!” and should have been included in the April order. This underscores the complexity we now have in dealing with FSMA 2000. It is now so complex that it is not at all unusual for real issues to fall through the cracks. If ever there was a candidate for a piece of consolidated legislation, it is this whole financial area. In 2012, we found ourselves with a Bill that, when tracked through the legislative trail, required the Governor of the Bank of England to appoint himself. Another issue, which we could not find a way to get rid of, was the Governor of the Bank of England being required to write himself a letter to update himself on what he was doing. Those are slightly humorous examples, but this one is a real “oh, oops!” and I hope that the Government will take that on board.
Picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, there is a growing sense that the Government do not quite respect the procedures of this House and this Parliament. There is a rationale for saying that there should be a period between an order being approved and it being implemented. In this case, it seems that only one company may be involved, but for that company it makes no difference whether there was one day’s notice or 21. It would have been an opportunity to show that the general procedures of this House are treated with that kind of respect and are followed, unless there is a genuinely exceptional circumstance; I do not think it can be argued that there is in this case. The concerns of the London Stock Exchange would have been met by the approval. It did not require that the order should become effective instantly.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for introducing this instrument. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, says that we all know that the sukuk is an important feature in the growing and important Islamic finance sector. I have to tell her that before Friday, I did not even know that the sukuk even existed, and this instrument has truly spoiled my weekend.
Clearly, I welcome London’s aspiration to become a major Islamic finance centre, and this caused me over the weekend to try to understand what the differences are and what is special about Islamic finance. I found six characteristics set out in one of my searches, which are quite positive. I will pick three of them. There is a,
“prohibition on uncertainty—to ensure that no party has an unfair advantage over another … prohibition on speculation—profit should be made through hard work and effort, not purely by chance”,
and,
“no unjust enrichment”.
At the level of principle, it seems that this style of finance is intrinsically moral and that we will have nothing to fear from it being a major part of our financial system.
I note that a sukuk, to comply with Islamic law, is like a bond, but it is based on an asset, not debt-based. I also note that they already exist; indeed, a major sukuk was issued here in February for £250 million. That started to confuse me—why do we want these instruments if they already exist? I therefore tried to understand it, and traced it back—for once I read the order, because I could not immediately understand the Explanatory Memorandum. I got as far as FiSMA Article 77A, and after that, I am afraid, I gave up. I could not see how the mechanism of the order was such as to embrace the sukuk as part of the legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could take me through the steps. However, assuming that the order embraces the sukuk and fully integrates it into legislation, what are the consequences? What changes will there be to the way in which the instruments are supervised, sold, traded and taxed? I would also like to know of any other features of the instrument that are changed.
On the matters raised by the JCSI, which were admirably expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I too agree with the conclusions of the 26th report. The committee says that the case for an order coming into force the day after it is made should be compelling, and repeats its proposal that the normal period of time should be a minimum of 21 days. Without going on about this point, I register my agreement with that. This is particularly worrying because it seems a bad precedent, going into a period during which we expect to handle many SIs. Setting that precedent at this point is bad news, and I put down a marker that we will continue to resist it as the SI scene develops in the light of Brexit.
I also make a plea about the Explanatory Memorandum. I am afraid that it did not work for me. I accept that I may be a bear of little brain, but that should be the test. A decent Explanatory Memorandum should, to a bear of little brain, be straightforward and readable without excessive prior knowledge of what the order does, and describe why and how it does it. For me, at least, this Explanatory Memorandum failed. It is important that the standards of Explanatory Memoranda are held to a high level. I remember making some major changes to FiSMA that introduced bail-in, and the Treasury wrote some brilliant memoranda explaining how it worked. I would hope that the high standard it achieved in the past could be repeated in the future.
Finally, returning to the sukuk, if the market in these instruments is to grow rapidly and become large, one has to recognise that it is innovatory in the sense that it has not been a big part of the market in London, and it could—I am not saying that it does—create systemic risk. After all, the crisis was caused by the way in which clever instruments reacted with each other. Can the Minister therefore assure me that someone—whether at the FCA, the Bank of England or the Treasury—has done an analysis to assure themselves that encouraging this style of instrument does not develop systemic risk in the marketplace?
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but I declare an interest as a chairman of the Centre for Islamic Finance at the University of Bolton. During the financial crisis, the Islamic banks were not affected in the same way, because there is a much better relationship between the customer and the issuer. I place on record my thanks to the Government for ensuring that Islamic financial instruments are not an odd investment on the side but are becoming part of the mainstream. Many people can now participate in them, and certainly in Asia, where the markets are booming, a lot of non-Muslims are also taking part in these instruments because they rather like the idea of them. I was going to sit very quietly, but I thought I would place that on record. I also thank the City, which has put a lot of effort into making the UK such a strong centre for Islamic finance.
Lord Bates
My noble friend should not apologise for a contribution such as that, which is very welcome. I know that she follows these matters closely and is an outstanding trade envoy to Jordan and to other parts of the Middle East. This instrument carries a strong message: that the UK and London are very much open for business.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, was quite right to highlight the importance of this particular market, worth $3.5 trillion now, but it is also the fastest growing element. If we desire, as we do, to seek to retain our position as the world’s pre-eminent financial market, we need to be as strong in areas of Islamic finance as we are in other areas of finance. Whether it is Masala or rupee-denominated bonds from India or renminbi-denominated bonds from China, this is a great financial centre and we want to keep it that way. That is why we are introducing this instrument.
I want to prioritise my remarks, if I may, by taking probably the most important point first. Several noble Lords raised the 26th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I put on record that I accept that we have not met the standard that we would want to set ourselves for conduct in this. I know there is concern in the committee that, with a lot of SIs about to come down the track, we must maintain very high standards and be held correctly to them. I draw your Lordships’ attention to the substantive response we made which presents the reasons for the provision, contained in appendix 4 of the report. I reiterate to members of the committee—including my noble friend Lord Lexden—that we do take on board the criticism and will look at ways to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again.
Let me turn to some of the points raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, undersells himself. Having stood frequently on the other side of the Dispatch Box from him, I know that he is nothing if not assiduous and sharp in getting to the heart of the issue. His point on the Explanatory Memorandum is reflected in the text of the Joint Committee’s report. It falls into the category of things that we need to do much better. The amendment was very narrow and technical, and I do not envy the officials who then had to produce the Explanatory Memorandum. However, I take on board his point.
Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Jones, drew our attention to paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Its reference to the impact on,
“business, charities or voluntary bodies”,
as minimal is standard wording. We certainly would not expect, in instruments of this nature, charities to get involved, but that does not mean to say that they cannot. Despite his great build-up, I am struggling to come up with an example of a charity or voluntary organisation that might want to take advantage of this. I do not know if he has one in mind but, if not—
Lord Jones
I could not bring myself to take advantage of the Minister. I have been a Minister and have been in the same predicament, but if I were challenged in such a way, I would never have such facility or charm as he has.
Lord Bates
I think I should just sit down now. The noble Lord is very kind.
I will deal with some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and then I will come back to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. The noble Baroness asked whether a sukuk could be an asset-backed security as they are not always a sovereign bond. That is exactly right. We keep our regulatory framework under constant review to make sure that it can adapt to emerging market practice. As for it becoming difficult to comprehend, this is not an easy task given its size and complexity. The Government have no current plans to do so, but will revisit the topic later.
The noble Baroness asked about compliance with Islamic principles, which the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also touched on. As secular entities, UK regulators do not operate on Islamic compliance. We set the framework to allow consumers to decide what to do with this. We operate on the basis of no barriers but no favours for these types of instruments.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Can I check that point? My understanding is that these are not debt securities but asset-backed securities, and it is hoped that these platforms will change their rules so that it can be done.
Lord Bates
The securities that are there are allowed to deal with a variety of different securities; they are not limited in the asset class that they can use. It is simply a catch-all phrase to mean that they can be traded on those platforms. That is very much the view of the London Stock Exchange, which has drawn our attention to the fact that people are interested in using those particular markets for that purpose. This instrument will help the City of London to take advantage of these investment opportunities, which will create jobs and wealth for this country. I commend the order to the House.
Childhood Obesity Strategy
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health and Primary Care to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Today, the Government have published the second chapter of the childhood obesity plan. This plan is informed by the latest evidence and sets a new national ambition to halve childhood obesity and to significantly reduce the gap in obesity between children from the most and least deprived areas by 2030.
Childhood obesity is one of the biggest health problems this country faces, with almost a quarter of children overweight or obese before they start school, rising to over a third by the time they leave. This burden is being felt hardest in the most deprived areas, with children growing up in low-income households more likely to be overweight or obese than more affluent children.
Childhood obesity has profound effects that compromise children’s physical and mental health both now and in the future. We know that obese children are more likely to experience bullying, stigma and low self-esteem. They are also more likely to become obese adults and face an increased risk of developing some forms of cancer, type 2 diabetes and heart and liver disease. Obesity is placing unsustainable costs on the NHS and our UK taxpayers, currently estimated at around £6.1 billion per year. Total costs to society are higher, estimated at around £27 billion per year, with some placing this figure even higher than that.
The measures we outline today look to address the heavy promotion and advertising of food and drink products high in fat, salt and sugar on TV, online and in shops. Alongside this we want to equip parents with the information they need to make healthy informed decisions about the food they and their children are eating when out and about. We are also promoting a new national ambition for all primary schools to adopt an ‘active mile’ initiative, such as the Daily Mile, and will be launching a trailblazer programme working closely with local authorities to show what can be achieved and find solutions to barriers at a local level to address childhood obesity.
In conclusion, childhood obesity is a complex issue that has been decades in the making, and we recognise that no single action or plan will help us to solve the challenge of childhood obesity on its own. Our ambition requires a concerted effort and a united approach across businesses, local authorities, schools, health professionals and families up and down the country. I look forward to working with them all”.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The last time we discussed childhood obesity in your Lordships’ House it centred on chapter 1 of the Government’s policy, which scored a C-minus at best among noble Lords. Today we have chapter 2, which we can probably score as a C. It offers 13 consultations, a review and a great deal of promotion.
My questions are as follows. First, does the Minister believe it is possible for voluntarism to deliver even in the generous time the Government have given themselves to reduce childhood obesity? For example, Alpro soya growing-up milk contains unnecessary fructose and sugar, but the packaging will tell you it is good for your child, particularly if your child is lactose intolerant, where there are fewer choices. Will that be on the noble Lord’s agenda for legislation or persuasion, and what would be the timeline? Secondly, given that the evidence is clear, why does the Statement not include a proposal and a timetable for legislation and regulation to ban the advertising of high fat and sugar content products on TV and social media? When will we see a draft Bill?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
An upgrade in our grade is, I suppose, something to be welcomed. The noble Baroness is being a little unfair. The last obesity plan probably went beyond that of almost any country in the world, and this one certainly goes well beyond that. We know that we need to do more—that much is obvious from the facts—because, unfortunately, obesity continues to rise. We have taken big action through the soft drinks levy, improvements in reformulation and so on but it has not gone as far as we want. So we recognise the need to do more.
The noble Baroness referred to consultations but, if anything, you can accuse this paper of being too honest because any action requires consultation to go forward. I would not want her to be distracted by that because within it are some hard commitments. There is a commitment to voluntarism if we can make it work but, equally throughout, there is a commitment to legislate if that does not produce the right outcomes.
The noble Baroness asked about milk products. Again, if voluntary reformulation does not work, these will be considered by the Treasury as being liable for the levy on soft drinks to bring down the sugar content.
On advertising, the idea that we should have a 9 pm watershed across broadcasting is truly radical, and it is only right that we consult properly. There is a desire to do that by the end of this year, so the noble Baroness cannot accuse us of not moving quickly enough.
The Obesity Health Alliance, which counts dozens of bodies among its membership, has welcomed the plan set out today. Of course it wants us to get a move on—and we will—but it is important to note the radical change in policy to try to deal with this epidemic that we all face.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the UQ. Anything is welcome and I am at the stage where more questions are being raised than answered. A debate in this House would be useful and perhaps put some flesh on the bones. That is absolutely the wrong thing to say, but the House knows what I mean. It would give more clarity.
I wish to push the Minister a little further on the advertising issue. I appreciate that a consultation is coming up. We welcome the idea of using the watershed, but I am not clear from the Statement or from chapter 2 whether it includes all programmes before 9 pm or only programmes that are aimed at young people before 9 pm. That is an important distinction and it will be useful to know what is going to be consulted upon.
Families were mentioned in passing. I would like to know what work is to be done with families. I appreciate that there is not in this land a typical family, but we are trying to take out 500 calories a day from people’s diets and we need to point out the high calorific value not only of chips, which may seem obvious, but of pasta, rice—which everyone thinks is healthy—bread and buttered mash. There is still work to be done with families to make them understand quite what they are putting on their children’s table which seems healthy and fine.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
It is always a pleasure to debate issues in this House. This topic is worthy of that debate because there is a huge interest in it in this House.
The noble Baroness is quite right to talk about advertising. It states in the paper:
“Consult, before the end of 2018, on introducing a 9pm watershed on TV advertising of HFSS”—
high in fat, sugar and salt—
“products and similar protection for children viewing adverts online”.
I take that to mean across the board as opposed to those solely aimed at children, which are already subject to world-leading restrictions.
The noble Baroness asked about families. Much of this is about helping families to do the right things. We know how difficult it can be when you are with young children in a shop to resist this, that or the other. You talk about protecting your teeth or eating well, but it is not always obvious what is good for you and what is bad for you. Again, in the paper there is reference to calorie labelling and going much further in terms of restaurants and store promotions. The noble Baroness and her party are always keen to make sure that we can get the most out of Brexit, and going further than the European Union will allow us with food labelling and simple nutrition information is just one of the many opportunities we will enjoy after 2019.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend may be aware that I chaired a commission for the Centre for Social Justice last year, so I welcome the acknowledgement that this issue particularly affects children in the most deprived areas. Can my noble friend give more clarity about the consultation and when it will end? Although I have not read every word in it yet, can he also say whether the Government will look at the “eatwell plate”, which is carb heavy at the moment? I am not sure whether that advice is covered in the paper.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank my noble friend for her questions. I salute the work she has done and the leadership she has shown on this issue. As to the content of the consultations, that will depend on when they are launched but it refers in the paper to consulting before the end of 2018 on a number of issues, so that will go through the normal process, I suppose, of a three-month consultation.
I shall look at the issue of the “eatwell plate”. It is worth pointing out that, under the “Schools” heading, there is a desire to update school food standards, reduce sugar consumption, strengthen nutrition standards and the government buying standards for food and catering services. So there is a desire to look at the official guidance that goes out and to make sure that it reflects the best science and enables any institution that is looking after children, families, schools, adults and others to give the best possible nutritional food that they can.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the proposals for further action, but I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit, if they are taking this really seriously, to make a Statement about it without the requirement for an Urgent Question to elicit a response. I have two points. I regret that there is still no mention of the point that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has been pressing so vigorously—that we need to bring together these numerous initiatives and try to present a single campaign for parents and children. I also regret that there is still no mention of the Government dealing with the major broadcasters, in particular the BBC, to see how a longer-term plan might be produced which would make a direct link with children and thus try to ensure that effective changes take place.
My second point is that last week the Minister was kind enough to reply to my Question for Written Answer about the extent to which the Government are aware of how much children between the ages of 12 and 16 weigh. I am surprised to hear that while we weigh children at the ages of four and 11, nothing is done about weighing children beyond that age. We do not know what the scale of the problem is up to the age of 16. A survey has been undertaken in which only 2,000 people were involved. There is a requirement that we move towards weighing these children. Is the Minister prepared to consider doing that?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
There is a single campaign which is exemplified in the document and we need to put that across. I know that the noble Lord is working with broadcasters. I am not sure about the merits of weighing teenagers, but I will look into that and write to him.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I have a few doubts about some of the interventionist proposals in this strategy and therefore I welcome a consultation process on the detail. However, I am keen that people should be able to take responsibility for themselves by helping them to develop good habits, so I congratulate the Government, and indeed the Daily Mail, ITV, INEOS and local authorities on the Daily Mile initiative, which could be transformational.
The Minister and I are both interested in the advances in the science of sleep. We know that poor sleep is linked to obesity. Could the Minister agree to making use of this new science in his strategy?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My noble friend makes an excellent point and I am glad that she has welcomed the introduction of the Daily Mile initiative, which is an important national ambition embedded in the strategy. I know of the benefits of sleep by its absence, but nevertheless I agree absolutely with my noble friend. This second chapter sets out a lot of good progress and intent. Clearly it is not the last word because this is a developing science, although we know more and more both about the causes of obesity and its consequences. Given that, there is a good opportunity through the consultations to bring the science about the benefits of sleep to bear in this conversation, not only for younger people but for adults as well so that it is properly reflected in the final documents that come out.
Energy Policy
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about the proposed Swansea Bay tidal lagoon. Britain’s energy policy towards electricity generation is based on meeting three needs: ensuring that we can count on secure and dependable supplies of electricity at all times, minimising the cost of supplies to consumers and taxpayers, and meeting our greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations. To these three requirements we have added, through our industrial strategy, a further ambition to secure long-term economic benefits in terms of jobs and prosperity from the decisions we make.
Our policy has been successful. Britain has one of the most secure and reliable electricity supply sectors in the world. Last winter, one of the coldest in recent years, the margin of capacity in our electricity generating system was more than 10%, around twice what it was in 2016-17. We have the strongest record in the G7 of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Between 1990 and 2016, the UK reduced its emissions by more than 40%. We have massively increased our deployment of renewable generation. Renewable electricity now makes up almost 30% of our generation. Our renewable capacity has quadrupled since 2010 and the auction prices of offshore wind have fallen from £114 per megawatt hour to £57.50 per megawatt hour within two years.
Coal, the most polluting fuel, last year contributed less to generation in Britain than in any year since the Industrial Revolution. This has been achieved while the UK has maintained a position in the overall cost to households of electricity well below the average for major European countries. But the cost of electricity is nevertheless a significant one for households and for businesses, and the policy-related costs have been growing. We have made a clear commitment to bear down on these costs. It is in this context that the Government have assessed whether they should commit consumer or taxpayer funds to the programme of six tidal lagoons proposed by Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd, the first being the proposed project at Swansea. We believe in renewable energy and we believe in the benefits of innovation. The conclusion of this analysis, which has been shared with the Welsh Government, is that the project and proposed programme of lagoons do not meet the requirements for value for money and so it would not be appropriate to lead the company to believe that public funds can be justified.
The proposal for the Swansea tidal lagoon would cost £1.3 billion to build. If successful to its maximum ambition, it would provide around 0.15% of the electricity we use each year. The same power, generated by the lagoon over 60 years for £1.3 billion, would cost around £400 million for offshore wind even at today’s prices, which have fallen rapidly and we expect to be cheaper still in the future. At £1.3 billion, the capital cost per unit of electricity generated each year would be three times that of the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. If a full programme of six lagoons were constructed, the Hendry review found that the cost would be more than £50 billion and would be two and a half times the cost of Hinkley to generate a similar output of electricity. Enough offshore wind to provide the same generation as a programme of lagoons is estimated to cost at least £31.5 billion less to build.
Taking all the costs together, I have been advised by analysts that by 2050, the proposal that has been made, which would generate around 30 terawatt hours per year of electricity, could cost up to £20 billion more to produce compared with generating that same electricity through a mix of offshore wind and nuclear once financing, operating and system costs have been taken into account. That could cost the average British household consumer up to an additional £700 between 2031 and 2050 or the equivalent of £15,000 for every household in Wales.
However, in recognition of the potential local economic benefits that might result from a lagoon in Swansea, I asked officials to go back and consider what additional benefit could be ascribed to a number of other factors, including a beneficial impact on the local economy. For £1.3 billion, a Swansea lagoon would support, according to the Hendry review, only 28 jobs directly associated with operating and maintaining the lagoon over the long term. Officials were also asked to make an assessment of the potential for valuable innovation and cost reductions for later lagoons that might come from embarking on a programme of construction. Independent advice concluded that the civil engineering used in Swansea Bay offers limited scope for innovation and capital cost reduction, estimated at 5%, in the construction of subsequent facilities. I asked for an assessment of the export potential of embarking on a programme of implementing the technology, but the Hendry review concluded that it would take a,
‘leap of faith to believe that the UK would be the main industrial beneficiary’,
of any such programme.
In terms of energy reliability, the generation of electricity would be variable rather than constant with a load factor of 19% compared with around 50% for offshore wind and 90% for nuclear. The inescapable conclusion of an extensive analysis is that however novel and appealing the proposal that has been made is, even with these factors taken into account, the costs that would be incurred by consumers and taxpayers would be so much higher than alternative sources of low carbon power that it would be irresponsible to enter into a contract with the promoter. Securing our energy needs into the future has to be done seriously and, when much cheaper alternatives exist, no individual project and no particular technology can proceed at any price. That is true for all technologies. The fact that this proposal has not demonstrated that it could be value for money does not mean that its potential is not recognised. My department is also in receipt of proposals from other promoters of tidal energy schemes which are said to have lower costs than the Swansea proposal, although these are at an earlier stage of development. Any proposals must be able credibly to demonstrate value for money for consumers and public funds, but I am sure that many people in the House and beyond would wish that we were in a position to say yes to the Swansea proposals.
I appreciate the contribution of Charles Hendry, whose constructive report led to this further analysis being made, and to the engagement of the Secretary of State for Wales and Members of the Welsh Assembly, including the First Minister, and the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew RT Davies. But all of us have a requirement to be responsible stewards of taxpayers’ and consumers’ money and to act at all times in their interests. It is in discharging that responsibility rigorously that I make this Statement today, and I commend it to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the Hendry report comes out with headline figures that it is important to bear in mind as we think about and discuss what was said in the Statement. The report states:
“Across the National Audit Office’s three Value for Money tests, Tidal Lagoon Swansea Bay can match or outperform the Contract for Difference awarded to new nuclear power station Hinkley Point C with relevant support from Welsh Government …Tidal lagoon capacity can reduce UK system carbon emissions by 36% in 2035 … Lifetime CfD subsidy cost of £302-£390m achieves net positive social NPV benefits of £787-875m”.
That is a factor of more than 2:1, which is a lot better than the return HS2 and some other projects that I can think of will get.
Of course, that is not the whole story. Although the Statement was very strong on direct costs and the problems that the Government would have in justifying them, there are other benefits that would come from a project such as this. This is a first in its class—a first attempt to do something new in alternative energy production—so there is a difference there that cannot be measured in terms of the direct costs of well-tested wind or solar arrangements. There is an amenity, because clearing up Swansea Bay and costing a very small amount to provide something that is visually attractive and also rather beautiful cannot be costed. In order to give confidence to the overall task that we as a country have to make sure we have a diversity of supply, starting things that are new and different would add something that is not easily costable.
In the past two years, the Government have repeatedly kicked a decision about Swansea into the long grass, and the handling of this must surely be agreed by everyone to have been absolutely atrocious. Not only have the Government taken an inordinate amount of time to come to the House today, they have kept Tidal Lagoon Power, the Welsh Government, the trade unions and other stakeholders completely in the dark about what was happening. Indeed, they had to learn about it through leaks in the press. Indeed, it emerged in a Select Committee hearing last month that the Minister had not spoken to Tidal Lagoon Power in more than 16 months. In the last few days there have been conflicting reports indicating that a Statement was coming last week, then that it was coming this week, and then that there would not be a Statement—and now here we are. This is no way for the Government to conduct themselves on an issue that is so important for Swansea, the UK economy, the climate and therefore the world.
The key point here is that tidal lagoon power is a new, world-first technology, and yet it has been judged as if it were just one of a number of things that could be done in order to get us on the path to a carbon-reduced energy supply. The Government’s decision on Swansea tidal lagoon is of public policy importance not only because of its impact but because of the potential it offers the UK economy to meet our global climate change targets.
The project is estimated to generate and support more than 2,000 high-skilled construction and manufacturing jobs. It could engage more than 1,000 businesses in its supply chain—from figures in the Hendry report we know that the supply chain reaches right across the UK—and it could power directly more than 150,000 homes once it is constructed.
I go back to the point about being a pathfinder. The technology that is tried out successfully in Swansea could be rolled around the UK. It is not surprising that we might have problems exporting it since it is a very geography-specific solution. However, given our tides, our climate and our particular style of landscape, it seems to be something that would work in the UK.
Finally, tidal technology could make a valuable contribution to the UK’s transition to renewable energy, which is becoming ever more urgent. The UK is currently on track to miss its globally agreed climate change targets, so the Government’s plans in relation to Swansea Bay and renewable energy generation as a whole are of greater significance than they would otherwise be.
If we are going to have a diverse energy mix, tidal lagoon technology has an important part to play in our transition. The Government say that the costs are too high, but that seems to be a very narrow description of the costs involved. I understand that, even though that is the main reason why they are not going forward, they have not even met Tidal Lagoon Power to work out what additional funding could be supplied by the market. Perhaps when he responds the Minister could tell us what the acceptable cost is that would allow the project to go ahead.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches believe very much that this is the wrong decision. I will very quickly give the reasons why. First, in order to meet our climate targets, we need all technologies to contribute. We believe very strongly—as was shown in a number of studies—that there would be a reducing price in terms of scale as the technology rolled out. We have seen this very strongly with other renewable technologies.
There are other elements to the project. It is also partly an energy-storage project—an area that is particularly needed in terms of the variability of other renewables. And of course, perhaps not in Swansea but in other lagoons where something similar could have happened if this had gone ahead, there is the whole area of flood management that would also save considerable costs in terms of a holistic management approach to the coast.
Of course, the irony is that 2018, the year we are in at the moment, is 10 years after the Climate Change Act, yet between 2016 and 2017 we saw a 56% reduction in renewables investment. So the curve the Minister talked about in terms of our improved performance will go down because of lack of investment. In fact, renewables investment last year was at its lowest since 2008, when the Climate Change Act came in. We are not heading to meet our fourth or fifth carbon budget and we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 3% per annum to get to our target in 2050. So we have an investment crisis at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned the time taken over this. The Hendry report came out 18 months ago. I remember that the original discussions were during the coalition Government period. What message is this to investors in renewable technologies? The way that it has been dealt with, the timescales and the opaqueness of the decision taking are difficult to understand, particularly when it was obvious that the Government were going to say no several months ago and have only just got round to giving that reaction and decision.
I come back for a moment to costs and refer to the Hendry review. Charles Hendry was a Conservative politician and Minister of State. He was highly respected across the whole of Parliament when he was an MP. He said about the project:
“I believe that the evidence is clear that tidal lagoons can play a cost effective role in the UK’s energy mix and there is considerable value in a small … pathfinder project … Most importantly, it is clear that tidal lagoons at scale could deliver low carbon power in a way that is very competitive with other low carbon sources”.
That is something that cannot be written off in the way the Minister did.
I have the following questions. Why has it taken so long to take the decision, which was clearly going to be taken some time ago? How are we going to meet the fourth and fifth carbon budgets? Given the regular quote in that Statement about the costs of technologies, when are the Government going to bring back onshore wind, which is the cheapest of those technologies and the one that would help to bring down energy bills tomorrow and in the years to come?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and for their questions. I hope that I can deal with the points they made.
I will start with the point made by both noble Lords about the delay in getting the decision right. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in a sense answered that point. The important thing was that we wanted to get the decision right and wanted to look at it as a whole, not just in relation to the cost of energy but also taking into account all the other factors that the noble Lord mentioned, including, for example, the amenity advantages and—this was raised in another place—the use of steel and the effect that that might have on the Port Talbot steelworks. Of course we did. We looked at those issues, which made the sums much more complicated. At the same time, we were also seeing quite a reduction in the cost of offshore wind, as the Statement made clear. I quoted those figures; the reduction complicates matters further. It also makes clearer the case put forward by my right honourable friend about making this decision. That is why—at the right point, I would say—my right honourable friend came to another place and made decisions. It is my privilege to repeat them today.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about other potential benefits. There are some, which we looked at. In the end, one has to come back to them, whether they are amenity advantages or jobs in the construction phase, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson —or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The benefits are necessarily limited and the jobs are limited to the construction phase. Though great, the amenity benefits are not enough to deal with the fact that, over the period of this project’s existence, we will still pay three times as much for electricity as for electricity that could be obtained from offshore wind, because the cost of that wind has reduced so much.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also talked about the need for diversity of supply. Again, I have discussed that at some length in this House a number of times. Occasionally, I put to noble Lords on the Liberal Benches the need to look at the advantages that might come from the extraction of shale gas. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, does not like to comment on that, but his noble friend Lord Bruce offered praise for shale gas, whereas his noble friend Lady Featherstone is not so keen. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, looked as though he did not want to comment on this when we discussed it last week. We want diversity of supply because, as made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, it brings us security. We want security, but not at excessive cost. I will not rehearse the figures in the Statement about the potential cost, but it is too great on this occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also talked about new technology and the possibility of costs coming down. On this occasion, I do not think that the technology is particularly new. We are talking about boring earth, concrete and other things with steel into the ground or the sea to make barriers. That is the major cost. I do not think there is the scope for cost reduction that came with the development of offshore wind, where we saw installations getting bigger and blades getting more efficient. As a result, we saw the great advantages of technology moving forward. Here, we are dealing with what one might call relatively old technology that will not come down in cost.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked what the acceptable cost was. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made clear in another place, he was not prepared to put a figure on the cost because other factors would be taken into account for each project, which we would look at in the context of other possible benefits and the cost of the electricity. We are not ruling out the prospect of tidal lagoons in the future but this particular one looked expensive. Other tidal lagoons might be cheaper if they are bigger. There are economies of scale in electricity costs. Each project would have to be looked at individually.
Both noble Lords talked about the reduction of carbon emissions. We accept that there would be such a reduction in this case. We want to go on doing what we can to reduce our emissions as much as possible. But again, as I want to make clear, we can do that only when taking costs into account.
I want to comment briefly on the alleged reduction in investment. There has been a reduction but a great deal of investment was made. We have seen rapid growth in renewables since 2010. We have seen the use of renewables go up from 6.9% in 2010, at the beginning of the coalition, to around 30% today.
I think I have dealt with most of the points made by noble Lords. I hope they will accept that, in the end, the case is pretty clear. The scheme was imaginative and good, and it was right that we looked at it in some detail, but the cost of the electricity is just too great.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully remind noble Lords that this is an opportunity to question the Minister. Therefore, short questions rather than long comments would be much appreciated.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I am deeply disappointed by the Government’s decision. It is short-sighted and a huge missed opportunity. The Government rightly insist that the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon should represent value for money, but the Government have consistently failed to name the price. Therefore, will the Minister agree to publish the Treasury Green Book business case, including all the supporting value-for-money calculations and evidence that were used to arrive at today’s decision?
Lord Henley
My Lords, as I made clear, this electricity was going to come in at some three times the price of electricity produced by Hinkley Point. I think that many noble Lords would feel that Hinkley Point is expensive enough as it is. I will certainly make whatever documents are appropriate available to my noble friend, and to the House more generally, with the obvious caveat that any commercially sensitive information cannot be released. However, considerable information can be released.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, the rejection of the Swansea tidal lagoon is a bitter pill to swallow. It feels like yet another betrayal of the people and economy of Wales. The Government have cancelled rail electrification to Swansea and now reject the Swansea tidal lagoon, in contrast to their seeming ability to find money for projects in south-east England. As other noble Lords have said, the lagoon would have acted as a pathfinder project, particularly for other lagoons across Wales, including Newport, Cardiff and Colwyn Bay. It would have been a vital first step in making Wales a world leader in green energy, bringing untold environmental and economic benefits to the community, Wales and the UK. More in sorrow than in anger, I ask the Minister this: how is today’s news any more than another slap in the face for the people of Wales?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I totally reject what the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, says. It would be a slap in the face to go ahead with this project and impose costs on the Welsh consumer, in terms of the extra amount that they would have to pay for their electricity, and Welsh business. I think in particular of the Port Talbot steelworks and how much more it would have to pay for the vast amount of electricity that it uses. Having looked at the figures in front of them, it would be irresponsible of a Government to go ahead with this project.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on increasing the generating margin from 5% to 10% for cold winters. That genuinely makes us feel a lot safer. My noble friend the Minister mentioned Hinkley Point several times. It is interesting that, with the remarkable fall, the price of offshore wind is now 5.75p per kilowatt hour—a figure quoted by the Minister—compared with the strike price of nuclear energy from Hinkley Point, which is 9.4p per kilowatt hour, index linked for 35 years. Does he agree that it is very difficult to justify that 63% extra cost for nuclear power? Can I ask—I declare my interest because I live near it—when the Government are expecting to announce whether Sizewell C is going ahead?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I cannot assist my noble friend with announcements about Sizewell C—but, as always, I shall say “in due course”. My noble friend is right to point out the costs of nuclear; that decision has been made. What we are talking about here is a potential decision to generate electricity at three times that price at a time when the cost of, for example, offshore wind had come down so dramatically. That is why we had to make that decision, and why we have made it. It is possible that for other nuclear power, in due course, if more work is done in the world of modular nuclear power stations, the cost could come down. But we have made the decision on Hinkley, and have now made the decision not to go ahead with Swansea—but we will continue to look at all possible sources of energy to make sure that we have green energy and secure energy.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, like others, I find this decision depressing. On the other hand, I recognise the Minister’s dilemma. The figures that he quotes at us appear irrefutable, even though they are somewhat at odds with those from Charles Hendry’s report and any long-term view. This seems a similar decision to the closure of the carbon and capture elements in Peterhead. In effect, we are not looking over a long enough timescale.
I have two quick technical questions and two strategic ones. First, were the costs clearly incorporating the benefit of having attached to this not only tidal power but some offshore wind power, which was part of the project, and—as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said—a significant amount of storage of electricity, which would be of great benefit to future lagoon technology, were this to be proven?
Secondly, can the Minister really envisage a situation whereby, in 50 years’ time, these islands will not in part be powered by wave and tidal energy? We have a huge natural advantage and a huge relative benefit around our shores of having power that is predictable, not intermittent, as other technologies are not. We would be a world leader in this, and abandoning this project makes it more difficult. However, I take some comfort from the Minister’s reference to other projects. Which other projects does he have in mind and how soon, given the delay on this decision, can we get a decision on some of those? Are the Government still committed to looking at wave and tidal technology as part of our long-term future?
Lord Henley
I correct the noble Lord on just one thing. He said that tidal power was predictable—and I agree with him that it is predictable—but it is also intermittent because, as he knows, tides go up and down and there are slack periods as well. The intermittency is variable, so it is predictably intermittent, which makes for complications—but it also leads on to the noble Lord’s point about storage.
Obviously, with all these sorts of renewables, storage becomes very important, and developments on that front will change over the coming years. The noble Lord asked us all to look 50 years in the future. First, most of us will not be around in 50 years—but we can all remember 50 years back, and we all know just how much things have changed over those past 50 years. The point that I am making is that it would be wrong for me to predict what might happen over the next 50 years.
I want to make it clear that we have not ruled out tidal power. As the noble Lord says, we have some of the best tides in the world. I am reminded of those lines that noble Lords will remember from “Lochinvar”:
“Love swells like the Solway, but ebbs like its tide”.
It comes in very fast in those areas and goes out very fast. The variation in the Bristol channel is as good as anything that you will get anywhere else in the world, except I think in the St Lawrence estuary.
Much can be done, and we should certainly look at those in future. I cannot say which might then turn out to be suitable. Some of the other tidal power projects being looked at here could offer electricity somewhat cheaper—but only somewhat—than the Swansea bay, because the Swansea bay one is relatively small. We should look at any project on its merits. But I think that the noble Lord, who is as diligent as I am about the view that we must preserve taxpayers’ and consumers’ money, would not want to go ahead with a project that was going to cost three times as much as electricity from, say, Hinkley Point.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, the ministerial Statement makes a compelling economic case—at its heart, the notion that the unit cost of electricity from the Swansea barrage would be three times as expensive as not only Hinkley C but the current price of offshore wind. In the circumstances, would it not have made sense to publish the supporting financial analysis at the same time as this obviously controversial and difficult decision?
Lord Henley
My Lords, as I think I made clear to my noble friend Lady Finn, we are going to publish as much as possible of the financial detail to make it clear just how strong the case is.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I thought the strike price was 8.9p per kilowatt hour, as opposed to Hinkley’s 9.3p or 9.4p per kilowatt hour. Am I wrong in that? That is what my study of the proposals said.
The Minister refers to the production of energy as being intermittent. As I understood the scheme, the tide coming in moved the turbines in one direction, so there was electricity generated and, as the lagoon emptied, the emptying caused the turbines to go the other way. What is intermittent about that?
There is more to it than that. It is the lack of vision in this Government that is so distressing. “The Life Scientific” last week mentioned the fact that in Wrexham, where I come from, back in the mid-18th century, John Wilkinson invented precision engineering by boring cylinders which Watt took over. That led to steam engines and the pumping of mines, so that coal could be produced, and eventually to locomotives. As was said last week, it was the start of the Industrial Revolution in Wrexham. Of course, Wilkinson went to other places—he went to Swansea, among other places. He had vision and could see the future. This Government simply cannot grasp that, and it is highly disappointing that this decision has been made.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I do not think that I can take the noble Lord much further in his accusations of lack of vision. I think that he would be one of the first to say that it would show a lack of straightforward common sense and financial honesty to go ahead with a scheme that was going to cost quite so much, and quite so much to the Welsh consumer and Welsh businesses in terms of their costs for electricity.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the Energy Minister at the time when the Hendry report was under way. The truth is that this is the most attractive of projects. However, sadly, it is dreadful value for money—so I agree reluctantly with the Government’s conclusion. What progress are the Government making with nuclear renewal, not only at Hinkley Point C—which has been mentioned and which is creating jobs and apprenticeships and helping us to fill the decline in the nuclear baseload—but with the new nuclear fleet, notably in Wales and Cumbria?
Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of the announcement that my right honourable friend made about Wylfa the other day and of the work that is being done in Anglesey on the prospect of having a nuclear power station there. She will also be aware that work has started at Hinkley. We therefore hope in due course—in about 2025, I think—to see further nuclear energy coming on as baseload to assist with our energy security. I also hope that in due course we will see more nuclear energy at Moorside in Cumbria, which my noble friend is well aware of. As a Cumbrian, I too am aware of it. As I said earlier, I hope that we will hear more about the prospects of other work in due course.
Digital Government (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the draft Regulations and Codes of Practice laid before the House on 17 and 21 May be approved.
Relevant documents: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of these draft regulations is to allow information sharing between specified bodies for specific purposes. They also seek to make an amendment to the Digital Economy Act 2017. In addition, six codes of practice and one statement of principles associated with Chapters 1 to 5 and 7 of Part 5 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 have been consolidated into four instruments, to be approved by a resolution of each House.
Turning first to the draft regulations, the public service delivery power supports the improvement or targeting of public services. The powers are designed to give public services the information needed to provide early intervention or, where possible, prevent the problems that reduce people’s life chances. In order to exercise the public service delivery power, government must set specific purposes for data sharing via regulations. Those purposes must meet specific criteria defined in the primary legislation. These draft regulations seek to establish four specific objectives for data sharing under the public service delivery power to address “multiple disadvantages”, including fuel poverty and water poverty, and to provide targeted assistance in retuning televisions following spectrum changes.
We have worked closely with colleagues across the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to ensure that these powers have a UK-wide reach. However, due to the absence of a functioning Assembly in Northern Ireland, the data-sharing powers in relation to fraud, debt and public service delivery have not been commenced to cover Northern Ireland at this time.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the Government have a clear duty to support the citizens we serve and to ensure that the most vulnerable in society get the help they need. The formulation of each of the public service delivery objectives has been guided by this principle. Data sharing is a vital and effective way of identifying individuals and households experiencing problems which reduce their life chances.
I shall set out some details of the objectives in the regulations. The first concerns multiple disadvantages. The regulations would allow for data sharing between specified public authorities to help identify individuals or households which face two or more disadvantages. By disadvantages, I mean factors which, in combination with each other, limit the life chances of individuals or households—for example, by affecting people’s health or emotional well-being, or their social and economic chances. The objective was initially developed to support the troubled families programme, which supports the identification of families across England, but it is also intended to be available for similar programmes across the UK.
The second objective relates to television retuning. In order to meet the increasing demand for mobile data, the Government have agreed to fund up to £600 million so that the 700 megahertz band, which is currently used for digital terrestrial television, can be allocated for mobile broadband. As a result of the clearing of the band, approximately 150,000 households may need either to replace or realign their aerial to continue receiving all available channels. These powers will help identify those who are on certain benefits and require further support to ensure that they continue to receive digital terrestrial television services.
Thirdly, the fuel poverty objective will provide a gateway for specified public bodies to share information between themselves to help them identify households living in fuel poverty and ensure that those households get the support they need. It will also enable specified public bodies to flag those who are eligible to energy suppliers. The aim is to enable more vulnerable households and families to receive automatic rebates in the same way as over 1 million pensioners do through the warm home discount scheme. However, these rebates can take place only if the state can inform energy suppliers which of their customers should receive them.
The fourth objective concerns water poverty. Similarly, this would allow the sharing of information between public authorities to help identify those who might be living in water poverty and help ensure that they receive the support they need. The information could be shared by public authorities with water and sewerage companies to help them better target their support schemes, such as social tariffs, as allowed by powers in the Digital Economy Act.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I start with an apology. Because of the way in which these items of business have been scheduled—or perhaps I should say not scheduled—I might have to leave before I hear the Minister’s response. He is aware of that and I am very grateful for his indulgence in that respect, which will make me feel even guiltier when he hears what I have to say.
I am indebted to medConfidential for many of the points I shall make and to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, who takes a keen interest in these matters but cannot be present today.
The essence of what I have to say is that these regulations and codes should be withdrawn. In summary, earlier this month the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published a report on these draft regulations made under Part 5 of Chapter 1 of the Digital Economy Act, as the Minister explained. The DCMS offered assurances that the codes of practice were consistent with each other and drafted to be compliant with the new Data Protection Act 2018 and the latest standards of best practice. However, subsequently it replaced the standards with a new set under a different name—the data ethics framework—so the codes as laid do not reflect current DCMS guidance. In our view, this invalidates the whole of our debate.
I will go through the details. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew the digital government regulations to the special attention of the House. The DCMS told the committee that the codes were to
“the latest standards of best practice for information sharing, including the ‘Data Science Ethical Framework’”.
That is at paragraph 9 of the committee’s report. As the SLSC says:
“In their response, DCMS have also offered assurances that these codes of practice are consistent with each other and have been drafted to be compliant with the new Data Protection Act 2018 and the latest standards of best practice for information sharing, including the ‘Data Science Ethical Framework’”.
The committee’s report was finalised on a Tuesday and printed the following Thursday. On the Wednesday, the DCMS replaced the “latest” standards with a new set under a different name, the data ethics framework. Quite apart from the concerns raised by the committee, when the DCMS gave its response to the committee it surely must have known that a new framework was due the following day to replace the one to which it referred, and that its assurances would therefore be untrue even before they were printed.
The current codes reference the Data Science Ethical Framework, which predates the Data Protection Act and the GDPR. By that fact alone, these DCMS codes cannot be approved. They are, by definition, out of date following legislation on which the DCMS and the Minister himself led.
As the Minister described, a number of groups were consulted on the draft codes in the middle of last year, and while there is consensus from all sides that the codes are improved as a result of that constructive engagement, those consultations were before the Government surprised everyone with the proposal for a “framework for data processing by government” in the Data Protection Act—before the guidance changes due to the GDPR had fully begun, before the Government announced that the Data Science Ethical Framework was in need of replacement, and certainly before the DCMS launched the replacement with a new name last week. The department assured Parliament that,
“these codes of practice are consistent with each other”,
but it cannot assert they will be compliant with other codes, as yet unlaid and unwritten by the Information Commissioner. What the Information Commissioner does should be up to the Information Commissioner. She should not have her hands tied by her sponsor department.
It is particularly important that these codes and the regulations are withdrawn given that the first issuance of the codes is under the affirmative procedure for approval of the House and future updates will be under the negative procedure.
I have a few other questions. Where is the framework for data processing by government included at the last minute by Ministers in Committee on the Data Protection Bill? There is still no clarity as to what the Government plan to do with it, only that it is not the Data Science Ethical Framework nor the data ethics framework. It is, however, yet another government data framework that must be taken into account. The passage of the Data Protection Act 2018 necessitates updates to many ICO codes. Late in the day, the DCMS chose to introduce its new framework for data processing by government, which surely must be the governing instrument for these codes, but, as I said earlier, it has provided no clarity on how this will operate.
The department seems to be offering nothing other than assurances of compliance when one looks through the codes. It talks of consultation with the ICO. Has the ICO confirmed publicly that these codes are compliant with the GDPR, the new Data Protection Act and the ICO guidance?
According to recent announcements from University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, it is conducting artificial intelligence trials internally for issues of direct benefit to it. This shows not only that the NHS is beginning to understand the power of data and digital tools, but that this can be done in-house for public benefit and that there are viable alternatives to handing data to and sharing data with multinational companies. What are the Government doing more broadly across the NHS to ensure that there is full recognition across the NHS?
The Digital Economy Act affords the Secretary of State considerable powers to make use of publicly controlled data, which is of considerable concern in some quarters. The key concern is the scope for different departments to share and then link datasets, such as sharing health data from the Department of Health and Social Care with the Home Office to identify illegal immigrants, as stated in recent headlines. What is the scope and/or limitation for the Secretary of State to share publicly controlled data with private entities? Is this likely to inform the introduction of so-called “data trusts”?
Then, of course, there is the question of whether any of the codes is fit for the future in terms of technology. In particular, what are the duties of transparency and explainability where datasets are used to construct artificial intelligence solutions, algorithms and the like for government purposes? What consultation was engaged in this respect? There appears to be no reference in any of the codes to this. Should we not wait for the data ethics and innovation centre to give its guidance on these matters involving the Government and their deployment of artificial intelligence?
In the light of the above, it is clear that neither these regulations nor the codes are fit for purpose. Will the Government withdraw them before placing replacement codes before the House? Will the Minister confirm that the codes will be compliant with any yet-to-be-written Information Commissioner codes? Will they be confirmed as such by the Information Commissioner? Sadly, I will not hear the Minister’s reply but I very much hope that it is a full one.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, far be it from me to get the Minister off that hook. It is always humbling to be in the presence of those who have seen the heat of the day and borne the burdens of bringing some complicated pieces of legislation on to our statute book. Perhaps we can all breathe a sigh of relief as we notice the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, depart from his place.
I will restrict my remarks, since I was not in possession of the briefing that the noble Lord had, to the observations I made on the simple basis of reading these papers. It was a jolly weekend and some good bedtime reading—150 pages on a very complicated matter—but as far as the regulations themselves are concerned, it seemed mildly reassuring that multiple disadvantages, such as television retuning, fuel poverty and water poverty, were all to be held in view with a view to ensuring that people who might suffer in these areas had their suffering minimised as far as possible. One million vulnerable energy consumers might qualify for help. From this side of the House, we cannot particularly grumble at that.
The thing that worried me was that, since these are the first tinkerings with or things that ensue from last year’s Digital Economy Act, it is incumbent on us to ensure we monitor very carefully the direction of travel as the Act lives its life and is implemented. For that reason, I find myself again and again wondering whether—while, yes, three years down the line it all has to be embedded and to work itself out—we should not promise ourselves a bit more micromanagement than that as things go along.
I liked the way that liaison with devolved bodies—to ensure that a UK-wide measure is implemented in Wales and Scotland in a way consistent with legal provision—was set out because, with another hat on, when we were arguing the devolution clauses in the EU withdrawal Bill we talked all the time about frameworks within which UK-wide pieces of action would have to be worked out in consultation with, and with consent from, the various interested parties. Here is a lived example, I thought, of how that might work.
I worried about how on earth we would keep together pieces of action that would see nine departments of state share information across their boundaries, as well as the Revenue and 32 local and regional bodies, as we considered how best legitimately to allow these bodies to share information. What kind of computer system do we have in place? We have had such a string of unfortunate experiences of supportive technology for mountainous pieces of government activity going wrong that I just look at this and am glad that it is not me operating it.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to one of the two speakers for remaining and for the points that both have made. If the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, thinks that was a rant, compared to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, he is an amateur; I thought he was very reasonable and measured in what he said. I shall go through his points as quickly as I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, was correct to point out that we need to help where we can. The measure is to enable public authorities to share information. A key criterion for the Digital Economy Act was that it had to be for the benefit of individuals and households. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that, because things were in the wrong order—I will address some of his points shortly—we should withdraw the codes, wait for the Information Commissioner to issue her code and lay the codes again in six to nine months. That will mean that all the good work that is done, which the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, identified, in using public information to help individual households that are vulnerable or suffering will effectively be put off. For example, on the fuel poverty measure, that would be another winter when we could not use the information to help the public.
On some of the issues raised by the noble Lord about the information shared, I remind him that the information is permissive: it does not have to be shared; it just allows public authorities to do that. They have very clear outlines of what they are able to do; they must have information sharing agreements. The measure merely allows public authorities to do it; there is no compulsion on any of them. It must also be in accordance with the Digital Economy Act and the Data Protection Act. That will give individuals the right—and mean that they can trust—that their information will not be misused, because it is subject also to the GDPR.
In talking about the difference between the Digital Economy Act and the Data Protection Act the noble Lord was a bit confused about paragraph 9. I was surprised—I thought it seemed pretty clear, but I accept that it could be made simpler. What it is really getting at is that the Digital Economy Act referred not just to living people, as the Data Protection Act does, but also includes bodies corporate and distinguishes between the information in those. So we are saying that there is a distinction, and they therefore need to apply both, but when it comes to the information referred to, and referring to individual living people, the Data Protection Act will apply and so will the General Data Protection Regulation. I will send a letter to the noble Lord outlining that paragraph to see if we can explain it. I doubt we will be able to do it in words of one syllable but we will try to make it a bit clearer for him and I will put a copy in the Library. I accept that it is not immediately obvious to a normal person.
I am glad that the noble Lord, in contrast, said that the codes were “clear, succinct and admirable”. I point out, however, that these are not for small businesses but for public authorities. The only time that they would involve a private business is when the private business has been contracted by a public authority to deliver something.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification—of course, I should have been clear about that myself—but in my small business I did have registration responsibilities, so under one of the codes I would have had to bear some of these things in mind; so there was just a hint of relevance about what I said.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am grateful for that reminder.
There has been an awful lot of consultation around this. In many ways, this is a model: it has taken about two years of open, public policy-making. The codes were in place in draft while the Act went through Parliament, so parliamentarians of both Houses were able to discuss the codes. They have been amended as a result of that and made clearer, and we have also put in some increased transparency and some review mechanisms. They were consulted on again after the Act was passed: we had a formal consultation again on the codes that are with us today. That included organisations that might have thought to have worried about it, such as privacy groups, so a lot of stakeholders were involved in that.
Coming eventually to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, his speech was based on a briefing by the only organisation, I think, which had any worries about this. The overwhelming majority of stakeholders that were involved in the consultation were very supportive of these codes.
The noble Lord asked about the statistical methodology. I cannot remember exactly what it was, but I will write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, also asked how we will keep track of all this. Of course, there will be a register in place, open and fully searchable by the public. The Information Commissioner has a power of audit, which will be used to keep track of all the data that is shared, and the audit logs will be kept for all data shared under the powers.
The noble Lord talked about transparency: how are we going to monitor and track the impact of this data sharing? Review boards will be established to oversee any non-devolved and England-only information sharing pilots that are set up, and there will also be a review board to advise Ministers and make recommendations on the establishment of new objectives, if there are any. The membership of those review boards will come from across the various data holding departments, as well as the ICO and representatives of civil society. Lastly, the ICO has said that she will carry out an independent review of all the Part 5 powers in two to three years.
Automatic Workplace Pension Enrolment
(5 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McKenzie of Luton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to address the issues arising from the 2017 review of automatic workplace pension enrolment; and what is the proposed timetable.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to open this short debate about the progress of auto-enrolment and its future development, particularly in light of the 2017 review, sub-titled Maintaining the Momentum. Our starting point must be to acknowledge the undoubted success of this policy, which has enabled some 9 million individuals to have been automatically enrolled into a workplace scheme by their employer. In topical parlance, perhaps, it has been a game-changer.
As we have debated before, this success has been built on a political consensus, thorough research of the data, stakeholder engagement and a robust analysis of the state of pension provision in the UK. This was underpinned, of course, by the intellectual rigour of the Pensions Commission. The commission’s work focused on the consequences of rising life expectancy, a highly unequal distribution of pensioner incomes and the dispersion of private pension provision, along with a state system with gaps in provision for those with interrupted working lives and caring responsibilities, especially of course women. That was no basis for a sustainable pension system in which people could have confidence to save. The settlement proposed that the foundation of our pension system should be reform of the state pension to make it easier to understand and less means tested, and an earnings-related private pension which moves on from voluntary provision but stops short of full compulsion. It acknowledged the challenges of funding such a system and the logic of raising the state pension age—as it put it, the “unavoidable long-term trade-off” between public expenditure and state pension age—notwithstanding the need for fair notice of changes.
Hence we have come to a national pension saving scheme for those not otherwise covered by adequate pension arrangements. The participation is not mandatory but the obligation of employers to enrol employees and use the power of inertia was anticipated to be a significant nudge; so it has proved. There are of course mandatory minimum contribution levels for employers and employees. Sitting alongside this is a low-cost defined contribution scheme with a universal service obligation, NEST. Other providers have also engaged; specifically, we have seen the growth of master trusts and the consequent need for regulation.
With total contributions of 8% of earnings above the LEL threshold, including tax relief, the commission estimated that a median earner would eventually secure a pension at retirement of about 15% of median earnings, on top of an estimated 30% from the state system. For lower earners, the replacement rate would be higher because of the proportionally higher amount coming from the state pension. There was an assumption that further private saving would bridge the gap to support higher individual aspirations but this has not happened.
The Government’s review can rightly claim that auto-enrolment is transforming saving habits. This year, the rollout of automatic enrolment to employers will be completed. Minimum contribution rates increased to 5% from April this year and will increase to 8% in 2019. It remains to be seen what the effect of any of this is on opt-out rates and, perhaps more importantly, the rate of attrition where individuals subsequently withdraw from the scheme. However, workplace pension participation has increased from 55% to 78% in the four years to 2016. For the private sector, participation among eligible employees has risen to 73%. Annual contributions into workplace pensions amounted to £87 billion in 2016. So far, opt-out rates have apparently remained lower than anticipated, at approximately 9%, but rates of attrition have been twice this. Perhaps the Minister would confirm that.
We consider that automatic enrolment is becoming the foundation of workplace pensions in the UK: an important component of providing millions of workers with a reasonable standard of living in retirement. But as the review and other studies have identified, challenges remain. Most significantly there is the level of contributions, which, as the review itself identifies, currently presents a significant risk that the expectations of a substantial proportion of the working-age population will not be adequately supported in retirement.
There is also a great deal of evidence that the success of auto-enrolment is less prevalent for such groups as part-time workers, women and those from ethnic minorities. This is particularly a consequence of the earnings trigger. The TUC’s research found that 4.6 million employees earn less than the £10,000 trigger, three-quarters of whom are women. The trigger has a particularly unfair current impact on some 100,000-plus workers who hold multiple jobs, which when combined would take them over the £10,000 threshold. The TUC points out that in many sectors, particularly among employers new to pension provision, the minimum contribution rates have been established as the norm, but it is understood that there is little evidence of levelling down by existing pension providers. Again, perhaps the Minister would confirm that.
The Pensions Policy Institute estimates that two-thirds of those enrolled in pensions in 2030 will be on minimum contributions. The 2017 review states that using the savings adequacy measures introduced by the Pensions Commission, 12 million individuals are undersaving for their retirement—12 million individuals who comprise 38% of the working-age population. The review proposes a number of measures with which we agree and which should help to increase savings. Lowering the age from 22, which was originally based on the national minimum wage criteria, to 18 is one. NOW: Pensions data shows that younger ages are less likely to opt out so, by inference, are keener on pensions. Perhaps the Minister can say whether this is generally the position.
The proposal to abolish the lower contribution level for a band of earnings so that contributions become payable from the first £1 of earnings would simplify things, increase the amounts brought into pensions savings and improve incentives for those with multiple jobs to opt in. It would also enable the entitled workers definition to be scrapped.
The level of the earnings trigger is the most contentious issue. The review records no clear consensus. Keeping it where it is at £10,000 amounts to a real-terms decrease in its value, which for the current year would bring another 100,000 people, 72,000 of whom would be women, within the scope of automatic enrolment. It is the trigger that ultimately determines who will be auto-enrolled. The pays-to-save analysis is complicated, but is perhaps made less so by changes to the state pension. It is also to be regretted that the tax anomaly—the different tax outcomes of net pay and relief at source arrangements—has not been resolved.
Setting the earnings trigger clearly involves judgments about a range of issues—affordability, opt-outs, provision for pensions—and the review excuses itself from a longer-term view on the basis of not wanting to pre-empt further threshold reviews. However, the Government cannot look aside for ever from the fundamental point about the levels of undersaving and the risk of poverty in retirement at current contribution levels.
Another conundrum is the 4.8 million self-employed and how they can be brought into auto-enrolment. As the review sets out, this is a group for whom pension saving is declining, notwithstanding the range of products available, including access to NEST and lifetime ISAs. This is at a time when self-employment is increasing, fuelled by the gig economy. The review suggests that many of them should already be included in auto-enrolment via agency worker and other provisions. There are also those inappropriately classified as self-employed—the bogus self-employed. This is a matter for enforcement by the regulator and HMRC, but for others the review proposes the development of nudges and prompts including through Making Tax Digital. Can the Minister say something about progress on this, especially in the light of HMRC announcements about the slowing up of Making Tax Digital to cope with the consequences of Brexit?
The third strategic problem identified by the review is that although individuals are saving more than ever before, they are not looking to take greater responsibility to plan and save more for their retirement. Policy looks to inertia to capture savings while expecting positive and proactive engagement to save more and make decisions about savings, particularly the decumulation options. There is no longer just the obligation to annuitise.
The overall pensions landscape has changed considerably since auto-enrolment was conceived. Much of this has to do with pensioner protection: advice and guidance, some mandatory; a charge cap on default funds; the prospect of regulation of master trusts; the prohibition on cold calling; and a pension dashboard. This should be conducive to an environment of engagement, but we know there is some way to go to address the general low level of financial education in the UK, which undermines effective engagement.
Despite the success of auto-enrolment, there is still much to do to address undersaving. We have no doubt that automatic enrolment should remain the bedrock through which a workplace pension can be provided. We accept the need to maintain the consensus for the proposed changes and that this should involve employers, savers and the pensions industry. However, we question why the government timeline for making positive progress seems set at the mid-2020s. Those missing out now deserve a more expeditious approach. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord McKenzie on initiating this debate. I echo the very positive points he made about auto-enrolment: it is a good thing and has enabled millions of people to be drawn into workplace pension systems for the first time. The government review published last year concluded that, regrettably, of the 10 million people enrolled for the first time by 2018, only 3.6 million were women. We have the opportunity now to reflect on the introduction of auto-enrolment and the changing nature of the labour market and government policy, and to find ways of ensuring that we continue to draw more workers into auto-enrolment to enable them to save for their retirement.
The government review also identified that 900,000 of the 1.6 million individuals who are under-saving and earn less than £25,000 a year are women. This is on top of the dramatic changes to the state pension for women, the changes to women’s entitlement to benefit from contributions made through national insurance by their husbands, and the fact that women often have multiple part-time jobs to fit around caring responsibilities, be that childcare or care for a relative. They then find themselves unable to be auto-enrolled because they do not have “a job” that gets them over the £10,000 trigger. It would be a very poor outcome for the introduction of a good scheme in theory if, in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time, we found that women in many sectors of our society were still totally excluded from an ability to provide for themselves in their retirement through a contribution in this way.
According to the Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings—ASHE—8.8 million employees are not currently saving into a pension scheme. This headline figure is worrying in itself but it disguises a greater inequality in the UK workforce. In some occupations, up to 85% of the lowest paid are not in a pension scheme and are missing out on the employer’s contribution that better-paid workers receive. Some industries, such as agriculture and the wholesale and retail sectors, lag far behind other areas. The TUC published an analysis based on the latest ASHE data, which shows that among highly paid professionals earning more than £600 a week, nearly nine out of 10 are saving into a pension. But at the other end of the spectrum, nearly 86% of those in, for example, sales or customer service jobs who are paid far less a week are not members of a scheme. Four in 10 employees undertaking care, leisure or other service work are not entitled to enrol in a pension scheme, including nearly three-quarters of the lowest paid.
It therefore appears that the current pension arrangements are in danger—I put it no higher at this point—of hardwiring inequality between the lowest-paid and the better-paid occupations into the auto-enrolment pension system. As my noble friend said, those who earn under £10,000 from one employment do not have an automatic right to enrol in a workplace pension. The lack of pension provision means that the pay gap is wider than at first appears, with low-paid workers missing out from the employers’ pension contribution. It also suggests that whatever the gap in pay workers experience in their working lives could be amplified into retirement.
Many under-pensioned sectors typically employ large numbers of women. Thus, the rules governing automatic enrolment at present mean that women are less likely than men to come into the workplace pension system. A series of points makes this difficult for women, and my noble friend touched on the first one: contribution rates. The structure hinders contribution, in my view, so the legal minimum contribution of 1% for each employer—rising, I know, by 2019 to a total contribution from all of 8%—means that those who come in at the lowest point will not accrue enough for their retirement to give them a basic income.
When this is compounded by applying contributions to a band of earnings rather than based on a full salary, for someone on £10,000 a year, only £4,124 is pensionable, so 8% of qualifying earnings actually means that only 3.3% of their total salary is being contributed. When we put into that complicated mix insecure work, the growth of self-employment, where employers are contracting out and wanting to employ people on a more flexible basis, we can see that the contribution rate for employers is simply not high enough at present.
Then we have the question of the trigger of £10,000. As I have already touched on, for many women in low-paid, part-time work, juggling care responsibilities and a number of jobs, that £10,000 is simply not a viable measure for them. Again, the research conducted by the TUC, published in 2016, found that 106,000 workers—70% women—held multiple jobs but could not enter the trigger at £10,000. Cutting or abolishing the earnings trigger would help low-paid women to come into workplace pension schemes.
Why do we not use the national insurance contribution level, which I think is referred to in the report’s summary of conclusions? Using that would bring about 1.5 million more people into workplace savings, of whom 73% would be women.
A case can be made that those with wages below the trigger can opt in to a workplace pension anyway, although we know that pensions are often complex. Importantly, however, individuals who are on low incomes rarely feel that they are, if you like, flush for cash and, not unreasonably, when budgets are tight, they favour the short term over the long term. We know this from experience with the married woman’s national insurance contribution rate, a much lower rate with less benefits for that woman. Many women opted for that to help the household budget, with the consequences that we now find for them with the development of policy in pensions, excluding them from a decent pension. With the trigger, as my noble friend said, linked to the tax threshold, which is now much higher than originally envisaged as a result of coalition Government action, this situation can only get worse.
The Government now need to go further and build on the success of auto-enrolment and what they say in their review. They need to ensure that employers make decent contributions to a pension scheme for all workers from the first pound earned, that women workers and low-paid workers get the same pension benefits as their colleagues. They need to cast an eye over their review and undertake a gender analysis on take-up in this area. I think that they will see that there will be vastly different work practices in different sectors, and that that directly influences the ability of those workers to enter the workplace pension provision.
Increasing employer contribution rates, reducing the trigger, looking at every pound earned counting, allowing people to use more than one job to contribute to their pension and dealing with the vastly increasing economic precariousness for the self-employed—that is a good starting point for the Government to get further accolades on building a proper pension system. But that will not be done without a timetable, and it will not be done without clear identification by the Government of what they hope and intend to do next. I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate, she will give noble Lords some comfort that the Government intend not to sit on their laurels but to energetically, urgently and with determination build on this scheme to make an even better one for women workers in this country.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, when automatic, direct enrolment was introduced there were real anxieties about capacity, non-compliance, and opt-out rates. Six years on, I recognise the good work that the DWP and the regulator have done. Indeed, the regulator has not been reluctant to use its formal powers. In 2016-17, it made more than 50,000 interventions, including nearly 34,000 compliance notices.
To maintain that confidence, however, we need to see the analysis of the 700,000-plus small and micro-employers whose staging ended in February 2018. It will be some time before the full impact of the phased increases in the statutory contribution rate is known. I note that the Government have identified around 1 million individuals working in atypical ways in less standard forms of employment, and they are liaising with the regulator to ensure sufficient clarity so that automatic enrolment operates effectively. Will the Minister elaborate on that problem, and on what greater clarity may be needed?
It is welcome that the Government decided not to exempt certain employers from auto-enrolment. The proposal to lower the age criteria from 22 to 18 would bring a further 900,000 young people into pension saving, which is welcome. So too, is the proposal that pension contributions would be calculated from the first pound earned, thereby increasing the contributions going into pensions. It is estimated that these proposals would bring an extra £3.8 billion in pension saving annually, and significantly increase the pension pot of lower and median earners.
The Government assert in their review report:
“We want to help lower earners build their resilience for retirement; to support individuals, predominantly women, in multiple part-time jobs”.
But, as my noble friend Lady Primarolo has so clearly articulated, too many women are still excluded from the targeted group of 11 million intended to benefit from auto-enrolment, and 63% of that target group are still men.
Women suffer a caring penalty in pension saving. They are more likely to have single or multiple part-time jobs that pay below the £10,000 earnings trigger. The employment pattern of women reveals periods when they are typically caring for young children, grandchildren or elderly relatives and their paid work reduces. They are penalised by exclusion from automatic enrolment. The proposal that pension contributions will increase—calculated from the first pound earned, so increasing pension contributions—will make the caring penalty even greater, because the loss of contributions for women becomes greater too.
The Government argue that a change to the contribution rules would improve the incentives for those in multiple jobs that each pay at or below £10,000 to opt in to their workplace scheme. Women can choose to opt in, but automatic enrolment is rooted in behaviour assumptions that most men and women will not opt in. It is perverse to assume that opting in will effectively address the pension penalty for those earning £10,000 or less in any one job. Pension freedom of choice has changed the rules of the game. People are no longer obliged to secure a replacement income. Their savings provide a pot to spend as they wish. I see no reason, other than a regressive one, why low-paid women and men should not be auto-enrolled, so that they too can build a savings pot to give them greater financial resilience when they retire.
It was disappointing not to see some new thinking about tackling the caring penalty in pension savings coming out of the review—for example, a state credit of contributions to private pension savings during defined periods of caring. The Government’s ambition is to implement their proposed changes in the mid-2020s—a long way off. They want to develop detailed plans for consultation but does that need to take seven years? The Government recognise,
“that these changes present significant additional costs, in particular for employers and the Exchequer and significant changes for individuals”.
They say that,
“we will seek to better understand the full impacts for all stakeholders as part of the consultation process and will explore cost mitigations and funding options. We plan to do a full impact assessment of the increased costs for businesses”.
There is a lot of conditionality in those sentences: whether the changes to the automatic enrolment rules proposed will be implemented at all, and the trade-offs to be made.
My noble friend Lord McKenzie’s question is most helpful in seeking more certainty. I agree that the immediate priority is to secure the implementation of the phased increases in the statutory contributions without significant increases in opt-out rates. However, the Government intend to carry out further work on the adequacy of retirement income, using the evidence gained to review the level of contributions. I hope they will subject their findings and considerations to the most robust scrutiny and transparency. In recent times, some pension policy decisions have not been preceded by detailed analysis or assessment; long-term impacts have not been fully considered. The coherence of policies on long-term savings and funding social care is unclear.
The boundary between statutory contributions and voluntary additional saving is important. The balance in the allocation of future increases in the statutory contribution between the employer and the worker is integral to ensuring persistency and improving levels of saving. The drivers of higher voluntary contributions are not equally distributed across the labour market. The priority which employers give to pensions varies significantly. Some mechanisms for raising contributions may work with higher paid workers but will not be effective with moderate or less secure ones.
The self-employed are now 15% of the workforce and a large proportion of them have significant and worsening gaps in pension savings. A focus on the self-employed, who would benefit from a nudge into saving, is much needed. The Government have announced an intention to legislate before the end of this Parliament, but it would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether targeted interventions will actually take place in 2018 and when the department expects to publish its evaluation. The position of the self-employed is getting worse as each year passes.
Finally, the review found that an,
“extensive review of the evidence-base tells us that actions aimed at improving engagement will not in themselves materially change savings behaviour ”.
None the less, the Government believe that engagement can reinforce savings behaviour.
The problem is that public policy is now predicated on splitting pension saving into a savings phase and a draw-down phase. At the savings phase, policy recognises the power of inertia in the face of complexity and behavioural biases which inhibit optimal decision-making. Regulated defaults, auto-enrolment and investment funds are applied. At the drawing-down phase, policy assumes behaviours to be dramatically different, with the same individuals fully engaged and bearing the responsibility for making optimal choices. This inconsistency is simply not rational. There needs to be consistency during both phases, with good communications sitting alongside a system of supportive default products and processes, particularly in the light of emerging market failures. That would not contradict individual choice, but it would support securing a stable income in retirement.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it is a tremendous pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. Years ago, as one of the original pensions commissioners, she set the agenda for the United Kingdom and that has been pursued on an all-party basis ever since. I agree with most of the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, so that consensus is still clinging on by its fingertips. I hope that the Minister will reflect carefully on the three intelligent and penetrating speeches that we have had so far. I agree and concur with a lot of the analysis and many of the conclusions.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, I was slightly disappointed that the pensions review published at the back end of last year did not have a bit more new thinking. I also reflect some of the disappointment felt by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, about the lack of urgency about what happens next. So far as I am aware, next to nothing has taken place since December 2017. One would like to think that the urgency of the issue and the changes we are seeing in our labour market—never mind the pensions environment—would have encouraged our new Pensions Minister, who is an able young politician. I was expecting him to blaze a trail using the pensions policy, even if it was by throwing out new ideas, starting new consultations and getting new lines of inquiry started. There has been a deafening silence since December 2017, which is unfortunate.
We need to concentrate on some of the issues that the pensions review raised. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on underprovision, the trigger level and the overall landscape, but in particular we should focus on the unemployed. The noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, concentrated on the excellent TUC evidence on women and the gender issues that hide behind some of this important policy creation. They are all very important.
I was glad to see that the chosen subject for this evening directly references the proposed timetable. To aim to get things in place and properly changed by the mid-2020s is far too unambitious. Of course we need to be careful about planning changes in good time. Planning needs to be done and we need to be careful and study how the increased contributions in 2018-19 will affect the success of the policy, because it has been successful so far. But there is a difference between 2019 and 2025, and consultations can be carried out in six weeks. There is a yearning that the Government will be Maintaining the Momentum—a wonderful title—as that cannot easily be done by anyone else.
A number of things are available to the Government to introduce the nudges, the policy developments and the progress that needs to be made through the new single financial guidance body. Financial guidance is an integral part of developing auto-enrolment, because financial education is still deficient and people still do not realise the consequences of undersaving. The progress we should be making on the pensions dashboard is important; perhaps the Minister could say something about the progress that has been made on that. Some issues are emerging, such as some of the split small pension pots for low-income households, which is slightly concerning.
A lot of work needs to be done, but more than anything else we want to see more commitment to making progress faster. It is not about being precipitate but about moving faster and getting some plans that we can all look at and intelligently cross-examine. None of that seems to be happening at the moment. If the Minister is determined to hold on to the all-party consensus—I know that she is—she will need to address some of these things with some urgency and satisfy us that everything that can be done is being done. This is an absolutely crucial part of future public policy for the United Kingdom. I know that she cares about it and that the new Minister cares about it as well. I just wish that we had some more tangible demonstration that the Government are thinking about it and coming forward with the kind of ideas that we all look forward to studying in the immediate future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for securing this debate, and thank all those who contributed to this evening’s discussion of this important issue.
The Government are proud of the progress of the automatic enrolment reforms, with over 9.7 million people enrolled into a workplace pension since the reforms began in 2012. In the last 12 months alone, hundreds of thousands of everyday employers have begun to offer a pension to their staff for the first time, helping their employees build up dedicated savings for a more secure retirement. I am especially pleased that all this good work has been achieved due to the commitment, support and collaboration between government, employers, the pensions industry and many other delivery partners. I should add that we welcome the cross-party support that has been evident throughout the delivery process. Given the scale of the technical challenges, the hundreds of hours of freely given time to help inform the most practical policy solutions and the sheer good will are a tribute to all those who have played their valuable part in successfully getting nearly 1.3 million employers to provide workplace pensions.
This year has seen the successful conclusion of the planned rollout of automatic enrolment duties to employers that existed prior to October 2017, known as the employer staging profile, which started with the largest employers in October 2012 and, following two extensions to help SMEs better prepare, saw the last cohort of existing micro-employers—those with only one or two staff—complete their declarations of compliance this spring. We are now delivering automatic enrolment as business as usual, with an estimated 180,000 to 210,000 new employers each year needing to comply with their automatic enrolment duties. We have also seen the first of two planned increases in contribution levels for automatic enrolment in April this year, with the latter increase following in April 2019.
I do not take lightly the challenge for employers in funding their share of these increases, and we are carefully monitoring the impact of this first upward shift in contributions for employers and their workers. I should stress, however, that these increases are essential to move savings rates up and will deliver more security in retirement. It is also important to note that many employers have chosen to pay contributions above the planned statutory increases, so faced no additional costs in April. It is important to add that, as automatic enrolment has been rolled out, the Pensions Regulator has been responsive to the need to help employers understand what they need to do. That included launching a simplified and much shorter step-by-step guide on its website, which has been adapted to the needs of small and micro-employers, which have less familiarity with pensions matters.
I turn now to the December 2017 review of automatic enrolment, Maintaining the Momentum, which sets out a clear direction for the future of workplace pension saving, and to which all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate have referred. Our ambition is bold and clearly builds on the success of automatic enrolment to date, with a comprehensive and balanced package of proposals which, crucially, recognises that costs will be shared between families and businesses and that they will need time to plan for change. Importantly, we are confirming that automatic enrolment should continue to be available to all eligible workers regardless of who their employer is. These reforms are focused on ensuring that retirement saving continues to be available to the widest possible number of workers in the UK.
We believe that the retirement saving habit needs to be established at the start of a working life. That is why we are going to make saving the norm for young people by lowering the age for automatic enrolment from 22 to 18, to bring an extra 900,000 people into workplace pensions. I can confirm for the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, that research has shown that 18 year-olds are very keen for automatic enrolment to start—they care about their future and their retirement, which is very welcome.
We want to broaden and deepen the benefits of automatic enrolment, particularly for those with low earnings and multiple jobs, to which all noble Lords have referred. We want to help them to save more for retirement by removing the lower earnings limit so that their contributions are calculated from the first pound of earnings.
We intend to deliver on our manifesto commitment to use the principles and learning from automatic enrolment to improve retirement provision for the self-employed. We recognise the diversity of the 4.8 million people who classify themselves as self-employed, and the review highlighted—supported by the available evidence—that no single or straightforward saving intervention has been shown to bring self-employed people into pension saving. We are therefore moving quickly to find out what might actually work by testing targeted interventions aimed at the self-employed to identify the most effective options to increase pension saving among this group. In addition, as we set out in the 2017 review, many of those working in atypical or non-standard forms of employment potentially already come within the automatic enrolment framework and will be able to save into a workplace pension. We are working with the Pensions Regulator to ensure sufficient clarity for them and those who engage them, so that the automatic enrolment compliance regime continues to operate effectively.
In addition, the Government have responded to Matthew Taylor’s review of modern working practices and have been consulting on employment status with the aim of making it clearer and more certain for both individuals and business what their status is. The consultation has now closed. The Government are currently considering the submissions received and will respond in due course. We will ensure that any changes are also considered with care in relation to automatic enrolment so that there is sufficient coherence and certainty about the enforcement of automatic enrolment duties.
Noble Lords have raised several important points. I respect all their concerns and will do my best to address as many of those as possible this evening. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, raised the question of attrition. I can confirm that employers estimated that 16% of employees who had been automatically enrolled in the last financial year had ceased active membership. However, there is hope that a certain amount of those who ceased membership when they left one employer will start again with a new employer.
Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about the earnings trigger. They suggested that too many of those on low incomes were still excluded from AE because of the earnings trigger, which determines who is eligible to be automatically enrolled by their employer into a pension. Freezing the trigger at £10,000 continues to strike a balance so that those who can most afford to save are automatically enrolled into a workplace pension. We fear that lowering the trigger could result in diverting income away from the day-to-day needs of the lowest earners, and that risks impacting significantly on their living standards. For those low earners who are in a position to contribute, the option remains to opt into automatic enrolment.
Considerable reference was made to women, particularly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Primarolo and Lady Drake. The question is, of course, whether automatic enrolment is helping women in work to save. There have been large increases in pension saving for women since the introduction of automatic enrolment. The private sector has seen the largest increases in participation in workplace pensions. In 2012, 65% of women employed full-time in the private sector did not have a workplace pension. By 2017 this had fallen to 24%.
The question also relates to multiple job holders—women who are juggling different jobs and caring duties—what are we doing about that and whether we should remove the lower earnings trigger. The proposal to remove the lower earnings limit and the entitled worker status in legislation will ensure that multiple job holders who are eligible for automatic enrolment, or who choose to opt in, will qualify for employer contributions in all jobs and will be able to pay their own contributions from the first pound of earnings. This will give multiple job holders the opportunity to build the same retirement savings as individuals who have only one job.
Over the coming year, we will work to build a renewed consensus to deliver the detail, design and implementation of our proposals. We recognise the importance of giving employers and savers sufficient time to plan for changes. There will be some people, particularly those on low incomes, for whom it makes little sense to divert income away from their working life, but for those low earners in a position to contribute, as I have said, the option remains to opt in. The earnings threshold is reviewed every year to ensure that it continues to strike the right balance between maximising the savings incentives for individuals and minimising costs for employers.
The Secretary of State has decided to freeze the earnings trigger this year at £10,000, which will bring an extra 100,000 people into automatic enrolment, of whom around 72% are women. It should also be noted that the IFS, in a 2016 report, found that automatic enrolment had also significantly increased workplace pension membership among those outside the eligible group, particularly those with incomes under the earnings threshold, whose membership has increased by 28 percentage points.
To answer a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the analysis underpinning the automatic enrolment earnings threshold review suggests that freezing the trigger has no adverse effect on the proportion of black and minority ethnic individuals in the group eligible for automatic enrolment. Of the 100,000 people estimated to be newly saving as a result of freezing the trigger, 23,000 are black and minority ethnic individuals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked about carers and how they are supported. The 2017 AE review concluded that there should be no change to the way that carers are currently treated through AE. Those who provide informal care are not subject to automatic enrolment as they have no employer to enrol them. However, bringing in individuals not subject to a contract of employment would be a fundamental change to the framework of AE, which works through an employee-employer relationship. Individuals who provide informal care for 20 hours per week are entitled to apply for carer’s credit, which helps to protect future entitlement to state pension. Alongside the wider work to address the challenges of social care for our ageing population, the Government are considering how to further support families and individuals who provide invaluable informal care.
I turn now to the net payment arrangements versus relief at source. Pensions tax relief is a matter for Her Majesty’s Treasury. The Government recognise the different impacts on pension contributions for workers earning below the personal allowance, but to date it has not been possible to identify any straightforward or proportionate means to align the effects of the net pay and relief at source mechanisms more closely for this population. However, alongside further work on the AE changes outlined in the review, the Government will examine the processes for payment of pensions tax relief for individuals to explore the current difference in treatment to ensure that we can make the most of any new opportunities that emerge, balancing simplicity, fairness and practicality while engaging with stakeholders to seek their views. It is important that employers are free to choose a scheme that best suits the needs of their businesses and workers.
I was asked why we did not look at increasing the contribution rate as part of the 2017 review. As I have said, millions of people are now saving or saving more as the result of AE. As noble Lords may be aware, the first planned increase in contribution rates took place this year. As such, it is important that we understand the effects that the planned increases will have and to carry out further work on the adequacy of retirement incomes. We will look again in due course at the right overall level of saving and the balance between prompted and voluntary saving. It is important that this should be evidence-based. We are testing targeted interventions to identify the most effective options to increase pension saving among self-employed people during 2018. We are harnessing the ideas and enthusiasm that exist in addition, as I have just said, to developing the evidence base as our work goes forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to the pensions dashboard among many other issues. The Department for Work and Pensions is leading the development of the pensions dashboard. We have carried out a feasibility study, the main conclusions of which we will share in due course. How we achieve increased engagement is not straightforward and it will not be solved by the use of a single tool such as a pensions dashboard. We need to make people feel confident about managing their finances and able to make informed decisions. The noble Lord also referred to the single financial guidance body, which we believe and trust will be a huge support in that direction.
Finally, all noble Lords have commented that progress is too slow. I shall start with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, who asked why nothing is being done until the 2020s. The review sets a clear direction to build a more robust and inclusive savings culture, specifically supporting younger generations with the opportunity to save for a more secure retirement. Our review proposes a comprehensive and balanced package which recognises that the costs will be shared between individuals, families and businesses, and we will need time to plan for change. We are working to deliver detailed design and implementation. The support of employers and their advisers has been key to the success of AE and we want to make sure that we recognise their situation as well as that of savers. We want sufficient time to take those decisions with care.
Testing targeted interventions to identify the most effective options is critical. It is our ambition to implement changes to the AE enrolment framework in the mid-2020s, subject to learning from the contributions increases this year and in April 2019. There will be discussions with stakeholders around detailed design this year into next year, in order to find ways of making the changes affordable, and this will be followed by formal consultation with a view to introducing legislation in due course.
Noble Lords who know me know that I am always impatient for advancement in areas that will help everyone. I am looking in particular at one proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. He knows that I am very keen on this, as is the Pensions Minister, my honourable friend in another place Guy Opperman. But we need to do this with care. We have to consult. We will work with stakeholders to build consensus on the shape and design, and that will help us to develop our detailed plans and an implementation timetable.
I hope that I have managed to answer most questions put by noble Lords, and again I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for introducing this debate.