House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
The Government are clear that the needs of the child are paramount when making decisions about the right care placement. The specific issue the hon. Lady refers to has not been raised with me directly by the Welsh Government.
Mrs Moon
More than 300 children from England are placed across Wales, often in small Welsh villages. Problems are experienced by some police forces and local authorities about early notification of vulnerable children being placed there who may be seduced into county lines, grooming operations and generally be vulnerable in isolation. Will the Secretary of State share my concern and raise it with the Welsh Assembly Government?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Lady clearly raises a very important point and is passionate about the subject. The most appropriate and suitable setting should always be the overriding factor in deciding the best placement for a child, but planning policy and approval from care inspectors should also be considerations, and, naturally, the police should be part of that process. I will happily raise the matter with the Welsh Government.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Does the Minister share my view that it is crucial that there are enough foster parents with the right skills in the right areas to care for children and meet their diverse needs? Would not a collaborative approach between local authorities be helpful in that respect?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The appropriate setting has to be the overriding factor at all stages, but, of course, not all local authorities can offer appropriate settings for some complex needs that different children will have. Co-operation between authorities is always helpful and it is something that we want to encourage.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Plaid Cymru’s North Wales police and crime commissioner has long warned that, post Brexit, criminals will use the common travel area to gain access to the UK. This warning has been reaffirmed today in a National Audit Office report. Will the Secretary of State tell me what provision he is making personally to protect Wales from becoming both the highway and the victim of international organised crime?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the question, but I am not sure where Brexit is linked with this. Clearly, there is freedom of movement across the European Union and the common travel area—those positions will still be in place, particularly in relation to the common travel area. I do not think that this is about where the children originate from, because, clearly, there are Welsh children being sited appropriately in England as well. We have to have as an overriding factor the most appropriate setting and it is important that the authorities co-operate wherever the regulations come from.
Liz Saville Roberts
It is no secret that the Secretary of State does not speak as Wales’s voice in Westminster on Brexit. He has, in fact, poured scorn on the efforts of others who seek to make representations for Wales in Brussels. He may be aware that, together with other sensible Opposition leaders in this place, I am meeting Michel Barnier tomorrow, and I will do my duty to represent my country. Does he have any Wales-specific priorities that he would like me to raise with the EU Brexit negotiator-in-chief, or would that be against England’s interest?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Lady talks about meeting Michel Barnier tomorrow with other colleagues, but I hope that she will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Prime Minister who is acting in the UK’s interest rather than in any local national interest.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Returning to the subject, what changes does my right hon. Friend propose in terms of inspection of care homes to ensure that children are safe in those care homes?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The social care innovation programme plans to change the laws in England so that local authorities have to promote the physical and mental health of looked-after children, and this would be a major step forward in this area of policy.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mims Davies)
The UK, and specifically Wales, is home to a world-class aerospace industry. I have regular meetings with the aerospace sector and met Airbus last month in north Wales as part of my engagement with the CBI. It is a top priority to continue to create and maintain the right conditions post Brexit for this growing international sector to thrive.
Ian C. Lucas
First, I welcome the Minister to her post. In June, Airbus said that a no-deal Brexit would severely undermine
“UK efforts to keep a competitive and innovative aerospace industry.”
It concluded that it would be “catastrophic” to have a UK Brexit. Does the Minister agree?
Mims Davies
As I have said, the aerospace sector in north Wales is absolutely vital. Airbus has been making those statements through conversations with those involved with the north Wales growth deal. I know, having met the hon. Gentleman last week, that a thriving sector, and the skills associated with it, are absolutely vital. The F-35 avionics global repair hub shows that this is a sector in which we are world-leading, and the UK Government in Wales will continue to support it.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
My hon. Friend is quite right to mention the importance of the proposed north Wales growth deal to the aerospace industry in north Wales. Can she say when the Government are likely to make a substantive announcement about that deal?
Mims Davies
I thank my right hon. Friend for his long-standing commitment to the north Wales growth deal, and for pushing for action and progress in this area. There are some very positive movements, and we hope to make real progress. We need a further update from the Welsh Government, and there will be key meetings later this week.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Airbus employs many of my constituents in Newport and Filton. Close collaboration between the Civil Aviation Authority and the European Aviation Safety Agency is vital to this industry. What are the Government doing to safeguard that?
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the jobs and opportunities around the avionics sector in Wales. We are aware of the benefits of collaboration, and seek that as part of the overall deal. It is something that Switzerland—a non-EU member—enjoys, and we will continue to look for it as part of our overall deal.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Airbus employs a number of constituents in Eddisbury. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s commitment to striking a deal that provides for frictionless trade in this sector?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting how important this sector is in her constituency. As an assiduous constituency Member, she raises the challenges ahead, but a good deal that works to support jobs in the supply chain is absolutely the primary focus of discussions, and a pragmatic, frictionless deal is what the Government are working for.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, may I congratulate Louise Magee, general secretary of Welsh Labour, and her partner Luke Holland, who have had a beautiful baby girl, Catherine Ivy, who is to be known as Kitty? Mother and baby are doing fine, and Luke is coping well, I understand.
I welcome the Minister to her place. The Welsh Government have pledged £3 million to support Airbus in preparing for Brexit. ADS, the national trade association that represents aerospace companies, has urged the Chancellor to ensure that there is enough financial liquidity for companies such as Airbus, which rely on just-in-time European supply chains. What are the Minister’s priorities for the Welsh aerospace sector?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As I have said in my previous answers, Wales has a deep-rooted, world-leading aerospace sector, and the Government understand that. There has been cross-Government engagement with all key stakeholders to support it. Frictionless trade and supporting the sector are absolutely vital, and we are ready to work and step up to that challenge.
Christina Rees
That may well be, but the Government’s Brexit advice paper suggests that companies such as Airbus may move their headquarters to an EU member state in the event of no deal, which would be absolutely catastrophic for our Welsh economy. Does the Minister agree with her Prime Minister that no deal is better than a bad deal, as far as Wales is concerned?
Mims Davies
The UK Government in Wales are not complacent about the challenges of all scenarios. They are working extremely hard to make sure that all the opportunities are there in any deal, and are working to make sure that the sector thrives. That is vital to the Secretary of State, and to the UK Government. We will continue to stand by the Prime Minister in getting that frictionless deal.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
The UK’s exit from the European Union provides us with an opportunity to reconsider how funding for growth across the UK is designed and delivered. In our manifesto, we committed to engaging with the Welsh Government on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, and that work is under way.
Alan Brown
At the moment, the so-called opportunity of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund falls within the remit of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, a Department wholly devolved to England. It therefore does not understand the needs of the devolved nations and is bound to put the needs of England before those of the devolved nations. Does the Secretary of State agree that the devolved nations should have control?
Alun Cairns
The answer is in the title—it is the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and, therefore, joint work is taking place across Government. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, I have shown a strong interest in it, as have my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Clearly, we are keen to work together.
Martyn Day
The retention of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund at Westminster undermines the devolution of economic development. Does the Secretary of State not see that his Government’s refusal to give the fund to devolved Governments is yet another power grab?
Alun Cairns
I certainly do not accept the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s question in relation to a power grab, because the Welsh Government supported the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which demonstrates that his assertion does not stack up. On EU aid and how it has been spent in Wales, more than £4 billion has been spent over 17 years and west Wales and the valleys remains the poorest part of the United Kingdom. The development of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund is a great opportunity to reshape something that suits local communities and businesses far better and more efficiently.
Tommy Sheppard
This is a shambles. Over a year ago, the Secretary of State boasted of an efficient and responsive UK Shared Prosperity Fund, but today he admits that the Government have not even started the consultation on it. With months to go before the Brexit catastrophe, what guarantees do we have that there will be any fund fit for purpose for Wales or the other nations of the United Kingdom?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman is highly selective in his references. He fails to recognise that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to guarantee the funding for the existing programme until 2020. That gives us the opportunity to design a UK Shared Prosperity Fund with appropriate consultation with the devolved Administrations, as well as with businesses and local authorities, and we are ready for immediate discussions before the consultation.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
In the past, too much EU funding was wasted in Wales on low-impact projects that did not help to close the economic gap. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the prosperity fund will not just repeat the mistakes of the past, but will be used in high impact projects to renew the Welsh economy?
Alun Cairns
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point and obviously speaks with experience. He will remember the £38 million Technium project that built nine office spaces across Wales with the support of EU aid, six of which closed after nine years because they were unsustainable. That demonstrates the waste that was in the system: we can design a much better system for local businesses.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
This is my first ever Welsh question, and I came because I want to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) to her position and wish her well.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, which should benefit the south-west and Wales, provides us with an opportunity to break away from the complex and restrictive processes that characterise the EU structural funding scheme?
Alun Cairns
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She will recognise that the current rules on EU funding exclude some areas that should qualify because they have wards that are among the most deprived in the UK. We can design a UK fund that is more appropriate for and responsive to those local communities.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
What opportunities does the UK Shared Prosperity Fund provide for making sure that the money is spent on our priorities in all four constituent parts of our United Kingdom?
Alun Cairns
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, and he will recognise the benefits of co-operating on a cross-border basis. The UK Shared Prosperity Fund could give us an opportunity to consider how that can work imaginatively—although obviously I do not want to pre-empt any consultation.
Mr Speaker
It is always a pleasure to hear the dulcet tones of the hon. Gentleman, but I said “Owen” rather than “Nick”.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Long may it continue.
In the first spending period after Brexit, will Wales receive more money or less than it would have received under EU structural funds?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to pre-empt the Chancellor’s comprehensive spending review and Budgets that will come within that period. It is wholly inappropriate for me to respond on that basis, and much will depend on the detail of the nature of the deal we get with the European Union.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Businesses and community organisations across Wales are alarmed at how little detail has been provided about the Shared Prosperity Fund. They are doubly concerned that the consultation that has been promised by the end of this year has not even started. Will the Secretary of State at long last provide a date for this consultation and, if he cannot, may we at the very least have a date on which we can have that date?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we will consult on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund very soon. I am sure that even he will agree that the existing programme has not gained the greatest value for money, as he will also be aware that the then first Minister, Rhodri Morgan, said that it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and we are now on our third round of EU funding. There must be a better way.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mims Davies)
The valuations indicate that the amount employers pay towards the schemes will need to increase, and details will be finalised when the valuations are completed early next year. Treasury has committed to support the Welsh Government with additional funding in accordance with the statement of funding policy.
Ben Lake
The 2016 actuarial valuations will have an unprecedented impact on the constrained resources of local authorities, teaching institutions, the fire service and police forces in Wales if UK Government funding is not forthcoming. Will the Minister confirm that this funding will be forthcoming from the Treasury to the Welsh Government?
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman raises this concern on behalf of his constituents, and it is correct that some increases in costs were predicted in the 2016 Budget. We will of course apply the principles set out in the statement of funding policy in determining any additional funding for the devolved Administration, and continue to do what is right for Wales.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
On the Minister’s first outing at the Dispatch Box, will she join me in welcoming the additional funding given to the Welsh Government to fund teachers’ pay rises in Wales?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is about non-funded pension schemes, not funding pay rises. It was a nice try, and the hon. Gentleman is a cheeky chappie, but we will leave that one there and come to the other Smith, Nick Smith.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
What is the Minister going to do to protect police numbers, given these financial pressures?
Mims Davies
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have tackled the fiscal challenge that Wales has suffered with for decades. In fact, Wales now benefits from £120 for every £100 spent in England. As I said earlier, we will do what is right for Wales, as we have done in the case of teachers raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes).
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
Since 2010, Welsh exports have increased by 41%, growing faster than the UK average of 36%. There are a whole host of exporting success stories and it was a privilege to support SureChill and Hydro on the Prime Minister’s recent trade mission to Africa.
Greg Hands
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he outline what specific measures he is looking at promoting at the forthcoming UK Board of Trade meeting in Swansea to promote trade and investment in both Wales and the wider UK?
Alun Cairns
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work he did at the Department for International Trade and his contribution to the establishment of the UK Board of Trade, which is an excellent innovation. It will be in Swansea in a number of weeks, so we have a great opportunity to highlight and champion to international businesses the best that Wales can offer in terms of exports.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
The Welsh automotive sector is a real success story, but it depends on frictionless trade. What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that that continues after Brexit?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that that is a plan for and determination of our negotiations. That is exactly what we will seek to agree with the European Union. It is in the UK’s interest, it is in the European Union’s interests and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is working to that end.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of our biggest exports is tourism, and the sector deal still awaits to be made. Will he undertake to speak to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to see whether the sector deal for the UK, and Wales in particular, can be enacted?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend, with his great knowledge and interest in Wales, recognises the value of tourism to the Welsh economy, and I meet him regularly. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is responsible for delivering on the industrial strategy, but my hon. Friend is right: Lonely Planet named north Wales the fourth top place to visit in the world in its recent report. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
There are a lot of very noisy private conversations taking place, but I want to hear the mellifluous tone of Jonathan Edwards.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The latest HMRC statistics show a 7% increase in Welsh exports to the EU, worth £643 million, while non-EU exports have fallen. Is it not the reality that trade deals with the US, China and the moon will never replace lost trade with the single market and the customs union?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the export data that I highlighted—that exports from Wales have grown faster than from other parts of the United Kingdom—and I could cite a range of export opportunities in other parts of the world on which Wales is doing better than other parts of the UK. I am hugely impressed by the renewed interest in the UK by an international audience as a result of our leaving the European Union—Aston Martin, Qatar Airways and a host of others that I could cite are clear demonstrations of that.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
This Government are investing in the prison estate—replacing older prisons with high-quality, modern establishments. A new prison in Wales could create up to 500 jobs and contribute £11 million a year to the economy.
Gavin Newlands
Over one third of adults released from prison in Wales go on to reoffend. Considering that the last prison that the Ministry of Justice built in Wales cost £250 million, does the Secretary of State not think that money would be better spent on rehabilitative measures that actually help those who need them—which, alongside a presumption against short sentences, in Scotland has been shown to reduce recidivism rates considerably—rather than on another costly UK Government vanity project?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and clearly we would like the population of the prison estate to decline, but of course we also have to keep the community safe, and it is the right thing to do. We need to modernise the estate, and we would like to build a prison in south Wales.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that high-quality modern accommodation located as near to prisoners’ homes as possible is a vital part of the rehabilitation process? Will he therefore join me in welcoming this Government’s extra commitment to spending on the prison estate?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s interest and the expertise that he shows in working with the police on this basis. A new prison would create 500 new jobs. More importantly, it provides for much better outcomes for offenders, in order to help their rehabilitation and keep our communities safe.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mims Davies)
Our welfare reforms are incentivising work and supporting working families. The employment rate in Wales is at a record high, and the unemployment rate is at a record low. We will continue to take a test and learn approach, acting on feedback and improving the system as it rolls out.
Ms Rimmer
Why are this Government determined to press ahead with managed migration against the advice of more than 80 disability organisations, the Resolution Foundation and the National Audit Office that they should not do so until the major flaws in the universal credit system are sorted so that it can cope with the higher claimant volumes?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I dispute its premise. This is a personal, focused benefit, which offers us an opportunity to help people with health conditions, provide tailored support from work coaches, assist with housing costs, and give advances. We are listening and responding during the roll-out. This is a huge change in a complicated system, and we are testing and learning, but above all we are helping people.
Gerald Jones
Universal credit is a shambles. In my constituency, a homeless gentleman was told that phone claims for universal credit were not allowed, and that claims must be online only, although he has no access to IT or a computer. Vulnerability was not considered, and, ironically, the man was even offered a home visit. Will the Minister urge DWP colleagues to reconsider the online system and reintroduce phone claims?
Mims Davies
There is an opportunity to make phone claims. I would be happy to hear about that constituency case, although it is very concerning. This benefit is about ensuring that people are better off in work, and are able to respond in particular circumstances. In the Cwmbran jobcentre, positives are being fed back in terms of adjustments and simplification on the ground. If that is not happening in this gentleman’s case, will the hon. Gentleman please let me know?
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a shame that Labour Members fail to recognise the transformative effect of universal credit in lifting people out of poverty and getting them back into work? That is in stark contrast to Labour’s approach, which left people trapped on benefits for decades or more.
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend is exactly right about the myriad complex reasons for which people may struggle to get back into work. The reason may involve personal circumstances, it may involve long-term legacy benefits, it may involve skills, or, indeed, it may involve confidence. With this project of universal credit, if we continue to scare people off approaching jobcentres and making use of advice—budgeting advice, and the advice of work coaches—then we will not be listening and learning from the people whom the Labour party has left to fester on legacy benefits, and that will not help anyone.
Mr Speaker
Order. Having consulted his scholarly cranium, the Clerk advises me that, by land, Witney is closer to Wales than Torbay, and upon that basis, I call Mr Robert Courts.
Robert Courts
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I, too, welcome the Minister to her post. Does she agree that the Government’s welfare reforms show that people are better off in work, and that it is the best route out of poverty?
Mims Davies
I absolutely agree. From Witney to Torbay, people are getting into work more quickly, staying in work longer and progressing in work, which is very important. We are listening and learning. This is a huge change, but we do not need to row back. Claimants are getting into work and staying in work, and, as we know from the Prime Minister, the route out of poverty is having a job.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
It has been announced this morning that Sir Jeremy Heywood is sadly standing down as Cabinet Secretary and head of the civil service to concentrate on his recovery from ill health. Jeremy has been an exemplary public servant for more than three decades, serving with the highest distinction Prime Ministers and Ministers in all parties in the finest traditions of the civil service. As he steps down, he can look back on a contribution to public life that few in our country can match, and I am personally very grateful to him for the support that he has given me as Prime Minister since my first day in No. 10. I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering our very best wishes to Jeremy and his family.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Sweeney
Two teenage brothers from my constituency, Somer and Areeb, have lived in Glasgow since the youngest was five years old. They are now naturalised Glaswegians, but they live in constant fear of deportation to a country from which they fled in fear of their lives. Their school friends at Springburn Academy rallied to their cause by launching a petition, which has now been signed by more than 90,000 people, and which was recently presented to the Home Office by the school and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland. However, that action has been met with callous indifference.
When the Leader of the Opposition met the children in August, he was appalled by the lack of compassion shown by the Home Office towards these boys who have been kept in limbo for years. Will the Prime Minister now review the case, and meet the boys to witness at first hand what life is like at the sharp end of this Government’s hostile environment?
The Prime Minister
Every case in relation to people’s right to stay here in the United Kingdom is looked at extremely carefully, and I will certainly ensure that the Home Office looks again at this case.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I have of course been known to move to a little bit of music myself on occasions. I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this excellent new centre, and I am extremely pleased that it was opened by my constituent, Sir Michael Parkinson. My hon. Friend might know that culture is one of the key strands of the Government’s GREAT Britain campaign; that is about promoting arts from across the whole of the UK to global audiences. We like to see and support events around the country showcasing the excellent range of performing arts that we have, and I join my hon. Friend in welcoming this new jazz centre—and I note the bid he has put in once again in relation to Southend.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in thanking the former head of the civil service Jeremy Heywood for his public service and wishing him well in his recovery. I know from my conversations with him what an impressive, well informed and dedicated public servant he is, and I hope he gets through this difficult condition he is in at the present time.
The Prime Minister says that austerity is over; the Conservative leader of Walsall Council says austerity is alive and kicking. Who is right?
The Prime Minister
After a decade of austerity people need to know that their hard work has paid off and that, because of their sacrifices, there are better days ahead. We will be setting out our approach in the spending review next year. [Interruption.] What does it mean? I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what it means: it means debt going down as a share of the economy and support for public services going up. Unlike Labour, we will continue to live within our means and we will not go back to square one.
Jeremy Corbyn
This process has not been very convincing to Mike Bird, the Conservative leader of Walsall Council, who says: “Never ever believe what you hear from central government, austerity is not over.” The Prime Minister’s MPs seem to have lost confidence in her, and so have her councillors. Not far away, in Derby, the Conservative council says the financial outlook is “extremely challenging with Government austerity measures confirmed as continuing.” Will the Prime Minister try to cheer up these gloomy Tories in Derby and confirm to them that next week the Budget will cancel the planned £1.3 billion cut for local government next year?
The Prime Minister
Actually, we are making £1.3 billion more available in the next two years to councils, and I am pleased to say—[Interruption.] I am pleased to say that council tax is down in real terms since under the last Labour Government. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make statements about what should be in the Budget, perhaps we ought to look at his past predictions. He said our plans would mean 1 million people losing their jobs. What have we seen? We have seen 3.3 million more people in work. He said our plans would mean Greek levels of youth unemployment. What have we seen? Youth unemployment is at a record low. He will find out next week what is in the Budget, but there is one thing that we know for certain: Labour will still make a mess of the economy.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister did not get round to mentioning the record numbers of people on zero-hours contracts; the record levels of in-work poverty, meaning that people who are in work have to access a food bank; or the fact that wages are lower in real terms than they were eight years ago and that her Government have cut 49% from local government since 2010.
Staffordshire police have lost 500 officers. On Sunday, the chief constable, Gareth Morgan, said sorry to his police colleagues and their families as they had to cancel rest days just to maintain the service. He apologised to his officers. Will the Prime Minister apologise to the police as well?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the police and about what is available for the police. Of course, what we saw at the last election was the Labour party saying that £300 million more should be made available to the police. What we have done is make available £460 million more to the police. If he wants to talk about figures, I have a book here that is edited by the shadow Chancellor. In it, an article by an economic adviser to the Labour party says about its last manifesto that
“the numbers did not add up”—[Interruption.]
I have even got the page marked. It also said that this was “a welcome feature” and “largely irrelevant”. Well, it may be irrelevant to the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor, but it is not irrelevant to the people whose taxes go up, whose jobs are lost and whose children have to pay Labour’s debt.
Jeremy Corbyn
Only one party costed its manifesto in the last election, and it was not the Tory party.
For all that the Prime Minister says about the police, the reality is that there are 21,000 fewer police officers than there were eight years ago. She should listen to the chief constable of the West Midlands, who says that criminals are taking advantage of these cuts. He says:
“We are struggling to deliver a service to the public. I think the criminals are well aware now how stretched we are.”
Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House that people on universal credit “will be protected”. The very next day, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that, on universal credit,
“some people will be worse off.”
Which statement is true?
The Prime Minister
I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I made clear to the House: those people who are moved through the managed migration process on to universal credit will indeed have, I think, around £3 billion of transitional protection. Let me just tell him what happens under universal credit—
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
No, no, no. Answer the question!
The Prime Minister
The shadow Foreign Secretary says “No, no, no.” Labour Members do not want to know what happens in terms of universal credit: 200,000 more people into work, 700,000 people getting the extra money they are entitled to and 1 million disabled households getting more money per month. We are not replicating the old system, because the old system did not work. This is a system that helps people into work and makes sure work pays.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister is completely out of touch with the reality of what universal credit is about: £50 per week worse off; weeks waiting for the first payment when people move on to universal credit; people going into debt and losing their homes; and people who are stressed out beyond belief because they cannot make ends meet and have to access a food bank just to feed their children. That is the reality of universal credit.
Eight years of Tory austerity means that there are 40,000 nurse vacancies in the NHS. The number of students applying for nurse training has fallen by over 16,000 since the cut in the nurse bursary. The Prime Minister told us that austerity was over. Will the Government take the necessary step next week in the Budget of restoring the nurse bursary so that those who want to become nurses in our NHS can realise their ambitions?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the wait that people experience in order to get their first universal credit payment. We announced in last year’s Budget that we were reducing the period of time that people had to wait for their first payment, and what did the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party do? They voted against that change.
The right hon. Gentleman said that if austerity is ending, we should be doing more for the national health service. May I remind him that this Government have announced that we will be putting £394 million a week more into the national health service? At the last election, Labour said that, with 2.2% more money going in each year, the NHS would be the envy of the world. I can tell the House that we are not putting 2.2% in. We are not putting 2.5% in and we are not putting 3% in. We are putting an extra 3.4% in, with a long-term plan that will deliver for people up and down this country.
Jeremy Corbyn
Applications for nurse training dropped by 12% in September—that is the reality of taking away the nurse bursary. Those who want to become nurses cannot afford to go into debt in order to do a job that they want to do and that we all need them to do.
This Government are simply not being straight with the public. They promised an end to austerity; they cannot even fool their own councillors. They promised the NHS an extra £20 billion, but we do not know where it is coming from or when it is coming. GP numbers are falling, health visitor numbers are falling and nurse numbers are falling. They promised that universal credit would protect everyone, but the Work and Pensions Secretary let the cat out of the bag, saying that
“people will be worse off”.
The Prime Minister claimed that she is ending austerity, so will she confirm that next week’s Budget will mean more police on our streets and more nurses in our hospitals, and that elderly people in desperate need of care will not go ignored and forgotten by her Government?
The Prime Minister
What have we seen under this Government? We have seen more money being made available to the police, more money for the health service, more money for social care, more money going into local authorities, and more money going into our schools. At the end of this Parliament, we will be spending £500 million more in real terms on people of working age and children in our welfare system.
Let us look at what we now know about the Labour party’s alternative. We now see, as reported by a respected academic, that Labour’s plans, by its own admission, would cost £1,000 billion. That is the equivalent of £35,000 for every household in this country. We know what that would mean: higher debt; higher taxes; fewer jobs—Labour just taking us back to square one.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. It is absolutely vital that such children have the right combination of education, health and care provision to ensure that they have the support that is right for them and that they are able to reach their full potential, just like other children. Our reforms to both SEN provision and disability assistance are key to that. However, my hon. Friend’s question was about research, and the increasing complexity is an important matter. I am pleased to say that the Department for Education has several research projects under way in fields relating to such children and young people, and we are committed to building up a rich body of evidence on both identification and the outcomes of educational experiences. The Department is also scoping new work that will help to lead to our understanding of such issues so that we can ensure that these children get the support that they need.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
The kidnapping, killing and mutilation of the respected Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi has rightly shocked the world. The killing has all the hallmarks of being a premeditated murder. Angela Merkel has announced that her Government will no longer approve new arms sales exports to the Saudi kingdom—that is moral leadership. The UK Government must take decisive action; words of condemnation will not do. Will the Prime Minister finally commit to ending the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia?
The Prime Minister
It might be helpful if I take this opportunity to update the House on this particular issue. As I told the House on Monday, we condemn the killing of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the strongest possible terms. After his disappearance, we made it clear that Saudi Arabia must co-operate with Turkey and conduct a full and credible investigation. The claim that Mr Khashoggi died in a fight does not amount to a credible explanation, so there remains an urgent need to establish exactly what happened.
The Foreign Secretary, other Foreign Ministers and our ambassador have been making our position very clear to the Saudi Arabians, and I expect to speak to King Salman later today. I can tell the House that no Minister or official is attending the investment conference in Saudi Arabia, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking action against all suspects to prevent them from entering the UK. If these individuals currently have visas, those visas will be revoked today.
Ian Blackford
I am afraid that the Prime Minister said nothing about arms sales. Condemnation will not do; it is action that is required.
The Saudi Arabian regime is responsible for multiple human rights violations: critics face death by crucifixion; teenagers are tortured; and women are imprisoned for campaigning for their human rights. The brutal bombardment of Yemen is pushing that country to the brink of famine, and now we have the state-sponsored murder of Jamal Khashoggi. What more evidence of criminality does the Prime Minister need before she fully commits to ending the sale of arms to the brutal regime in Saudi Arabia?
The Prime Minister
We are concerned about the humanitarian issues in Yemen. We are actually the third largest humanitarian donor to Yemen, where we have provided significant support to millions of men, women and children. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, yes, we do support the Saudi-led coalition’s military intervention in Yemen, which has been recognised by the United Nations Security Council and came at the request of the legitimate President Hadi.
On defence exports, the procedures we follow are among the strictest in the world. They were introduced in 2000 by the late Robin Cook, and they were updated in 2014 by the Conservative-led coalition Government to reflect our obligations under the arms trade treaty. A licence will not be issued to Saudi Arabia or any other destination if to do so would be inconsistent with any provision of the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. In July 2017 the High Court ruled that our sales to Saudi Arabia were compliant with those regulations, but of course we keep things under review.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A lot of Members are still waiting to contribute, and we must try to accommodate them.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about this Government’s record. I congratulate him on the work he has done and pay tribute to his work with the charity HaVinG—Having a Voice in Gloucester—alongside Bishop Rachel. The charity is doing important work in Gloucester.
My hon. Friend is right that, overall, we see employment at a near record high, youth unemployment at a new record low and real wages rising. That is the benefit of a Conservative Government taking a balanced approach to our economy. The one thing we do know is that the Labour party would undo all that good and leave our economy in a mess once again.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
We have heard quite a bit about the dog situation, but I think we are going to hear more.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had not looked at the detail of the Select Committee report on that particular issue, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Secretary of State is a keen dog owner, as indeed is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is sitting next to me, and that the Secretary of State will be looking at this issue very carefully.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the lobbying he has carried out, and I am sure that the Chancellor heard what he said. Of course, as ever, everybody will have to wait until the Budget is delivered to find out what is in it. My hon. Friend and my Conservative colleagues from Scotland mounted a robust campaign on Scotch whisky duty last year, and we were pleased to be able to take the stance that we did on the duty, because we recognise the importance of Scotch whisky to the UK. I have to say that 2017 was a record-breaking year, and that in the first half of 2018, Scotch whisky exports increased further to nearly £2 billion. This is an important industry.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The reality is far different from the situation the hon. Gentleman has suggested. There is no travel ban. We remain open to business and to people from around the world, and we will continue to be so under the new immigration system—a skills-based immigration system—that we will be introducing when we leave the EU.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a very important subject. It is right that we are making these proposals on gender reform, but of course this is a very sensitive issue and we have to make sure that any changes take into account their potential impact on women. I am very sorry to hear of the experience of the individual whom he mentioned.
In the run-up to the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act and during it, officials met more than 90 different groups, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender groups, women’s groups, refuges and domestic abuse charities, but this is an important and sensitive issue, and we want voters to be heard. May I suggest to my hon. Friend that I will ask a Minister from the Government Equalities Office, which leads on this issue, to meet him and the individual concerned to hear directly about their experience?
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady will understand that I cannot comment on a particular case that is currently before the courts. What I will say, and what I have said previously, is that sexual harassment in the workplace is against the law and such abhorrent behaviour should not be tolerated. An employer that allows the harassment of women to go undealt with is sending a message about how welcome they are and about their value in the workplace. Just as we will not accept any behaviour that causes people to feel intimidated or humiliated in the workplace, there must be consequences for failing to comply with the law. Non-disclosure agreements cannot stop people from whistleblowing, but it is clear that some employers are using them unethically. The Government are going to introduce for consideration and consultation measures to seek to improve the regulation around non-disclosure agreements and to make it absolutely explicit to employees when a non-disclosure agreement does not apply or cannot be enforced.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
Currently, if someone pays a mortgage, their mortgage payments every month help them to build up their credit history, but if someone pays rent every month, that does not happen, which just is not fair. We can fix this situation for 15 million renters. The Creditworthiness Assessment Bill could help to give millions more renters throughout the country affordable credit, including mortgages, so that we can all get on in life. Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of next week’s Budget to look at whether the Government could support this Bill, which has cross-party support and has already passed through the Lords unamended?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. As she will be aware, I cannot say what will be in the Budget next week, but she will have noticed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was here to hear her point.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We are working in the national interest and we are working for a good deal with the European Union that will ensure that across all industries that are important to this country, including that of members of the Scotch Whisky Association, we can continue to trade with not only the EU but other countries around the world on good terms that will enhance that industry which, as the hon. Lady says, is important for her constituency. We are working for a good deal for the whole United Kingdom once we are outside the European Union.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Given that the new generation of diesel engines are much cleaner and are comparable with petrol engines, will the Prime Minister use her good offices to help to adjust vehicle excise duty rates, which are having the perverse effect of encouraging people to hang on to their older, more-polluting diesel cars and causing job losses due to falling sales in the car industry?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this issue. I think that she was making a Budget bid; as she will know, and as I have said in previous answers, the Budget will be announced last week. Nevertheless, this is an important issue because we saw demand for new diesel cars fall by 17% in 2017. That decline is in line with the trend in other major European car markets—demand fell by 13% in Germany, for example. It is because of the health impacts of nitrogen oxides that we see these changing patterns and that it has been important to take action. We want to ensure that manufacturers come forward with cleaner cars as soon as possible.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady particularly referenced sexual abuse crimes and other crimes of that sort. We have seen an increase in the number of crimes being reported, but that is partly because we now have an atmosphere where people are more willing and ready to come forward and report these crimes. She refers to pensions; this issue has been known about for some years.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
There have been reports today that the Government are willing to agree that the European Court of Justice would be the final arbiter in most cases arising from Brexit. As this would be inconsistent with the Prime Minister’s previous commitments, will she authoritatively deny it?
The Prime Minister
I see quite a few reports and claims about what is happening in relation to Brexit, but I have not seen those particular reports. If they are as my hon. Friend has suggested, they are wrong. We have been very clear, in the work that we have been doing, about ensuring that the European Court of Justice will not have jurisdiction in the UK in the future.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The position is not as the hon. Lady has set out in her question. In fact, we see women with greater opportunities today. For example, there are more women in the workplace. Crucially, action is being taken as a result of the work that we have been doing on the gender pay gap and the requirement on companies to report on gender pay, and the pay gap has been coming down over the years. I absolutely take seriously the issue of sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace. It is very important that anybody in any workplace is treated—and feels that they are being treated—with respect and dignity, and that action is taken to ensure that we eradicate sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that when veterans have already been investigated by both military and civilian authorities, they should never be hounded and pursued unless there is overwhelming new evidence? I thank the Prime Minister for her personal engagement on this issue, but does she agree that what is happening to numerous Northern Ireland veterans is against natural justice, damaging to recruitment and contrary to the military covenant?
The Prime Minister
We owe a vast debt of gratitude to the heroism and bravery of the soldiers and police officers who upheld the rule of law and were themselves accountable to it—something that will always set them apart from and above the terrorists who, during the troubles in Northern Ireland, were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of members of the security forces. The current system in Northern Ireland is flawed. It is not working. It is not working for soldiers, for police officers or for victims; and, of course, that group of victims also includes many soldiers and police officers. Although a number of terrorist murders from the troubles are actively under investigation by the Police Service of Northern Ireland and other police forces, I am clear that there is a disproportionate focus on former members of the armed forces and the police under the current mechanisms for investigating the past. We are committed to ensuring that all outstanding deaths in Northern Ireland should be investigated in a way that is fair, balanced and proportionate.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
What I said about the Budget was that I was not going to tell the House today; hon. Members will have to wait until Monday.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will remember visiting the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre at Stanford Hall, which sits between the constituency of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my constituency of Loughborough. The Prime Minister knows that the “N” relies on the NHS being able to work with and benefit from the rehabilitation of those brave members of the armed forces she has just spoken about. What we really need now is my right hon. Friend to bring together people in national Government with local NHS commissioners to get the final decisions made so that we can ensure that we have this world-class facility to benefit people in need of rehabilitation. I will not be going there myself, but I can see that repairing injured legs is very important.
The Prime Minister
First, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to the courage and dedication of our armed forces. For the vast majority, their experience of serving is positive. Of course, we do see those members of our armed forces who sadly do suffer injuries that are life-changing. The rehabilitation capacity and capability that has been built up at Headley Court and that is now being put forward in the new Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre is very important. It was incredible to actually meet people who had been through that rehabilitation and see the massive change it had made to their lives.
This could be a huge benefit to the national health service as well. I thank my right hon. Friend for highlighting this issue. The question of national health service patients being able to use this centre is an important aspect. Everybody’s aim is to be able to ensure that that can happen. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is currently reviewing the proposal for NHS patients to benefit from this legacy of expertise in the new centre.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Does the Prime Minister not accept that the very sensible objectives of universal credit, to simplify benefits and improve work incentives, were seriously undermined by the 2015 Budget of her friend, the former Chancellor, who slashed the work allowance, and that that, together with administrative rigidity, is now causing enormous hardship for families and single parents? So will she listen to the charities and her own Back Benchers who are urging her to pause the roll-out until these deficiencies are remedied?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman rightly makes the point that the universal credit system introduces a system that is simpler, with a single benefit and a single claim, rather than something like the six claims that people might have been making. It is also a benefit that encourages and works with people to help them into the workplace, and a benefit that ensures that, as they earn more, they keep more. This is a benefit that is good for people, as we see from the extra numbers in work in receipt of universal credit and from the fact that, for people who go on to universal credit, the evidence is that they then go on to earn more in the workplace. Encouraging people into work; making sure that work pays; a simpler system: those are the benefits of universal credit.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
As a children’s doctor, I have seen how some young people with life-threatening conditions, and their families, can struggle to receive the care and support they need, particularly respite care and out-of-hours community care. I would therefore like to draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the report by the all-party parliamentary group on children who need palliative care, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). May I ask my right hon. Friend to take a personal interest in this report so that we can work together to ensure that our most vulnerable children, and their families, get the support that they need?
The Prime Minister
This is an important issue, and obviously my hon. Friend, with her particular experience, is well aware of it in a sense that many of us will not be. I thank her, first, for the work that she undertakes as the co-chair of the APPG on children who need palliative care. Of course, I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with those parents who find themselves in this situation. We have made a commitment to everyone at the end of life, including children, setting out the actions we are taking to make high quality and personalisation a reality for all and to end the variation in end-of-life care. This covers a whole range of aspects, including practical and emotional support, because that is an important aspect of good end-of-life care. That is set out, of course, in our end-of-life commitment and our ambitions for the palliative care framework. But it can be difficult for some commissioners to develop suitable care models for children. That is why, I understand, NHS England is convening an expert group to develop commissioning models that are suitable for this particularly vulnerable group of patients and ensure they get the support and care they need.
Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)
Can the Prime Minister assure the hundreds of my constituents in Warrington South who have been trapped in their homes by spiralling ground rents that the Government’s commitment to crack down on unfair leasehold practices will be fulfilled and that the Government will restrict some ground rents to zero, as promised by the former Housing Minister less than a year ago?
The Prime Minister
We are indeed following up on our commitments in that area.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The whole House should welcome the commitment to another £20 billion for the NHS. Does the Prime Minister agree that is it vital that the NHS produces a plan to use that money wisely and to strengthen frontline care, including expanding GP services for my constituents in Chipping Barnet?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the biggest cash boost that the NHS will have received in its history. It is important that this money is used carefully and properly, to ensure that care for patients is improved. That is one of the principles that we have set out for the 10-year plan that the NHS is working on at the moment, and I am sure the NHS will be looking carefully at the GP services in her constituency.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will want to send their best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), who is recovering from a recent operation. In his absence, and with his blessing, we will proceed with the Third Reading of his Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill this Friday. It is a Bill that will save lives and give hope to many. The Prime Minister previously has been very supportive, as has the Leader of the Opposition. Will she today reconfirm her support for this important Bill on Friday?
The Prime Minister
First, may I join the hon. Gentleman and other Members of the House in wishing the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) the very best? We do indeed continue to support the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is very important, and it will save lives.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I join my right hon. Friend in her praise of and best wishes to the retiring Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood? He not only served many Governments, but appeared in front of many Select Committees, including my own, and was as popular among Members of Parliament as he was among his colleagues. He will be missed.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right. As I said, Sir Jeremy has been for more than three decades an exemplary civil servant. His public service is second to none, and I am sure that he enjoyed the opportunity to appear before my hon. Friend’s Committee.
Mr Speaker
Oh, I imagine it was probably the height of his enjoyments. Who could possibly have thought otherwise? We are grateful to the Prime Minister for what she said.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
Given the £1.2 million-worth of cuts per year since 2014 to children’s services in my constituency, does the Prime Minister believe we have adequate resources for special educational needs and disabilities in Peterborough?
The Prime Minister
We treat the issue of children’s services very carefully, because all children, no matter where they live, should have access to high-quality care. Spending on the most vulnerable children has increased by over £1 billion since 2010, but of course, this is not simply about money; it is about how councils deliver good and excellent services. We need to ensure that everybody is delivering according to best practice. That is why we are improving social work training and spreading innovation and best practice, and where councils are not delivering the standard of service we expect, we will intervene to make sure they improve.
Point of Order
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am extremely grateful to you for accepting this point of order.
It is entirely correct that Members of both Houses engage in robust political debate around the parliamentary estate, but today we have learned that the violent, racist thug and fraudster known as Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, or Tommy Robinson, was invited on to the estate and wined and dined in the House of Lords yesterday. I understand that sometimes we have to engage with views that we might not agree with, but surely a man who is as guilty as he is of stirring up racial hatred, organising violent, thuggish crimes around the country, setting up the English Defence League and everything that comes with it crosses a line, and such a person should not be invited to walk among us on the parliamentary estate. Can you advise me and other Members whether that is in order, and will you take it up with your counterpart in the House of Lords?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which—I make no complaint about this—I have had no advance notice, so I am reacting on my feet and I am perfectly content to do so. What I have to say to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, I share his assessment of the individual concerned: a loathsome, obnoxious, repellent individual. I make no bones about my view being the same as his on that front.
Secondly, and this is the procedurally significant point, the question of who might be invited to dine in the other place is outside my remit. I always appreciate the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman for extending my reach and scope. I am very grateful to him for thinking in those terms. However, this is a matter for the other place, so when the hon. Gentleman asks me for my advice, my advice to him is that, if he wishes to pursue the matter, he should in the first instance—as a matter of both courtesy and practicality—write to the Lord Speaker to register his views, perhaps enclosing the relevant extract from today’s Official Report. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
Housing Reform
Wednesday 24th October 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Housing Reform Bill 2017-19 View all Housing Reform Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to housing; to make provision about housing space and thermal performance standards; to place a duty on the Secretary of State to require the provision of serviced plots of land; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased to introduce the Housing Reform Bill, which will improve space standards, increase the minimum thermal performance of new homes and require the Secretary of State to provide serviced plots of land at scale to offer real choice to anyone who wishes to get their own place to live, whether through a housing association, a housing co-operative, a council house—to that end, the Minister may have noticed the article by Lord Porter in The Guardian the other day—or for private purchase. I declare my interest as an ambassador for the Right to Build Task Force, which is supported by the Nationwide Foundation, the charitable arm of the Nationwide building society.
The Prime Minister has said that housing is the Government’s top priority domestically. True, there have been four Housing Ministers in the past year or so, which does not make it sound like the Government’s top domestic priority, but after all there have been eight Housing Ministers in the past eight years and 17 Housing Ministers in the past 17 years. No recent Government have really taken housing seriously enough, although there are encouraging signs with the new Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I will come on to him later; I am delighted to see him in his place.
The planning system should be about making great places to live that are well designed and well built; well connected; well served with schools, health, community and sports facilities; environmentally sensitive, where green is normal; part of a thriving economy with local jobs; and active, inclusive and safe—that is to say, fair for everyone. In other words, we should separate the business of place making from the business of home building, which, so long as it is done to the required standards, can be built by anyone, including—increasingly, and often to higher standards—in an off-site factory.
Instead of that, we have a system that is broken. According to the National Audit Office, 74% of the Government’s housing budget goes on housing benefit, which is 3% of all public expenditure. Some 86% of people would like to own their own home but, despite this, home ownership is falling. There has been a surge in the number of people privately renting, particularly families with young children, not because they want to, but because they have no choice.
Dr Julie Rugg of the University of York’s Centre for Housing Policy, who has done excellent research in this area, points out that in most cases the private rented sector is now a proxy either for people who wish to buy but cannot afford to do so, or for people who need to be in social housing. We have scarcely considered the long-term consequences for pension provision and affordability of people not owning their own homes, if more people are paying rent until they die. Meanwhile, we have two nations developing: one nation of those people who are invited to landlord evenings by estate agents and who in some cases already own several buy-to-let properties; and another entirely separate nation of those who cannot afford somewhere to live at all, either to rent or to buy. Home ownership among young adults has collapsed, falling to just 27% in 2016 from 65% 20 years ago.
We have a system that maximises opposition. I have yet to meet the grandmother whose daughter has just had a second baby who does not want her daughter’s family to have a good home. However, the reason there is so much opposition to new housing is that most people feel they have no real say over what gets built; where it gets built; how it performs—its thermal performance; what it looks like; crucially, who has the first chance to live there; and what the benefits of the new housing will be for the existing community. If we change all of that, we change the conversation.
We need a system where there is not a prolonged argument that prevents houses from being built quickly. At present, a very small number of very large companies build houses when, and only when, it is sufficiently profitable to do so. I do not blame them for that—they are doing their duty by their shareholders—but there are no real alternatives at scale for consumers who wish to buy something else. We have to tackle the root causes of the lack of supply. Some 67% of people are unlikely to, or would prefer not to, buy the product of volume house builders. That figure is based on research by the trade body for volume house builders, the Home Builders Federation.
The normal essentials for any vaguely competitive market to operate properly—first, real variety and choice for consumers; and, secondly, low barriers to entry for new suppliers—are wholly absent. My Bill will fix this by doing three things. First, it will improve minimum space standards. The large volume house builders are making houses that are ever more like shoe boxes, and they need to be stopped. When the 1961 report by Sir Parker Morris, “Homes for today & tomorrow”, was published, it ushered in a brief period when a decent amount of space was considered normal. The 1970s are blamed for many lapses of taste, but at least one thing that went well—so well that it is now regarded almost as a halcyon period in this respect—was that houses started to get bigger. Now they are getting smaller again.
Volume house builders routinely construct what are little more than shoe boxes, even commissioning extra-small furniture for show homes to create an optical illusion, whereby rooms in a house seem larger than they actually are, to deceive their customers. We need nationally enforced minimum standards, rather than the set of rather ad hoc arrangements we have at present. There is clear evidence that people in larger spaces are healthier, which reduces the burden on the NHS.
We also need better lifetime adaptability not as an add-on by the rare more thoughtful developers, but as standard, so that houses can easily be made suitable for young families, older people or individuals with a temporary or permanent physical impairment. In this context, I am looking forward to the launch later today by the all-party group on healthy homes and buildings of its report, “Laying the Foundations for Healthy Homes and Buildings”. The chairman of the group, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is one of the sponsors of my Bill.
Secondly, my Bill will raise the minimum thermal performance standard that new-build residential property must achieve. We have known for decades how to build a house that costs nothing to heat, but the main house builders just do not do it. The main capital cost may be slightly higher in the short term, although even that is not necessarily true, but the long-term higher costs of poor-quality housing and higher heating bills are borne the most by those who can least afford to do so, and there is also the excessive and wholly unnecessary extra burden on our planet.
It is possible to produce homes that cost a few pounds per month for heat and hot water. I recently saw one at Graven Hill in Oxfordshire, and I know that the Minister, although he has not been in office for very long, has already visited Graven Hill, which is the site of the biggest self-build and custom house building development in the UK, where eventually 1,900 serviced plots will have been built on. I saw a house where, with mechanical ventilation and heat recovery, someone can have heat and hot water for £125 a year.
Thirdly, my Bill will require the Secretary of State to provide or to ensure the provision of serviced plots of land at scale—that is to say, plots of land where the difficult parts, such as the connections for water, gas, electricity and broadband, are already done. On the continent it is quite normal to go to one’s local authority and buy a serviced plot of land. One can be produced for £12,000 to £15,000, plus the land cost. The Right to Build Task Force is working with willing local authorities across the country to make it more normal here, but we could go much further.
Recently, the city of The Hague in the Netherlands has provided serviced plots that can be purchased for €40,000, and a house can then be built for about €120,000 or £105,000. If somebody cannot afford to buy the plot, they can rent it and buy it later. Another innovative scheme in the Netherlands, known as “Ik bouw betaalbaar”—“I build affordable”—takes people on limited incomes who are on the housing register and helps them to bring forward their own affordable scheme to their own design. Lord Porter referred to that in the article in The Guardian the other day. I propose a system where such plots could be obtained by anyone from a housing association or a local council to a private individual or a housing co-operative. Simple rules would prevent volume house builders or other developers from buying large numbers of plots and would also prevent flipping.
We have sites with serviced plots, but not enough of them. It should become a normal choice. In the past 20 years, the ratio of average house prices to average incomes has doubled from three-and-a-half times average income to 7.7 times average income. In the 1980s and until the late ‘90s, the average 30-year-old could afford a deposit for a home if he or she saved for three or four years; now, they would have to save for nearly 20 years. The system is broken. We need a radical change of approach, and to succeed we must engage the energy of our people.
I know that there are people who say that this cannot be done, or, if it can be done, that it can be done only on a small scale in certain limited sites. It is certainly true that it works for small sites, but those people who do not believe that it can be done on a large scale are wrong, and the reason why I know they are wrong is that I have seen it being done; it is just not being done here in the United Kingdom. We will not succeed without muscular help from Government and without engaging the energy of our own people. To those people who think that the energy of our own people is insufficient, I simply join Rod Hackney, the architect, in saying that it is a dangerous thing to underestimate human potential and the energy that can be generated when people are given the opportunity to help themselves. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Richard Bacon, George Freeman, Jeremy Lefroy, Hilary Benn, Siobhain McDonagh, Mr Simon Clarke, Sir Vince Cable, Eddie Hughes, Mr Clive Betts, Jim Shannon, Sir Robert Syms and Sir Graham Brady present the Bill
Mr Richard Bacon accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed (Bill 277).
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill (Business of the House)
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I should inform the House that an amendment has been put to me, and I am calling the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) to speak to and move her manuscript amendment.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move a manuscript amendment, in line 43, paragraph (6), after sub-paragraph (b) at end insert—
“(ba) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision.”
There is much talk right now in this Chamber, and indeed in our country, about what a meaningful vote is. I wager that a meaningful vote is one that people can vote on—a very simple line. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and I have tabled this amendment to today’s programme motion because we are concerned about the programme motion. Let us be clear: we understand that this is considered emergency legislation. We have no desire to delay this important legislation as it passes through the House, but because it is emergency legislation it is all the more important that, where there are concerns about what it may concern, or may include, or may not include, the House is able to take a view and Members are able to decide. Therefore, to see the programme motion today and discover that a crucial element of it—one that is in most other Bills—is missing is a concern to us. It is the part that allows the Chair of proceedings the right to select any amendment, new clause, or new schedule for a vote. To remove that section of a programme motion and not to inform the Opposition of that is a concern to us because it recognises that there may be issues on which Members have a strong view, but, by dint of the programme motion, not by the consent of the House ahead of the time, they would not get a say on them.
I am sure that the error is in overlooking the matter rather than a deliberate intent by the Whips to deny a debate. Therefore, my hon. Friend and I wish to be extremely helpful, which is why we have tabled a manuscript amendment to restore that section of the programme motion, which allows the Speaker and the Chair, at their discretion, to select any amendment, new clause, or new schedule for a meaningful vote on this legislation.
I say to everyone in this House that, whatever they think of the amendments tabled for today, to cross this Rubicon and decide that there are some matters on which the House should not be paramount is a dangerous move to make. I also say that the people of Northern Ireland, who have already seen so much democratic dysfunction, deserve better from this House.
Stella Creasy
I will happily quickly give way to the hon. Lady, but I know that the House wants to get on and have its say about this process.
Heidi Allen
I will be very swift indeed. I just want to say to the hon. Lady that there are many colleagues on the Conservative Benches who are absolutely with her on this, and that this item should be voted on.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Lady, because I know that she, like me, believes that the democratic process must be open and transparent, no matter how difficult the conversation and the issues at hand may be.
I hope that all the House will agree that it is right to stick to the kinds of programme motions that we have all come to know and love. With that, I move this manuscript amendment.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The point is that we should do things properly. It is an established principle in this House, and in this Parliament, that we normally have three Readings, a Committee stage, and Report, with gaps in between, so that people can consider matters properly. The only time that we suspend that is for emergency legislation. In all honesty, I do not see why this is emergency legislation. By definition, it is only emergency legislation normally when there is no controversy; there is clearly substantial controversy here, which is why we should have a proper Business of the House motion to allow us to consider amendments that have not been tabled by Ministers.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has just said. His reference to a proper Business of the House motion is the view that he has volunteered, but I say this as much for the benefit of people attending to our proceedings and in the name of their intelligibility as for any other reason that it is precisely because I judged that this matter should be capable of amendment, even at the last minute, that I selected the manuscript amendment, so I know perfectly well how to operate in these matters. I am very glad that we are in agreement on that—[Interruption.] No, no, I appreciate that. The hon. Gentleman does not need to be touchy about it. I was merely claiming credit for selecting the amendment.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I take the point that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has made in putting forward her manuscript amendment, but surely it is the case that when we are dealing with this type of procedure—emergency legislation that is fast tracked—this procedure is not normally included. The Speaker does not normally have this discretion in a fast-track motion procedure. As I understand it, it is not a question that the Government are trying to mislead anyone; they are just following what is the normal procedure for this type of legislation. Therefore, it is unfortunate that some are suggesting that, somehow, this is a fast move on the part of Government or anyone else. I note that, on previous occasions when Northern Ireland legislation has been dealt with by this procedure, we heard nothing from the Opposition; we heard nothing from the hon. Lady about the need for some of our amendments, for example, to be pushed to a vote. It is worth putting it on record that this is the normal procedure; it is the way that the House deals with fast-track legislation.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that I would in any sense put myself forward as the arbiter of normality; I am not sure that that is my role. I am simply the person who guarantees or underscores order. Nor is it really for me—I am not suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman says that it is—to offer my understanding of the Government’s interpretation of these matters. If the Secretary of State wishes to explain her reasoning, and give an exegesis, she is welcome to, but she is not under any obligation to do so.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
The motion is exactly the same as the programme motion tabled to the Budget Bill earlier this year. It is the standard programme motion used for this kind of emergency legislation. The Government are not at all trying to do anything underhand.
Mr Speaker
This is, of course, a Business of the House motion, rather than a programme motion, but I think I know at what the Secretary of State is getting.
Amendment agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill:
Timetable
(1)(a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3)(a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(5) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill—
(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill),
(b) the Bill is amended to remove any provisions which are not agreed to by the House and the Legislative Grand Committee, and
(c) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill,
the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(ba) the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (17)(a) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(c) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(10)(a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(12)(a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(14) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
(16) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(17)(a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(18)(a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(19) No debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.
(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(21) No private business may be considered at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill
Wednesday 24th October 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Manuscript Amendment to the Business of the House Motion (PDF) - (24 Oct 2018)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I inform the House that the noble Lord Caine, who will be well known to many Members of this House, cannot be with us because, sadly, his father passed away this morning. I am sure that we will all join together in sending our condolences to him and his family. We send him, and his mother in particular, our very best wishes. [Interruption.] Lord Caine.
Karen Bradley
Yes, Jonathan to you, Mr Speaker, I am sure.
I begin by inviting the House to join me in remembering those who lost their lives in the horrific Shankill Road bombing, the Greysteel massacre and the series of attacks that followed. These atrocities took place 25 years ago, but their effects are still felt by those who lost loved ones and by the dozens of people injured. Those who lost their lives will never be forgotten. People from across the community in Northern Ireland suffered in those dark days, and we must not forget that suffering.
When the people of Northern Ireland voted, by a huge majority, in favour of the Belfast agreement, they voted for a shared future in which no one would have to experience the suffering and loss that took place during the troubles. None of us in this House should forget, or underestimate, what was lost before the Belfast agreement, or what has been achieved since.
The Government remain completely and unequivocally committed to the Belfast agreement, not just because of what it stands for, but for what it has delivered for the people of Northern Ireland. At the heart of that agreement is a devolved power-sharing executive Government, and restoring that Executive remains my top priority. Northern Ireland needs devolved government. It needs all the functioning political institutions of the Belfast agreement and its successors. The only sustainable way forward lies in stable, fully functioning and inclusive devolved government. As Secretary of State, achieving this aim is my absolute priority.
The Bill delivers on a number of commitments that I set out in my last statement to the House on 6 September. It is an important step towards our goal of restoring the devolved power-sharing Executive and Assembly. It seeks to provide for a fixed period in which an Executive can be formed at any time. It provides the space and time for this Government to continue our engagement with the political parties in Northern Ireland, and with the Irish Government where appropriate, so that we can renew the talks process, with the shared aim of restoring devolved government at the earliest possibility. The Bill also provides the Northern Ireland Departments with the certainty and clarity they need to continue to deliver public services during this fixed period.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government’s purpose in bringing forward the Bill is limited to ensuring that administrative functions in Northern Ireland continue efficiently, and that it is not about deciding on key devolved policy issues, which are more properly decided on by the people of Northern Ireland and their elected, accountable representatives?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend sums up very well the intent of the Bill. It will enable civil servants to continue to run public services; it will not make them law makers. They will not have the power to change policy decisions, but they will have the ability to continue to make decisions. That is why the Bill is a matter for urgent debate, and why it is emergency legislation. Without the Bill, there would be a danger of essential public services in Northern Ireland not being delivered. That is why the Government have brought it forward.
The Bill does not give civil servants any new powers; rather, it gives clarity on the exercise of their existing powers in the absence of Ministers. It will be underpinned by supporting guidance that provides a framework for decision making for Northern Ireland Departments when a judgment is being made on whether those existing powers should be used in the absence of Ministers.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
As the Secretary of State is well aware, the date of 26 March 2019 appears in clause 1. I am sure people are intrigued to know why that date—three days before we Brexit—was chosen.
An agreement would have to be reached by the Democratic Unionist party, whose Members are here, properly take their seats in Parliament, and work assiduously on behalf of their constituents, and Sinn Féin MPs, who absent themselves and do not take their seats. Will an agreement between Sinn Féin absentee MPs and the DUP have to be arrived at by 26 March next year?
Karen Bradley
I will—[Interruption.] I am not having a good day, am I? [Interruption.] I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound); he is such a gentleman, as I am sure we all agree. [Interruption.] Better still, he is ensuring that I do not waste any water.
The date in the Bill was chosen after consultation with all the main parties in Northern Ireland. It is not easy to determine the most appropriate date, but we have chosen the date that we believe gives the best chance for an Executive to be formed, and for meaningful talks to take place.
Lady Hermon
That is very helpful indeed. In fact, it is very succinct, and leaves a lot to the imagination. Will the Secretary of State give just one past example of the DUP or Sinn Féin having met a deadline for political talks?
Karen Bradley
I do not see this as a deadline as such; I see it as a date by which a decision will have to be taken on whether an election is called. The hon. Lady will be aware that the date is around the time when purdah starts for local elections. She will know very well that there are local elections in Northern Ireland next May. The date was chosen with that in mind, because clearly once a local election campaign starts, political parties focus on campaigning. She will know that we have had stable devolved government in Northern Ireland, but for most of the last 10 years, we have had a hiatus; that is far too long, and that is not right for the people of Northern Ireland. It is not what they deserve. I am trying to put in place, through the Bill, the best conditions to allow those talks to recommence, and to enable us to get an Executive in place. The date was chosen after consultation with all the main parties and the civil service of Northern Ireland.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has made several references in her speech so far to the political hiatus. Does she agree that the reason we do not have a functioning Executive and Assembly is that out of the five political parties in Northern Ireland eligible to be in the Executive, four—the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party, the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party—have all said that if the Secretary of State convenes a meeting of the Assembly for the purpose of appointing Ministers, they will be there and will appoint their Ministers immediately and without precondition, but one party, Sinn Fein, has declined to give such an undertaking? Should we not be honest with the House, and instead of blaming all of the political parties, put the focus where it belongs, on the people who do not take their seats here, who do not take their seats at Stormont and who are outside, looking in? They are the people denying Northern Ireland its proper democratic Government.
Karen Bradley
I do not want to provide a running commentary on the talks I have had with parties since the talks broke down in February between the two main parties. What I would say is that I have heard a willingness from parties that they want to get back into Government. That is why I believe that the best thing for the people of Northern Ireland is that we give those parties the chance to get back into devolved Government and provide the best conditions to enable that to happen—and the Bill is part of achieving that. It is important that we use this time and the powers in the Bill to ensure that public services continue to be run and there is no distraction from the parties coming back together and forming a Government.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State accept that if an Assembly is to come back to Northern Ireland—and we all here support that—the structure of that Assembly has to be right, so that no one party can pull it down?
Karen Bradley
I want to see a fully functioning, devolved Government as we have seen in the past, as that would be best for the people of Northern Ireland, and so that many of the decisions and the policies that right hon. and hon. Members will raise today can be taken in the right place, which is Stormont.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Is cearta daonna iad cearta teanga agus tá cothrom na féinne tuilte ag lucht labhartha na Gaeilge.
Under the St Andrews agreement of 2006, the British Government pledged to introduce an Irish language Act based on the experiences of Wales and the Republic of Ireland. Will the Secretary of State uphold that commitment by introducing an Irish language Act if power-sharing institutions are not restored within six months?
Mr Speaker
I assume that that intervention contained a translation. That is my working premise—
Liz Saville Roberts
I would be delighted to offer a translation if that would be sufficient.
Mr Speaker
I thought it had been offered, but if it has not been, I hope that the hon. Lady will indulge not just me, but the House.
Liz Saville Roberts
Language rights are human rights and the Irish speakers of Ireland deserve fair play.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady is right that the St Andrews agreement includes a political declaration to legislate for an Irish language Act, but it is also clear that once devolved Government restarted in Stormont in 2008, that power became a devolved power for Stormont to legislate on. I support the fact that we have statutory underpinning for many of our indigenous languages. For example, during the 2010-15 Parliament, the Cornish language was granted statutory underpinning, and S4C, which was legislated for by a Conservative Government in the 1980s, has delivered a status for the Welsh language that I am sure the hon. Lady appreciates and enjoys on a regular basis. The important point is that it is a devolved power, and I am sure that as the leader of Plaid Cymru in the House she would not want to see the House undermining the constitutional devolution arrangements that exist across the United Kingdom, or cherry-picking points that right hon. and hon. Members may feel strongly about—and I have great sympathy with much of the strength of feeling—as we have to respect those arrangements.
The Bill will also enable key public appointments to be made in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, including reconstituting the Northern Ireland Policing Board. To make it clear to right hon. and hon. Members, a properly constituted Northern Ireland Policing Board is essential for proper governance and accountability, and public trust in policing in Northern Ireland. That is why it is essential that we pass the Bill urgently.
I shall turn to the specifics of the Bill. First, the Bill extends the period provided for in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 for Northern Ireland Ministers to be appointed before the local elections next year. As the House is aware, because Ministers were not appointed by 29 June 2017, the 1998 Act requires a further election before an Executive can be formed. As I set out in my 6 September statement, an election at this time would not be helpful, nor would it increase the prospects of restoring the Executive. The provisions of clause 1 aim to create a period in which an Executive can be formed and talks can take place, by removing that current legal impediment to an Executive being formed for a defined period. Let me be clear about what that means: as things stand, if the parties were able to find agreement and form an Executive, the House would have to pass primary legislation to enable that to happen. During a recess or periods of intense parliamentary activity, we might be unable to find parliamentary time to allow an Executive to form. I do not think that that barrier or impediment to forming an Executive is one that right hon. and hon. Members would want to see, and the Bill will therefore enable an Executive to be formed without the need for primary legislation during the period covered by the Bill.
The Bill also contains a provision in clause 2 that this period may be extended once, for up to five months. That will remove the need for further primary legislation in the event that, for example, Northern Ireland parties have made progress towards a deal, but a short extension is judged necessary to finalise an agreement and form an Executive.
I want to be clear to the House—I will not wait until March to begin efforts to bring the parties together to work towards Executive formation. Following the passage of this legislation, I intend to meet party leaders to discuss the basis, process, and timing for a further phase of talks, and will at all times continue to stress the urgent need to restore devolution. I welcome all efforts to improve political dialogue between the parties in Northern Ireland, including those by church leaders, who I met earlier this month— following their meeting with the parties—to discuss how best to encourage meaningful political engagement towards the restoration of an Executive.
Lady Hermon
I admire the stamina and diligence that the Secretary of State has demonstrated in trying to achieve the restoration of the Assembly since January last year. However, I am intrigued to learn whether the Northern Ireland Office has taken time to assess the unpopularity of the Assembly in Northern Ireland caused mainly, although not exclusively, because the 90 MLAs continue to receive their full salary while not doing a full job. When the Secretary of State announced in September that she would cut MLA salaries, she delayed the cut until November. Can she explain that three-month delay to the people of Northern Ireland who are outraged by MLAs continuing to receive a full salary?
Karen Bradley
I know that the hon. Lady feels strongly about that matter and she has raised it in the House on several occasions. It is not a three-month delay: I made the statement on 6 September. She will understand that issues need to be dealt with, including notifying MLAs of my decision to cut their pay and changing the payroll arrangements. As I said in September, the November pay cheques were the earliest opportunity to cut the pay, so the pay cheques that will be delivered next week will include the pay cut. The next pay cut will be in January, if we have been unable to get the Assembly and Executive reconstituted by then.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Although I fully understand and appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I appeal to her to understand that at the end of the day these are people with families. Yes, I understand the public ire at the lack of an Assembly, but most of the Assembly Members are not functioning there properly through no fault of their own. As I explained to the House, it is the actions of one political party in Northern Ireland and its army council—its illegal army council—that are holding the people of Northern Ireland to ransom. It would be nice just for once to hear the hon. Lady call them out for that, instead of labelling in such a way all 90 Members of the Assembly, many of whom are innocent of the charge that they do not want to make progress in Northern Ireland or do their job fully. We treat them unfairly when we label them all in the same way without calling out the people who refuse to do their jobs and sit outside; the majority of Assembly Members want to work full time and do the full job. Of course, the House has taken the decision to cut their pay and we support that, but there are practical issues. They and their families need proper notification. When she makes these points, the hon. Lady should not just put the blame on everyone.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say this in good humour, if I may. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) are themselves so unfailingly courteous to colleagues and, indeed, to everybody, that it is really very difficult to get annoyed with them—and I am not. I hope, however, that they will take it in the right spirit if I say that in respect of both of their “interventions”, the erudition was equalled only by the length.
Karen Bradley
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I could not have put it better myself.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) makes an important point, in that it is not the fault of Members of the Legislative Assembly that this is the situation. The MLAs I meet regularly want to get back to the Executive and the Assembly, and it is important we recognise that. I also want to put on record once again that I am of course not cutting the pay of any of the staff of MLAs. As we all know in this House, our staff work tirelessly for our constituents, as do the staff of MLAs. They are dealing with casework and constituency matters, and it is quite right that those staff should not be prejudiced against as a result of decisions taken by others.
During the period covered by the Bill, it will be necessary to provide Northern Ireland Departments with certainty about their decision-making powers. Clarity is needed on the decisions that they should or should not make. This follows a recent court ruling against a Northern Ireland Department’s decision to approve a major waste disposal and energy generation facility. The Bill clarifies that a senior officer of a Northern Ireland Department is not prevented from exercising departmental functions in the absence of Ministers during the period for forming an Executive, if the officer is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so. The Bill also requires that I, as Secretary of State, should publish guidance about the exercise of departmental functions, as I will, of course. That includes principles that senior officers in Northern Ireland Departments may take into account when deciding whether or not to exercise a function, and they are required to have regard to that guidance.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her engagement on this issue. It will come as no surprise to her if I mention the transport hub, which is in my constituency but of regional significance for Northern Ireland. Will she confirm that the decision hoped for before Christmas is the type of decision that can be made under the terms of this Bill by a senior civil servant in the relevant Department?
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues and members of all the main parties across Northern Ireland who assisted in the development of the guidance. Clearly, as Secretary of State I am not able to say what decision a civil servant would make, but we have looked at the kind of decisions and how they might be made. Given that the example she has cited was approved in the programme for government before the Executive collapsed and that Ministers had indicated that they had wanted to see it happen, it is the kind of decision that a civil servant should be able to take on the basis of the guidance as issued.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is being very generous in giving way. From reading the Bill and listening to the Secretary of State’s answer, it is very unclear to me precisely which sort of decisions will or will not be enabled under this legislation. Can she give us an example of a decision that would not be allowed to be taken by a civil servant?
Karen Bradley
I was just about to say that I have published a draft copy of the guidance and placed it in the Library of the House so that hon. and right hon. Members can have a clear sense of what it seeks to do. The important point is that throughout my period as Secretary of State—I put on record how supportive the hon. Gentleman was when he was my opposite number of the need to make legislative changes on limited occasions in this House for the essential running of public services—when we in this House have taken decisions and passed legislation, we have been very clear that what we are not doing is changing policy. Policy and legislation cannot be changed by anything in this Bill. It is about allowing civil servants to make decisions that have been part of a policy that has previously been agreed. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the draft guidance in the Library, and says if he has any suggestions for how the guidance could be strengthened or improved to help civil servants.
I want to be clear: civil servants in Northern Ireland Departments have acted in an exemplary fashion. They have behaved without political cover and without an Executive or Ministers in a way that we should all commend. They have enabled public services in Northern Ireland to continue to be run, and the people of Northern Ireland are continuing to receive their public services. Significant reform is needed in many public services, but this is not about policy decisions on reform. It is about enabling those public services to continue, because the best way to change policy and law in Northern Ireland is for Ministers to be in Stormont making those decisions on behalf of the people who elected them.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State say how many legal actions have been initiated in the few days since the contents of clause 3(4), on the retrospective empowerment of civil servants, were made known? I would be grateful for her confirmation or otherwise, but my understanding is that those legal actions that have been initiated will not fall within the scope of the retrospective action that she is seeking to take through clause 3.
Karen Bradley
Perhaps it is best if I write to the Chair of the Select Committee with specific details, although I want to be clear that we have put in a specific reference to decisions taken since the Executive collapsed because we do not want those decisions that have already been taken to be challenged on the basis that once the Bill is in place there is more cover for civil servants. We want to ensure that the decisions that have already been taken are not undone.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I had the privilege of visiting Lagan College, an integrated school in Belfast, and I would like to take this opportunity to convey to the Secretary of State people’s deep frustration that Stormont is not functioning and their deep frustration about how Stormont functions. Same-sex marriage is an example of a policy that Stormont voted in favour of but was then blocked by a petition of concern. As part of bringing the parties back around the table, is the petition of concern something that the Secretary of State will be encouraging them all to look at again?
Karen Bradley
At the moment I need to get this legislation through, then I can bring the parties together. The hon. Lady is right that the petition of concern was discussed during the last talks process. What I cannot say is what will be discussed in the next talks process.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
On the question of decisions and what are believed to be non-controversial issues, senior civil servants were not making decisions on the back of the Buick ruling, and I want to ensure that those civil servants will be given the cover, under this legislation, to go ahead and deliver on issues that are not controversial, such as broadband, which needs to be delivered to rural areas.
Karen Bradley
It is precisely because of the uncertainty since the Buick judgment that we are bringing forward this legislation. I do not want to be bringing this Bill forward; I would much rather not be standing here at this Dispatch Box, taking the Bill through the House, because I would much rather that there were Ministers in Stormont making the decisions on behalf of their constituents; but there are not, and faced with the reality of the situation, I have to do what I consider to be best for the people of Northern Ireland, to ensure that their public services can continue, and that civil servants can continue to take the essential decisions in the public interest that they need to take.
It is vital that Members read the guidance alongside the legislative measures, as it clarifies the legal basis for the decisions.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I just want to be clear in my mind about what the Secretary of State is saying. I understand she is saying that there will be no change in policy and decisions will be made by civil servants in the Departments without changing policy. What happens when, in the absence of an Assembly and an Executive, there is a challenge to the policy—perhaps for being in breach of our international obligations? What happens then to the policy? Who is responsible then for dealing with that?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady introduced her ten-minute rule Bill yesterday, and I know she is a campaigner on a particular topic, which I suspect is what she is referring to. This Bill does not make civil servants lawmakers, so they will not be able to change the law—quite rightly. It also does not enable them to take new policy decisions, because it would be wrong to ask civil servants to do so. Civil servants across the United Kingdom act in an incredibly professional and independent way and they follow the decisions and the policy recommendations of Ministers, and it is right that they do that. The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that we need Ministers in Stormont, because Ministers in Stormont could quite rightly make those decisions. They could change the law, and they could make policy decisions on behalf of the people who elected them, and that is what the Bill is about—enabling us to have the best conditions and framework for talks to recommence, and for the parties to come back together and do the right thing by the constituents who elected them.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
As I understand it, the Bill before us allows vital everyday public services to continue. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could possibly give us some examples of the types of everyday public services that the Bill will help to continue. I suspect they include health, education and transport—things that we all use every day—and it would give greater clarity to everyone to hear those examples.
Karen Bradley
I would strongly advise my hon. Friend to read the guidance, but she is right: the purpose of the Bill is to enable public services to continue to be delivered; and to enable decisions around infrastructure projects, where there has been clear ministerial direction in the past, to be taken, so that we can see continued economic growth. We have seen incredible economic growth in Northern Ireland over the past 20 years. We have 60,000 more people in employment in Northern Ireland today than in 2010. I want to build on that. I do not want to see Northern Ireland go back. In the absence of an Executive, we are in great danger that Northern Ireland will come to a standstill. We cannot allow that to happen. However, the Bill is about the essential running of public services. It is not about policy decisions or changing the law. It is about enabling civil servants to carry on running those services.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On enacting existing provisions, would the Secretary of State be able to explain something to me? The Londonderry airport, which is owned by a municipal authority, has got money for public service obligation expansions. It is owed £2.5 million from a previous Executive decision, which was not drawn down last year. Is that the sort of provision, which has already been made, that could be decided under this legislation, and the money paid over?
Karen Bradley
It would not be right for me to answer definitively on any decision that a civil servant may make when this legislation receives Royal Assent, on the basis of the guidance, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about the kind of decision that they may make. I have used Londonderry airport. It is a great airport, and it would be great to see more flights coming into it—and out, of course.
Owen Smith
I am a relative newcomer to this place—I have been here only eight years—but I have just been to the Library, the Table Office and the Vote Office, looking for a copy of the guidance that the Secretary of State says she has placed in the Library, and nobody has a copy of it. Would she clarify where it is?
Karen Bradley
I have received a nod from the Box, which means that it is there, but we will check as to why it was not available for the hon. Gentleman, because he should see a copy of the guidance, given that I have said it is vital that Members read it. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench who has great dexterity when it comes to mopping up water—the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound)—appears to have a copy, so I hope that copies will be available for others.
The guidance sets out a clear framework to support Northern Ireland Departments in making a judgment on whether those judgments should be made in the absence of Ministers. The Bill stipulates that I must have regard to representations from MLAs before publishing the guidance, which would of course also be the case, should there be any need to revise the guidance. I would welcome representations from MPs as well as MLAs on its content before I publish a final iteration, which I intend to do shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Those in the Northern Ireland civil service have a difficult task of weighing up which decisions they can take in the absence of Ministers, and I again pay tribute to their hard work and dedication. The combination of the Bill and the proposed guidance will provide a framework to inform their decision making. For example, it is advised that opportunities should be taken to work towards the 12 outcomes published in the 2018-19 outcomes delivery plan, based on the draft programme for government developed in conjunction with the political parties of the previous Executive.
The guidance takes as its starting point the fact that there are certain decisions that should not be taken in the absence of Ministers. Senior officers in Departments will then be obliged to consider whether there is a public interest in taking a decision rather than deferring it. The guidance does not, however, direct the Northern Ireland civil service to take decisions on the wide range of pressing decisions raised by various hon. Members in their amendments to the Bill. As I said earlier, the principle that established our interventions over the past year is that we will legislate when doing so is necessary to protect the delivery of public services and uphold public confidence.
Lady Hermon
Before the Secretary of State moves on, could she please give some hope and encouragement to the victims of historical institutional abuse in Northern Ireland? We know the recommendations of the Hart report, and we understand from David Sterling, the head of the civil service in Northern Ireland, that legislation was drafted by the summertime. If a departmental permanent secretary does not have the power to take forward the Hart proposals, will the Secretary of State please confirm today that legislation will be taken through this House, because the victims are ageing, some of them are dying, and the situation is morally indefensible?
Karen Bradley
This is a matter that I know the hon. Lady feels very deeply about, and it is the subject of one of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Chair of the Select Committee. The difficulty with the Hart recommendations, as the hon. Lady knows, is that they were laid after the Executive had collapsed, and that means we have no ministerial direction on which of the recommendations have cross-party support and which do not. Although, from my discussions with parties, it is clear that everybody wants some action to be taken, it is not clear that there is a consensus in favour of every recommendation. However, I am sure the hon. Lady will be relieved to know that David Sterling has written to me to say that he would like to consult on the recommendations, and I have thanked him for the fact that he is going to do so, because that is something that he can do as a civil servant. Even if he cannot make the final decision on which of the recommendations should be accepted, he can consult on how those recommendations would be implemented, and I welcome that decision.
Emma Little Pengelly
Issues relating specifically to the victims of historical institutional abuse, for whom I think we all feel huge sympathy, have been outstanding for a considerable time. The Assembly collapsed only about a week before the report was due to be published, and that date was known to everyone, but may I suggest that there are other options? For example, we could consider the contributions from the Roman Catholic Church and other institutions that were mentioned in the report. Some work could be done to establish the number of victims who may be able to come forward to claim compensation and redress. It might be possible to consult on a specific scheme, and, rather than just consulting on the recommendations, use the coming weeks and months to make constructive progress in trying to secure justice and redress for the victims.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady makes some interesting suggestions. This might be a topic on which we could engage a number of MLAs on a cross-party basis to try to identify where there may be consensus and where there may be recommendations, or other elements, that could be acted on.
The Hart report is an excellent document, and I pay tribute to Sir Anthony Hart, who did a tremendous amount of work. It is right that those victims should receive the justice that is appropriate for them, because they have suffered in a way that they should not have suffered, and all of us in the House feel strongly about that. However, I return to a point that I made earlier. The constitutional settlement is clear, and we cannot cherry-pick the matters about which we feel strongly, on whatever grounds, as matters with which we deal in the House. We have to respect that constitutional arrangement because not to do so would undermine a devolution settlement throughout the United Kingdom, and that would not be the right thing to do.
Lady Hermon
May I urge the Secretary of State please to agree to meet Judge Hart? She has rightly praised the integrity of his work, and the professionalism and dedication of his team. Will she also meet the victims of historical institutional abuse? She personally, as Secretary of State, needs to meet them, and to do so in a timely manner. Will she commit herself to meeting those victims, and also to meeting Judge Hart and hearing directly from him his suggestions about how we could implement his report?
Karen Bradley
I have met victims of historical abuse and heard their testimony. As the hon. Lady will know, when I served as a Home Office Minister, the issue of child abuse in England and Wales was within my remit, and I met many of those victims.
I do not need to be convinced of the need to do this, but we need to proceed in a way that is right and appropriate and that respects the devolution settlement. I would like to see MLAs engaging and cross-party discussion on a number of matters. This might be an issue on which it would be appropriate for all parties to come together and begin to work so that we can get a dialogue started, so that parties can start to regain trust, and so that we have the best chance of seeing devolution restored and power sharing at Stormont. That is the key issue.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Northern Ireland civil service should be engaging with a range of policy decisions, some of which were outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly). I was surprised to learn from victims only last week that the NICS was engaging with them on a measure that would establish a commissioner for victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse, and a redress board. I find it encouraging that the NICS is doing that, but I find it discouraging that there has been zero political engagement, political discussion or political direction on how best to make progress with these important matters.
Karen Bradley
As I have said, I want to see political engagement and political discussion—I think that that is absolutely vital. We need politicians to re-engage—with civil society, with business and with others—and I am heartened by the initiatives that church leaders have taken to encourage them to do so. I want to see more of that, and I am working with those church leaders and other civic groups to that end. I will reflect on that in the context of the inquiry.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is advancing a powerful defence of the reason she is not becoming involved in this particular case, namely the constitutional settlement. Does she not think that bolting on abortion legislation would have the same impact as someone else bolting on the matters that she has just been discussing, and that we really should not be using the Bill as a vehicle for such matters?
Karen Bradley
As I said, a number of amendments dealing with several matters have been tabled, including one specifically about the Hart report of the historic institutional abuse inquiry. The Bill is not the vehicle for such measures. This is a Bill to enable civil servants to make the decisions that are necessary to enable public services to continue to be run. Officials will not make major policy decisions as a result of the Bill, but they will act in the public interest, and I think that that is very important.
Karen Bradley
I will give way to the right hon. Member for East Antrim, but then I must make progress.
Sammy Wilson
Does the Secretary of State accept that while there may be some grandstanding today by Members who want to force into the Bill policies that they particularly want to be implemented in Northern Ireland, against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland, the Bill will not enable any public official to pursue such policies, regardless of whether an amendment goes into the Bill, because the Bill is not designed to give the powers that would rest with politicians and public representatives to civil servants, and, indeed, it would be unfair to do so?
Karen Bradley
The Bill will enable civil servants to act within the law as it stands today. It will not give them the ability to become lawmakers and to change the law. That is a very important point.
Karen Bradley
I give way one final time because I cannot resist the hon. Gentleman.
Owen Smith
How do I respond to that, Mr Speaker? I grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way one last time. My question is also about Hart. This is not grandstanding; it is pursuing an issue about which many of us—including, I know, the Secretary of State herself—feel very strongly. Is she saying that there is no prospect of legislating in this place to deal with the Hart recommendations, and that that will be done only once the Executive have been restored?
Karen Bradley
What I am saying is that the Bill does not enable that to be done. I am focusing on ensuring that the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament so that we can use the conditions that it puts in place to get the politicians back. The priority has to be a laser-like focus on getting politicians to agree to come back to restore power sharing at Stormont. That is what is best for the people of Northern Ireland.
Let me repeat that these measures do not set or change policy direction on devolved issues in Northern Ireland. That is rightly for the Executive and the Assembly, and our overriding priority is to see them up and running again. The NICS needs certainty about decision-making powers, and we should not be seeking to direct it on issues that clearly require ministerial decisions.
The various principles are set out in guidance rather than in the Bill, as Departments need a degree of flexibility and discretion to enable them to reach appropriate and necessary decisions, and to ensure the continued delivery of public services in Northern Ireland. That guidance, above all else, must be operable for Northern Ireland Departments if we are to provide the clarity and assurance that are needed to ensure that public services can continue to be delivered in the absence of Ministers. We have engaged closely with the NICS in developing the guidance, and the factual information provided by the NICS strongly informed the approach that we have taken to it.
The Government also recognise that, in the absence of an Executive, there will be some decisions that we should make, for instance in relation to the setting of departmental budget allocations for approval by Parliament to ensure that public services continue to function. As I have told the House before, we remain committed to making the decisions that are necessary to provide good governance and political stability for Northern Ireland. Those are decisions, and actions, that cannot be undertaken without our intervention, particularly when legislation is needed, as it is for budgets and regional rates. When it comes to devolved decisions conferred on Northern Ireland Departments, however, the UK Government and Parliament should not be intervening directly. Therefore, while there is clearly a need to intervene to provide clarity, it is more appropriate for us to set out the framework for decisions to be made by Departments when it is in the public interest to do so, and that is what the Bill will do.
Finally, the Bill addresses the urgent need for key appointments to be made in Northern Ireland and in the UK in circumstances when those appointments require the involvement of Northern Ireland Ministers. Clauses 4 to 6 ensure that key posts can be filled while minimising the extent of UK Government intervention in what are, rightly, devolved matters. Clause 4 allows the relevant UK Minister to make specified appointments, exercising the appointments functions already conferred on Northern Ireland Ministers. As I set out in my written statement on 18 July, these posts are the most pressing appointments. They are essential for good governance and public confidence in Northern Ireland, and include appointments to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission and the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. These offices are stated on the face of the Bill to address the most urgently needed appointments while minimising the role of UK Ministers in these decisions that should be taken by Northern Ireland Ministers. The Bill takes this narrow approach rather than putting in place a blanket power with a long list of all possible appointments, or transferring these appointments from being ministerial responsibilities to being the responsibility of civil servants. Neither of those alternatives would have been appropriate.
It is important, however, that we provide for a situation in which other vital offices unexpectedly become vacant, or filling other existing vacancies becomes more urgent. For that reason, the Bill includes the provision to add to the list of offices, by means of a statutory instrument, to allow the relevant UK Minister to exercise Northern Ireland Ministers’ appointment functions in relation to additional specified offices.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
All the appointments in the Bill are justice-based, and I completely take on board the point about those being the most pressing, but how does the Secretary of State plan to continue to monitor what other areas are pressing, because there are lots of roles in other areas that need to be filled, but that will not happen under the Bill?
Karen Bradley
We would use the power only if appointments were urgent and necessary. I would consult the main Northern Ireland political parties before bringing forward regulations, as I did before I introduced this Bill. Essentially, we are allowing appointments to be made to bodies when either a failure to appoint would mean that the body becomes inquorate, or the role is required to command public respect and show full accountability.
A large proportion of appointment functions in Northern Ireland are conferred on Northern Ireland Departments. The provisions that I have already outlined dealing with Departments’ decision-making powers provide clarity that Northern Ireland Departments are able to exercise the appointment functions conferred on them during the period for Executive formation. They would not transfer to them any appointment functions currently conferred on Northern Ireland Ministers.
The lack of an Executive has also had an impact on appointments to UK-wide bodies, as a small number require Northern Ireland Ministers to be consulted on or to agree an appointment by a UK Minister. The most pressing example is the appointment by the Home Secretary of a new chair of the Disclosure and Barring Service. Similarly, there are appointments made jointly by UK and Northern Ireland Ministers. The Bill deals with such appointments by allowing them to be made without Northern Ireland Ministers, but it retains the Northern Ireland input by requiring the UK Minister to consult the relevant Northern Ireland Department. The changes represent a minimal intervention and a careful balance to ensure that the bodies and offices are able to operate as normal, but without UK Government intervention at a policy or operational level.
The powers given to UK Ministers under clauses 4 to 6 expire at the point that Northern Ireland Ministers are appointed and an Executive is formed. Responsibility for the appointment functions affected by the Bill would then, rightly, revert to the Northern Ireland Ministers.
The people of Northern Ireland deserve strong political leadership from a locally elected and accountable devolved Government. Achieving that remains my absolute priority, and that is why the Bill aims to restore the devolved power-sharing Executive and Assembly, and sets out a fixed period in which I will work closely with Northern Ireland parties to encourage them to form an Executive. During this period, the UK Government will continue to deliver on their responsibilities for political stability and good governance. Northern Ireland has made huge progress in recent years, but we can achieve even more with a devolved Government who unlock all the potential that Northern Ireland has to offer. I am focusing on achieving that outcome—it is the outcome that we all want to see—and I commend the Bill to the House.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
May I begin by joining the Secretary of State in offering my condolences to the families of the victims of the Shankill bombing and, of course, to Lord Caine for his own loss?
From now on, there might well be less consensus on Northern Ireland, as it is very difficult to see how the Bill resolves the major issue Northern Ireland now faces. We operate on the basis of consensus, so we in the Opposition will not oppose the Bill’s passage through this House, but the Secretary of State is now straining the consensus that has existed on a bipartisan basis over the years, because the Bill is grossly inadequate for its purposes. We have now had 652 days of inactivity by herself and her predecessors in government. While I totally accept that she is perfectly able to say to others—particularly the leaders of the two major political parties in the Assembly—that they also share responsibility for that lack of action, real energy must be put into this; otherwise what this Bill will represent is simply an abject admission of failures of the past and a gross lack of ambition and hope for the future, and that cannot be acceptable.
There is a constitutional crisis in Northern Ireland. The public are now entitled to begin to lose faith in the political institutions established under the Good Friday agreement. The public lose faith when they see that those institutions fail to work, and there are many issues, which I will touch on later, where we must have concern about the impact on the lives of Northern Ireland’s citizens. This constitutional crisis is therefore also now developing into a human crisis, and that is the measure against which I say that this Bill is simply inadequate.
In the past, we had the political ambitions of John Major as Prime Minister, working with Albert Reynolds, and Tony Blair as Prime Minister, working with Bertie Ahern, and we had the ambitions of the David Trimbles of this world, alongside at that time John Hume, and later on of Dr Ian Paisley with Martin McGuinness, who were prepared to take risks, but so as well were Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers. David Cameron intervened during the Stormont House agreement process, to make sure the prime ministerial writ was there. We have not seen that level of activity from our Prime Minister. I accept that she is, rightly, preoccupied with Brexit, but Northern Ireland matters, and the constitutional situation of Northern Ireland also matters. We must establish that. That is why the Bill is so disappointing.
Let me address why the Bill has come before the House. It obviously has some merit, and we strongly support the need to appoint people to bodies such as the Policing Board. That is common sense and the right thing to do. The Secretary of State is right to say that we need to prioritise some important decisions and that decisions must be made here in Westminster where those decisions cannot be made in Belfast at Stormont. However, the simple fact is that there are many other areas of activity where we must see action, too.
One of the drivers in bringing this proposed legislation forward is the Secretary of State’s concern that she would be judicially reviewed because of the failure to call an election. Ironically, that refers back to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on the Hart inquiry. Victims of institutional abuse could not judicially review questions about Hart, so they took the judicial review about the timing of elections. It is ironic that the Secretary of State brings this proposed legislation forward but can say nothing helpful about the need for compensation for the victims of sexual and institutional abuse that Hart did so much to unearth. We can take those remedies, and I hope that the Secretary of State will think long and hard about why we cannot also see this as the kind of priority that would serve to achieve a consensus across the whole of Northern Ireland.
Equally, the Buick judgment has caused real uncertainty, but it has placed limitations on the capacity of civil servants. We need to be very certain that we are not doing more and returning to the position where we are asking civil servants to make politically controversial decisions that should only be taken by elected politicians, possibly and best of all, of course, in the Stormont Assembly; but if that does not happen, some of those decisions might have to come to the Secretary of State and this House for us to resolve.
This is particularly true in the light of the extraordinarily long period that the Secretary of State has outlined, with no certainty of any movement until March next year and a further five months if that fails. Frankly, it beggars belief that the Secretary of State should have to tell the House that a further five months could be necessary just in case we are close to an agreement at the end of March. That really challenges all our imaginations. It does not seem a reasonable justification of time to say that five more months would be needed to get us over a hurdle if we were almost there. We are all well aware of the interesting calendar that Northern Ireland presents, but we can and must do better than this.
We need to see energy from this Government in bringing together the five-party talks. The Secretary of State told the House on 6 September:
“I have made no decisions about the right way to get talks restarted”.—[Official Report, 6 September 2018; Vol. 646, c. 350.]
That was after 550 days of inaction. Another 60 days have gone by since then. Has she now given any thought to how to get those talks restarted? We need to see some urgency in relation to those talks. We need to see the leaders of the five political parties get round the same table. If they do not come forward—if that is the challenge posed by DUP Members—let us test that. Let us see who does not turn up for those multi-party talks.
The Secretary of State has already been asked about having an independent chair, which has worked in the past. It is difficult to find an independent chair who would be acceptable to all the parties, but it is not impossible. It was not impossible in the past, and it should not be now. If taking that step could begin to unlock this logjam, we must look at taking it. I have also said to her on a number of occasions that we need to re-institutionalise the use of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which has fallen into disrepute. It is part of the Good Friday institutions, and it has not disappeared. It has not in any sense been abolished. It met once in London, but I understand that the agenda was so slimmed down that it had little merit other than to reintroduce Ministers from either side of the Irish sea to one another. We have to do better than that. We have to get the next meeting in Dublin tabled, with an agenda that will be helpful in moving us all forward.
We need to see a change of gear and a change in energy, because this matters enormously in regard to the sorts of things that will not be done. People have already asked the Secretary of State about matters that they hold dear in their constituencies, such as the airport in Londonderry, the York Street interchange, the dualling of the A5 and the A6, and the introduction of proper broadband connections across Northern Ireland. Those are important issues, and I agree with her that they could be delivered through the capacity of the Northern Ireland civil service under the Bill. However, there are issues that go beyond that capacity and that the civil service would struggle to address. I want to talk about a number of those issues, because they are massively important. I also want to quote the Secretary of State again. She said that, in the absence of a Northern Ireland Assembly,
“the UK Government will always deliver on their responsibilities for political stability and good governance in the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 757.]
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and we are now entitled to see this Government beginning to deliver on those issues.
I want to raise some topical issues. A court judgment in Belfast today involves a woman whom I have met, Sarah Ewart. That judgment allows her to take forward her case that the decision to refuse her an abortion in Northern Ireland was outwith the law. I congratulate Sarah on her bravery in taking her case forward. If she were to win it, where would the remedy lie? The Minister of State is a lawyer, and I hope that he will tell us the answer to that question when he responds to the debate. We know that if Sarah has to fight her case all the way through to the Supreme Court, as has happened in a previous case, the chances are that the Supreme Court will make the identical judgment and say that its judgment is binding because it relates to a named individual. In those circumstances, the Supreme Court will make it absolutely clear that the remedy lies not in Stormont but here in Westminster, because the judgment is about the conformity of the United Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland, with the European convention on human rights. Ministers over here have to think about this, because it is an important human issue.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) has tabled a helpful amendment relating to the Hart inquiry, and I hope that the House will reach a point at which this issue can be resolved. I repeat to the Minister the pleas that we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith), the hon. Member for North Down and others about ageing victims. I have met some of the victims, and they are no longer young people. Some of those affected have now passed away over the passage of time, so we have to bring the question of institutional abuse to a conclusion. We have to do what we can to implement the Hart judgment, and we cannot wait until August next year or beyond if the Secretary of State’s ambitions do not come to fruition.
We must also look at what the Secretary of State can do here at Westminster. Again, she needs to show some urgency in trying to resolve the kinds of things that have held up the agenda in Northern Ireland in the past. For example, why is the historical enquiries unit not being set up? There is also the question of pensions for victims of the troubles. These are the kinds of things that can be, and should be, done here. The consultation has taken place, and we need to see definitive action now. We need to see a road map of how the Secretary of State will put urgency into these different processes.
The Secretary of State has said that the Bill deals with important issues, and that is true, but there are still issues of enormous importance that will not be affected by the legislation. There are things that the civil servants will not be able to resolve, but they will still affect the lives of the people living in different parts of Northern Ireland. One issue that I have raised before in the House is the benefits system. The Stormont Assembly was able to provide some mitigation against the impact of Government cuts to welfare spending. Ironically, those cuts are affecting my own constituency and those of Ministers here in England, but the protections afforded to people in Northern Ireland through Stormont are already beginning to expire, and they will have done so by next March. Nothing in the Bill will allow those mitigations to continue, even though they were consensually built in by the Stormont Assembly. That kind of decision needs to be made.
On a different level, we have heard today that coaching is now being cut back. That includes the coaching of young people through the Gaelic Athletic Association and the Irish Football Association. This might seem small in the bigger scheme of things, but these small things make a material difference to people’s way of life. We also know that Harland and Wolff is looking for decisions about training programmes. Such programmes would enable the company not to import welders from the Baltic states because it would have the capacity to train people from the Belfast constituencies. That would make a huge difference to individual lifestyles there.
I also want to touch on the crucial question of the Northern Ireland health service, which is now in a very bad state. We know that it no longer has the ability to hit the targets that it has established for itself. For example, the target of seeing most people within nine weeks and none over 15 weeks is now being massively breached. There are people with spinal conditions who have waited more than 155 weeks to be seen in Northern Ireland, and that is simply unacceptable. There is a story of a young girl who needs a spinal correction to allow her to lead a normal life. She cannot wait 155 weeks for that kind of treatment and nor should she have to, so we need a real review of what the health service is doing. Looking at waiting lists across the piece, 1,500 people in England wait for over a year, but the figure for Northern Ireland is 64,000. I almost cannot find the right word to describe that situation. It is so grossly unfair as to challenge all our imaginations, and we simply cannot say that it is okay to wait for reform.
Several of us are wearing Macmillan Cancer Support badges today because we know the importance of cancer treatment. In Northern Ireland, the cancer targets that were established in 2009 have never been met and people are waiting months to be seen. We know that any delay in the first exchanges with doctors can delay treatment and that delayed treatment causes death. I therefore have to say to the Secretary of State that the failure to deal with health reform in Northern Ireland is causing premature deaths among the people of Northern Ireland, and that problem is just as important as seeing people on the Northern Ireland Policing Board—important though that is.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we would all like to see action on those important issues. He has listed actions for probably about half the Northern Ireland Departments, but what solution should the Government adopt? Yes, we would all like to see the Assembly administered, but if we cannot get that, is he suggesting that we should have direct rule so that we can take such decisions, or does he have some creative solution?
Tony Lloyd
In the past, previous Northern Ireland Secretaries have taken specific action from Westminster—not direct rule, but specific action—in areas of great urgency, such as social care. Looking for specific actions now would show not only that we are taking this constitutional crisis seriously, but that we are taking the human crisis seriously, too. I think that matters, and I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect long and hard on that. We have a few days between now and this Bill going through its stages in the House of Lords, so I hope that the Secretary of State can reflect in that time on what can be done—what ought to be done—to begin to consider some of the issues being raised.
Labour strongly supports the need to appoint people into the right official positions. That is certainly one of the reasons why the Bill has to go through the House today—I hope that no hon. Member would want to see it delayed—but we are worried about the operation of the new powers for civil servants. It must be made clear that they are not politicians and have no mandate to make new decisions. The Secretary of State said that at the Dispatch Box, and I respect her intentions and do not doubt that she meant what she said, but the letter of the law gives enormous power to civil servants, so we need transparency around their decision making and clear and binding guidance to ensure that there can be no excessive action.
In the end, the responsibility for the things that I have discussed—health in particular—should be with the Stormont Assembly and the Executive, but if that cannot happen, it will have to come to this House. I have spoken to the Secretary of State in private about this, but I do not think that I will be breaching her confidence to say that my worry lies with the length of time that is built into the Bill. When the original discussions took place across this Chamber some months back, we were talking about a fairly limited operation, but that has now expanded enormously, with the first knife coming at the end of March and the second in August. That is an awful long time. We have already had 650 days of no change, and we face half as much again if we reach that August deadline. That is not acceptable for the people of Northern Ireland; it is not acceptable constitutionally; and it is certainly not acceptable for the people who need better from this Government.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
I am grateful to be called in this important debate and am happy to support this Bill. The measures within represent a sensible compromise, but this is like trying to find the least bad of all the really bad options. We would all agree that by far the best situation would be to have an Assembly and to have Ministers of the Executive in place taking such decisions, but that is not the situation that we are in, and it is not one, based on the dates set in this Bill, that I suspect we are going to see in the next six, eight or even 10 months. The question now is about what we should do here for the people of Northern Ireland to try to get important decisions taken to deliver public services as best as they can be delivered, to try to improve the economy in Northern Ireland, and to try to improve the lives of ordinary people.
There are no easy options here, and the most extreme would probably be to appoint direct rule Ministers from this Parliament to take such decisions. That would lead to sensitivities in the relationship with the Irish Republic and the nationalist community, which is sadly not represented in this House—at least not by any nationalist MPs. That is a radical decision that the Government are not keen to take. However, we could have been pursuing other possibilities to try to get a bit nearer to a situation in which we could take some of the decisions that need to be taken. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee published a report that discussed how we could at least have a shadow Assembly or allow the committees to meet just to get some local engagement and local scrutiny to allow some decisions to be taken from here that have some level of accountability in Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting suggestions as to how there could be some democratic accountability even in the absence of a functioning Executive. However, just as Sinn Féin has blocked the formation of the Assembly and the introduction of direct rule, it has also made it clear that it would not even accept that level of accountability. That is where the real problem lies. Sinn Féin—the boycotters—have been pandered to for far too long.
Nigel Mills
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says and do not pretend that any of the solutions are easy. Such issues were tested by the Select Committee, but it would have at least been worth trying to see whether we could have some sort of cross-community committees or assemblies. Even if Sinn Fein boycotted them, hopefully the other parties in the Assembly would have been willing to attend. There is a real prize here. There are decisions that need to be taken that would be of great benefit to Northern Ireland, but they will not be taken, even with the powers we are discussing here. If we could have found a compromise that got at least some of those things moving forward, it would not in any way have been a perfect solution, but it would have been better than what we have here.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is making some constructive suggestions, some of which have been made by some of us before. We have an education crisis at the moment, and many schools deplore the current funding position. Does he agree that if MLAs from across the divide in Northern Ireland were to convene in Stormont to discuss a way forward and to make representations to the permanent secretary, they may find that they have much in common and may eventually say, “Why aren’t we back in here taking the decisions, rather than letting one party block everyone else from doing things?”
Nigel Mills
That was roughly what I was alluding to in my response to the previous intervention. If we can find some way of having cross-community meetings and engagement and some sort of agreement that can then allow a decision to be taken here, that would be real progress. However, there would still need to be some Minister in this Parliament to take such decisions with the cover of that level of consent or agreement from Northern Ireland. The Bill does not provide for that.
I am pretty torn about what I would have had as my priority for this Bill. We want decisions to be taken, but we are so far from when the Executive last met that it is unlikely that most of the decisions that we want to have taken will have had any clear steer from the Executive. We therefore need some level of political decision making here when we cannot rely on previous guidance, and we would all want such things to be done by Ministers with some level of accountability and some public scrutiny, not behind closed doors.
My other concern about the Bill is whether Parliament has gone too far. We are now giving huge power to civil servants, and huge power to the Secretary of State to issue guidance that those civil servants have to follow. We are in danger of allowing a situation that we would never normally allow in England. We would all be up in arms if the Government introduced such a Bill for our constituents in the rest of the UK, saying, “We don’t really want to have Parliament scrutinising and deciding all these things. We are going to give the Secretary of State far more power to issue directions to the civil service to take really important decisions.” We would say it was completely unacceptable and undemocratic, that it weakened Parliament and that there was no public scrutiny or public accountability. We would never agree to it.
With this Bill, in effect, we have been forced to find a compromise between those two extremes of wanting decisions but not wanting to have too much power in the hands of civil servants. We have found a compromise: the Secretary of State has to issue certain guidance and the civil servants have to have regard to it. We all know what “have regard to” means. It means that civil servants have to do it unless there is very good reason not to do it.
I am probably in the same place as the Government, and I reluctantly accept that the only way to balance those competing objectives is to have this halfway fudge of advancing a little further, of pushing at the boundaries of what civil servants can decide. We get there by having guidance from an elected Secretary of State. She can encourage, advise and guide civil servants to do certain things, giving some cover from court cases. That is about as far as we can get without appointing direct rule Ministers.
Parliament should be careful to make sure the Bill contains all the protections we want to see. We may or may not have much time to debate the amendments in Committee, but some of the amendments would be helpful, because there is nothing in the Bill, for example, to stop the Secretary of State revising the perfectly reasonable and sensible draft guidance she has published to stick in some important decisions she would like to see taken. At no point in the next six, eight or 10 months —however long this period lasts—would any of us, including the Secretary of State, want to be in a situation where difficult, conflicting, controversial decisions are directed through such guidance because there is no other way of making them.
None of us would like to see hospitals being closed in Northern Ireland through guidance issued by a Secretary of State with no public scrutiny. Such things could be done through guidance, and those decisions could arguably be in the public interest if civil servants felt they were consistent with the best delivery of health services. We could see all manner of difficult things being done, consistent with this Bill, that we would not normally allow.
It would be a constructive step forward if there were a provision saying that, if the Secretary of State wanted to change the guidance she had already published, the new guidance had to be published in draft so it could be scrutinised by the Select Committee to make sure it contained nothing to which this House would not have agreed in advance of this Bill.
The Bill does not say what happens at the end of March or August, whatever period we end up with. Are we saying that this really is the last chance and that, if an Executive cannot be formed by the end of March or August, there has to be an election? We have stretched the wording of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, on the Secretary of State’s duty to propose an election date, for some 350 days. If we get beyond the period for which we are legislating, we cannot stretch it any further. There would have to be an election pretty much forthwith to give the people of Northern Ireland a chance to choose one or more different parties that may be more constructive in their discussions.
I would have liked the Bill to make clear the intentions of this Government and this House. The Northern Ireland Act was agreed between the parties and legislated for by this House, and the consequence of an Executive not being formed is that an election date should be proposed. We do not yet have an election date, which is the right call. An election probably would not have made any great difference over the past few months, as the same two parties would have been put back in the same position, but surely we cannot let this continue forever.
If we get to the end of March or August, is it the Government’s policy that there would then be an election and, as everyone probably thought was the case, we revert to keep trying elections until something else happens? What happens if that still fails? Would we say, “After the election there will be a period for talks, and if you cannot form an Executive by the deadline, it has to be direct rule”? Is that the Government’s plan, or do they plan to limp through until the end of March or August and revert to the position we have been in for the past 350 days?
We are trying to give certainty to the civil service and to the people of Northern Ireland about the position. It would be good to have some certainty on the consequences if no deal can be reached.
My final comments are on appointments. It has to be right that we cannot have important bodies in Northern Ireland and elsewhere not meeting and not functioning because we have not been able to appoint people to them. It makes sense to find a way to make consensual appointments with which all sides of the debate are happy, but those decisions are meant to be taken on a cross-community and cross-party basis in Northern Ireland, and they now have to be taken—I accept with consultation—by the Secretary of State in Westminster. Allowing some form of public scrutiny on the most senior proposed appointments would be helpful in giving confidence that the right people for those jobs are being appointed. Allowing pre-appointment hearings by the Select Committee for key appointments would be a positive step in showing the people of Northern Ireland that the right people are being entrusted with those important functions.
There are ways to improve the Bill but, in the current situation, it is a sensible compromise and it is the best way to achieve the competing objectives. I happily support Second Reading.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I echo the comments of both Front Benchers on the Shankill bombing. I was 13 at the time, but I remember the incident vividly. I particularly remember the children who were killed, one of whom was also 13, which is one reason why it sticks out. My thoughts and the thoughts of my colleagues are with all those affected by the bombing and the associated attacks that followed.
I reiterate once again that we are extremely disappointed that it has come to this. We accept, rather reluctantly, that the Bill has become necessary amid the current legislative vacuum in Northern Ireland. I have just attended my first British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, and I found it an extremely useful, enjoyable and sociable event. I met new people from across the UK and the Crown dependencies to discuss the important issues we face together.
Brexit, as would be imagined, was the main topic of conversation. That being said, some of the conversations about Stormont and the restoration of the Executive were rather frustrating. Many people seem to accept that meaningful talks will not resume until after Brexit, which is ultimately why we are debating this Bill today and why we reluctantly support it. However, on behalf of the SNP, I urge the Secretary of State and all parties to get back round the table with a sense of purpose and urgency. Given the importance of the European Union to the Good Friday agreement, it is imperative that Northern Ireland’s collective voice, the voice of its elected Assembly, is heard on Brexit.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, apart from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), we do not hear the voice of the majority of people in Northern Ireland on Brexit in this Chamber? The majority of people in Northern Ireland—now the overwhelming majority, according to new polling—voted for us to stay in the European Union. Does it trouble the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), like it troubles me, that we never hear their voice?
Gavin Newlands
I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Lady. Sinn Féin’s decision not to use their voice is a matter for them. However, only last week the Prime Minister turned down a request to meet the four major parties that advocated a vote to remain in the European Union—Sinn Féin, the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party and the Greens.
Mr Gregory Campbell
On the parties getting round the table to try to reach agreement, does the hon. Gentleman agree that what the people of Northern Ireland and the people in this House need to hear from each and every one of the parties is two words: “We’re ready”?
Gavin Newlands
From the conversations I had in the past couple of days at BIPA, I can say that some have that desire to get back to the table. That came from all parties I spoke to—people from either community and from none. That is what I heard, but I also heard resignation that it might not happen.
Anna Soubry
It is important that we make the record clear: just as among Conservative and Labour voters there is division, so one cannot say that it is Sinn Féin that represents remainers. Many Unionists voted to remain, and no doubt many republicans voted to leave. The point is that their voice is not being heard in this Chamber.
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for making that point, as I had not intended to portray it. I have spoken to several Unionists who voted remain, so she makes a valid point.
Gavin Newlands
I am going to make some progress, and then I will come back to the right hon. Members.
The people of Northern Ireland have spent too long in limbo. As we have heard from both Front Benchers, key decisions have to be made and functionality must be restored. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than this. The Scottish National party, like most Members of this House, firmly believes that new talks must be established immediately to restore the Executive and Assembly. The Secretary of State has to come off the bench on this and be much more proactive, not in legislative terms—we see that today—but in leadership. Along with Irish Government counterparts, she should be working night and day to initiate a new round of inclusive talks. With the UK Government totally distracted by Brexit and internal party infighting, I say again that an independent mediator could and, if no early progress is made, should be brought in, so that progress can be made for the sake of good governance in Northern Ireland.
Nothing must be done to undermine the Good Friday agreement, so this piece of legislation must be temporary. Given the five-month extension the Government have built into the Bill, and from conversations I have had with Members from all communities, it seems to me that there is consensus that Stormont may not get back up and running until September, following the council elections and the marching season. That is almost another full year from now, and for me and many other Members of this House that is a matter of real regret.
There is general consensus, on all sides, that this Bill has, sadly, become necessary, but there are also concerns that having to legislate at all is potentially a slippery slope and a situation that must not be allowed to drift or be extended beyond what is absolutely necessary; a political vacuum must not become the new normal in Northern Ireland. I am relieved that the Government have conceded that their Henry VIII powers in clause 4 were not justifiable, and have heeded the concerns of the House of Lords report and tabled amendments so that the affirmative procedure is used instead.
Amid ongoing austerity, the absence of decision making is straining Northern Irish public services. Decisions are urgently required to provide direction and funding to vital services. As we have heard, current conditions are placing particular pressures on health and education, which are among the most important services a Government can deliver. The collapse of the Executive and the subsequent failure to deal with the situation has also placed great stress on the civil service in Northern Ireland. Direct rule can never be countenanced, but as the shambolic Brexit process is a central reason for the ongoing crisis, the UK Government have a responsibility to ensure talks progress swiftly. The chaos within the UK Government must not be used as an excuse for the lacklustre attempts since February to re-establish political institutions in Northern Ireland. After all, this is not just about public services and appointments; it is about protecting and maintaining the peace process.
I do not want to be accused of scaremongering or of attaching more significance to this than it warrants, but yesterday the first report of the Independent Reporting Commission was published and, although there were clearly parts we can all welcome, the commission is clearly concerned about the impact of the ongoing political impasse. The report praises all those in the public, voluntary and community sectors who are working to tackle paramilitarism, but it says that the absence of political leadership has been a significant impediment to that task. It also notes that in the absence of an Assembly, new powers, such as unexplained wealth orders, cannot be introduced, and that any change in the current regime for managing paramilitary prisoners cannot be considered in the absence of a Justice Minister. I sincerely hope that in reading that report the Secretary of State has been given a renewed sense of urgency on talks.
I turn back to Brexit, as it is wreaking havoc on every aspect of politics in these islands. The broader instability caused by Brexit is a central reason why it has proven so difficult to restore the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. There are many reasons why the Executive and the Assembly collapsed, but it is Brexit, the elephant in the room, that is prolonging the concerning political vacuum. I remind colleagues across the House that March is quickly approaching and we still have no confirmation of plans to extend the period for withdrawal. The threat of a new border becomes closer by the minute.
Northern Ireland is the central conversation in the Brexit talks, so it is vital that its voice is heard. As we have heard so eloquently, in June 2016 Northern Ireland voted by 56% to remain in the European Union, as 62% of Scots did. The Government continue to try to ignore Scotland—will they also ignore the people of Northern Ireland? If the UK Government plough on with a no- deal hard Brexit, they will wreak further havoc on the businesses, public services and entire economies of all within the UK. That is nothing short of economic vandalism of the highest order.
As we have seen from reports, Northern Ireland will be hit hardest by a disastrous no-deal scenario. This month, business leaders in Northern Ireland have warned that a no deal must be avoided at all costs. According to the Government’s own figures, crashing out would shrink the Northern Irish economy by 12%. The Director of CBI Northern Ireland has warned that this would be the equivalent of another financial crisis. This would be a dramatic hit to GDP inflicted upon the people of Northern Ireland despite their vote to remain.
We in the SNP want to see stability, and strong and inclusive economic growth in Northern Ireland. We want to see Northern Ireland grow, so that public services, businesses, families and individuals can prosper. After all, not only is a prosperous Northern Ireland good for all who live there, but it is in the interests of Scotland, and indeed of England, Wales and our friends across the European Union. The twin threats of a new border and massive economic damage can be easily removed if the UK pursues a policy of staying within the European single market and customs union; there would be no need for new economic borders across land or at sea. Trade and relationships, business or personal, would continue to flourish between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and beyond.
In a blatant attempt to wreck any agreed backstop in Northern Ireland, the European Research Group cynically tabled reckless amendments to this legislation. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) subsequently withdrew them on Monday, saying that it would not be in the “public interest” to attach them to emergency programming. Perhaps for the first time I find myself in agreement with him and his ERG colleagues, but I would go further and suggest to him that his group and its entirely regressive aims are not in the public interest, and the less we hear from them, the better.
I remind Members that in December last year the UK Government agreed the need for a backstop in the first phase of negotiations with the EU, so they must stay true to their word.
Karen Bradley
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I wanted to make a point about the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. He withdrew those amendments because he recognised the necessity of this Bill for the people of Northern Ireland. I thank him for having done so, because it has meant that the people of Northern Ireland, who need their public services to continue to be delivered, will be able to have that, as this Bill will not now be affected by amendments that would have served to wreck it.
Gavin Newlands
I appreciate the intervention from the Secretary of State, whom I am sure had to urge the hon. Member for Wycombe to withdraw the amendments for that reason. The simple fact is that they should never have been tabled in the first place. In order to protect the Good Friday agreement, Northern Ireland must achieve a special relationship with the EU. The SNP will never support wrecking amendments designed to undermine the backstop and, thus, undermine the Good Friday agreement. Just last week, the First Minister of Scotland said:
“we fully support the Good Friday Agreement and the maintenance of an invisible border. And so the Scottish Government will do nothing to stand in the way of Northern Ireland achieving a special relationship to the EU, if that is what is required.”
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Like the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), a majority of my constituents voted for Brexit. They do have a voice here, and I am that voice.
On the backstop, the hon. Gentleman spoke a lot about the need for economic growth in Northern Ireland, and prosperity is a key part of the peace process, so does he understand our concern that the backstop, which would create a border in the Irish sea and a customs barrier between Northern Ireland and its single biggest market—a market that produces more business for us than the European Union states and the rest of the world combined—would not be a good idea for the benefit of our economy?
Gavin Newlands
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is clear to most people in this Chamber that the answer is for all UK countries to remain in the single market and customs union, which would take away the need for any border in the Irish sea. I should add that my constituents voted two to one to remain, and they certainly have a voice in this Chamber, too.
Many Members from different parties will agree that the best option across the UK is, as I just said, continued membership of the customs union and single market, which would resolve the need for any economic borders or increased regulation. This policy, which the Scottish National party has proposed for a long time, would also act to protect jobs and livelihoods in Northern Ireland, as well as in Scotland and right across the UK. It is the only political and economic position and policy that makes sense and is achievable.
The UK must give Northern Ireland and the restoration of its Assembly the attention that it deserves and requires. The delays in the establishment of effective talks can no longer be accepted. The Government must get round the table and help to restore the Northern Irish Executive and Assembly to full functionality. The institutions of the Good Friday agreement must be championed and restored by all in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have now to announce the result of the Division deferred from yesterday. In respect of the question relating to electricity and gas, the Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 203, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this Second Reading debate. May I start by expressing my admiration of and gratitude for the Secretary of State’s energy and perspicacity in trying to achieve a settlement in Northern Ireland? Whatever regrets we have about the situation in which we find ourselves, we are all united in our admiration for the energy that the Secretary of State has applied to this process. I sympathise with her, because in the actions she is taking she is trying to sail between Scylla and Charybdis: on the one hand, she must do nothing that would impede the restoration of proper democracy and the devolved settlement in Northern Ireland; on the other, she must do what she knows to be best for the people of Northern Ireland. I shall comment largely on my perception of Northern Ireland lagging well behind where it should be, and increasingly so. I shall express in unequivocal terms my fears about what that might mean in 10 months’ time, if we are no further on.
On Monday, I had the great pleasure of visiting Belfast with members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. For the first time—to my very great shame—I visited the Royal Victoria Hospital, where I talked to deeply committed and dedicated professionals who are right at the top of their game and who work there doing their very best for the population of Northern Ireland. I must say to the Secretary of State that I came away deeply depressed, because it is clear that Northern Ireland is not getting what it deserves. In comparison with the population of the rest of the United Kingdom, it is lagging significantly behind on key healthcare indicators. We heard that morning from service users, particularly in the fields of mental health and cancer care—key healthcare areas. Were their experiences to be replicated in our constituencies, we would be very upset indeed. The reasons are complicated, but we are left to conclude that the absence for nearly two years now of Ministers capable of taking decisions is a significant part of the piece.
We are now to complicate another 10 months of potential delay, with no clear solution following that. We could call another election but, as has been alluded to already, without good will on the part of both the principal parties in this matter, it is likely as not that we would get pretty much the same outcome. I have detected no particular enthusiasm or appetite for an Irish language Act, which is the biggest roadblock to the process. I get a lot of people asking, “Why don’t I have the same healthcare expectations as people over the other side of the Irish sea?”, but I do not get angst expressed to me about the inclusion of an Irish language Act. It is self-evident that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland simply want to get on with their lives. They want to have expectations across a range of public sector functions that at least approximate those that exist in Great Britain. It is a failure for all involved if they do not achieve that sort of approximation. We have a devolved settlement, so there will always be difference—of course there will—and I guess we should celebrate that, but the people of the United Kingdom have a legitimate expectation that, broadly speaking, outcomes will be similar right across the piece. That is not the case in Northern Ireland, and it is getting worse. We have to work out a way to deal with that.
I welcome the Bill, but it should have been introduced to the House well before now—incidentally, that would have given us more time to consider it—because I am afraid that the situation we are currently in was predictable. We have simply lost time. In so far as it is a straightforward, simple Bill that will achieve the outcomes that the Government want, I very much welcome it, although I would have gone much further. The need to go much further is in the guidance. I hope the Secretary of State has some sense from the House that we are likely to support her in the development of the guidance in the months ahead.
I assume that the guidance is the same as that which was given in draft form to the helpful Northern Ireland Office officials who briefed the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee a few days ago. Getting hold of a copy today was quite difficult, but if it is more or less the same, I have been through it and must say that it is cast in extremely anodyne terms. It refers to decisions made by the Executive who have now folded, and to the draft programme for government and its 12 exciting outcomes, which are of course not outcomes at all but aspirations cast in the most anodyne terms imaginable.
In the weeks and months ahead, the Secretary of State will be faced more and more with Northern Ireland slipping backwards compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, unless some fairly significant policy decisions are made. I do not know the extent to which, on the basis of this Bill, it is safe for the Northern Ireland civil service to make some of those decisions, because some of them are really quite complicated, but they need to be made if we are to see key public services restored to the level at which they should be.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern not only about the policies that the civil servants will not implement—indeed, the Bill would not give them the powers to implement them anyhow—but that civil servants may even avoid the day-to-day functions of government, because the Bill does not instruct them to do anything? It simply says that it does not prevent them from doing anything. Given the inertia, caution, procrastination and lack of decision making that we have seen so far in the Northern Ireland civil service, there is no guarantee that any decisions will be made, even with the Bill.
Dr Murrison
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is a little harsh on the Northern Ireland civil service, because of course civil servants will act as civil servants always do. They are not politicians, they do not do policy and they are acutely aware, all the time, of legal challenge. I take my hat off to David Sterling and his people for doing what they have managed to do since January or March 2017, but the fact is that key decisions have to be made. We have already heard about the distinction between policy and decision making; some of the decisions are policy, but some are simply nuts-and-bolts decision making. I fear that there will come a point when the line will be crossed, and the Secretary of State may very well come back here to seek further guidance from this House on what she can legitimately do to prevent the backsliding to which I have referred and hopefully start making progress on some of these key public service areas.
Reading through the guidance, I am heartened because it seems to give the Secretary of State really quite a lot of scope. She will have heard—and, I suspect, will continue to hear in the balance of this debate—a great deal of support from across the House for her being pretty proactive in issuing guidance to the civil service so that it can do what is necessary to advance the day-to-day living experience of the people of Northern Ireland. In particular, I note the enjoinder in the guidance that “particular weight” must be given to the avoidance of
“serious detriment to the public interest, public health and wellbeing”.
In response to the point made by the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) a few moments ago, I will reflect briefly on one example, which I mention as an exemplar more widely applicable to the whole piece. At the Royal Victoria Hospital on Monday, we heard from a group of cardiologists—people who are leaders in their field—how the inability to share data with the rest of the United Kingdom was proving to be an impediment because there was a failure of a particular decision that had to be made by a Minister. That has clear implications for healthcare in Northern Ireland, because if Northern Ireland cannot compare and contrast its performance and what it is doing with other parts of a similar healthcare service, it cannot really make improvements. That is just a small example of the kind of thing that we are talking about today which I hope will be covered in the guidance. I urge the Minister to ensure that the guidance that she issues is much more specific than that laid out in the framework published today. I think that she will end up having to issue really quite a lot of guidance, and I urge her very strongly indeed to push the limits as far as she possibly can.
I was particularly taken with the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who speaks for the Opposition. It is actually quite rare in this place that there is much in the way of consensus. Mercifully, reaching it tends to be easier in matters to do with Northern Ireland than in most public policy areas. The hon. Gentleman’s remarks, which I very much welcome, were exceptionally positive in regard to our sense that the Secretary of State really will have to issue guidance that is as prescriptive as possible, within the scope of the Bill, in order to move things along in Northern Ireland. That is the sense that I got from the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
I do not wish to go on too much longer, but I want to mention another point. In the Brexit context—there is always a risk that a debate like this will be overtaken by the issue of the moment—a great deal is going on in Northern Ireland at the moment that is of a unique nature. I have mentioned healthcare, but much of the economy in Northern Ireland is pretty unusual and has a uniqueness that needs to be reflected by those who are currently dealing with Brexit. Of course, it is a perfect storm in a sense, because not only is there a uniqueness regarding the various sectors; there is also a lack of an Executive—of a body advocating specifically for Northern Ireland. Now, the Government will say, “Well, it’s for us to negotiate in Brussels”, which is perfectly true, but we know full well that Scotland and Wales are separately making their points to our interlocutors in Brussels. That is not the case for Northern Ireland.
Lady Hermon
In relation to Brexit and the Secretary of State’s guidance following this legislation, would it not be helpful for the Secretary of State to look back at the letter signed—if my memory serves me correctly—on 13 August 2016, just months after the referendum, by both the then First Minister Arlene Foster and the then Deputy First Minister, the late Martin McGuinness? Would not that be helpful in showing the priorities that the then First Minister and Deputy First Minister felt were relevant in the Brexit negotiations?
Dr Murrison
I usually agree with the hon. Lady and I agree with her on that point. Of course, the general principle in these matters is that one relies on what has gone on before—the decisions of the Executive and so on. It would certainly be in that tradition and spirit to rely on the remarks of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister at that time, as a starter for 10.
The issue I have is exemplified by the farming and growing sector in Northern Ireland, which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) will remember we have debated at some length in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. There are particular facets of Northern Ireland quite apart from the border that need to be considered in the context of Brexit. It is important for provision to be made to ensure that that happens. I am not clear that it has happened to the extent to which I would like, and I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on that.
I also ask the Secretary of State to reflect on the Select Committee’s report, “Devolution and democracy in Northern Ireland—dealing with the deficit”, which we published in May, and which made some helpful suggestions on how she might consult with the public and various bodies in the absence of an Executive. If this goes on and on, and she is led more and more to issue guidance and consider policy, it is helpful—particularly in the context of the Good Friday agreement, but in any event—to ensure that she has consulted as widely as possible.
If I feel a little disappointment about this Bill—a very concise piece of legislation, on which I congratulate the Secretary of State—it is because it has not really reflected in any meaningful sense the recommendations made in the Select Committee report, which is now just months old. I think that is a mistake, because some of the suggestions are pretty unobjectionable and would have helped matters along, particularly measures such as civic forums, which have been tried before quite successfully and which could give the Secretary of State the sort of confidence that she was doing things that had the support of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That is in no way to try to subvert the institutions set up by the GFA or to suggest that they are not going to be restored, but in the interregnum it is important to get some sense of what people want. Those sorts of innovative bodies are a possible solution in the context of Northern Ireland.
We all hope that the Executive will be restored sooner rather than later—I think that the Secretary of State is as confident as she possibly can be that this will all happen within the next 10 months—but Northern Ireland is a unique and special place, and sadly we cannot necessarily guarantee that that will be the case. We therefore need—this has been mentioned previously—some idea about what will then happen.
We have to work on the assumption that a further general election will result in nothing new. Sometimes when we throw the cards up in the air, they fall down in a way that may surprise and delight us—or otherwise—but our working assumption has to be that such a thing will not change very much, which is presumably why the Secretary of State has not called an election up to this point. We will then have to decide what to do. Although I welcome the Bill, we cannot continue to kick the can down the road. One way or another, sadly by force of circumstance, the Secretary of State may again have to start making some of the difficult, crunchy decisions that have been made in this place since 1998.
One thing is for sure: it is simply not acceptable for the people of Northern Ireland to continue to sustain the sub-optimal public services about which my Committee has heard evidence, despite all the hard work of those on the ground and all the effort to try to stop up the gap indefinitely. I sympathise with the Secretary of State in her dilemma and absolutely support her intention to get the Executive back up and running, but I sound a cautionary note and ask her to start thinking: what on earth do we do in 10 months’ time, when we are back in the same place?
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Chairman of the Northern Affairs Committee. In his response to the Bill, he was, as always, considered and thoughtful. He highlighted the lack of ambition that we would ultimately like to see for good governance and for democratic decision making in Northern Ireland.
At the commencement of these proceedings, the Secretary of State made an announcement of condolences to the noble Lord Caine. May I take this opportunity, personally and on behalf of my party colleagues, to extend our condolences to the noble Lord Caine and to his mother following such a bereavement?
There has been a lot of talk so far about the Bill, and there is at least one level of consensus: it is what it is. It is not ambitious. It does not deliver good governance in Northern Ireland. It does not compel decision making in Northern Ireland. It provides no legislative vehicle for issues that require legislation in Northern Ireland. We understand and accept the position that the Secretary of State finds herself in—the constitutional barrier that she is wrestling with—but she knows that we are of the view that this place should be taking a much more interventionist approach towards the affairs of Northern Ireland and that, in that sense, the Bill is an opportunity missed.
I do, however, want to convey my appreciation to the officials from the Northern Ireland Office who have engaged directly with me and with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) in our consideration of this Bill. I spent much more time with them than I had planned to, and I think they spent much more time with me than they wished to. I think it fair to say that, while we are where we are, it is not ultimately where they or we would wish to be in terms of how we see this Bill.
But one thing is certain: we should not be here. We should not be yet again considering how we deliver for Northern Ireland in this Chamber—it should be happening at Stormont. Although we have thus far today considered this issue only lightly, Sinn Féin Members need to end their boycott of good governance, of democracy and of participation at Stormont and here at Westminster. They refuse to allow the re-formation of an Executive; they refuse to see a meeting of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and they refuse to take their seats in this House. They have shown no sign that they recognise the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland. They show no sign that they are impacted by the lack of decisions being taken in Northern Ireland. They show no sign that they are concerned about people on ever-increasing waiting lists and ever-increasing housing lists, or about the extension of our mitigation on universal credit and welfare reform that needs to be renewed next year. They show no sign of concern whatsoever.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not fair that those Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly who do want to address those issues on behalf of their constituents are being punished by the Sinn Féin lock-out at Stormont? Until it is grasped by the Northern Ireland Office and by the Secretary of State that the responsibility lies at the door of only one party, and unless either the system for establishing the Executive of Northern Ireland is changed or it is made quite clear that sanctions will be imposed, this situation will continue, because there is no penalty on Sinn Féin.
Gavin Robinson
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The majority of the 90 Assembly Members who have been elected to serve their constituents put themselves forward because they believe in public service, not stagnation. They are not like a puerile child participating in a game, not liking the rules, recognising they are not scoring goals, picking up the ball and walking off the pitch.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), in the discussions on the Bill with the Northern Ireland Office, we put forward a modest proposal that, to give some democratic accountability to this mechanism in Northern Ireland, the Assembly Members, on their reduced pay, should have a role in scrutinising the Departments that will exercise the decisions that fall subject to the Bill. The Northern Ireland Office told us that it was not possible to do this because Sinn Féin was unlikely to take part in such scrutiny mechanisms. Sinn Féin has a veto over even the most modest of proposals. How long are this Government going to allow Sinn Féin to veto democratic progress in Northern Ireland?
Gavin Robinson
That is an incredibly fair point to make, and I intend to address it later on. There has been a dereliction of duty. The opportunity to serve the people is not being taken by one party and one party alone. As it holds out for its purely partisan and narrow agenda, everyone else in Northern Ireland suffers.
No one should be under any illusion about our approach to these issues. In October last year, Arlene Foster, our party leader, indicated that she would seek the establishment of the Executive immediately and that if the Assembly created did not deal satisfactorily with the outstanding issues that had been raised as a stumbling block for progress, it should be brought down again in six months. She said, “Put me to the test.” She said, “Let us maturely and rationally reflect on the outstanding issues that you have; you can consider the outstanding issues that we have, and if we can’t resolve them, then bring it down—but at least try.” Before Arlene Foster sat down from making that speech, Sinn Féin had ruled it out. It had ruled out a restoration of the Executive, where Brexit and every public service that was of interest to the people of Northern Ireland could be considered.
As I reflect on these matters, standing here again to debate a Northern Ireland Bill that should not be necessary, I am reminded that the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said in September 2017 that nine months without a Government to steer policy had left the country with “no political direction” and left critical public service reform wanting. He continued:
“In the continuing absence of devolution, the UK government retains ultimate responsibility for good governance and political stability in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom and we will not shirk from the necessary measures to deliver that.”
That was only 13 months ago, yet here we are. He famously talked of a “glide path” to direct rule. Frustratingly, this is a never-ending holding pattern. It is not in the interests of democracy and not in the interests of good government.
The Bill has been described—kindly—as a “limited measure”. It has been described by my constituency predecessor as
“a sticking plaster on a broken leg”.
It has been described as a poor substitute for democratically elected politicians in Northern Ireland making decisions that affect the people they serve. It is through that prism that we have to consider the Bill.
The Bill does not provide certainty. It contains no certainty on decisions. It does not provide compellability. There is no compulsion on civil servants to make decisions that impact the people of Northern Ireland—decisions that need movement—but on key policy areas, there is no compulsion to do so. There is no progress on the 200-plus decisions that have lain in abeyance among the range of Departments since the suspension of the Assembly.
Sammy Wilson
Is the worrying thing for my hon. Friend the fact that many of those 200 decisions are sitting there not because of the court decision, but because of the inertia that exists in the Northern Ireland civil service? The Bill will not make a blind bit of difference to the fact that some senior members of the civil service—not all—will not make a decision to get up in the morning if they think they might get some criticism for it.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comment. I think it fair to say that there are a range of views on this issue, and some accord with the description that he has outlined. There are civil servants in the Northern Ireland civil service who have been incredibly courageous during the time that we have not had democratically accountable Ministers.
But there is the rub—the Bill relies solely on the willingness of a senior departmental official who is impervious to direction and impervious to the views of politically mandated, democratically elected representatives and who can decide whether or not they wish to proceed. The guidance is there, but if we go through that guidance fairly, I think we could decide that something is within the public interest or outwith it at our own discretion, and that is a fault.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I will expand more on this in my speech, but this is a critical point to do with the civil service. We can all criticise civil servants. There are good ones and bad ones. But, particularly in Northern Ireland—I experienced this when I was the Minister—the fear of judicial review in the civil service will not be addressed by the Bill. Bravery is fine, but if this Government do not back civil servants, there will still be fears, not about public opinion, but about whether they will be dragged through the courts, which we have seen so many times in the Province.
Gavin Robinson
That is a key consideration. The Bill does not insulate civil servants from the prospect of judicial review. We know from our experience in the courts in Northern Ireland, compared with England and Wales, that ultimately it is easier to progress a judicial review in Northern Ireland. Whether for unaccountable civil servants acting in the best interests of the country or democratically elected Ministers serving the people who elect them and the people of Northern Ireland, the challenges in the courts are still there.
The Bill seeks to replicate the understanding that was there prior to the Buick decision. I remember saying a year ago to the Minister of State that the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 empowers senior departmental officials to take decisions. Ultimately, it was considered by the courts, and the one fundamental ruling they made was that a decision of such regional significance that was controversial and/or significant should be considered by an Executive Committee. The Bill might seek to address that, but it does not absolve anyone from the legal requirement inserted through the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, which amended the Northern Ireland Act 1998, for consideration over and above the individual Department.
That was a significant safeguard injected into the legislative framework arising out of the Belfast agreement on controversial or significant decisions. In that sense, the Bill empowers civil servants to a greater level than a democratically elected and accountable Minister. That is difficult. That is my reading of clause 3(5), and it is constitutionally a troublesome step. I have to accept the position that the Northern Ireland Office has adopted, which is that it will not provide an overarching mechanism and it cannot empower officials to replace what would have been the Executive Committee, but the Bill is deficient in that regard. I am not sure that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will be able to answer or provide any solace on that issue.
Some consideration has been given to clauses 1 and 2, on the timescales for the re-formation of an Executive. I will put on record clearly for the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), in response to the question that she raised, that never once during any of our discussions with departmental officials in the Northern Ireland Office was a date discussed. No date was discussed, and it is not politically driven. Timescales were discussed, but no specific date was ever discussed.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to follow up on that, since he referred to me. There was not a date agreed or discussed with Northern Ireland Office officials, but there was a timescale. I am not a member of the party, so I was not present at the meeting. Let all the people of Northern Ireland hear the timescales. Was it six months or nine months? What was the timescale?
Gavin Robinson
Those considerations are exactly the same ones that the hon. Lady will have had in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The response that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Lady was that the broad parameters were discussed by all parties. I am being honest and sincere in saying that no date was ever discussed.
Gavin Robinson
No date was ever discussed.
I see in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) an earnest desire on his part to get progress going in Northern Ireland. He does not want to see a lengthy delay. Let us not kid ourselves. I have spent a considerable part of this speech commenting on the Sinn Féin boycott that exists today and has existed for the last 18 months and that has frustrated the meeting of the Assembly, the formation of the Executive or Sinn Féin sitting in this House.
If the hon. Lady wants an answer to this question, Conor Murphy has been quite clear about Sinn Féin’s position. When we met at the steps of Stormont in August this year and we asked, in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland, for Sinn Féin to end its boycott, Conor Murphy’s response was, “We envisage Ministers being appointed by April 2019.”
Gavin Robinson
I will just finish this point, if I may.
It is clear that the intransigence, stagnation and unwillingness to resolve these issues has not only pertained for the last 18 months but is intended to continue. That is bad for Northern Ireland, for all the people of Northern Ireland, for the issues that remain outstanding and for the people we represent. I will give way one more time.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. I asked about the timescales that had been articulated by the hon. Gentleman and his DUP colleagues. I did not ask about Sinn Féin. To tweak the question slightly, can we give the people of Northern Ireland any confidence at all that the deadline mentioned in clause 1 of the Bill—26 March 2019—is realistic, or are you just going to talk your way through that deadline? Not you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Don’t worry, I recognise that. I am not going to enter into Northern Ireland politics.
I have 11 Members down to speak. If some Members are not going to speak, can they let me know? At least then I know what I am working to.
Gavin Robinson
I intend to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you knew that anyhow.
I say respectfully to the hon. Lady—an honourable Lady in name and nature—that that is a fair question, but if she follows the logic of what I am saying, she will see that it is not one for us. We want to see the restoration of an Executive. We have indicated no red lines. We made an offer of an olive branch last August, and it was rejected in 35 minutes; it was not considered. We have the clearest of clear indications from Sinn Féin that it does not envisage having Ministers appointed until April 2019. It is a disgrace, and it bears no resemblance to the needs, the frustrations, the angst, the wishes or the aspiration of every single person who lives in Northern Ireland.
I have mentioned that this Bill lacks certainty. That is a product of the way in which it is framed, and the Secretary of State has sought to issue guidance. It is right that the civil service has been empowered to advance decisions that are couched within the public interest. However, I have no certainty whether a planning decision for the power plant envisaged in my constituency will be advanced by civil servants. Why is it necessary? Because some of our older power stations are coming offline. There is a need for this planning approval to be given so that the power station can form part of a capacity auction this autumn for future years. If it is not advanced, we will be in a difficult situation in Northern Ireland. The same can be said for the north-south interconnector. It is a necessary part of infrastructure that we support—we think it is imperative for the future of our energy arrangements—yet there is no certainty that this Bill will advance a decision on the north-south interconnector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South raised the transport hub in the south of the city. It is an important project that has regional significance in that it connects every part of Northern Ireland to our city. It has significant public resource allocated to it, and it will be necessary for the future development and aspirational growth of Belfast city and Northern Ireland. Is there any certainty that this Bill will advance that decision? Regrettably, there is none. Professor Bengoa—
Emma Little Pengelly
I will be brief. My hon. Friend referred to the uncertainty about the transport hub in Belfast. Does he agree with me that senior civil servants should heed what has been said today by the Secretary of State? Given the consensus about this issue, there are clear indications that this is very much the type of decision that could be made and in fact, from my point of view, should be made under this guidance.
Gavin Robinson
Absolutely right. Mr Deputy Speaker, we gave time to my hon. Friend, but we have saved time on what I was about to say. This is an important point and such civil servants should take cognisance of their ability to make these decisions, and they should make these decisions.
Very helpfully and importantly, paragraph 10(c) of the guidance outlines that NICS departmental officials are encouraged to
“continue to advance preparatory work”
up to the point at which a ministerial decision would be required. That goes some way to addressing the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). No longer can a departmental official say, “I’m sorry, we can’t advance that project or strategy, consider an alternative or engage with interested groups because we don’t have a Minister”; they can, and I think that is crucial.
As a constituency representative for Belfast East, I look to the regional stadium development fund as a prime example. The Executive agreed that they would spend £36 million on stadium development. Strand 1 of that scheme said there would be £10 million for a football club in my constituency—Glentoran football club. Officials say they cannot advance it because they do not have a ministerial decision. Well, of course they can, because it is an Executive priority, it is agreed, the consultation has been issued, the consultation responses are back, the consultation responses have been appraised by officials and they know exactly the direction of travel. Preparatory work still needs to be concluded, particularly with the Irish Football Association on the funding matrix for such a development, and that work should continue.
Transparency needs to be at the heart of this Bill. I was therefore pleased to see in paragraph 15 of the guidance a requirement on departmental officials in Northern Ireland to report to the Secretary of State monthly on any decision that has been taken under the Bill. That is really important, and it goes to the heart of transparency of government. The notion that senior civil servants could take decisions and not tell the people or that they could fail to take decisions that we know remain outstanding is one that is well worth consideration. I am pleased to see that that is included in the guidance.
There is a whole other issue that should have featured as part of this Bill. I look to the Minister to see whether he can give any comfort on this issue at all. We have no legislative forum in Northern Ireland. This is the only legislative forum in this country that can legislate on behalf of Northern Ireland, and every week, Bills go through this place that could and should be extended to cover Northern Ireland: issues that are not controversial; issues that do not cause difficulty between political parties; and issues that are normal and run of the mill. It is important that they are progressed and that we in Northern Ireland do not lose the opportunity for legislative change. We do not have any certainty that the ad hoc procedures and ad hoc approach to the inclusion of Northern Ireland in England and Wales legislation and the extension of that legislation to Northern Ireland will take place. That leaves us in a ridiculous situation. We are asked to come here and vote on issues that affect the people of England and Wales and yet not get any progress for the constituents that send us here. It is not right.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), had the courage to include Northern Ireland in non-branded medicines cost regulations back in March. He said that he sought a legislative consent motion, but there was no Northern Ireland Assembly. None the less, it was the right thing to do, and it was in the public interest to include Northern Ireland. Yesterday, the Civil Liability Bill should have included Northern Ireland. Animal welfare changes that have been brought forward by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should include Northern Ireland. In Westminster Hall, in debate after debate, we ask Ministers whether the Government will extend the same provisions in the absence of an Assembly to cover Northern Ireland, and they say that they cannot because it is devolved. I invite the Minister, if he can provide comfort for us now or later in his summation, to outline the steps that we can achieve to make sure that there is certainty that, when a legislative vehicle gives the opportunity to extend something sensible to Northern Ireland, we seize that opportunity.
Nigel Dodds
My hon. Friend makes a very, very important point. The Bill really covers only the issue of Executive functions and decisions taken at administrative levels, so the whole area of legislation is left to one side—obviously. There is the issue not only of extending legislation for England and Wales to Northern Ireland, but of legislation that is sitting with Government Departments in Northern Ireland ready to go, which cannot be progressed. Earlier, somebody mentioned the unexplained wealth orders, for instance, to tackle paramilitary crime and criminal organised crime in Northern Ireland—a sensible measure that is supported by everybody and that should be progressed. The police want to see it happen; everybody in Northern Ireland wants to see it happen. Why can that not be progressed?
Gavin Robinson
Absolutely. The unexplained wealth orders are a key example of how we should have extension of those provisions for Northern Ireland.
I mentioned the courageous nature of some decisions, and I know that the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) will agree with me that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland was incredibly courageous in making the changes required through regulation to allow for medicinal cannabis prescriptions. We wanted to see those English and Welsh regulations extended to Northern Ireland, and it has been done through another vehicle, and we are grateful for that.
Here is a key example of where it goes wrong. When the definition of co-ownership housing associations in Northern Ireland was not changed because we did not have an Assembly, but it was changed for England, Scotland and Wales, the derogation offered by the Treasury stopped. That means that if somebody does not take the opportunity to change that definitional issue now for Northern Ireland, our co-ownership schemes will not be able to use financial transaction capital tax, and it will not have the budget to provide the social houses that are required or the social mechanism through which somebody can purchase a home for the future. That is a disgrace.
Gavin Robinson
I will give way one final time, Mr Deputy Speaker, so as not to encourage your ire.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
To assist my colleagues, I have withdrawn from the list of those wishing to speak in this debate, but I want to intervene on the subject of housing. In Lambeg, which is in Lisburn in my constituency, and which is famous for its drums and has some very nice housing, some former Ministry of Defence homes are available for transfer, free of charge, to a Northern Ireland housing association. That housing would provide much-needed accommodation for young couples, first-time buyers and so on. That transfer cannot be concluded because the Department needs ministerial approval. The houses are falling into disrepair. The transfer would benefit the community, and particularly young people in my constituency, but it is not happening. Is not that the kind of decision we want made, so that our constituents benefit?
Gavin Robinson
That is an important point to make, and that matter should be progressed.
I have a final, broad point about the participation of Members of the Legislative Assembly. They have been elected to serve their people and wish to do so, and MLAs are required for good governance in Northern Ireland. There are many decisions that could be taken by civil servants, but there is no direction on what those decisions should be. The only way that civil servants can get a true appreciation of what politicians who have been elected to serve the people wish the direction of travel to be is to ask them—to include a participative process, and to encourage politicians to come in, share their views, and shape policy proposals and decisions for the future. The Bill does not take the opportunity to do that. We have mentioned the historical institutional abuse inquiry. That is a classic example of where elected MLAs could be engaged in discussions on how that matter is progressed.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) referred to the Independent Reporting Commission, which published a report yesterday. How sad is it that, 20 years after the Belfast agreement, we still have an independent reporting commission on paramilitary activity? I have been in this House for only three years, and in that time, I have had a constituent murdered by the IRA; that is the Provisional IRA, not a dissident group. Another constituent—a serving prison officer—was blown up by dissident republicans, through an under-car booby trap bomb. He died of his injuries a week later.
People come to my constituency office every week because of the pressure that they face from paramilitaries in my community—loyalist paramilitaries; paramilitaries who intimidate young families out of their homes; paramilitaries who lend money and extort a return; and paramilitaries who sell drugs and destroy individuals and their communities. The Independent Reporting Commission report pleads for political direction and political involvement, and for the participation of the people who have been elected to serve our society and want to do so. That is the prize in restoring the Executive. That is what we want. That is what the people of Northern Ireland deserve, and though the Bill does not deliver that, it extends the time and opportunity for delivering that. It is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
We have eight speeches to come, and about an hour to play with, so if speeches could be around seven minutes, that would be very helpful.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
As one of two former Northern Ireland Ministers on the Government Benches, let me say that I know how difficult the ministerial team has found it to get to this position with the Bill. The Bill is far from perfect, and it is very easy for us on the Government Back Benches—and for those on other Benches, and for the shadow Secretary of State and the shadow Minister—to tell everybody what should have happened. It would be very easy to criticise—and there was a bit of criticism from the shadow Secretary of State—but the Secretary of State is dancing on the head of a pin, because without a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland, the whole area around the Northern Ireland agreement is in a difficult position.
Nobody in this House—nobody who really understands the Northern Ireland political position—would dream of having a situation in which civil servants were empowered by the Bill to progress things in a way that people in any other part of the United Kingdom would find completely undemocratic, and that would never be passed by this House. To perhaps not dance on the head of a pin, this is as close as we will get to direct rule without direct rule.
Some of the political persuasions in Northern Ireland want that to happen. They want crisis. For their own political beliefs, mostly around a united Ireland, they want to make the whole thing collapse. We are very close to that. We cannot have a situation in which the Province is brought to its knees because one group of people want one thing and another group cannot accept that.
David Simpson
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that we had a degree of honesty from Sinn Féin—if that is possible—about whether they really want an Assembly back, and if they do, is it only on their terms?
Sir Mike Penning
That intervention is spot on, in many ways. It cannot be on one group’s terms. The Good Friday agreement is specific that it must involve the groups coming together.
In the time I was a Northern Ireland Minister, I met people from all parts of the Province, from all political persuasions and faiths, many of them together in the boxing rings and around rugby. Not once was the Irish language raised with me during my time in the Province. It may have been raised with the Secretary of State, but it certainly was not raised with me. Myriad things were raised, including the difficult situation of the historical investigations, the health service, bridges, roads and lack of infrastructure—all being blocked because one group in the Assembly had a veto. I like to use the word “veto” because I think the public understand it better. To me, that is fundamentally wrong.
We have to ask today whether Sinn Féin want to be part of the process. If not, they should come out and say so. If they do not want the Assembly, Administration and Ministers in place, they should say so. If they do want the Assembly to sit—although it is difficult to see how it could, considering the previous comments by Sinn Féin’s political leaders—they should get into the room, sit down at the table and thrash it out like their predecessors did.
I dealt with the late Martin McGuinness. I never thought that I would get on with him. We were miles apart politically, but he was actually quite pragmatic. He wanted better things for his community—like some of the parties in the House who do not want to be part of the United Kingdom, but come here, thrash things out and are part of it. That is why I have always found the fact that Sinn Féin does not come here, take part and argue its case fundamentally wrong and undemocratic to its constituents.
Sir Mike Penning
I will not give way to the great Lady, simply because I know so many other colleagues wish to speak in the debate.
The Bill worries me. I worry how amendable it is, which could impose things on Northern Ireland that are devolved matters. I accept that the Assembly is the right place. In a perfect world, I would like to see no abortion, but we do not live in a perfect world. We have abortion legislation here, and I was on the Opposition Front Bench during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008—a really difficult Bill—and we had a long debate about abortion. I personally think that a woman’s choice is important and we should allow abortion, but I would like to reduce the length of time in which the foetus can be aborted. However, it would be fundamentally dangerous to impose a decision made here on Northern Ireland when it is a devolved matter. I personally think that it should happen in Northern Ireland, but that is for the politicians who were duly elected there to deal with. If the amendment is passed today, it will cause chaos and division in Northern Ireland, and I shall vote against it if it is selected.
I have to say to those on the Front Bench that I have told my Whips that if that amendment were to be in the Bill, that is one reason why I would not be voting for the Bill later. But there is another reason, which is just as important. A whole group of veterans made Northern Ireland safer than it was when we went in. Many Members of this place have served in Her Majesty’s armed forces and been decorated for it. I find inconceivable the way that a British Conservative Government are dealing with British ex-servicemen. Years and years after we served and after the investigations have taken place, we are being treated like we were terrorists. That is the way we feel.
I first went to Northern Ireland in 1975, and Captain Robert Nairac, who sadly passed away there—we think, although we still do not know the exact facts of what happened to Robert—was my captain. I am surrounded by people saying to me, “Why are you”—this Government, this House—“not protecting me, rather than letting me be dragged back to a court in Northern Ireland for something that was finished years ago and of which I was found not guilty?” That form of double jeopardy is fundamentally wrong and it should be covered in this Bill. The Bill is concise and capable of containing that protection. I raised this matter at business questions last week, and the Leader of the House, in good faith, told me to go and speak to the Ministry of Defence. It has nothing to do with the Ministry of Defence; it is to do with the Northern Ireland Office and the Prime Minister, and that is the most important thing.
Emma Little Pengelly
As has been mentioned a number of times in this House, this week marks the 25th anniversary of the Shankill bomb. The person responsible for that was convicted in a court of law, but was released under the terms of the Good Friday agreement after serving just seven years for the murder of nine innocent civilians, including two children. That is absolutely appalling. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is grotesque that Sinn Féin, who defended that and fought for early release of those murderers from prison, is now going after those soldiers who were in Northern Ireland to defend, to protect and to do their job?
Sir Mike Penning
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. Sinn Féin see their people who were doing those atrocities as combatants. They were part of their army; that is why they called them what they did. But they do not look at our veterans in the same way; actually, I think they look at them with derision. I served with Catholics from Belfast in the Army, and they could not go home—certainly, if they did, they could not tell anyone what they were doing. When I was in basic training, many of them stayed with me, with us, because they felt that they could not go back, even though they were Unionists and they wanted to serve in the British Army. Many people from the south served in the British Army. We have police officers from the Republic now who are serving in the police force in Northern Ireland. That is the sort of thing we had, but we still do not have peace.
What peace do we have in Northern Ireland? We have touched on this, and on the murders of prison officers. When I was the Minister there, David Black was shot with a weapon that most people in Northern Ireland know was an AK47, from the Gaddafi era, that was supposed to have been placed out of use and out of everything. He was shot on the M1 going to work. What sort of peace is that?
Anna Soubry
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the pursuit of people who should clearly not be pursued as they have been through a process that has long been done with. Does he agree that that matter should actually be being determined by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland? It is a clear and blatant abuse of process that old criminal lawyers will understand. Does he also agree that it is not good enough that the covenant has not been fully extended through the entirety of Northern Ireland?
Sir Mike Penning
Perhaps unusually, I agree with my right hon. Friend on nearly everything she says apart from her point about the Attorney General. British soldiers who were there to keep the peace—that is what I was sent to do—were sent by the British Government and so, in my opinion, the only Attorney General who should look at it is the Attorney General here. We were sent there not by Northern Ireland Ministers or Attorney Generals, but by those who were here. My Prime Minister at the time sent the troops. I went in ’74; there were lots before me and lots after us. It cannot be right—it cannot—that this Bill ignores what was given by so many to protect the Province.
Sir Mike Penning
I will not give way, because the Deputy Speaker has already told me off once, but I will conclude.
I fundamentally think I was sent to this place to do a job—to protect my constituents and look after them, after they have looked after us. If this House is not willing to protect veterans who served in Northern Ireland, I am afraid I cannot support the Bill.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
This is the eighth or ninth time since devolution collapsed in Northern Ireland in January 2017 that we have had so-called emergency legislation, and the Bill is arguably the most important, wide-ranging piece of all that emergency legislation. As the Minister heard, there will of course be support for it, because it is necessary to facilitate the further good governance of public services in Northern Ireland, but it is a profoundly unsatisfactory process, both in general and in particular today—the way in which we are going about delivering legislation for Northern Ireland, and the way in which this piece of legislation has been brought forward.
In the first instance, I would say that the notion that the Bill is a piece of emergency legislation is in itself questionable. Of course it deals with some important matters, notably the appointment of people to the Policing Board and other boards in Northern Ireland, but Members ought to know that the Policing Board has been without its political members since March 2017. It has now been without its independent members for almost six months. If that is such an emergency, the Government seem slightly slow to respond. Equally, I would say that we all understand how the Buick ruling has undermined the status of civil servants and their security when taking important decisions, but that too was some months ago now, and I believe that that could have been dealt with in rather shorter order.
However, the really important point is not the question of the emergency, but the nature of the substance of the issues that we are dealing with today, because as several Members have suggested, the proposed changes are profound. It is everything short, if you like, of direct rule, but it gets as close to direct rule as we could have without calling it as much.
The guidance has been mentioned several times today. I think it was remiss of the Secretary of State to say that that guidance had been placed in the Library of the House, because it had not. It had been published online on the NIO website, alongside the legislation, but it was not referred to specifically in either the legislation or the notes to the legislation, so hon. Members such as myself who would have liked to be able to read that, as far as I am aware were unable to do so, unless we knew that it was on the website, which was not true in my case at least. I know that some people on the Front Bench and elsewhere, and perhaps the Chair of the Select Committee, and certainly some of the other political parties who were consulted, will have been given the guidance, but we were not given the guidance.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Shailesh Vara)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Owen Smith
I would be delighted to give way to allow the Minister to explain.
Mr Vara
The guidance to the civil service was deposited in the Library on Monday, and it is also available today on the gov.uk website, from which other people in this Chamber were able to take copies. So, from our point of view, it was deposited on Monday. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that at face value, and perhaps seek to retract some of the accusations that he has made in this direction.
Owen Smith
All I can say is that I went personally to the Library and asked the staff, and asked them again, and asked them to check; indeed, I also went to the Table Office and the Vote Office, and none of the people responsible in those offices said that they had a copy of the guidance. We then learned that it had been provided to other people, but only through the NIO website, from which I gather it was given to the Opposition Front-Bench team last week. I do not think that is satisfactory, not least because the substance of the guidance is so important—the issues that the legislation deals and does not deal with, the way in which the Secretary of State is offering guidance to civil servants, and some of the misunderstanding as to how that guidance will be provided on an ongoing basis are incredibly important.
I asked the Secretary of State earlier whether she could give me a specific example of a decision that might or might not be made by the Northern Irish civil service departments in the light of this guidance, and she could not do so. I suspect that that is because anyone who reads the guidance, as I now have, can see that you could drive a coach and horses through it. There are any number of instances that one could choose to identify in which it appears that decisions might be made in the public interest, or in order to improve wellbeing or economic performance in Northern Ireland, and, equally, there are many instances in which one might choose to interpret the legislation as inhibiting such decisions and actions.
The crucial distinction seems to involve the question of policy. However, I put it to the Minister that even if Northern Ireland civil servants cannot amend policy on an ongoing basis, one would assume that, as a corollary, they now have the capacity to make operational decisions that could be of enormous significance to citizens in Northern Ireland, relating to, perhaps, the closure of a hospital, school or some other vital facility.
The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) implied, at least, that the Secretary of State would have to provide further guidance in respect of those operational decisions that might be undertaken, but according to my reading of the legislation, that is not the case. My understanding is that the Secretary of State will publish, on a monthly basis, some reference to the decisions that have, potentially, been made, or, rather, civil servants will report to her on the decisions that they have made under the guidance, but there is no obligation on her to provide the House with details of any decisions that she is instructing civil servants to make—or objecting to their making—on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
That brings me to the principal point that I wish to make. We seem to be taking a very big step in further strengthening the hand of Northern Ireland civil servants to make important decisions. We have had practically no opportunity to scrutinise the guidance and to understand fully what it means—what its implications are not just for Northern Ireland, but for the devolved settlements across these islands. It seems to me that this is another example of the Government’s rushing through Northern Ireland legislation, characterising it as absolutely vital and urgent when in reality it deserves further scrutiny.
Lady Hermon
Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of a significant point that was made, in a very interesting speech, by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—to whom, of course, I apologise for addressing him earlier as “you” instead of “the hon. Member”. [Laughter.] The significant point in that excellent speech was the indication given by a very senior Sinn Féin member that Sinn Féin had no intention whatsoever of abiding by the timescale and the deadline of 26 March next year. What would the hon. Gentleman and his party colleagues do if Sinn Féin drove through that deadline?
Owen Smith
I am not sure that that intervention is entirely pertinent to the point that I was making. However, I will say in response to it that what I heard was a reference to Conor Murphy’s having said that he did not think Ministers would be in place before April 2019, which is broadly in line with the mysterious deadline that the Secretary of State has specified in clause 1.
My view is that no one party in Northern Ireland is blameless in respect of the impasse in which we currently find ourselves. I think that all parties need to get round the table, and that, crucially, the Governments on both sides of the Irish border need to do more to make this a more dynamic process. Torpor, drift and lassitude have characterised the approach of our Government, in particular, to an impasse that has lasted for nearly two years. If this is such an emergency, I think that the real emergency has been the lack of drive and dynamism. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) about some of the ideas advanced previously by him and by me about an independent chair, potentially the Prime Minister—maybe not the current Prime Minister, but a Prime Minister—who would have a greater influence in these matters. There are myriad ways in which the Government could be trying to drive this forward, but they are not doing so, and that causes me grave regret.
I shall conclude by making three brief points. This Bill essentially allows civil servants in Northern Ireland to take a very wide-ranging set of decisions and to be given legal and political cover by the Northern Ireland Office to do so, but it does not apparently allow decisions to be taken about the Hart inquiry recommendations on victims of historical institutional abuse, and that is morally indefensible. Hart reported just after the Assembly collapsed, but the inquiry was established by the Assembly and is widely supported across the Assembly. David Sterling, head of the Northern Ireland civil service, has said in terms that he already has the legislation on the books in order to deliver for those victims, and it is a disgrace that this legislation is not going to deal with their case. It should do, and there is no excuse for it not doing so.
Secondly, there are 500 victims of the troubles who have been gravely injured mentally or physically, as a result of no fault of their own in the vast majority of cases. They deserve a victims pension. It is clear that the compensation paid to individuals in the past is insufficient given that those people are living longer, thankfully, than was ever imagined. It is vital that the Government put in place a pension for victims.
Lastly, there is nothing in this Bill that allows for the people of Northern Ireland to have a greater voice than that represented through the DUP on the question of Brexit. The most important issue facing Northern Ireland is the prospect that the Good Friday agreement is in jeopardy right now, as a result of the reckless way in which Northern Ireland is being treated in the Brexit process. It is essential that we get the Assembly back, but if the Assembly cannot deal with it, Ministers in the NIO need to start speaking up, and I say to them, “We need to hear your voices on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland on Brexit, and if you do not speak up, you are letting the people of Northern Ireland down.”
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I will try to be brief, but this is a subject that I hold close to my heart. Let me start by saying how much I wish that we were not here. As someone who grew up in Northern Ireland and was born in Omagh at the beginning of the troubles, I spent my childhood knowing what it was like to live at a time of violence within the United Kingdom. This year marks 20 years since the Omagh bombing and 20 years since the Good Friday agreement, and the peace that we have today is precious, and also very fragile as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) reminded us.
I have said before in this Chamber that we should not jeopardise the Good Friday agreement. We should not jeopardise it with a hard border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. We also should not jeopardise the right to self-determination that the people of Northern Ireland made with their clear decision that they wished to be part of the United Kingdom and part of our precious Union here. It is always difficult for someone like me who is no longer living in Northern Ireland but is watching from afar to form a view, but I think that it has partly been having Stormont and having local decision making that has meant that the Good Friday agreement has lasted for so long. Local decision making is key to holding this whole situation together. So that is why I wish we were not here: I wish the Stormont Assembly were meeting and we were not put in the position of trying to pass legislation in this place.
I was back over in Northern Ireland last month, and time and again people outside politics were telling me how frustrated they were by the current situation—not only by the lack of decision making in Stormont, but by what that is doing for key decisions that affect everyday lives. They mentioned many projects—local transport projects, health projects and a particularly beautiful education project. In Omagh, on the site of the old Army barracks, there is a £140 million investment to build the Strule schools project, which will bring all six secondary schools in Omagh on to one site, so instead of the Catholic and Protestant children being in different schools where they never meet, they will still have their own school ethos but they will meet and be together. That will be such a powerful sight, but when I drove past it, the gates were there but there was nothing behind them because the project continues to be delayed. We need to ensure that the civil servants in Northern Ireland can get on with making the key decisions, and we cannot wait forever. That is why I will support Ministers in ensuring that they can get local decision making going.
I want to talk a bit about the subject of abortion, which I know will come up again and again today. I have spoken about it in the Chamber before, and it is an emotional issue on which people have strong personal views. I support the right to choose, and that is something that I believe in very strongly, but I also feel very sensitive about people in one part of the world telling people in another part of the world what they should do on this issue. It is an issue that should be determined locally.
When I spoke about this last time, it was on the eve of the High Court judgment on human rights. I pointed out that if part of the UK were found not to be upholding key human rights, we in this place would have to act. When I was back over in Northern Ireland, I had the opportunity to listen to the testimony of a mother who had had the most hideous experience of being forced to carry a baby to term, even though the baby was never going to live and actually died in the womb.
It is worth having another read of the High Court judgment, because on the one hand it says that we are in breach of our human rights in key areas such as rape, incest and foetal fatal abnormality, but on the other hand the judgment does not stand formally because the Court ruled that the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission did not have the legal power to bring a case in its own name. As I understand it, that is a failure of the legislation that was passed here under the then Labour Government. The language was not clear enough in the Bill that established the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to give the commission the power to bring such cases in its own name. That issue needs to be corrected, and I am told that that would put the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission on a level playing field with its equivalents in other parts of the United Kingdom. If that had already been the case, that legal judgment would have been binding, which would have helped to facilitate the local changes that are needed to ensure that the women of Northern Ireland do not have their human rights breached.
There are many more things that I would like to say. I believe that it is still worth fighting for frictionless trade across the Northern Irish-Irish border and across the Irish sea and the English channel. By finding a solution that keeps the whole Union together, we will find a relationship that works for our ongoing relationship with Europe as well. I will support the Bill this evening, but with a heavy heart, because I wish that we did not have to be here.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I will try to be relatively brief, because my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has made a fantastic speech in which he articulated many of the issues that I wanted to touch on. I am also conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is sitting behind me, is keen to speak and to have sufficient time to articulate his issues, and I do not want to disappoint him in that regard.
I want to talk about the specifics of this legislation. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East in thanking the team at the Northern Ireland Office and the ministerial team for all their work and for the help they have given to me and the Democratic Unionist party team to enable us to understand better the issues in the Bill. They also gave us the space to raise our concerns and issues, some of which I will touch on today.
As already articulated, this Bill is not a perfect solution. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is far from a perfect solution, because it is so limited in what it can actually do and in the powers that it gives to senior civil servants. The context of course is that that is also difficult and troubling, because giving such powers has at its heart a democratic deficit that goes to the centre of British constitutional democracy. I will touch on that again later, not least because it is almost unprecedented in decision making in any part of our United Kingdom.
Throughout the process, from the first suggestion of this approach, the ministerial team in the Northern Ireland Office will be aware that DUP Members have expressed disappointment over the ambition of the proposals. That disappointment arose not because the Secretary of State was keen to ensure that some decisions can happen in Northern Ireland, but because putting Northern Ireland back into a pre-Buick but post-collapse position is insufficient. The legislation gives only limited scope for decision making by senior civil servants, about which the Secretary of State was frank and clear, but I am grateful that there are some exceptions, although they are small, covering planning and big investment decisions when they are non-controversial and enjoy a broad consensus and when decisions are clearly in the public interest. I put it on the record again that I welcome the Secretary of State’s clarity that a decision like that on the transport hub, which is of regional significance and critical to Northern Ireland’s economy, can be made under the terms in the legislation.
However, I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) that it is extremely disappointing that we are where we are. This is not where any of us want to be. I do not want to go into great detail, but it is worth reminding ourselves of how we have reached this point. My DUP colleagues have already articulated our frustration, because we want to get back into government to work and to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland. My colleagues who are Members of the Legislative Assembly were elected to do that job, but they cannot. They, like Members of every other party, are frustrated from entering the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive by one party, but one of the frustrating things about the process thus far has been the tendency by many to look at all the parties in Northern Ireland and say, “You’re all as bad as each other. You’re all holding back progress. Why don’t you just get on with it and get back into government?”
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I was here for most of the first part of the debate, but I had to be away to attend a Committee. I just want to agree with the hon. Lady. Only one party is stopping Stormont reconvening, and it is Sinn Féin. It is in Sinn Féin’s interest to screw up—I use that phrase advisedly—the whole idea of Northern Ireland being self-governing, and it will continue to do that. I suspect that we will still be here arguing like this next year. I wish that the situation were not like this, because Northern Ireland is a great place. One party—Sinn Féin—is ruining what should be happening.
Emma Little Pengelly
I thank and agree with the hon. Gentleman.
I came in to work for and with Government back in 2007 on the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I was an adviser in the office of the First Minister, and I worked closely not only with our DUP team, but with the Sinn Féin team. Back in 2007, that was challenging, because the office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is a joint office. Part of my job was to advise the First Minister and try to get agreement on a range of issues to be signed off by the Ministers in the relevant Department. What did that mean in practice? It meant that every letter and every policy—everything that went out of the Department—had to be agreed between the DUP and Sinn Féin. I was one of the people charged with seeking those agreements for ministerial sign off.
I say this today not because of any blind hatred or opposition to Sinn Féin, because we worked the system, and we worked it hard, to try to deliver on behalf of everyone in Northern Ireland. We had to make very difficult compromises, decisions and agreements to make devolution work in order to try to stabilise the peace.
It was therefore particularly disappointing when the collapse happened, and I recognise all those people across all parties, including Sinn Féin, with whom we worked to try to make Northern Ireland work. It is in that context that everyone here, including on the Labour Benches, should be clear about who is causing there to be no government in Northern Ireland today. We would go back into government tomorrow morning. We are willing to turn up, and we are not asking for anything. One party is saying to every other party in Northern Ireland, “You are not going into government unless we get our demands.” That is blackmailing not just the other parties in Northern Ireland but the people of Northern Ireland who want to see issues addressed such as health, health transformation, education, necessary infrastructure and the fantastic projects happening on the ground to foster good relations—those things cannot happen.
In the main, the Bill gives unaccountable senior civil servants the power to make some decisions, and it has been acknowledged that most of them will be routine, non-controversial, low-level decisions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) rightly said, the vast majority of the 200 decisions that have been listed are not controversial, but they cannot be taken under the terms of this Bill. That is why, right from the outset of this process, we expressed disappointment, because the time has now come that, if Sinn Féin will not move on and if they want to boycott the Northern Ireland Assembly, they should allow those who want to work to work. There need to be ministerial decisions on a whole range of important issues.
New clause 7 has received some coverage and has caused some controversy because of the two issues relating to Northern Ireland. I echo the comments of many on both sides of the House that we recognise these issues are of deep concern to many people in Northern Ireland. These issues are of deep concern to many people in my constituency. We have heard the experiences of women, particularly in relation to life-limiting conditions and fatal foetal abnormalities. We have listened to their stories and experiences, and they are incredibly difficult. I challenge anyone not to feel empathy for the very challenging circumstances in which those women find themselves.
I spoke on behalf of the DUP in the Northern Ireland Assembly just prior to the collapse on a report we commissioned, and I urged people to wait, to let us see the report and to approach the situation with compassion and care. That report has been received, and I honestly believe that, if the Northern Ireland Assembly were re-established, the report would be debated, considered and decided on where it rightly should be dealt with. The only thing holding that up is the lack of a Northern Ireland Assembly, and there would be no impediment to the Assembly getting back to work tomorrow if Sinn Féin dropped their red line.
Yes, there are some concerns about the Bill, and I conclude by addressing some specific issues for Northern Ireland. The historical institutional abuse inquiry has been mentioned, and I have frequently met victims and victims’ groups over the past seven to eight years. I have put on the record, and wish to say again, that we in the Democratic Unionist party are hugely sympathetic to what those people experienced, particularly as children, in those institutions. That is an example of an issue that needs to be addressed. A huge amount of work needs to happen on a possible redress scheme—a support scheme— and who would be eligible for it and what mechanism could be used to introduce it. But that can happen at the moment, in preparedness for a decision to be made; my understanding is that under the terms of this Bill and guidance that is the type of decision that cannot be made.
In the absence of such decisions, if there is no restoration of the Assembly, I urge the Secretary of State and her team: be a little braver, step up and make the decision to say, “It has gone on long enough.” Victims, those suffering, those in need and those sitting on waiting lists need decisions, and they need to be ministerial decisions. Although that needs to happen now and in a couple of months’ time, it needed to happen yesterday—it needed to happen a year ago. This is now urgent across such a wide range of issues.
Briefly, I wish to touch on the issue of the definition of a “victim”. I mentioned in an intervention that this week marks the 25th anniversary of the Shankill bomb, an incident that demonstrates so acutely the grotesque nature of the definition of “victim” in Northern Ireland. Under that definition, which is holding up issues such as the victim’s pension and other support, the nine innocent victims of that atrocity—that IRA act of terrorism—are gauged to be the same as the IRA bomber who blew himself up and killed himself planting that bomb on that day. That is grotesque and appalling. People right across all the political parties, here and in Northern Ireland, have a number of issues they are really concerned about and care deeply about. I recognise that many care deeply about the Irish language Act, but there are many other issues to address, such as the one I mentioned. What a wrong to turn around and say to the families of those who were murdered and injured on that day, “That bomber is treated the same under victims’ schemes and victim support as the people he went out to murder.”
Connected to that is the point relating to our veterans. We do need our covenant—we need full implementation of the covenant. Northern Ireland has 3% of the UK’s population, but we contribute 7% to the Army, which is vastly higher in terms of proportion across the United Kingdom, and we do deal with the legacy. When people come back, they have done their duty and have seen some terrible things, not because they chose to go there, but because that was their job and duty. We therefore have a responsibility to do what we can to support them. We need the full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. We also need to address the issue of the disproportionate and grotesque attempts to pursue soldiers and police officers who did their duty, stood up to protect and were only there with a gun in that situation because they were placed there to protect people. We need to get that addressed urgently, and with that I will conclude.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
May I just say to the two gentleman that we need to bring on the Front Benchers just before quarter to?
Jim Shannon
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make a comment. First, let me thank the Secretary of State for introducing this legislation. We know that the people of the Province have been held to ransom by the wiles and machinations of an obstinate, intransigent and downright petulant Sinn Féin for too long. Other Members have said that and I want to reiterate it. It seems Sinn Féin is happy enough to be the party of absenteeism at home as well as in the UK, happy to take the Queen’s notes and not legislate, and happy to leave our country tottering on the brink. It is about time that we in this place reminded Sinn Féin that if it does not and will not do its job in Northern Ireland or here, we and the British Government will do that job for it.
My personal opinion is that we should be implementing direct rule in this legislation if an Assembly Executive are not formed within the next six months. I believe it is time we did that. For too long, we have pandered to Sinn Féin and gotten nowhere, except for in Northern Ireland Departments that are afraid to allocate money. I want to make some comments about that. Clause 3(4) states:
“The absence of Northern Ireland Ministers is not to be treated as having prevented any senior officer of a Northern Ireland department from exercising functions of the department”.
Subsection (5) makes reference to something
“not to be treated as having prevented the exercise of that function”.
That all sounds right and proper, but the fact of the matter is that, although it gives permanent secretaries some function in terms of where they are, it does not go far enough. The difficulty for me came when I read the guidance on decision making. Although the principle of the legislation is to ensure that the decisions that should be taken are taken, the framework for decisions leaves a lot to be desired. The guidance says that
“the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers does not prevent a senior officer of a NI Department from exercising a function of the department if the officer is satisfied that it is in the public interest to exercise the function”.
Surely that translates into, “If an official wishes to stick their neck out, this will not stop him or her.” How many officials are prepared to do that? I suspect that there are very few. It is all very well, but where does the Bill say that decisions must be made unless there is a reason not to make them? We all know the issues clearly. It is important to encourage permanent secretaries to make decisions that have been in the pipeline for too long.
This morning, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard about the need to recruit some 600 police officers before the end of the year. There are some plans to try to do that to bring the figures up. We also have to address paramilitarism. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is clear about what it is doing and wants to do. I am happy with the PSNI’s commitment, but will the Secretary of State say how the Bill addresses it?
Last week, I met the Unison representatives of the health workers at the Ulster hospital in Belfast. They are as annoyed as I am that in Northern Ireland we cannot access some of the drugs that we can access on the mainland. Compared with some parts of the United Kingdom, we have second-class access to cancer care in Northern Ireland. For some people, there is a backstop down the Irish sea when it comes to healthcare for those in certain parts of the mainland compared with us in Northern Ireland. I express great concern about that. Why is it that agency staff cost the health service in Northern Ireland £150 million? I suggest that that is lazy management. It is not cost-effective to spend £150 million this year on agency staff when the staff could be employed full time at a much lower cost.
What about the pay for nurses—the 6.5% over three years for the nurses? There is a backstop down the Irish sea when it comes to the nurses in Northern Ireland getting their 6.5%. Perhaps the Secretary of State will listen to this question, if that is possible: when will the nurses in Northern Ireland get their 6.5% pay increase? Will the changes in this legislation make that happen? We have been very involved with community pharmacies and we understand the issues clearly. We need to help the permanent secretary to enable the changes to take place.
Let me refer to the food-processing grant scheme and the lack of an appropriate scheme. I had a meeting with the Minister of State on this matter, which affects three of the largest employers in my constituency. When I attempted to engage the permanent secretary on the issue, I was given the following response—I quote the Minister of State, who is sitting there writing furiously:
“You have asked for a reconsideration of a decision to restrict the availability of grant to SMEs in Northern Ireland. If the measure was to be extended beyond the SME sector and the available evidence, that would require a direct Ministerial intervention. There are no plans to launch this new scheme in the absence of a DAERA Minister.”
Will the permanent secretaries be able to legislate on the scheme to enable three of my large local business to take advantage of a processing grant scheme that is available on the mainland? It is available in Scotland, Wales and England, but it is not available in Northern Ireland.
On fishing, Brexit will bring us some access to our own waters again, which is good news, but we also need fishing harbours in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel that can take up the opportunities and make sure that they happen. For that to happen, we need someone in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the permanent secretary to be responsible, take those decisions and ensure that we get the second slipway at Portavogie, the large scheme at Kilkeel and the improvements needed at Ardglass, which are currently on hold.
We will always talk about our own constituencies, as I have done, but I just want to plug a project in my constituency that is still sitting in the system—the Ballynahinch bypass. Why are we unable to get progress? The bypass is ready to go and the plans are in action, including the acquisition of land, but we are unable to move the scheme forward. A Northern Ireland Water sewerage scheme for new builds is also on hold in Saintfield in my constituency. There are lots of new builds in Newtownards and Comber, and we may have to upgrade those systems as well, so I am very conscious of that issue.
I will soon draw my remarks to a conclusion, because I want to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) has the opportunity to speak. Just before I do, I will mention the education system. Many schools across my constituency have not been able to step forward as our allocation of pupils increases. We are looking into having a new build for Glastry College, or perhaps an amalgamation of Glastry College and Movilla High School. We will have to see where that goes, but we need someone in place to make the decision. We also need someone in place to make the decisions about children’s road safety outside both Grey Abbey Primary School and Abbey Primary School in Newtownards. These are real bread and butter issues for people who want to see change.
We are frustrated with a system that unfortunately does not bring accountability. With respect to the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, who are both sitting on the Government Front Bench, this legislation does not deliver the accountability that I want to see. I challenge the Government to show that it will deliver on the education and bypasses that we need, and on nurses’ pay. We want to see accountability and responsible action from the Ministers and the Department.
I agree with the spirit of the Bill, but it is not forceful enough and will mean that decisions can be avoided. The people of the Province have lived in limbo for far too long. We deserve better; and the DUP deserves and demands better.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
It is with great sadness that we are here today, debating yet another Bill that should not have to be brought to this House. Unfortunately, we are in this position because of the intransigence of one party, as has been outlined by many speakers. Sinn Féin had the opportunity to go into an Assembly with us; it will not. I am not necessarily saying that we should be dealing with talks. I think that we should recall the Assembly, and that those who are willing and want to be there should be there and take part in business. That might bring about a need to change the way in which the Assembly is set up, but—let’s be honest—we can move things whenever we have to.
This legislation is about allowing civil servants to make decisions, although many such decisions have been challenged. I appreciate that this comes on the back of the Buick ruling, associated with the Mallusk incinerator site—I use the term “incinerator” because that is what it is—and because of that, we have ended up with many civil servants looking for reasons not to make decisions, instead of for reasons to make them. Unfortunately, the people of Northern Ireland suffer as a result.
It is vital that we move forward positively. We do not want to go back to where we were in the past, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. We have moved on quite a bit in the last 20 years; we do not want to go back, nor do we want to be held to ransom by the implementers of some of the troubles or those who brought about some of the atrocities in our Province.
There are difficulties associated with some of these decisions. Many are simple, straightforward and uncontroversial—many of which are associated with major infrastructure. The difficulty is that people have attempted to put something in this Bill that is very controversial to people of Northern Ireland, and we should not be trying to muddy the waters on that matter. I appreciate that it is a difficult situation, and that many people have suffered because they are having a baby who may be born with a life-limiting condition. I understand and appreciate that, but we should not have to attach it to this Bill. If we get an Assembly up and running, these decisions should be made there. These items should not be made red lines before entering into a Government; they should be debated on the Floor of a Northern Ireland Assembly and addressed democratically through that process.
We missed another opportunity in not including something associated with the past—the way that the military have been hounded in relation to what happened when they were trying to bring about peace in Northern Ireland. They were there as custodians of the British Government to ensure that we were able to sleep in our beds at night.
Mr Gregory Campbell
My hon. Friend refers to our esteemed and brave members of the military. There is a lot of talk about heroes of the peace process—does he agree that they are the real, unsung heroes of the peace process?
Paul Girvan
I have to agree with my hon. Friend—that is 100% right. I am from a family who have been affected directly. Many members of my family served in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately we suffered as a consequence of that and are still suffering today.
We have missed a shot in moving these matters forward. However, I do appreciate the work that has gone into trying to bring forward something that will potentially provide an opportunity for some decisions to be made. Not that many weeks ago, we passed a pay rise for the teachers. There was an excuse that that cannot be passed across to Northern Ireland, but we will get a Barnett consequential in the next Budget should we have a mechanism to pass that pay rise on. I believe that this Bill will give civil servants and permanent secretaries the opportunity to make those decisions and pass on those pay rises, which are long overdue.
We have had a long debate on this matter. I hope and pray that this will be the last time that we have to bring to this House such a piece of legislation that would normally be addressed in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Let us hope and pray that we have that Assembly up and running, making decisions, in the near future.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
During the course of this afternoon, two common threads have emerged that have run through all of our discourse. One of those is the unfailing courtesy and respect with which Members have addressed each other across the Chamber. This has been an occasion not for people trying to score parochial or party political points but to try, really try, actually to achieve what is best for those we care the most for: the people of Northern Ireland; the people of this United Kingdom. The second thread is the sadness that we are here at all, as has been expressed so eloquently by so many Members, and the feeling that we have somehow failed as politicians and as legislators because we have had to bring this Bill before us.
The opening comments by the Secretary of State will have engendered great sympathy from across the House and, I should imagine, outside it. She took a huge number of interventions, and she spoke entirely honestly and from her heart. The conclusion that I drew from her words was that if there were any other way of proceeding, we would take it—if there were any other possible mechanism, that is the mechanism we would seek—but we are in a situation where it is simply impossible to continue, and not just because of the great long list of concerns that have been expressed.
If anyone thinks that there is any shortage of urgency about addressing those concerns in Northern Ireland, they should have a look at the briefing paper put out by the House of Commons Library, which lists page after page of long-outstanding issues. We know all about the A5 and the York Street interchange; we know about nurses’ pay and the NHS. We know about all these issues, but we cannot do anything about them. There is the issue of dormant bank accounts. There are things that would be so good for the people of Northern Ireland. We must somehow break this logjam and move forward. Of course, in an ideal world, we would have an Executive and an Assembly, but we are not there yet. We have to do something now.
We should pay credit to David Sterling, the head of the Northern Ireland civil service. There are some pretty tough jobs in the civil service, but his has to be one of the toughest. He has said on the record that he needs to be given legislation, to give “greater clarity and certainty” to decisions, not just because of the decision of Mrs Justice Keegan in the Mallusk case, but for the whole operation of the Northern Ireland civil service. We are asking them to carry the ball when we are not prepared to give them cover.
The hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) referred to the Secretary of State as sailing a tight and narrow course between Scylla and Charybdis. He may have been piling Pelion on Ossa when he made that statement, because I think we tend to know that, but that is exactly it—the Secretary of State has been walking on eggshells. What we have here is not an attempt to give a blank cheque and carte blanche to the Northern Ireland civil service, but an attempt not to restrain them and constrain them in such a way that they can do nothing. There will be an element of accountability. There will always be judicial review, and there will always be very active local Members in Northern Ireland who will not be silent if matters are failing to be raised.
The shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), referred to a poverty of ambition. I think, in all sincerity, that we could be more ambitious. At the moment, we are firefighting; we are responding to crisis. I do not see that we are laying out alternatives and ways in which we can move forward. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) asked, “What can we do best?”, and that is the question we must all ask ourselves. At the moment, we are providing cover, and we are allowing the civil service to act, but we are not solving the problem or resolving it in any way whatsoever.
I think the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) spoke for us all when he said that the Bill is accepted reluctantly. I think we all accept it, but with great reluctance. In the intervention from the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), he referred to two words that echo throughout Northern Ireland. I have to say, there are two words I have always associated with it in the past—the first is “No” and the second is “Surrender”. I am glad we have parked that and moved on. Now the two words are, “We’re ready!” and I am delighted to hear that.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), whose constituency I have had the enormous pleasure of visiting with him, called for a more interventionist approach. He is absolutely right, and I agree with that. It must be so desperately frustrating that the community groups and organisations he works with are being starved of funds and resources and starved of that accountability and link to legislation. He is doing everything he can. If only we could do more to help him. Sadly, the words that I remember from him are,
“we are where we are.”
That is the tragedy, but we have to get from where we are to somewhere forward.
I had the great honour of shadowing the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) when he was a Minister. He is one of eight Ministers I have shadowed over the years; I do not know whether the fact that they all sought promotion immediately afterwards has anything to do with me. He spoke from a position of knowledge. He is held in great affection in the House, and we wish him well in everything he does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) talked about torpor, drift and lassitude, which sounds a bit like a firm of solicitors in Swansea. I know exactly what he means—torpor, drift and lassitude are, in some ways, the characteristics that are seen from outside.
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) spoke from an Omagh background. I welcome her to our regular sessions here on this subject. We are always looking for new input. Her comments were very emotionally grounded, and we all respected them.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly), in a typically excellent and elegant speech, referred to the democratic deficit. She also talked about an unaccountable civil service. I am not entirely sure that the civil service is unaccountable. I think it does operate in daylight, and there is transparency. The main point she made—this is one thing that none of us must ever forget from this afternoon’s deliberations—was about the implementation of the Hart report. We simply cannot allow the Hart inquiry report to lie on the table. It is too important. She spoke with such passion that I challenge anyone not to bend their every sinew to try to achieve the implementation of that report.
I have to say that I have never heard the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speak faster. I have a terrible feeling that a new category in the Olympics has recently been introduced—speed talking. I am very fond of the hon. Gentleman, and did he not quite rightly say that this is about bread and butter? This is indeed about bread and butter.
I think the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) spoke for all of us when he said—let this be the coda of this debate—that we do not want to be going back. We do not want to go back, we will not go back, we cannot go back: Northern Ireland deserves better. What we do this afternoon is not going to resolve the problem, but it will be a small step on the way and will allow some element of normality. Above all, however, we must never, ever go back.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Shailesh Vara)
May I start on a rather sad note? I extend my condolences and sympathies to Lord Caine, who is known affectionately to all of us as Jonathan Caine. Jonathan is a friend of mine and I have known him for many years. I think all of us in the House would agree that, as far as Northern Ireland issues are concerned, Jonathan is the fount of all knowledge and the one we go to because he knows all the answers. At this difficult time, we extend our sympathies to him and his family.
The intention of the Bill is to create a time-bound period for intensive efforts to restart political dialogue, which might enable the Northern Ireland political parties to form an Executive at any time, as well as to support essential decision making during that period and to ensure that key public appointments can be made until an Executive are in place.
Bob Stewart
The Secretary of State mentioned that she was going to get the parties together. Have Ministers seen one small glimmer of hope that Sinn Féin will actually come to the table and start helping everyone to govern in Northern Ireland?
Mr Vara
There have been occasions when Sinn Féin representatives have turned up at meetings. I very much hope that my hon. Friend will take it on board that the last time we had direct rule it was for five years, and the time before that it was for 25 years. We owe it to ourselves, but more importantly to the people of Northern Ireland, that no stone is left unturned. We are bringing in this Bill to ensure that we can have some space and time during which to get those talks up and running again to try to get the Assembly functioning for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland.
We have heard from a number of speakers, and I wish to thank all of them. If at all possible given the time constraint, I wish to make brief comments about all the speeches. The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), made a very thoughtful speech. May I say that we very much welcome his broad support for the measures we are introducing? He was critical of the time periods, but I would simply say that we must have the time periods we feel are necessary to try to get the flexibility we may need if the talks reach a particular stage. As I say, it is so important that we get a functioning Assembly. He also mentioned the case of Sarah Ewart. He will understand that there is a long-standing convention in the House that it is inappropriate to make comments about ongoing cases, and I hope he will take that on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) raised concerns about the guidance given to the Northern Ireland civil service. I say to him and to others that we very much welcome comments from people—especially those, like him, who are on the Select Committee, but also others—who wish to make a contribution.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) urged the Secretary of State to work night and day to try to get the Assembly up and running. I can assure him that that is precisely what she has been doing since the day she became Secretary of State, and I can also assure him that she will continue to do that. We welcome the support that he and his party are giving to this measure.
The Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), gave a very detailed speech, rightly highlighting the lack of decisions in Northern Ireland in the absence of Ministers and the impact that that is having on the ordinary citizen. That is why it is so important that we pass this Bill to allow the facility to try to get the Assembly up and running. Again, he made reference to the guidance given to the Northern Ireland civil service, and I say the same to him that I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley that we would welcome any comments that he may have.
The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) gave a learned speech in which he praised, quite rightly, the civil service in Northern Ireland. May I add my praise to the wonderful work of David Sterling and his team—all the permanent secretaries and the thousands of civils servants who have worked to keep Northern Ireland going for the past 20 or so months? He rightly pointed out the transparency of decisions, and will have noted that that is provided for, which is important. He specifically asked about ongoing legislation in this Chamber. I can confirm to him that this Government will continue to take steps to introduce and extend legislation to Northern Ireland following careful consideration on a case-by-case basis. We have done so to date, balancing the public interest need with our respect of the devolution settlement and fully restoring the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland.
The speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) clearly reflected his experience of Northern Ireland. He spoke of the need for determination to get the Assembly up and running again. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) gave a characteristically feisty speech. I have to say that, although there have been various comments and reservations about the Bill, I was somewhat disappointed that he could not bring himself to give broad support for what we are doing, but instead concentrated his entire speech on being critical. That is matter of regret for the whole House when we seek to get the best for the people of Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) gave a passionate speech full of feeling. She spoke about the importance of the Good Friday agreement. I agree with her entirely on that importance, and on the fact that we wish we were not in this place right now and that we were not having to pass this legislation, but, as has already been said, we are where we are.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) also made the point that this is not where we want to be, but we are here and therefore it is necessary to get this Bill through, and it is good to have the broad support of the House. She spoke of the need for ministerial decisions. We recognise that there should be ministerial decisions, as those decisions are vital to the people of Northern Ireland. That is why this Bill allows us the opportunity to try to get the parties to think again around that table and to get the Assembly running.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave a detailed speech. Again, I note his concerns and reservations, but, broadly, he agreed with the spirit of this Bill and that is welcome. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) rightly spoke about the issues that really are for a devolved Assembly to take. That is why, as I have said, it is important that the whole House is united in trying to get the parties to make sure that the Assembly is functioning.
The UK Government would have very much preferred it if the parties had reached an accommodation and formed an Executive by now. In the absence of such a development, action must be taken. This is to ensure that we can have the protection of the delivery of public services by giving the Northern Ireland civil service certainty to take decisions in the absence of an Executive and also to keep key bodies and offices functioning properly by ensuring that appointments can be made to them.
This really is an important Bill, and we introduce it with reluctance, but we are doing so with the best of intent to get the best for the people of Northern Ireland. I therefore urge that this Bill be read a Second time.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister asserted that the respected Oxford economist and professor, Simon Wren-Lewis, said, in reference to Labour’s manifesto,
“the numbers did not add up”.
However, Professor Wren-Lewis disputes the accuracy of those remarks. He issued the following comments this afternoon, and I would like to be clear that these are the professor’s words, not mine:
“Apparently the Prime Minister quoted me saying about Labour’s 2017 manifesto ‘the numbers did not add up’ In fact I said ‘Let us suppose the IFS was correct’ and examined consequences. I have never taken a view on whether they did/didn’t add up. If that is what she said, she”—
he goes on to use a word that I am unable to use, regarding the incongruous relationship between the Prime Minister’s comments and the truth. I just repeat that those are the professor’s words, not mine.
Would it be appropriate for the Prime Minister to come back to this House to correct the record and apologise to the renowned professor in question? May I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the best course of action?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he knows, and as Mr Speaker always says when dealing with such points of order, what Ministers say at the Dispatch Box is not a matter for the Chair. I am quite sure that whatever the Prime Minister said today, she said in good faith, but the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring another version of that to the attention of the House, the Prime Minister and her Ministers. By raising this point of order, he has succeeded in doing that. As for when the Prime Minister will come back to the House, I am quite sure that, in the normal course of events, she will be back here soon—certainly by next Wednesday, when of course the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have the opportunity to ask her about this directly, and I am sure that he will take that opportunity.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions today, the Leader of the Opposition asserted that the number of those on zero-hours contracts was going up. In actual fact, the figure is going down. Is there an opportunity to draw that fact to the attention of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
First of all, that was not further to the point of order. Just as the Chair has no responsibility or control over what Ministers say in the House, so they have no responsibility or control over what the Leader of the Opposition says in the House. I say the same to the hon. Gentleman as I said earlier: facts are being disputed, and I am quite sure that he will question the Leader of the Opposition closely the next time he has the opportunity to do so.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I, too, raise the point that the Leader of the Opposition claimed today that record numbers of people were on zero-hours contracts. That is false according to the House of Commons Library, which makes it very clear that the number has dropped from 903,000 to 780,000. How does one clarify the matter, in order to ensure that the Library remains a trusted source of data?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady makes a very important point, because we all rely on the Library to give us balanced—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Do not interrupt me. We rely on the Library to give us balanced and entirely impartial information, but once again, once a Member of this House has information in his or her hand, the way that they present it, and the arguments that they make with it, is a matter for them. The hon. Lady asked how she can draw this matter to the attention of the world in general; she has just done so most effectively.
Would anyone else like to continue Prime Minister’s questions? We have a very important Bill in front of us, and I do not wish to take any further time out of the limited amount left for it.
Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Bill
Wednesday 24th October 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 View all Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Manuscript Amendment to the Business of the House Motion (PDF) - (24 Oct 2018)
19:03 - The House divided: - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 117 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 344 / Noes: 26 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Nigel Mills
I beg to move amendment 15, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
‘(4A) If the period mentioned in section 16(A)(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as modified by subsection (1), ends without the Ministerial offices having been filled section 32 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has effect as if for subsection (3) there were substituted—
(3) The Secretary of State shall within 7 calendar days of the end of the period mentioned in in section 16(A)(3) set a date for the poll for the election of the next Northern Ireland Assembly. The date set shall be no later than 3 calendar months after the end of the period mentioned in section 16(A)(3).’
This amendment would require elections in Northern Ireland to be called if Ministerial offices are not filled by 26 March 2019.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from extending the deadline for appointment of Northern Ireland Ministers without the approval of Parliament.
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 3, line 2, at end insert—
‘(1A) In the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, senior officers of Northern Ireland departments, giving due regard to advice from the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Victims and Survivors, shall prepare a scheme to provide a pension to those who are regarded as seriously-injured arising from an incident associated from the conflict in Northern Ireland.’
This amendment would in the absence of Ministers create a duty for a scheme to be created to provide financial support for those people who have suffered life-limiting injuries and impairment due to incidents related to the Northern Ireland conflict.
Amendment 21, page 3, line 5, at end insert
‘and must also make a formal statement before each House of Parliament following the publication of such guidance.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament on any guidance issued to Northern Ireland Departments on the exercise of their functions in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
‘(3A) The guidance must direct departments to take action on the following areas—
(a) implementing the recommendations of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry (the Hart Report),
(b) instigating any research, consultations or planning required for post-Brexit policy,
(c) designing and implementing devolved post-Brexit functions in relation to Northern Ireland fishing and agriculture that would normally fall to the Northern Ireland Executive,
(d) taking decisions on infrastructure planning and projects that will benefit Northern Ireland.’
This amendment highlights four key areas where guidance must be issued.
Amendment 17, page 3, line 7, at end insert
‘which must include guidance to meet the requirements of section (Guidance on exercise of departmental functions: credit unions).’
This amendment is linked to NC4 with the intention of requiring Northern Ireland Departments, in the continued absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, to promote credit unions in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 18, page 3, line 7, at end insert
‘which must include guidance to meet the requirements of section (Guidance on exercise of departmental functions: energy co-operatives).’
This amendment is linked to NC5 with the intention of requiring Northern Ireland Departments, in the continued absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, to promote energy co-operatives in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 19, page 3, line 7, at end insert
‘which must include guidance to meet the requirements of section (Guidance on exercise of departmental functions: housing co-operatives).’
This amendment is linked to NC6 with the intention of requiring the Northern Ireland Department for Communities, in the continued absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, to promote housing co-operatives in Northern Ireland.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 34, after ‘Assembly’ insert ‘and Members of Parliament’.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to representations from MPs as well as MLAs before publishing guidance.
Amendment 4, page 3, line 34, at end insert—
‘(9A) If the Secretary of State wishes to revise or amend the guidance, they must write to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee at least 30 sitting days before the revised guidance is issued to seek its views on the proposed changes.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee before changing the guidance.
Amendment 5, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
‘“Northern Ireland Affairs Committee” means the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons and—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is to be treated as a reference to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which those functions are exercisable.’
This amendment defines the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons for the purpose of Clause 3.
Clause 3 stand part.
Government amendment 23.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 4, line 26, at end insert
‘, publish the advice received and write to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to notify the Committee of the appointment decision prior to the appointment being made.’
This amendment requires the relevant Minister of the Crown to notify the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons before exercising an appointment function in relation to a specified office.
Amendment 16, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
‘(5A) Before exercising an appointment function in reliance on subsection (1) in relation to a role with an annual salary of £100,000 or more the relevant Minister of the Crown must refer their recommendation for the appointment to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons for a pre-appointment scrutiny hearing.
(5B) The Minister of the Crown may not proceed with the appointment referred to in subsection (5A) for a period of 30 calendar days from the date of referral to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons.
(5C) Any reference in this Act to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is to be treated as a reference to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which those functions are exercisable.
(5D) Any question arising under sub-paragraph (5C) is to be determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.’
This amendment would require the more highly-paid public appointments to be subject to scrutiny by the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 7, in clause 5, page 4, line 36, at end insert
‘, publish the advice received and write to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to notify the Committee of the appointment decision prior to the appointment being made.’
This amendment requires the relevant Minister of the Crown to notify the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons before exercising an appointment function which normally require consultation with, or the consent of, Northern Ireland Ministers.
Clause 5 stand part.
Amendment 8, in clause 6, page 5, line 7, at end insert
‘, publish the advice received and write to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to notify the Committee of the appointment decision prior to the appointment being made.’
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to notify the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons before exercising an appointment function which is normally exercisable by Northern Ireland Minsters acting jointly with the Secretary of State.
Clause 6 stand part.
Amendment 9, in clause 7, page 5, line 34, at end insert—
‘“Northern Ireland Affairs Committee” means the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons and—
(a) if the name of that Committee is changed, is to be treated as a reference to that Committee by its new name, and
(b) if the functions of that Committee (or substantially corresponding functions) become functions of a different Committee of the House of Commons, is to be treated as a reference to the Committee by which those functions are exercisable.’
This amendment defines the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee of the House of Commons for the purposes of Clauses 4 to 6.
Government amendment 24.
Clauses 7 to 10 stand part.
New clause 4—Guidance on exercise of departmental functions: credit unions—
‘(1) The guidance published under section 3(2) must include guidance on credit unions.
(2) Guidance under this section includes, but is not limited to, guidance to —
(a) senior officers of the Department for Communities in the exercise of the functions in relation to—
(i) promoting and protecting the interests of children, older people, people with disabilities, and other socially excluded groups, and
(ii) providing emergency financial assistance; and
(b) senior officers of the Department of the Economy in the exercise of the functions in relation to—
(i) business regulation including consumer affairs services,
(ii) mutuals policy, legislation and operations, and
(iii) the social economy.
(3) Guidance under this section must include the promotion of credit unions in Northern Ireland to combat organised crime, to reduce financial exclusion, to assist the social inclusion of marginalised groups and to promote financial well-being in all parts of Northern Ireland.’
The intention of this new clause is to require Northern Ireland Departments, in the continued absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, to promote credit unions in Northern Ireland.
New clause 5—Guidance on exercise of departmental functions: energy co-operatives—
‘(1) The guidance published under section 3(2) must include guidance on energy co-operatives.
(2) Guidance under this section includes, but is not limited to, guidance to —
(a) senior officers of the Department of the Economy in the exercise of their functions in relation to—
(i) energy policy and legislation;
(ii) sustainable energy, including energy efficiency measures;
(iii) assistance to the gas and electricity industries;
(iv) Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme and associated costs;
(v) the social economy; and
(vi) making certain payments to the Department of Business, Energy and Industry Strategy; and
(b) senior officers of the Department for Infrastructure in the exercise of their functions in relation to energy matters.
(3) Guidance under this section must include the promotion of energy co-operatives in Northern Ireland to combat fuel poverty and to encourage the safe, sustainable, affordable and efficient production and consumption of energy in all parts of Northern Ireland.’
The intention of this new clause is to require Northern Ireland Departments, in the continued absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, to promote energy co-operatives in Northern Ireland.
New clause 6—Guidance on exercise of departmental functions: housing co-operatives—
‘(1) The guidance published under section 3(2) must include guidance on housing co-operatives.
(2) Guidance under this section includes, but is not limited to, guidance to senior officers of the Department for Communities in the exercise of their functions in relation to—
(a) loans for certain home improvement loans;
(b) housing led regeneration;
(c) regulation of the NI Housing Association sector;
(d) urban regeneration including services such as property maintenance and events;
(e) community and voluntary sector;
(f) grants to district councils in support of local services and transferred functions;
(g) built heritage; and
(h) grants and grants-in-aid.
(3) Guidance under this section must include the promotion of housing co-operatives in Northern Ireland to combat poverty, family breakdown and social exclusion and to encourage the provision safe, sustainable, affordable and energy-efficient homes in all parts of Northern Ireland.’
The intention of this new clause is to require the Northern Ireland Department for Communities, in the continued absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, to promote housing co-operatives in Northern Ireland.
New clause 7—Equal rights for people of Northern Ireland (No. 2)—
‘(1) In the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers to address the matters identified by recent, current and future court proceedings in relation to the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to senior officers of all Northern Ireland departments which will specify how to exercise their functions in relation to—
(a) the incompatibility of the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland with the continued enforcement of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 with the Human Rights Act 1998, and
(b) the incompatibility of the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland with the continued enforcement of section 13(e) of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978
where they pertain to the provision and management of public services in Northern Ireland.
(2) The Secretary of State shall report guidance under this section on a quarterly basis to the House of Commons and set out her plans to address the impact of the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers on human rights obligations within three months of the day on which this Act is passed.’
This new clause would increase accountability of the Secretary of State and senior officers of Northern Ireland departments for their role in ensuring human rights compliance in Northern Ireland, in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, by requiring them to address incompatibilities between legislation applied in Northern Ireland and human rights obligations.
Nigel Mills
May I first apologise for being a little late for the wind-up speeches on Second Reading? I was sorry to miss the speech by the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), the shadow Minister, as his speeches are usually entertaining and informative.
Amendments 15 and 16 are efforts to probe the Government on the future direction of policy in certain areas and perhaps to improve the Bill, but I will not seek to press them to Divisions. Amendment 15 is an attempt to discover the Government’s plan if—heaven forbid—we reach the end of the period for the formation of the Executive and we still do not have one. Effectively, what would happen in law without any further clarification is that we would default back to the present situation—the Secretary of State would have a duty to consider setting an election date. The present interpretation seems to be that she has no duty to call an election for any particular date. The House of Commons and the people of Northern Ireland have been very patient for the past 650 days—that was the count we heard earlier—in not pressing the Government to clarify the meaning of the words on considering the date for an election in the legislation of a decade ago.
We may fairly say that if we manage to get to late August 2019—I cannot calculate the number of days, but I suspect it will be well over 800 days since an election by that point—without a Government being formed, the only solution might well be to have another election and see whether the people of Northern Ireland wished to express a different view from the one they expressed 650 days ago. If we get to that stage, I would argue that an election would be unavoidable unless we really believed that another few days would tip a deal over the line.
I also venture to suggest gently that having clarity in the law about the consequences for the parties if they cannot reach a deal by that point may be of some assistance in the negotiations. It is probably fair to say that the Northern Irish parties are not great respecters of deadlines. Indeed, deadlines in this process seem to come and go without provoking much action. If a deadline were set in law, it would be clear throughout the discussions that an election would be called if the parties could not reach an agreement by the end date of late March, or late August or somewhere in between that the Secretary of State sets.
Actually, whether to call an election would not be a matter for the Secretary of State’s discretion: it would be a matter of law that the election had to be called unless she thought that she could get a new piece of legislation through Parliament to delay or remove that obligation. If a deal were about to be reached and some legislation here were needed to bring it about, I do not think that we would have any problem in agreeing to it. We would all be grateful to do anything we could to bring the Executive back. But a line would be drawn in the sand to make it clear that if the parties do not agree by a certain date, the Secretary of State has no option but to call an election to ask the people their opinion on resolving the situation.
I ask the Government to consider at least clarifying the consequences of the period for Executive formation lapsing without success and the Government’s policy in that regard. Setting out clearly in a way that will not be ignored this time that an election would have to follow might offer some assistance in the negotiations.
My other proposed amendment, amendment 16, concerns the appointment of individuals to certain key bodies in Northern Ireland. Ideally, that would be a decision for the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly and there would be some cross-community involvement. It would be a joint decision, effectively. The Bill quite rightly takes the power to make those appointments, but effectively leaves the decision to the Secretary of State without the need for any real consultation with Parliament or the public on those decisions. I accept that we do not need to have that level of parliamentary involvement for every appointment that might be needed, but what I am trying to do through the amendment is ask whether for the most senior and important posts we could in some way have some parliamentary scrutiny of the individual whose appointment is recommended. This is not a novel process. Many Departments allow Select Committees to hold scrutiny hearings for proposed senior appointments, so it would merely replicate that process.
Attempting to get the amendment in order, I suggested that the definition of seniority could come with a salary of £100,000, but I would not be particularly committed to how we define the cut-off. However, if we were to have this process for sensitive appointments, I think that that level of salary would catch a new Chief Constable, if for some reason one was needed, or perhaps the chair of the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.
For those very sensitive and senior posts for which there is cross-party concern about the individual who is appointed, having a parliamentary scrutiny process in which questions could be asked of the individual to discuss any past roles they have had or comments they have made and to seek their views on how they would carry out their burdensome responsibilities would give both Parliament and the people of Northern Ireland some comfort that the right person had been found and that they would discharge those responsibilities in a responsible manner.
Even if the Secretary of State is unwilling to accept what I have proposed, I urge her to give serious consideration to whether it would help those individuals to have the full confidence of Parliament and the trust of the public in discharging their roles if she allowed some public scrutiny and accountability in the process of appointing them.
Gavin Robinson
Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is not what would happen if there were a functioning devolved Assembly and that putting some of those positions through that political prism brings some difficulties with it in the Northern Ireland context? If an appointment were rightly made to the Policing Board, it would be for the board to assess and judge any individual going for the Chief Constable role. With the police ombudsman, there is no public scrutiny role like that which we have seen through the process for US Supreme Court judges available at the moment. That role does not exist at the moment; it did not exist when the Assembly sat, so is it really the road we should go down on this interim basis?
Nigel Mills
I said that I was not necessarily fixed on how we define the roles, but we are not in a normal situation. We do not have the Executive or the Assembly to make those appointments; what we will end up with is a Secretary of State over here, with no accountability and no cross-community input, simply making that decision. I was suggesting that this would be a way to provide at least some scrutiny and accountability for these important appointments. The Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading actually specifies that the Secretary of State can effectively make those appointments herself. I accept that we cannot replicate every process that the Executive would have followed, but I am attempting at least to find some way to improve the situation over that which we have in the Bill.
Perhaps I can make a few remarks on the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). It seems a bit discourteous to talk about his amendments before he has had a chance to discuss them, but this is my only chance so I guess I will do it anyway. Amendment 2 suggests some items that could be included in the Secretary of State’s guidance to the civil servants on which we really ought to see them take some action. As I said on Second Reading, ideally what we would get from this process would be some decisions that could not be taken before now because there has been no ministerial direction.
In terms not only of the items that my hon. Friend has suggested in amendment 2 in relation to the Hart report, which we have discussed at some length, but of all the various Brexit-related issues, we need as a House to be assured that in the event that any important decisions need to be taken as a consequence of wherever Brexit goes over the next few months, there is a process in place whereby decisions can be taken for Northern Ireland.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I shall speak to new clause 7, which is about equal rights in Northern Ireland. I hope that Members across the House who have already supported the new clause will recognise that it is an incredibly reasonable request to put to the Secretary of State, about an incredibly important issue for the House, and indeed for many people in Northern Ireland.
I do not intend to speak for long, because many others wish to get in. I simply want to set out three important points about this reasonable new clause—first, how it respects devolution; secondly, why it addresses issues that cannot simply be left any longer; and thirdly, how we believe it has relevancy to this House and the obligations of Members of this House as part of the Good Friday agreement.
The new clause requests the Secretary of State’s acts to be held to account because of what the Bill does—it recognises that since March 2017, we have not had an Assembly in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] January 2017; I apologise to the Secretary of State. It has been too long for residents of Northern Ireland not to have a functioning Government, and it has an impact on their lives. The Bill recognises that resolving the dysfunctions behind that is far ahead of us at the moment, and so gives powers to the Secretary of State and to the civil servants to exercise the functions of Government. [Interruption.] It does give power to the Secretary of State because it gives her guidance powers; I believe those are quite powerful, and the new clause speaks to those powers.
For avoidance of doubt, the new clause would not create a new law in Northern Ireland, but it would recognise that there are thousands of people in Northern Ireland whose lives, right now, are affected by two key human rights issues; and they are indeed human rights issues, because they are issues on which our courts are currently discussing, ruling and indeed appealing. They refer in particular to a person’s right to marry who they love, and also to the right of women to have bodily autonomy—to make the choice, if they so wish, not to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. Both of these have been subject to court action, because we recognise that in Northern Ireland they have different rules.
Let us talk about the consequences of those rules. When it comes to abortion, we know that right now in Northern Ireland, if you are raped, and you become pregnant as a result of that attack, and you seek a termination, you could face a longer prison sentence than your attacker. We know too that gay couples in Northern Ireland, when they step off the plane, no longer have their relationship respected in the way that any of us would wish our relationship to be respected. They do not have equal marriage in 2018.
Both of these sets of circumstances come about as a direct result of legislation that was written in this place. First and foremost, sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and also, because of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. So there is a relevancy for us in this House, because legislation written here is having a direct impact on the human rights of people in Northern Ireland today.
Layla Moran
Can the hon. Lady confirm something that Northern Ireland Amnesty told me, which is that, yes, powers are theoretically devolved to Northern Ireland, but there is no piece of human rights legislation that has been passed at Stormont; and actually, all changes to human rights law in Northern Ireland have been passed in this place?
Stella Creasy
I know that the hon. Lady also feels strongly about this issue. If I may, however, I shall now deal with—in particular—the human rights obligations that I believe we have in this place as a direct result of the Good Friday agreement.
There is a theoretical argument about what those pieces of legislation mean, and there is the human impact of what they mean for people in Northern Ireland.
Stella Creasy
I will shortly, but I feel that the Committee wants to hear the figures that I am about to give.
A year and a half ago, the House voted to allow women from Northern Ireland to come to England and Wales and have abortions on the NHS. We now know that 28 women a week travel to this country for that very purpose. We also know that our own Supreme Court says that it is a cruel and degrading treatment of our own citizens to require them to travel. Many cannot travel. Many find that journey lonely, frightening and difficult, at the very time when they are at their most vulnerable. We also know that a year ago, 84 couples in Northern Ireland had to have civil partnerships because they could not have the basic equality of recognition before the law of their relationship as a marriage. That is the very human impact of those ancient pieces of legislation that we crafted in this place.
I will now happily give way to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), because I want to hear from her.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. She will be well aware of the Supreme Court ruling in, I think, June this year which established—the majority of the judges made it quite clear—that the existing abortion legislation in Northern Ireland was “deeply unsatisfactory” in relation to fatal foetal abnormality and sexual crime. The law in Northern Ireland will have to change. That was a ruling in the Supreme Court, our highest court in the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady made clear at the beginning of her speech that her new clause would not change the law in Northern Ireland, so if it is passed this evening, or even put to a vote, what exactly will be the consequence?
Stella Creasy
The hon. Lady has raised an important point. That court judgment in June 2018 held us all to account for what we were doing about human rights. It was simply because the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was not a direct victim of that policy that the policy could not be enacted. We learnt today that Sarah Ewart, an incredibly brave woman, is continuing the court process, because there is no other form of redress and remedy at present.
As the Government have previously said, these are matters on which the Assembly, were it to be functioning, should be able to act; but, as we said at the start, the Bill constitutes a recognition that the Assembly is not functioning, and is unlikely to be functioning soon. What, then—this is the human question—do women like Sarah Ewart do? What, then, do people who love each other do when their politicians fail them? What do the public do? The new clause asks that question in a way that none of us can ignore. It asks the Secretary of State to take on the responsibility of reporting on what she will do.
Stella Creasy
I will happily give way, but I do want to make some progress, because I know that other Members want to speak.
Simon Hoare
Surely, in those circumstances, one just changes the politicians through the ballot box.
Stella Creasy
With respect, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read the legislation on which we are voting today, because it constitutes a recognition that there will not be an election in Northern Ireland any time soon to make that possible. So I repeat my question to him: what do the women do who need that help now, who deserve that respect and equality when it comes to control over their own bodies, and who might be in that dreadful position that involves a fatal foetal abnormality? What do they do now?
What those women do now is look to this place to be able to assist them. They look to the Secretary of State, and to the piece of legislation that she is creating, and they can look to the new clause to hear the call from this place that we will not ignore them. We will hold ourselves to account, and will hold Secretaries of State to account, for the incompatibility in human rights that the continued existence of those two pieces of legislation represents in their lives. That is what this incredibly reasonable new clause does. It does not create a new law, but it does not shy away from recognising the impact of those existing laws either. In that sense, it is entirely within the spirit of the Good Friday agreement.
Twenty years ago, our predecessors in this House, alongside their colleagues from the Irish Government, swore to uphold the human rights of the Northern Irish communities. They swore in the Good Friday agreement to make sure that there was an equivalency of rights. Every single month that passes, that promise comes into stark relief, because when we look at the Republic where same-sex marriage is legal and look at that historic referendum this year when abortion became legal in the Republic, we can see that that request not to have different rights is becoming tested.
The Good Friday agreement also required this House and UK politicians to act alongside their Irish counterparts, and that is what this new clause can do, while respecting our shared desire to see the Assembly up and running. So it is a very simple amendment, and I am sorry that it has come to this point and the Secretary of State does not feel able to accept it, and I am proud that it has cross-party support, because that respects and recognises that upholding human rights cannot be something we simply talk about doing abroad but do not recognise on our own doorstep.
I also think there has to be some honesty here. There are some Members of this House who do not believe that women anywhere should have bodily autonomy; there are some Members of this House who do not believe we should be able to marry the person we love. But I make a simple plea to those people: “Be honest with the people of Northern Ireland that your objection is that, and do not use devolution as a decoy for a denial of their human rights.”
Layla Moran
I say this to be helpful to others in the House. I went to Belfast recently—to Stormont—and I had not appreciated that same-sex marriage has majority support among MLAs and a huge amount of support in terms of public opinion. The reason why it did not pass is because there is a thing called the petition of concern which essentially acts as a veto, so to say that there is not support and the people of Northern Ireland should just change their politicians does not work in this case; it has to be us who take that leap for them.
Stella Creasy
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Sadly, on both issues opinion polls show us that the politicians in Northern Ireland are behind the public consistently; indeed, they are behind their own supporters when it comes to both issues. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) is chuntering from a sedentary position; I understand that he has philosophical objections on some of the issues in this debate, but I hope he will have respect for the people of Northern Ireland and therefore agree that the case should be heard as to why the Secretary of State should be asked to protect their human rights and to be held to account for what is happening.
Mr Hayes
That means I will not have to chunter from a sedentary position, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Just to be clear about public opinion in Northern Ireland, the latest polling, which was authoritative—it was not a rogue poll—shows that the overwhelming majority of Northern Irish women favour the status quo, and interestingly that was broken down by age and younger Northern Irish women are no more in favour of changing to the position the hon. Lady wants than older ladies.
Stella Creasy
I am fascinated by the poll the right hon. Gentleman cites. Let me give him the direct data from the Amnesty International poll taken this year, which says that 65% of people in Northern Ireland think abortion should be decriminalised and 66% think Westminster should act in the absence of the Assembly. Let me also cite for him the Sky News poll of 2018 that shows that 76% of people in Northern Ireland support equal marriage. I say to him gently again that I understand that he has philosophical objections on some of these issues, whether from religious or moral conscience, and I respect that, but it is not enough to say this is about devolution on that basis. He needs to be honest with this House that his objection is about conscience, because there is not a devolution objection to this new clause. The new clause respects devolution, but it also asks us to respect human rights.
Ten years ago we had the opportunity to change things for women in Northern Ireland and that did not happen, and as a result we know from studies that 10,000 women have either had to travel to England to have an abortion or have taken pills bought online. If we reject this new clause, are we really trying to say that 10 MPs matter more than those 10,000 women whose lives have in the last 10 years been affected by our failure to act?
Anna Soubry
Will the hon. Lady also make it very clear that the rather barbaric and antiquated laws that exist in Northern Ireland are not even effective, because all they mean is that, as she said, about 28 women every week have to come over to England and Wales? So the laws are not working in any event, and this just makes them even more barbaric because women have to travel to exercise the same rights that my constituents have.
Stella Creasy
I share the passion of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on this matter and increasingly on many other things. She is absolutely right. Stopping safe, legal abortion does not stop abortions happening; it just stops safe abortions happening, as we have seen from the women taking pills who have been unable to seek help from their doctors in Northern Ireland. Stopping same-sex marriage does not stop people of the same sex falling in love with each other; it just stops them having the equal respect and dignity that comes from being able to marry who they love and say it proudly. It is a simple right that all of us in this Chamber would want and that all of us seek for our constituents.
However, I recognise that those are matters for the Assembly, and that is why I want to remind Members here that this new clause respects that process because it looks at the legislation before us today and asks who, in the absence of a functioning Assembly, can be the champion of the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland. It asks who can address the incompatibilities that these court proceedings are identifying, and who can ensure that we do not spend another 10, 20 or 30 years hearing the stories of shame, of hurt and of the rights abuses of the people of Northern Ireland, and simply shrugging our shoulders because politicians cannot get their act together to have an Assembly.
Fiona Bruce
I rise to speak against new clause 7 on the basis that it is clearly inappropriate. It goes far beyond the Government’s narrow, specific intention, in framing this emergency Bill, of ensuring that the administrative functions should keep working efficiently in Northern Ireland in the absence of an Executive there. Their intention was not to go further and to influence key devolved policy matters that should be more properly decided by that Executive. The very fact that this is an emergency Bill is a cause of great concern. Many colleagues have said to me that on such important and sensitive issues—
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It is very kind of my hon. Friend to give way. On the subject of emergency Bills, what could be more of an emergency than the women of Northern Ireland wondering, right here and right now, what on earth they have to put themselves through in order to have the choice to have an abortion without having to travel to England? For me, that is a pretty big emergency, too.
Fiona Bruce
I absolutely agree that this is an issue that requires the greatest of care and that needs to be addressed with considerable compassion. It therefore deserves more time to be considered by the Members of this House than it has been given in this emergency debate. That is the point that I wanted to make. The proposer of the new clause might say that it does not interfere with devolution, but it clearly has the potential to undermine devolution, touching as it does on the key devolved issues of abortion and marriage.
Jim Shannon
Not only does the new clause go against the will of a great many of us in this House, but it also goes against the will of 60% of the people of Northern Ireland—women who say that they do not want any change. That is what the people of Northern Ireland are saying, so why should this House make it any different?
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point, which I shall refer to further.
I think the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said that the powers of guidance that the Bill gives to the Secretary of State are powerful. Indeed, I believe that they are; the guidance given to the Secretary of State is far reaching. The guidance cannot and should not change the law, but it could well encourage officials and citizens to believe that it does, and it may well change behaviour. I therefore exhort the Secretary of State to ensure that if new clause 7 is passed—I will certainly vote against it—none of the guidance she provides in any way encourages officials to effect any policy changes. Indeed, I seek her reassurance today that she will specifically guard against that happening.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
My hon. Friend appears to be arguing for the continuation of a human rights border down the Irish sea.
Fiona Bruce
What I am arguing—reluctantly, I need to repeat many of the points I made in the Chamber yesterday—is that this key issue does merit reconsideration, but reconsideration in the right legislative chamber, namely the Northern Ireland Assembly. Elected officials there should be making such decisions while accountable to the people they represent.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. The recent Supreme Court decision requested that lawmakers take action where our law is incompatible with treaties that involve requirements on the UK Parliament. Even if it was just a matter for Northern Ireland, it has been almost two years since democracy has been in action there, so it is surely for this House to take note of such things.
Fiona Bruce
I am happy to address such points. I accept that several justices set out their thoughts on abortion legislation in Northern Ireland in a narrow set of circumstances in the Supreme Court decision earlier this year. However, those views cannot be extrapolated into a case for arguing that human rights are being curtailed in every circumstance in Northern Ireland. We must be clear that the Supreme Court did not make a binding declaration of the incompatibility of Northern Ireland abortion law with human rights. New clause 7 should not use that declaration to justify this proposal.
Fiona Bruce
No. I have taken several interventions, and I will, if I may, proceed.
New clause 7 goes much further even than the non-binding comments made by the judges in the Supreme Court case—a case of serious foetal abnormality. As I say, I am mindful of what a difficult situation that is and fully agree that it merits further attention for the women who may be affected by it, but that must happen in the right legislative chamber.
Fiona Bruce
No, I will continue, if I may.
New clause 7, which refers to the decriminalisation of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, goes much further than even the obiter dicta statements of the Supreme Court judges. It goes much further than referring just to foetal abnormality and seeks much broader changes than the narrow circumstances to which the judges referred, which is a further reason why it should be opposed.
Fiona Bruce
I have said no, and I am going to continue. I have taken many interventions, and many others want to speak.
Even in situations where there is a declaration of incompatibility, the Human Rights Act 1998 is clear that legislatures are not required to change the law. That is for legislators to decide, and in this case that means the Northern Ireland Executive. It has also been argued that the Government should change the law because of wider international human rights obligations that the UK has signed up to—specifically recommendations from a February 2018 report by a UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women—CEDAW. Professor Mark Hill QC has written a long opinion on the CEDAW report, and he argues cogently that there is no requirement to act on the basis of the report because there is no right to abortion under the relevant convention and because the committee does not have the power to stipulate that the UK should make any resolutions.
Members are being asked to support new clause 7 on the basis of pressing human rights concerns, but those concerns rest principally on a failure properly to understand what a declaration of incompatibility means. Such a declaration carries no imperative to change the law, especially when the subject is within the margin of appreciation, as is the case with abortion.
Baroness Hale acknowledged at paragraph 39 of the Supreme Court’s Northern Ireland abortion law judgment in June that the democratically expressed will of the people is important, and we must not forget the key vote by the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2016 not to change abortion law.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) mentioned some statistics, and so did the hon. Member for Walthamstow. I remind the Committee of a ComRes poll released just last week showing that the following percentages of people say that changes to abortion law should be a decision for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives, not Westminster: 64% of Northern Irish people, 66% of Northern Irish women and 70% of 18 to 34-year-olds in Northern Ireland. We must respect that, we must respect the Assembly’s 2016 decision and we must respect that many people in Northern Ireland do not want to see these changes, and they certainly do not want to see changes resulting from guidelines issued by a Secretary of State in Westminster, with all the implications that could involve.
New clause 7 must be rejected. I absolutely understand that this is a very sensitive topic but, even through a misapprehension or a misunderstanding, for civil servants to be seen as being given the power to influence this policy would be quite wrong. Out of respect for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives, new clause 7 must be voted down.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate in Committee. Amendment 15, in the name of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), would require an election to be held when these special measures come to an end. For our part, the Democratic Unionist party has no fear of an election. We have just had a council by-election in Carrickfergus, which we won comfortably. We are not fearful of putting ourselves before the people.
If the hon. Gentleman were here, I would say that holding an election would not change the reality. If we have dialogue and cannot reach a political agreement, all an election will do is further polarise the community and make it even more difficult to reach a political agreement. [Interruption.] If Labour Members are so interested in elections in Northern Ireland, maybe one of them will explain why the Labour party does not contest elections there.
Labour Members want to change laws in Northern Ireland, and they want to tell the people of Northern Ireland what to do, but they do not have the courage of their convictions to put themselves before the people of Northern Ireland and seek election. A little quiet from that quarter is the order of the day. When they are ready to come before the people of Northern Ireland and put themselves forward, we will listen to the Labour party. With all due respect, at least the Conservative party—
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Dame Rosie. I would be grateful for a more comradely debate, rather than the rant to which we are being subjected. Perhaps we need to take a moment to calm down.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I remind everybody that moderation in language and in debate is what we would like to see. This is a very important debate, and perhaps we need to take the temperature down a little.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
If we need to moderate debate because I have called on people to put themselves forward and seek a democratic mandate, I stand to be corrected, but the people of my constituency are looking at the Labour party. More than 60% of the people who voted in my constituency voted for my party at the general election. When I hear Labour Members tell me that they speak more for the people I represent than I do, I am entitled to say that they should put themselves forward in Lagan Valley at the next election. Seek a mandate. Take me on. I am more than happy to contest the Labour party in Lagan Valley. Let us see then whether I speak for the people of Lagan Valley or they do.
Lady Hermon
The right hon. Gentleman is referring to a judgment where the majority of the Supreme Court, by four to three, dismissed the case on a technical point to do with the status and powers of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. If he reads the judgment carefully, he will find—I will stand corrected if I am not right on this—that a majority of the judges, including Lord Kerr, described the abortion legislation in Northern Ireland in relation to fatal foetal abnormality and sexual crime as “deeply unsatisfactory”. Those are the words that were used. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman’s party to indicate what help and assistance is going to be given to those hundreds of women who feel that they have to leave their own country, Northern Ireland, to seek an abortion. Abortion is not compulsory; it is an option. Women should have the choice in cases of rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormality. Will the hon. Gentleman’s party accept those circumstances for change?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I respect what the hon. Lady said, but I point out to her that section 4(6) of the Human Rights Act 1998 is clear on the point of incompatibility. It states clearly:
“A declaration under this section (“a declaration of incompatibility”)…does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given”.
That is the human rights law of this country. When the hon. Lady suggested in her intervention earlier that the Supreme Court judgment compelled the Northern Ireland Assembly to change the law, she was incorrect in her assertion. That opinion comes from the Attorney General for Northern Ireland and his respected advice on this subject.
On the question that the hon. Lady posed, in respect of fatal foetal abnormality, when a mother is expecting a child with a potentially life-limiting condition, I too have met Sarah Ewart, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who is her Member of Parliament, and I have enormous respect for Sarah. As a result of her initiative, the Northern Ireland Executive commissioned a working group to examine this area of the law in Northern Ireland, and that working group brought forward proposals. Here is the irony: if Sinn Féin allowed Northern Ireland to have a Government, we would by now have addressed this area of the law.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Because we have a working group that was set up by the Executive and that has brought forward proposals, this area of the law would have been addressed by now.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
With respect to the hon. Member for North Down, the party that is preventing this issue from being addressed in Northern Ireland is not the Democratic Unionist party; it is Sinn Féin who are preventing the Executive from addressing the report of the working group, which has brought forward proposals in respect of mothers who are expectant with a child who may have a life-limiting condition, so let us get our facts straight.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
In respect of the issue relating to sex crime, I agree with the hon. Member for North Down that we need to examine this area of the law in Northern Ireland, but the difficulty is that we cannot do it—not because the Democratic Unionist party is standing in the way of examining these sensitive issues, but because Sinn Féin are preventing the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive from carrying out their function. That is the political reality of the situation in Northern Ireland.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
In respect of the proposals before us, it is important that we consider carefully what we are doing. If we really are to be true to our commitment to respect the devolution principle—
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) referred earlier to a border in the Irish sea. Let me address that for a moment.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
It was this House that decided that Northern Ireland should have devolved responsibility for abortion and marriage. It was this House that decided to give to the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive the power to legislate on these areas of life. That is the reality. The hon. Member for Walthamstow talked about the decisions of this House—
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
It was this House that decided that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive had the power to legislate on these areas of the law.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is going to give way, so rather than just shouting at him, I think that we should allow him to continue, because he will be well aware that a lot of other hon. Members want to contribute to the debate.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I am very much aware of that, Dame Rosie. I have taken some interventions but there is a lot that we need to say and a lot that others want to say, and I respect that.
This issue is important because it is about the principle of devolution. If we truly respect the decisions of this House—which gave the power to the Northern Ireland people, through the Assembly and the Executive, to exercise the right to legislate on these areas of the law —please let us not talk about creating a border in the Irish sea, when we all voted to give Northern Ireland that power. Otherwise, what is the point of devolution? The point of devolution is that the people of Northern Ireland have the right to legislate for laws that affect their lives. It is the same in Scotland and in Wales. That is why we have devolution.
Members of this House say to me, a Member from Northern Ireland, that talking about having different laws in my part of the United Kingdom is somehow about creating a border in the Irish sea; it is not. It is about respecting the principle on which this House agreed—that Northern Ireland has the right to make its own laws in its own legislature as part of this United Kingdom. That is important.
We must respect the devolution principle, not breach it. I understand that this legislation is only about giving civil servants advice and direction; I am not suggesting that it is about changing the law. Nevertheless, we need to be careful because I rather suspect that the hon. Member for Walthamstow does not see this as the end game—not as an end in itself, but as a means to an end. Let us be honest with each other about that. I believe that the hon. Lady sees this measure as a means to an end in changing the law in Northern Ireland. All I am saying—I echo previous comments made today—is that most people in my constituency and in Northern Ireland believe that it is for the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive to make those laws. My party will therefore vote against new clause 7 because it has the potential to undermine the principle of devolution. I say that without prejudice to the points made by the hon. Member for North Down, which I respect. We are not running away from the issues, court judgments or any of those things. What we are saying is that the proper place to deal with and discuss these matters is in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
In the most recent democratic vote on abortion law of any legislature in the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2016—only two years ago—voted by a majority to retain the existing law on abortion in Northern Ireland. Now, I accept that we need to examine the issues. In fact, we have looked at the whole question of life-limiting conditions and we have a working group report that we want to get back to.
Let me return to the core and central point of all this: I listened to the new president of Sinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald, talking about equal rights, and I pointed out to her in a panel discussion that if the Assembly sat tomorrow and there was a vote on marriage, the Democratic Unionist party would not have enough seats on its own to table a petition of concern. I therefore challenged Sinn Féin that if it believed that this issue is such a pressing one, it should call the Assembly and get the Government up and running. If it believes that this is the priority—if Sinn Féin thinks that health, education, roads and housing should be secondary—it can list it as the first item of business. But it will not call the Assembly and it will not form an Executive. Sinn Féin will not give the people of Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, the opportunity to address any of these issues.
That is the reality we are dealing with. We can trade arguments back and forward with each other on some of these very sensitive issues, but the reality is that my constituents do not have a Government this evening and are not getting decisions taken that need to be taken because one political party in Northern Ireland is denying not only equal rights but basic rights that impact on the daily lives of my constituents, whether it is their housing rights, their health rights or their education rights. All those rights—human rights—are being impacted. It would be good to hear some hon. Members refer to those human rights that are currently being denied by Sinn Féin, which refuses Northern Ireland the right to have a democratic Government.
Dr Murrison
Rarely do we get such fine, sweeping oratory in a Bill Committee. That is probably one of the few advantages of fast-tracking legislation. I am afraid that I am going to turn the temperature down a couple of notches in speaking to my amendments 1 to 9, which are all far more prosaic than new clause 7. I will certainly not be able to match in any way, shape or form the oratory we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson). These are nevertheless, I believe, important amendments to an important Bill. They deal with clauses 2, 3 and 4.
My amendment 1 is, as it were, amendment 20 in the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)-lite—that is, it does not delete clause 2 but simply, modestly removes a subsection. That subsection deals with the expediency of not seeking the House’s approval to extend the provisions we are discussing in terms of the Executive. I tabled the amendment to explore with the Secretary of State what “expediency” might mean, because we are handing to her a range of quite important powers in unusual circumstances. That suggests to me that the Committee really needs to do its utmost to scrutinise what is going on. It does not seem to me that the word “expediency” should really creep into the lexicography at all. My point in tabling this simple and modest amendment is to probe the Secretary of State on the circumstances in which she would see fit to enact this extension without the prior approval of the House.
Amendment 2 is the guts of what I want to discuss. It really cuts to the chase in terms of the Bill, because it deals with guidance, which is the single most important part of the proposals before us. It seeks, for example, to be more prescriptive in the sort of guidance that I would like the Secretary of State to give to the Northern Ireland civil service. We discussed some of this on Second Reading. I believe that that would be an improvement, having gone through the draft guidance that has been published, of which, presumably, all right hon. and hon. Members who are interested in this matter have got copies from the Library. The amendment goes further and makes it more prescriptive.
The flagship issue is Hart. There is cross-party and cross-community support for the Hart report, and there really can be no excuse for not cracking on and doing this now. I very much hope that in the forthcoming guidance the Secretary of State will enable that process to be advanced. I have cited Hart as No. 1 in my list of things I seek her to be specific on, because it is obviously the No. 1, big ticket issue that people would like to see action on. People out there really cannot understand why action has not been taken.
Sir Mike Penning
I do not understand why Hart has not been done. There was huge courage within the Northern Ireland Health Department when we got medical cannabis for constituents in Northern Ireland when we were getting Billies and Alfies over here. People had the will and they needed the confidence. Is my hon. Friend sure that this legislation will give them the confidence, because clearly they are frightened and something is holding them back? They have done it for medical cannabis, so surely they could do it for Hart.
Dr Murrison
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, which elegantly exemplifies what I am going on about and brings me neatly on to—
Dr Murrison
Before I move neatly on, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Owen Smith
I have signed the hon. Gentleman’s excellent amendment, but does he not understand from the legislation and, indeed, the answer we heard from the Secretary of State earlier that, in her view, this does not allow her to enact any of the recommendations made under the Hart review? Is he not deeply disappointed by that?
Dr Murrison
I am not really sure that that is the case. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the guidance, which I am sure he has now read. On the third page, the guidance states that particular weight must be given to any
“serious detriment to the public interest, public health and wellbeing”.
That seems fairly clearcut to me. I think that the Secretary of State will have got the sense of the House today on her being proactive in the guidance that she is able to issue.
Emma Little Pengelly
Some of the concern is that this is actually not that straightforward. The terms of reference that set up the Hart inquiry clearly said that what came after the findings was not a matter for the chair of the inquiry. There are issues and decision points in those recommendations. To use a quick example, Hart recommends legal aid or separate legal representation for each of the people coming forward to a redress board. That has never been agreed. There would be a huge cost and, in my view, a lot of bureaucracy with that approach. There are decision points in the recommendations that, as I understand it in terms of the guidance, could not be made by a civil servant, because there is no consensus at this stage on those matters. That is the complication, and that is why the Secretary of State needs to step in and make those decisions.
Dr Murrison
I do understand that. One point I made on Second Reading was that I was slightly disappointed that the Bill does not advance pretty much any of the recommendations we made in our report on the democratic deficit, published in May. Had it done so, there would be scope now for even more consultation, using formal structures, which may have assisted the implementation to which the hon. Lady rightly refers.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) mentioned cannabis, which leads me on to healthcare—a matter that is of particular importance to my Committee right now, since we were at the Royal Victoria Hospital on Monday, where we took evidence from a number of service users. It is very clear from the guidance, which cites public interest and public health, that this matter is preying on the mind of Ministers.
It is a crying shame that there is no proper cancer strategy in Northern Ireland right now. There is one published in 2008, so it is out of date. We have a situation where, to pick one condition at random, the outcomes for prostate cancer are far worse in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the country. This is pretty clear. If we do not have a cancer strategy and we believe that a cancer strategy will be of assistance in improving outcomes, of course outcomes will be worse if one is not in place. To get a cancer strategy, we need some form of direction to civil servants to get on with it and, furthermore, to implement it.
Jim Shannon
One thing we have discussed in the Select Committee is the scourge of diabetes. In Northern Ireland, we have the largest percentage of people with diabetes per head of population in the UK. We also have the largest proportion of type 1 child diabetics in the whole United Kingdom, with Scotland coming second. We need a strategy in place for that. We had a strategy before, which covered all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we cannot do that today because we do not have the wherewithal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we really need to see some action in the Health Department, to address all chronic diseases, including diabetes and cancer?
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not want to labour the point, but I feel the need to briefly mention the fact that screening for cancer in Northern Ireland is frankly woeful—it is way behind. We cannot have a situation where there is faecal immunochemical testing in the rest of the UK, but it is denied to people in Northern Ireland, and they also cannot get HPV screening for cervical cancer. That is just not acceptable. But for these things to happen, we need some form of direction, however it comes, and that is a matter for Ministers and those who draft measures of the sort we are discussing and, of course, those who deal with the consequentials of the guidance that we are dealing with.
Owen Smith
I make no apology for going back to the Hart inquiry, because there are hundreds of victims of historical sexual abuse in Northern Ireland who will be watching this debate and wondering whether action is likely to be taken by the Government as a result of this legislation. I think that we are still very unclear whether the Secretary of State interprets this legislation, as the hon. Gentleman and I do, as giving leeway to civil servants in Northern Ireland to undertake further action. Through him, may I urge the Secretary of State to intervene at some point before the close of the Committee this evening and clarify whether this will allow action on Hart?
Dr Murrison
The purpose of amendments tends to be to elicit such answers from Ministers, and it will be very interesting to hear from the Secretary of State how she would like to play this, because I am hoping that we will have some encouragement in that respect. Hon. Members have certainly given her every encouragement. I have been struck by how much encouragement to be proactive in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland there has been during this debate. I think that the Committee understands full well that a great deal needs to be done, and it needs to be done fairly quickly on a number of important public policy issues, of which Hart is just one.
The guidance makes a great deal of the public finances and the economy in Northern Ireland. Goodness me, we could debate all day the economy in Northern Ireland and where that needs to go. One thing we have been particularly struck by as a Select Committee is of course farming and growing in Northern Ireland: horticulture is far more important there than in the rest of the United Kingdom. One of the recommendations we are very keen on is that there should be a proper farming strategy in Northern Ireland very soon. At the moment, it is having to compete with the Republic, where, if I am honest, the Government in Dublin have been really quite proactive and have placed farmers and growers north of the border at something of a competitive disadvantage, with or without Brexit.
Things need to be done, and fairly urgently, to improve productivity in Northern Ireland, while recognising the unusual nature of farming in Northern Ireland and recognising that farming in Northern Ireland is not the same as farming in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the main, we are not talking about East Anglian barley barons in Northern Ireland, but about small family farms. That is why the guidance, which I hope will preoccupy the Secretary of State in the weeks and months ahead, should produce a firm statement about what the civil service of Northern Ireland needs to do in relation to producing such a farming strategy. If we have no restoration of the Executive by the end of the year, we should certainly give some attention to that directly.
I will skip the rest of my amendments because they are simply to do with ensuring that there is added scrutiny of these measures and the guidance that flows from them, as well as with the appointment function to be exercised by this House, as cited in clause 4, and in particular—if I may make this suggestion—by my Committee.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I would not of course challenge the Chair on the grouping of these amendments—that would be poor—but I would gently say that two hours for the range of amendments before us on a great many subjects is not sufficient. This is not satisfactory, and I hope that the Government will learn that we have a deep interest in the issues across Northern Ireland and will give us more time.
I have worked with the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on a number of health issues in England and Wales, and the points he raised in his amendments about health inequalities across Northern Ireland were well made. I particularly want to highlight amendment 22, especially in relation to pensions, in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). Such a measure is in the gift of the Secretary of State, and we certainly wish to see it progressed.
Most of my comments are going to be about new clause 7, and I will start with same-sex marriage. I was proud to be a co-sponsor of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), and I was a witness of his speech last March, which was one of the best I have heard in this Chamber. I should say that, although I am pleased to be married, he beautifully encapsulated the equality point when he told us the heartfelt response made by one of the people he was speaking to in south Armagh. The man said that, frankly, gay people had the right
“to be as miserable as the rest of us.”
With respect to the fact that people who love each other cannot build a happy life together as a married couple in Northern Ireland, he asked in that speech:
“Does anyone think that is fair? Does anyone think that is right? Does anyone think that can continue?”—[Official Report, 28 March 2018; Vol. 638, c. 791-792.]
Anna Soubry
When we went to Northern Ireland with Amnesty International, we learned that people cannot be given that information, because giving it is a criminal offence for which a person will be prosecuted, and they will face a lengthy prison sentence. One of the most concerning features of all this is the inability of people to get any form of advice.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful for that intervention. The right hon. Lady is of course right: the issue of advice, guidance and information is subject to some discussion, and that is not helpful in this situation.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) tested the will of the House on this issue after giving a superb and measured speech on a Bill seeking to decriminalise women in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There was an attempt to divide women by suggesting we could not decriminalise in England and Wales because it would be anti-devolution. Fundamental to the politics of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow and for Kingston upon Hull North, and the majority of women in this House—and in this country—is our belief in the internationalism of women’s rights. Our solidarity with women across the world is important.
Women’s reproductive rights are at the core of that internationalism and solidarity. It seems that the Government share our view. This year, they launched a good flagship programme—I commend some of that work—from the Department for International Development called Work and Opportunities for Women. The objective is access to improved economic opportunities for women through business intervention in supply chains and economic development programmes. It is, after all, a Conservative programme, so its focus is interesting. It is about women’s economic empowerment. That Government policy states that women’s economic opportunities will be improved by, among other things,
“influencing the UK and global agenda on women’s economic empowerment.”
The Government’s supporting literature says:
“Sexual and reproductive health and rights…including the right to decide if and how many children to have, the right to live free from disease and the right to access confidential, high-quality health services which enable women to control their own bodies…are fundamental to women’s economic empowerment.”
It goes on to say that the link between sexual and reproductive health and rights and women’s economic empowerment
“is reflected in DFID’s Economic Development Strategy… 2017…which includes a commitment to increase access to family planning as a vehicle for transforming women’s economic opportunities.”
Those are the Government’s own policies. It goes on to say that the Government support initiatives in this area in the DFID priority countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burma, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nepal, Nigeria, Palestine, Pakistan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, South Africa, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Uganda, Yemen, Zimbabwe and Zambia—28 countries. What rank hypocrisy by the UK Government in committing to increase access to family planning across the world but not in our own precious Union for our own people.
I am in no doubt that change is coming. The issue at heart is how much more suffering the Government are willing to inflict on women from Northern Ireland before it is achieved.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has brilliantly exposed the hypocrisy of our country on the international stage. She talks about the impetus for change in these islands. Is it not a complete absurdity—and would not much of the objection to new clause 7 this afternoon be laughable if it were not so serious—that Northern Ireland, especially following the referendum in the Republic of Ireland, will be the only place in Great Britain and Northern Ireland or on the island of Ireland where same-sex couples will not be allowed to get married and women will not be able to seek access to safe and legal abortion? It is time to end that anomaly.
Karin Smyth
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Today, we have seen Sarah Ewart bravely take on the role of doing something about it.
The Government may kick the can down the road with the Bill, but nothing is standing still. As my hon. Friend said, the changing of its law by the Republic of Ireland will mean that, up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, women can take a train, make a short bus ride or even walk to a service. Yesterday’s vote in this place is important.
I have listened carefully to the speeches today, including from the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly). I spent a day in Stormont recently as part of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, taking evidence from all sides in the debate, and meeting the Attorney General, the director of medical services and other campaigners. Feelings on this issue are strong. We need to treat the issue with care and establish services respectfully. But we have experience of that. People in Northern have had and still have to manage much greater challenges. The new clause is helpful and respectful and would allow a process to take place. The Government would be well advised to respond as respectfully and to listen to the women who would rather be at home.
Karen Bradley
Before I speak to Government amendments 23 and 24, it is worth taking a moment to remind right hon. and hon. Members of the purpose of the Bill and why we are here today. Many were unable to be here for Second Reading, so I repeat that this is not a Bill that I wanted to introduce. I am doing so because we have to enable public services to continue to be delivered in Northern Ireland. We all want to see politicians in Northern Ireland come together, do the right thing and go back to Stormont to form an Executive. If an Executive were in place, so much that we have debated today would be a matter for its members to discuss and to take the decisions on behalf of the people who elected them. That is what is right for the people of Northern Ireland who have suffered for too long without a Government in Stormont. The time has come for their politicians to do the right thing.
I also repeat my earlier point that the Bill is limited. It will allow decisions to be taken by civil servants who have felt unable to do so since the Buick appeal was heard. We need to make sure that those civil servants can take those decisions, but this is not about their making major policy decisions or becoming lawmakers. This is about civil servants being able to deliver on key infrastructure decisions and other matters relating to the running of public services in Northern Ireland.
I do not want to make life any more difficult than it already is for our dedicated civil servants in the NICS, and being put in a position where they would have to take major policy decisions is something that no civil servant would want. They are incredibly dedicated and they work incredibly hard on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
We also need to make sure that there is no reason at all for the politicians in Northern Ireland not to come together, do the right thing and form a Government. I have been heartened by the words I have heard from the Members of the Democratic Unionist party about their determination to see an Executive reformed as soon as possible. I want to work with all the parties and with no impediments in place, which is why the Bill allows the reformation of an Executive without further legislation, to see that happen as soon as possible so that we can deal with these matters and to do so in the right place, in Stormont, where they can be dealt with by the politicians elected in Northern Ireland.
I remind hon. and right hon. Members that this is a time-limited Bill. It is not a permanent Bill and it does not change anything permanently. It allows a short period in which impediments to forming an Executive are removed, in which the framework and conditions for the politicians to come together are put in the best place they can be, and in which decisions about running public services can continue to be made by civil servants in the way that is right for the people of Northern Ireland without their making major policy decisions, because we need the politicians to do that. In considering these amendments, it is important that we all remember the purpose of the Bill—why we are introducing it, why we are doing so in an emergency situation and not through the normal parliamentary procedures, and what the Government’s intention is.
Let me go back to the Government amendments. I appreciate the hard work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in scrutinising the Bill so quickly, and I thank it for its report. I am grateful that the Committee acknowledges the potential need for regulations to be made as a matter of urgency in a way that is not possible through the draft affirmative procedure alone. Although my preferred option was to use the negative procedure to enable any such urgent cases to be addressed, I have taken on board the wider concerns expressed by the Committee and accept its recommendation. Amendment 23 therefore provides that additions to the table in clause 4 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That will mean the draft affirmative procedure, unless the case requires urgent action in which case the made affirmative procedure will be used. I think that this strikes the right balance between scrutiny and the capacity to expedite regulations should it be necessary to do so. Amendment 24 is consequential on amendment 23 and removes a cross-reference that is no longer needed now that regulations under clause 4 are subject to the affirmative procedure.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I recognise that intervening on a Secretary of State is quite an attractive prospect for many Back Benchers and that as a result there may not be time for me to catch your eye, Dame Rosie, to speak in support of new clauses 4, 5 and 6, which are tabled in my name. Will the Secretary of State therefore be willing to instruct her junior Minister to meet me to discuss the concerns of the Co-operative movement in Northern Ireland? I hope still to get in a brief word or two about those concerns, but if I do not I would like the opportunity to amplify them with the Minister in private.
Karen Bradley
I certainly intend to ensure that there is time for the hon. Gentleman to speak in support of his new clauses, but of course I think it would be a good idea for me or my Minister of State to meet him and representatives of the Co-operative movement. In the Northern Ireland Office, we make a point of meeting all stakeholders and organisations with concerns. I know how difficult it is for civic society and organisations to know where to turn at this time without Ministers in Stormont, and I meet many organisations regularly that feel frustrated that they do not have Ministers to whom they can turn, so of course we are happy to meet. I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I end up reminding many, many organisations, that most of the things that are raised with us are devolved matters, and that we do not have Executive powers. That point was made very clear in the Hughes judgment earlier this year, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows.
Owen Smith
Is the Minister saying clearly that she is not anticipating or encouraging civil servants, under the guidance that we are passing here today, to act either to implement the Hart inquiry recommendations or to institute a pension for victims of the troubles?
Karen Bradley
I will come to the specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised, because they are the subject of amendments that have been tabled and I will try to address all those points, but I want to make myself clear. The hon. Gentleman may have missed my comments when I responded to an intervention from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). The head of the Northern Ireland civil service has made it clear that he would like to consult on the Hart recommendations and do the work that would be required in any event, with or without Ministers, to prepare for what implementation of those recommendations and other matters might involve, and I have written to thank him for that decision.
Forgive me; what was the second point that the hon. Gentleman raised?
Karen Bradley
I will talk about that specifically, because obviously, although it is another devolved matter, we have spoken to the Victims’ Commissioner about trying to ensure that some progress can be made. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I meet victims of the troubles, I meet victims of sexual abuse, I meet victims of all manner of things, and I meet campaigners for LGBT rights and all sorts of others, and I well understand the desire to get on and take action in this place. However, I very gently say to him—he will know this from his great experience as an adviser, particularly during the period of direct rule—that there is no direct rule-lite. There is no “just intervene a little bit here and a little bit there.” All of that is direct rule, and I do not want to be in direct rule because it is wrong for the people of Northern Ireland. While there is a chance of the parties coming together and doing the right thing in Stormont, that is the best thing for the people of Northern Ireland and I have to give them every opportunity to do that.
Tony Lloyd
May I press the Minister on the question of the victims of terrorism? There is a very strong interpretation that, as a legacy issue, that is the responsibility of the Secretary of State, not of the Stormont Assembly. I think she needs to make it absolutely clear why she will not follow that path, because that would be the quickest way, it would be legal, and it would do something for victims here and now, not in the indefinite future.
Karen Bradley
I appreciate that there is confusion around this matter. I asked for advice very early on in regard to what was reserved, what was devolved, and what had become a matter for this House as a result of the agreement of politicians in Northern Ireland. Let me be clear: many of the interventions that the Government have taken over the years have been as a result of the wishes and the agreement of the parties in Northern Ireland to ask Westminster to take action in certain areas, but victims’ pensions is still a devolved matter. I want to see action in that area, and that is why I have spoken to the Victims’ Commissioner.
Sir Mike Penning
One of the powers of this House and the Government relates to those who are becoming victims—the veterans. If an amendment were tabled in the other place that actually protected our veterans for their service, would the Government oppose that?
Karen Bradley
I know how passionately my right hon. Friend feels about this; and may I tell him that I feel passionately about it too? I want to see justice for our veterans. The veterans and the RUC who served in Northern Ireland were responsible for the fact that the peace process was able to start; it was because of their determination and bravery. I want to make sure that they are treated with the dignity that they should be afforded. I would like to work with my right hon. Friend to ensure that we can deliver that dignity in an appropriate way, but I have to caution him that, as I said earlier, this is a narrow Bill; it is a Bill to enable public services to continue to be run in Northern Ireland because that is necessary for the people of Northern Ireland. I do not think it is the correct vehicle for the kind of action that I know my right hon. Friend wants to see, and on which I want to work with him.
Let me now deal with the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). I am sympathetic to the spirit of amendment 15, but it has technical flaws, and I therefore cannot accept it. First, it would remove an election duty by omitting the original provision that was agreed to in the St Andrews agreement and is part of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Secondly, I think that the period of seven days is impractical. It could fall within a parliamentary recess, and I do not think that an Order in Council during a recess is exactly what the House would want to see.
Thirdly, the amendment does not allow for flexibility. We do not know what point we will reach. I want the politicians to come together and do the right thing as soon as possible, but I must ensure that there is the necessary flexibility to allow for a final short burst of talks if that is what is needed. I understand exactly why my hon. Friend tabled his amendment, but I think that imposing that degree of inflexibility on me, as Secretary of State, would not help the process of getting the Executive up and running again.
The UK Government respect the principle that Parliament should be able to scrutinise certain public appointments before they are made, especially significant appointments to organisations that hold the Government to account, but I do not think that the consequences of amendment 16 would follow the standard process for either United Kingdom or Northern Ireland appointments. The appointments listed in the Bill would not be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny in the Assembly or the Executive, and I think it would be inappropriate to introduce here a degree of pre-appointment scrutiny that does not exist at Stormont, and would not exist in Northern Ireland if Ministers were in place.
New clause 7 has been the subject of much debate. My respect for the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and her campaigning on this matter is immense: I know how hard she campaigns and how much she cares about it. Her hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is another doughty campaigner. I have put on the record, and I continue to believe, that change is needed in Northern Ireland in this regard, and that I support such change. However, I do not think that it should be made through the Bill or the new clause. The point of the Bill is to allow politicians to come together and form an Executive in Northern Ireland. That is where these decisions should be made.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
The academic Paul Jennings, of Queen Mary University of London, has said that the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) is
“scrupulous in avoiding issues of devolution and changing the Stormont Westminster relationship. It relates only to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, a Westminster actor, and compels the office to issue guidance on the issues of abortion and equal marriage to senior officials in Northern Ireland. In doing so, it refrains from interfering with the mandate of ministers in Northern Ireland.”
Karen Bradley
I understand all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but the new clause is flawed. It is flawed because the Bill does not allow the law to be changed. It does not make civil servants lawmakers. It asks them to work within the confines of the law as it exists today. We do not want to be in a position in which civil servants are changing the law. I am not, as Secretary of State, changing the law on any devolved matter in Northern Ireland; I am giving guidance to the civil servants to allow them to make decisions within the existing law.
Stella Creasy
I hear the Secretary of State say that, yet I see officials in the Northern Ireland Department of Health, in their response to the programme enabling women to come to England for abortions, doing exactly what she has just said she does not want civil servants to do. It is already happening. The Bill will confirm the power that they have to do that, because the Secretary of State is giving them powers in the absence of the Assembly. Will she at least recognise that she has a powerful role to play as a check and balance in that process, and that that is what the new clause is about?
Karen Bradley
Let me say very gently to the hon. Lady that I disagree with her interpretation of what the new clause would do. It would put the NICS in an impossible position, given that the guidance makes it clear that in exercising its functions, it must act at all times in accordance with the law. Let me stress again that the Bill cannot force Northern Ireland Departments to change the law as the new clause seeks to do.
Fiona Bruce
I welcome what my right hon. Friend is saying, but may I ask her to address the question I put to her during my speech: if new clause 7 is passed, will she be vigilant in ensuring that civil servants do nothing that changes the law through her guidance?
Karen Bradley
Civil servants will not be able to change the law: they do not have the power to change the law and we do not want them to have that power. That would put civil servants in an invidious position. It would be totally contrary to the rule of law and the way the independence of the civil service across the whole United Kingdom operates. This is not a precedent that we want to make. I well understand why Members want to see change in this area, and I have great sympathy with that, but this is not the way to do it.
Anna Soubry
Can my right hon. Friend reassure me on two things: first, that new clause 7 is a matter of conscience and we on this side of the House will not be whipped on it, and, secondly, that new clause 7 does not change the law or indeed give anybody the power to change the law? The notes are very clear: it is all about accountability to the Secretary of State so that she can look at human rights and make sure the guidance is there. It does not change the law; it is about guidance and accountability on human rights, and it is a matter of conscience.
Karen Bradley
I am reliably informed that this is a matter of conscience from the point of view of the party Whip on the Government side of the House. I know this is frustrating for my right hon. Friend, and I am not saying this with any pleasure, but am merely stating the facts: the amendment as drafted would not see a change in the law in Northern Ireland. This is a matter that needs to be legislated for in Northern Ireland, and therefore it would not change the situation in Northern Ireland. I add that this is a temporary measure; we need to get an Executive in Stormont, which is what this Bill seeks to achieve, so that they can make the decisions.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I am rather encouraged by the line my right hon. Friend is taking on this, because it is about guiding principles, and I have here outcome 12 of the guiding principles for Northern Ireland Departments:
“We give our children and young people the best start in life.”
Will my right hon. Friend bear that in mind, because she is completely right: it is not for civil servants to change the policy? She is completely right on that, and I am very glad to have the assurance she has given, but the best start in life is the key question.
Karen Bradley
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments. I well understand that there is great strength of feeling in all parts of the House on this matter. I have considerable sympathy with much of what the hon. Members for Walthamstow and for St Helens North are trying to achieve, but I do not believe that this amendment achieves it, and I believe that the right thing to do is pass this Bill so we can get an Executive back and they can make the decisions in Northern Ireland for the people in Northern Ireland.
I am conscious of time and other Members wish to speak, but I want briefly to touch on a few other points, particularly those made by the Chair of the Select Committee. I know that in amendment 1 my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is concerned about the need for an extension and how it would work. Perhaps I can commit to consult with the Select Committee if I decide that having an extension is the right thing to do close to the deadline in order for the Select Committee to see my reasoning. I will work with the Select Committee on many of the amendments that my hon. Friend has put forward, because I appreciate that there is concern about scrutiny in Northern Ireland.
The question of the victims’ pension has been raised, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) has an amendment on it. As I said to those on the Opposition Front Bench, this is a devolved matter, but I have been working with the Victims’ Commissioner. I want to see progress on this matter, and I want all the work that can be done to be done so that when Ministers are back in Stormont they are able to take those decisions.
I am going to conclude at this point, because a significant number of people wish to speak and I want to ensure that all right hon. and hon. Members who have tabled amendments have a chance to speak. I repeat that this Bill is necessary for the people of Northern Ireland so that their public services can continue, and I hope that Members will feel able to support it.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the comparative brevity of her remarks, and for her willingness to commit her Minister of State to meeting representatives of the Co-op movement and, more importantly, to meeting them directly herself. I strongly support new clause 7, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for the way in which she spoke to it. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I briefly touch on the reasons for tabling new clauses 4, 5 and 6, which are tabled in my name and those of a series of hon. Friends on this side of the House.
The new clauses relate to the interests of credit unions, housing co-operatives and energy co-operatives in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I should say at the outset that the largest number of bank branch closures has taken place since the political settlement in Northern Ireland broke down. The two eventualities are not directly related, but the need for a response to the situation clearly exists. Organisations such as credit unions and financial co-operatives have the potential to fill some of the gaps that those bank branch closures have caused. There are no major international banks headquartered in Northern Ireland, and the distance between the decisions that those international banks take and what happens in the communities of Northern Ireland is getting greater and greater.
The only banks that have a Northern Ireland perspective are the credit unions there, and they surely deserve more attention from the civil service in Northern Ireland than they are currently getting. The Secretary of State might not have direct powers in this regard, but she and the Minister of State will be people of considerable influence with the civil servants who do have powers under this legislation, and I hope that she will be willing to lobby on behalf of credit unions in Northern Ireland for a significant share of the financial inclusion pot that the Treasury has set aside. It is currently unallocated and amounts to some £55 million.
I also hope that Ministers will be willing to consider what they can do about the number of people taking on individual voluntary arrangements, causing debts to credit unions not to be paid. This is causing considerable problems for the credit unions. I would also like them to look at issues relating to the funding for energy co-operatives, which is due to run out in April next year, and at the lack of funding and access to land for housing co-operatives. I am grateful to Ministers for their willingness to meet representatives of the Co-operative movement, and on that note, I shall not press my new clauses to a Division.
Anna Soubry
I rise to speak in support of new clause 7, and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support this really meek and mild amendment. It really should not be causing so much agitation, and I think we have to ask ourselves why it is doing so in certain quarters of the House. As many of us discovered when we went to Northern Ireland as guests of Amnesty International, the simple truth is that the laws in Northern Ireland are at best antiquated and at worst barbaric. God forbid that a member of any hon. Member’s family who lived in Northern Ireland were to be raped, but if that woman then found herself to be pregnant, she would not be allowed to terminate her pregnancy even if she had been raped by a member of her own family. She would have no rights and no choice.
In this matter, I have never sought to impose my views on anybody else, but women and young children throughout Northern Ireland have none of the choices that our own constituents have. I met a woman there who was diagnosed with a foetal abnormality when she was 23 weeks pregnant. This was her third attempt to have a child through in vitro fertilisation, and she and her husband were distraught when they were told that their child would die either in the womb or within hours of being born. If they were my constituents, they would have had a choice. They would have been able to talk to their doctor and go through all the available options and, if they so chose, they could have had a termination. That woman was denied all that. She could not even come to England to terminate her pregnancy. She carried that child for 11 weeks as it grew within her womb, with people saying to her, “When is your baby due?” She had to tell them, “My baby is going to die in my womb or it will die within hours of it being delivered.” She had to look at prams, cots and Moses baskets and know that she would never put her child, carried in her womb, into any of them. Her baby did die in the womb, 11 weeks after the diagnosis of a foetal abnormality, and she carried a dead baby for three days before she was finally induced. She gave birth to a baby girl who was decomposing.
Colleagues, right hon. and hon. Members, that is the situation that pertains in Northern Ireland, and new clause 7 seeks not to change that barbaric law, which we want to change—that is why many of us voted with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) yesterday—but to maintain the rights of our fellow citizens of this proud United Kingdom. It merely asks that their human rights are properly monitored and does nothing more than that. I urge Members to vote for new clause 7, and the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who is not in his place, also urges and reminds colleagues that his Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Bill returns to this place on Friday. New clause 7 is a matter not just of conscience, but of decent humanity. It is about ensuring that everybody in the United Kingdom has these basic human rights.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for her comments about amendment 22 and simply urge her to continue to pursue the creation of pensions for the 500 people who are suffering from severe physical injuries as a result of the conflict.
I also rise to support new clause 7, and I will be brief because the situation is simple for me. I have defended and promoted devolution for a decade, but I never thought it would be used as a means of abrogating responsibility for the human rights of anyone within the United Kingdom. It is astonishing that my daughter, who lives in Scotland, could perhaps take up a job in Northern Ireland and then lose the rights that she was born with in the United Kingdom. That cannot be acceptable to anyone in this House, but there are people within the UK who do not have the rights that those of us who sit here today enjoy. New clause 7 would help to put that right, and we should support it.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I had not intended to speak, but I listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and with great attention to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) who, as the Secretary of State said, argued her case with fluidity, passion and an exemplary understanding of the issues, referring back to the ten-minute rule Bill speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). Irrespective of what side of the abortion debate line one might find oneself falling, nobody will doubt the passion that the issue evokes or the concern that is expressed.
However, I do say—before anyone starts shouting at me, this may not be the right word to use—that there is a cruelty implicit in new clause 7. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the Bill’s purpose is not to create new law and that civil servants are not empowered to create new law, the hon. Member for Walthamstow said that her intention is not to ride a coach and horses through or to undermine in any way either the Good Friday agreement or the legitimacy of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe—she is a friend—spoke convincingly and movingly. The cruelty of new clause 7 is that, if it is passed, it will raise a huge amount of hope—although not among everyone in the community of Northern Ireland—but it will not address or deliver on that hope. The cases that she cites would in no way be alleviated or resolved by new clause 7. Those who seek a termination will still have to travel to the mainland, but a huge amount of hope would be raised.
We understand, and the hon. Member for Walthamstow understands, the minutiae of new clause 7. And the Secretary of State, because she is advised by a phalanx of officials, understands what the new clause means in law.
Simon Hoare
Of course that is what this place is for, but my right hon. Friend, in essence, said that all the terrible cases she cited would in some way be stopped or resolved and that people would not have to go through any of these things.
Anna Soubry
I absolutely did not say that, although it is obviously something that many of us now seek to do. New clause 7 is the gentlest step forward so that the Secretary of State and her good officials can monitor human rights and see what is happening. This is important work. With great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), he was not here for the whole debate. He does not know, for example, that the situation in Northern Ireland is such that people cannot even be given basic advice at the moment, such is the onerous nature of the law. We are talking about merely looking at the situation, monitoring it and helping the Secretary of State to fulfil her obligations: no false hopes for anyone.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend does not have a unique understanding of what happens in Northern Ireland. Many of us will have been to Northern Ireland, will know people in Northern Ireland and will have heard a variety of experiences and views.
I think we know how the media and social media will deal with this. This will be “Abortion has now been made legal in Northern Ireland.” For many that will be a welcome thing, but for others it will be the worst thing imaginable. Whichever side of the argument we sit on, I am firmly convinced that expectations have been artificially inflated, but I am not convinced by the arguments of the hon. Member for Walthamstow that new clause 7 would not fundamentally undermine the very foundations of devolution, with ramifications for both Scotland and Wales. We should resist this new clause.
Emma Little Pengelly
I am aware that time is short, so I will make a couple of short points.
Following on from the previous speeches, I urge everyone in the Committee not to support new clause 7 for a number of good reasons. First, this is a hugely controversial issue. Regardless of what Members think of my views, they must objectively accept that this is a controversial issue in Northern Ireland. This amendment has been tagged on to a Bill during its accelerated passage through the House. The fact I am standing here with just a couple of minutes to make these points emphasises that this is the wrong way to do it. I urge Members, regardless of their views on the substantive issue, to reject new clause 7, so that we can have proper consideration of this issue in this House or in any other more appropriate Chamber.
Secondly, there is the devolution settlement. The termination of pregnancies is presented by some, including in the Committee, as a very black and white issue—we are either supporting women, or we are against women—but the reality is that court cases in every country in the world, including in relation to the European convention on human rights, have found this to be a complex issue that is rightly for democratic institutions in each jurisdiction.
In the UK, termination of pregnancy is very clearly a devolved issue. I accept that there are some complications in relation to the legal cases, and it may be, for the first time, on very narrow grounds of life-limiting conditions—fatal foetal abnormality, and rape and incest, potentially—that this is ruled to be a human rights issue under the European convention on human rights. If that happens, it becomes a more complex issue, not just for the UK, but for all signatories to that convention, because there will be horizontal impacts from that type of decision. But in the first instance the courts have recognised that this is rightly for the relevant democratic body, which in this case is clearly the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Nigel Mills
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Stella Creasy to move new clause 7 formally.
Stella Creasy
I move new clause 7 formally. We love whom we love. We all want control over our bodies. Let us choose to give each other—
The First Deputy Chairman
We have done that bit.
New Clause 7
Equal rights for people of Northern Ireland (No. 2)
‘(1) In the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers to address the matters identified by recent, current and future court proceedings in relation to the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to senior officers of all Northern Ireland departments which will specify how to exercise their functions in relation to—
(a) the incompatibility of the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland with the continued enforcement of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 with the Human Rights Act 1998, and
(b) the incompatibility of the human rights of the people of Northern Ireland with the continued enforcement of section 13(e) of the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978
where they pertain to the provision and management of public services in Northern Ireland.
(2) The Secretary of State shall report guidance under this section on a quarterly basis to the House of Commons and set out her plans to address the impact of the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers on human rights obligations within three months of the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Stella Creasy.)
This new clause would increase accountability of the Secretary of State and senior officers of Northern Ireland departments for their role in ensuring human rights compliance in Northern Ireland, in the absence of Northern Ireland Ministers, by requiring them to address incompatibilities between legislation applied in Northern Ireland and human rights obligations.
Brought up,
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Business without Debate
Petitions
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak this evening on behalf of the residents of the wonderful and beautiful village of Kings Langley in the green belt in Hertfordshire. I am all for housing. My constituency is desperately short of housing, but we must make sure that, at the same time as building new housing and new social housing, we protect the green environment that makes villages such as Kings Langley so beautiful, and in particular the farm land, including Wayside dairy farm, run brilliantly by my friend, Charlie Wray. I have been asked to present the following petition:
The petition of residents of Kings Langley,
Declares strong opposition to plans under consideration in Dacorum Borough Councils Local Plan 2017 that would mean the loss of valuable farmland and the demise of Wayside Dairy Farm and other local green areas.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to protect the Green Belt in and around the village of Kings Langley.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002270]
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
This petition relates to the Europa School, which is a free school located in my constituency. It is a petition that has 2,469 signatures.
The petition of teachers at, parents of pupils at, or friends of the Europa School Culham, Oxfordshire,
Declares that in relation to the Europa School, the school currently offers children who attend the school a final qualification of the European Baccalaureate (EB). The ability of the school to offer this qualification has been extended by the Department of Education to 2021. However, uncertainty over the school’s ability to offer the qualification after 2021 is causing difficulties for students and much uncertainty.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons to ask the Department of Education to allow the Europa School in Culham, Oxfordshire, to offer to its students from 2021 the European Baccalaureate as an equivalent to A levels regardless of the status of the UK in respect of its membership of the European Union.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002276]
Home Insulation
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to bring to the Government’s attention their approach to detrimental home insulation issues. I am pleased to have secured the debate to talk about the terrible conditions suffered by some of my constituents who live in the Fishwick area of Preston. The source of their complaints is work first carried out between January and June 2013.
The work was a Government scheme aimed at improving the thermal efficiency of homes by providing wall insulation. The aim, of course, was to lower heating bills in properties where many people were likely to be suffering from fuel poverty. The Fishwick area is one of the poorer areas of the city of Preston and the success of this scheme should have been very important to improve the lives of these people. The funding for this scheme was secured in September 2012 from InterGen, the managing agent for the scheme was Anesco, and the contractor for the scheme was called Ecogen. In total, 387 properties in Fishwick had work carried out as part of this scheme.
As I said earlier, the work was completed in June 2013, and in October that year, tragically, Ecogen was liquidated. By December 2013, the complaints started to flood in. By January 2014, the complaints were referred to the managing agent, Anesco. By March 2014, the complaints were referred to Ofgem.
Between March and December 2014, Ofgem undertook an investigation into the scheme. In December 2014, Ofgem decided to issue an enforcement order to have the work rectified. By April 2015, independent surveys were carried out by the energy partnership with a view to rectifying the work. By August 2015 a second set of independent surveys were carried out and, at the same time, the entire scheme was referred to what was then the Department of Energy and Climate Change. This was complemented by the Bonfield review, which was launched in 2015 by DECC in the wake of the failure of the green deal. The purpose of the review was to examine and make recommendations about how consumers can be protected and advised when installing energy efficiency and renewable energy measures in their homes.
By this time, of course, it was clear that the residents of the 387 homes in the Fishwick area had been living in substandard conditions for three years, with properties suffering from damp, fungus and mushroom development on the walls at various times throughout the year. They were living in extreme humidity because of the way in which the cladding attached to the building had contained water and allowed it to accumulate for long periods inside the building. Quite apart from the humidity and smell being extremely uncomfortable for the residents, it was also a health hazard that resulted in complaints of illness from various residents of the properties.
On 5 February 2016, I was made aware of these problems for the first time at a public meeting held at the Sahara community centre in Fishwick, following which I emailed the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who was then the Secretary of State at DECC, to ask her to make funding available as a matter of urgency as well as an emergency fund to deal with water ingress. I then received a response from the noble Lord Bourne, who said in his letter of 17 March 2016 that in such cases complaints should be referred to a local citizens advice bureau or Ofgem. It is understandable that Ofgem should be involved, but how on earth can the citizens advice bureau help? It was clear from my letter to the Secretary of State and the attachment that the contractor, Ecogen, had been liquidated and it was therefore not just a simple case of going back to the contractor and getting them to put the work right. Special help was required to help put right the defective work.
As a result of my persistence, in early June 2016, I received an email from the National Energy Action fuel poverty charity that stated that a total pot of £2.5 million could be made available to Preston City Council to assist people trapped in the scheme if Preston City Council was prepared to take on the role of managing the remedial work. Unfortunately, the NEA had to contact me on the matter because it had yet to receive any response from the city council. I later found out that one of the council officers had sat on the letter from the NEA and not referred the matter to either the chief executive at the time, Lorraine Norris, or the councillors for the Fishwick ward. I believe that this was because the council officer concerned was reluctant to take on the role of managing the remedial work and therefore did not pass on the correspondence from the fuel poverty charity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is raising a specific point about his constituency, but I want to refer briefly if I may to Northern Ireland, where the fuel poverty figures have dropped by some 22%. That is in no small part due to the Northern Ireland sustainable energy programme, or NISEP, which ring-fences some 80% of funding specifically to help vulnerable and low-income families install efficiency measures in their homes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that working alongside housing associations in Northern Ireland and with NISEP would be something the Minister could consider and an excellent way of ensuring that vulnerable people could install efficiency measures in their own homes and get the help to which he is referring?
Sir Mark Hendrick
I concur with the hon. Gentleman. Whether it is with Northern Ireland authorities or with our own Government, there is no reason why there should not be good co-operation and good insulation schemes. That is what I would have expected with these 387 houses in my constituency.
In the meantime, I requested a meeting with the Secretary of State on the matter, as a matter of urgency. Except for a very brief encounter in the House of Commons Tea Room, when the Secretary of State said that she was looking into the matter as she passed me by, she seemed uninterested in the case and reluctant to discuss the matter. She did, however, refer me to an official, who then assured me that Preston City Council was working with the NEA fuel poverty charity. However, what the Department did not know was that this was the case only because of my direct intervention and contact with the chief executive of Preston City Council at the time, because, as I said earlier, the council officer had sat on the letter from the NEA.
By July 2016, the chief executive was indicating that she needed extra funding in order to carry out surveys to get a “detailed picture of issues”, so clearly the £2.5 million was not enough to deal with the problems, and in fact was only to be targeted at those homes which had complained about the work—62 of the 387 homes. That did not take account of the fact that many of the other homes had problems, but because the residents thought that people in other properties were complaining on their behalf as well, they did not come forward and make their direct complaints. Therefore, the fact that work was to be carried out on the 62 properties only, neglected all the work that needed to be carried out on the other affected properties, whose residents, for a variety of reasons, had not come forward and made their own complaints. That was, in my view, totally unjust and short-sighted.
On 24 November 2016, I emailed the Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark)—to ask what assurances and safeguards were in place to ensure that the properties would be safe, dry and warm, and that any installations would be done in a professional manner. In December 2016, BIS responded, asking for more detail. In January 2017, my office contacted BIS to ask what detail it required. My office staff were told that the policy team would get in touch. We waited and waited, and the policy team did not get in touch. However, work was already under way on the 62 properties, which were designated as phase 1. Those properties that were left were designated as phase 2 and the residents were told that they would be surveyed. However, there was no indication from any organisation as to how or if funding would be made available for phase 2.
In the meantime, I received an email from Councillor Martyn Rawlinson of Preston City Council, telling me that the management of the repairs on the 62 houses was as bad as the original work that was carried out. Some of the houses had been left half done for several months. E.ON originally said that all repairs necessary would be done, but E.ON was then saying that homeowners should get their own insurers to get the work completed, which was outrageous—an absolute disgrace—and by then the residents had been putting up with this nonsense for four years, with many of them having work done twice to their property, and still not to their satisfaction.
By 29 November 2017, I was ready to let E.ON know about my concerns over the progression of the remedial works, and asked it for a timescale setting out when all the works would be carried out and completed, and for a point of contact to be established for the residents. My office chased E.ON for a response for over a month, and a month later—January 2018—we finally received correspondence. E.ON confirmed that it was trying to divert attention from its responsibilities in the matter towards Preston City Council, which had no direct responsibility, and still has no direct responsibility, for the work to be carried out. It is E.ON that surveyed the houses in August 2017 for phase 2 of the repairs. I am told that those so-called “surveys” were in fact not proper surveys, but door-knocking exercises to ask people whether they were having problems, or had had problems previously; nothing at all was done of a technical nature, and certainly nothing that could generate a work order to remedy what problems they were having. In addition there is not, and has not been, any indication from the Government or E.ON of how the rest of the work for the 300-plus houses will be financed. We are seeing good will, but nothing in the way of resources to complete the work.
On 11 February I received an email from Councillor Martyn Rawlinson, with photographs of some horrific scenes within houses due to the damp issues. It is inconceivable that people should be left to live in such conditions, with no one apparently willing to rectify the problems as soon as possible.
On 8 March this year, I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler), describing my disappointment with the then Secretary of State and the Department, and appealing for help. On 27 March I received a response from the Under-Secretary telling me that the responsibility had moved from her Department to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.
I tabled a series of parliamentary questions to BEIS about the use of cladding on properties. That culminated in a letter from BEIS indicating that remedial work on 62 of the properties should be completed shortly, and that E-ON was in discussions with National Energy Action to help other households. In the meantime I received a variety of complaints from the residents, one claiming to have spent £1,500 after a ceiling caved in after wet weather. In a separate case, an elderly homeowner had to leave her property and move in with her son because the damp was affecting her health.
Since then, the Minister for Energy and Clean Growth has responded to my parliamentary question, PQ177184, indicating that the retrofit on 62 of the properties was completed in the summer of this year and that work has been carried out to estimate the extent of the work that is necessary to sort out the work required to the other properties. As I said earlier, that resulted in questions being asked on the doorstep. In addition, talks have been taking place between Ofgem, BEIS and the energy suppliers in an attempt to secure funding for the remaining houses.
This saga has been running for six years, from 2012 to where we are now, in October 2018. It has been an absolute tragedy for those living in those 387 houses, who have been trying to put up with substandard housing and great inconvenience. The result has been unsafe properties with associated health risks. In the meantime, I am reliably informed that in many cases the cladding has been removed, but properties have been left with holes in the walls. The landlord has said that they will be finishing off the work, but will only repair the holes and paint the brickwork. They are not prepared to install any new insulation. One of the complainants wonders where the money has gone for the work that should have been done to her property. The landlord has told her that she should speak to E.ON or Preston City Council.
Let me tell the Minister that I recall spending three years in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). During that time, when my party was in government, we dealt with fuel poverty issues through the Warm Front scheme, which was applied to about 10,000 homes in my constituency, particularly in the area of Deepdale. The scheme focused on energy efficiency by installing new central heating boilers and providing loft insulation and double glazing for terraced housing that was not too different from the housing that we see in Fishwick ward. It was extremely effective, and popular with residents.
May I ask the Minister why the more recent schemes that are using cladding of the type mentioned in Fishwick are being employed when the detriment to both property and residents is known? Why has it taken six years to get to where we are now for the residents of Fishwick? Are the Government willing to help to direct the residents to a satisfactory and available source of finance to rescue what is, in fact, a Government scheme?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I was in that Department during the period of the last Labour Government. One of the things that is absent here is enforcement, but, more important, if there is a Government scheme and the Government are subsidising it, there should be a list of approved quality builders, perhaps with certifications. I have also found, in isolated cases with which I have dealt, that it is mainly elderly people who cannot get redress. They are told to go to the council, but the trading standards offices are undermanned, and they have limited powers under the law. Should we not do something about some of those matters?
Sir Mark Hendrick
I agree with my hon. Friend. When I was in DEFRA there were recommended contractors. Those contractors could ensure a certain level of quality and even though we got the odd complaint from people under the Warm Front scheme, we did not get anything like the number of complaints or the state of the work that we get now. Unfortunately, the company in question has gone into liquidation, but the Government should still look at how they can help.
Why have the residents of Fishwick had to endure this substandard work and why has it not been rectified properly despite the fact that the contracting company, Ecogen, went into liquidation soon after that work was completed? Why do the Government not concentrate on energy-efficient boilers, loft insulation and double glazing? The Minister might well tell me that in other areas they are concentrating on those solutions, but then why is there this move towards cladding—an ugly and harmful solution?
I am thankful for securing this debate and look forward to hearing the answers to my questions from the Minister.
The Minister for Energy and Clean Growth (Claire Perry)
I am genuinely interested to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) tonight. The points he makes about damp living conditions and the impact that has on people’s health and whether their homes are fit for purpose also apply in my constituency and are of enormous importance.
I will start by saying that I do not think that what has happened has been good enough. I will also say something that I will repeat at the end of my speech, which is that I am going to instruct one person in my Department to act as the broker and bring together all the people who have played a part in the problem and can also be part of the solution. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. I am also going to take a moment to set out where the issues the hon. Gentleman raised about this scheme are being addressed fully in the latest iteration of the schemes we are using to help people living in fuel poverty—the ECO3 scheme.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the scheme he is referring to in his constituency was the community energy saving programme, or CESP, which was set up by the previous Labour Government. All the shortcomings of that scheme—no guarantee and no list of installers—were a function of the scheme design at that time. That is one reason why that scheme was closed by the coalition Government in 2012, and a number of penalties were issued for companies under that scheme because, as the hon. Gentleman’s constituents well know, it had not delivered what had been required both in terms of the carbon savings and the quality of work.
Fishwick was then part of this mitigation activity that was undertaken by InterGen. I totally agree that solid wall insulation is not a suitable way to reduce energy consumption in many homes in the country, but that was part of InterGen’s mitigation scheme. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well—it is one of the reasons why he is a long-standing champion in this place—this issue has been going on for many years. There were problems as a result of those installations. Ofgem then received complaints from 62 households, although I know the complaints pool is much larger. Those were offered remedial work which was delivered by E.ON. But as the hon. Gentleman also knows, there are real concerns about the quality of that work, because, as he said, it is not good enough to rip the cladding off and leave holes in the wall; people expect to have a warm home that can breathe and is fit to live in.
I understand that E.ON provided some additional funding to carry out the necessary structural work. I am told it carried out full structural surveys, but if the hon. Gentleman is telling me that that was not the case, that is certainly something to investigate further. Some homeowners of course declined to have extra work; there were issues gaining entry and so forth. If full surveys were not carried out, we need to know that, which is why I am keen that we have one point of contact in my Department to get to the truth of the matter.
Since that work was undertaken in the summer of 2017, more complaints have emerged—over 180. As the hon. Gentleman set out, the installer no longer exists. We are insisting on appropriate guarantees through ECO, but the Fishwick homes, which are a strong failure of the scheme put in place by that Labour Government, did not have any guarantees required from any installer, and the Solid Wall Insulation Guarantee Agency now set up to be a backstop did not exist at the time.
Sir Mark Hendrick
I fully take what the Minister is saying to be correct, but I would have expected the guarantees and quality of work that we saw in the Warm Front programme to be carried over into this scheme if it was indeed put together by the Labour Government prior to the coalition. I am very surprised to hear that that was not the case, but obviously I believe what the Minister says.
Claire Perry
The great thing about these debates is that we do not have to focus too much on the politics, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that some very good designs and functions were put in place under the warm home scheme, and they have very much influenced the design of the energy company obligation, which is the replacement for CESP.
Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman some comfort in relation to other constituents who are receiving measures under this scheme by telling him that the design flaws have been addressed. We have worked with the British Standards Institution to develop new standards over and above building regulations standards for any eco-obligation, and any installer that wants to be part of the scheme must meet those technical standards. All solid and cavity wall installations must be accompanied by a guarantee that gives financial assurance even if the company providing the guarantee cannot honour it. There has to be a bond in place to provide sufficient coverage of at least 25 years, including full replacement or remediation, and to provide a verified quality assurance tick, which we would expect our constituents to be able to rely on in terms of the quality of the work and the products that are being installed.
In July 2015, we commissioned the “Each Home Counts” review. This has been a further key driver of developments in this area. The hon. Gentleman might also have heard of the TrustMark scheme that I launched last week during Green Great Britain week. It sets out a clear code of conduct for businesses. He might also receive complaints, as I do, about cold calling and the aggressive selling of these products, which are completely unacceptable. A process guarantee and rigorous new technical standards to tackle poor design and installation will be published next spring. I entirely agree with him that robust monitoring is key, and enforcement activities are the way to ensure that this happens.
I want to bring comfort to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, but I know that it is no comfort to learn that some of the failings in the scheme design of 2009 that have caused such problems for them have given us lessons from which we have learned. I was pleased this week to bring forward the next set of measures to support ECO3. It will now be focused 100% on the alleviation of fuel poverty right across the UK, and I hope that some of his constituents will benefit from that.
Sir Mark Hendrick
Just before the Minister finishes, will she address the matter of finance for the remaining homes and whether the Government can be of any assistance?
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman anticipates my final remarks. I am fully sympathetic towards what he said, and I am sorry that he has been given the runaround over the years, because he has been doughty in raising such points. There is such a complex array of people involved. He referenced Preston City Council, and I am disappointed that it has been less than active historically, particularly in working with some of the agencies with which he has set up relationships. It sounds as though InterGen, E.ON and Ofgem also need to be corralled into a place where we can come up with a solution.
The scheme’s design, under which insulation is independently installed, never included a backstop to Government finance, although the hon. Gentleman may say that that ought to be a requirement. I therefore do not have any money in any of my budgets to meet the funding requirements, but given that many of the companies are still in operation and will still want to work during the scheme—the market for them is substantial—I feel strongly that they ought to do the right thing and work out ways to fix the problems and ensure that residents are happy.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly with the name and contact details of a person in my Department whom I will task with bringing things together and who will report back to me with progress on a regular basis. I am happy to discuss that progress with the hon. Gentleman, either in the Tea Room or more formally. Lessons have been learned, although I appreciate that that is no comfort for residents who have been bedevilled with problems, but we can work together to try to sort things out.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
Cattle Compensation (England) (Amendment) Order 2018
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Cattle Compensation (England) (Amendment) Order 2018 (S.I. 2018, No. 754).
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I think that the Committee will have an interesting discussion. This is round three of a four-round contest this week—we have the Agriculture Bill again tomorrow—but this is an important issue. Obviously, the Opposition have some issues with the order.
The background to the order is fairly well known. We no doubt disagree about the causes and consequences of bovine tuberculosis, but we are not here to discuss that. We are here to discuss the compensation scheme, which is very important to my local farmers and to those of a number of other hon. Members here.
The operation of the slaughter policy derives from European Council directive 1964/432/EEC, which demands that we slaughter TB-affected animals. The reason why we have prayed against the order is, as much as anything, to get clarity from the Minister about why we are reducing compensation at this difficult time and what the impact is. As I said, we may disagree about the causes and consequences of bovine TB. We will not disagree that this is a dreadful disease that has a huge impact on our farmers, so any reduction in compensation needs to be looked at very carefully.
In 2015-16, 29,000 cattle were compulsorily slaughtered under the scheme. That cost the state about £30 million, so it is a considerable financial imposition on the state, in addition to the terribly bad effect on farmers. This proposal provides for a 50% reduction in compensation where an owner brings an animal into a TB-affected herd and that animal then tests TB-positive while the TB incident is ongoing. Cattle keepers accredited under a scheme based on the standards laid down by Cattle Health Certification Standards will continue to receive 100% compensation for all compulsorily slaughtered cattle, provided that the herd is accredited at the time of the breakdown. My first question to the Minister is therefore a general one: exactly how will that work? Obviously, some will be accredited, but others may have been brought in. We know that cattle passports and so on are not always as accurate as one would want. If a TB-affected cattle carcase has to be condemned because of being so unclean that there is a real risk of bacterial contamination, it, too, qualifies only for a compensatory payment of 50%.
Under the order, owners of TB-affected cattle who choose a slaughterhouse to kill the cattle could face at least a 50% reduction. For some, that is better, because they may have not got any compensation before. Again, I ask the Minister to be clear: who will receive the compensation and at what level? This measure is of course part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs TB eradication strategy.
Let me move on to the comments from others; I also have some questions. The proposal was not well received in the consultation: 76%—a fairly high number—disagreed with the compensation reduction, and although 47% supported reduced compensation for cattle that cannot be processed by a slaughterhouse because they are unclean, I suspect those people were clear that they stood to gain if they did things properly. The proposals have a negative impact on the cattle industry of about £0.7 million—many of these figures are in the accompanying explanatory memorandum. What impact is that likely to have on those people who are already struggling because of bovine TB?
I have a series of questions that I will go through slowly. Some of them are from the National Farmers Union, which has been quite trenchant in its criticism of aspects of the proposals. To look first at what I am concerned about: has DEFRA proved that the reduction is necessary? It is a large sum of money but, in the great scheme of what we pay out in compensation, it is a relatively small sum.
Has DEFRA considered and discussed the legal implications of the reduced compensation with the Animal and Plant Health Agency? There is some dispute over whether it is right and proper and whether it would lead to a legal challenge. If a bought-in animal becomes a reactor after entering a new herd—the timescale is as yet unknown, though the Minister might be able to say—what criteria will be used to state with absolute certainty that the animal contracted the disease from other cattle within the destination herd? At what point will DEFRA decide that an animal is no longer a migrant to the herd? That is quite a complicated issue—these are complicated matters—and that is where the Government might be subject to legal challenge.
How do the reduced levels of compensation provided for by the order compare with those available to cattle keepers in other EU states, particularly Ireland, which has its own problems with bovine TB? What is DEFRA’s assessment of the impact of this reduction on dairy farms that are forced to buy in herd replacement to meet contractual obligations? That is one of the biggest issues; it is not just a question of the loss of the existing cattle. They have to be bought in, and only from TB-affected areas. What impact would this loss of money have on that process?
What is DEFRA’s assessment of the risk to the quality and welfare of cattle that would result from the reduction in compensation, if it leads farmers to seek to buy replacement stock from the open market, or via live exports? Again, I know about the restrictions on from where to restock, but people who are suffering might look to other means to restock. That would not be any good, with the way TB is spread within the cattle stock as well as maybe from other vectors.
What is DEFRA’s assessment of the impact of this reduction in particular on tenant farmers who have no option but to restock before a breakdown has been resolved, or the impact on the stock value and the ability to assess capital for investment? As the Minister will know, that is the problem for tenant farmers who do not have spare capital: they have to borrow if they face a reduction in compensation. It already takes a considerable time to receive that money. In this case, they would not receive it, and there could be further delays.
Will cattle keepers have the option to pay the slaughterhouse to clip retrospectively where an animal is found not to meet the clean livestock requirements to protect the compensation value to the farmer and receipt value to DEFRA?
I have a couple more questions and observations from the National Farmers Union, and then I will finish. How will the decision to reduce compensation be taken in circumstances in which it cannot be determined whether cattle were unclean when they left a farm? That is the reality of abattoirs; one is always reliant on vets getting it right. The Minister will know about the number of clear cattle that go through, as well the number of cattle of uncertain status that are subsequently found to have TB.
What assessment has DEFRA made of the likelihood and cost of legal challenges? On what basis will DEFRA be able to deal with that without penalising a farmer for a third party’s actions?
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the changes will unfairly penalise farmers who may be in proximity to high-risk trading activity, rather than having bovine TB in their own herds because of something that they are in control of? They may receive lower compensation simply because of the proximity and activity of neighbouring farms.
Dr Drew
That is a very real point, because we still do not know enough about the transmission mechanism of bovine TB. Farmers may be innocent and the disease may have been brought in. We know from such experiences as that in Cumbria that transmission is associated with buying in stock. That certainly occurred after the foot and mouth episode, where the transmission of bovine TB was almost certainly the result of it being in the stock that was brought into Cumbria. That has happened on a number of occasions.
What consideration was given to other approaches to highlight the importance of clean cattle? What guidance has been given to farmers to try to ensure that we have clean cattle and wildlife clear of this dreadful disease, as we all want?
In the NFU’s consultation response—I will not labour the point, because many of the NFU’s concerns replicate points I have made—it was concerned about how the process will operate with the veterinary risk assessment that will be completed by the APHA. If DEFRA does not have sufficient confidence in the process and relationships with the state veterinary service are not always as good as they might be out on the farm, how can we say definitively that the farmer will not be the main loser? Farmers are losing money, but they are also, dare I say it, losing confidence in the process. DEFRA continually emphases its commitment to industry sustainability, and yet the order could place businesses under severe financial constraint. It would be interesting to know what the Minister intends to do to build confidence in the fairness of the process.
I have two more points from the NFU. It said that DEFRA should allow cattle keepers the option to pay the slaughterhouse in advance to clear the process. I made that point, but the NFU is clear that there needs to be a direct mechanism with slaughterhouses, rather than the current retrospective process. Finally, the NFU said that there is a need to consider that most cattle that go for slaughter because of TB are not at the stage of production or conditioning that is normal for finished animals. They may not have spent any time on dry pasture or bedding to help to clean them. The order will further penalise a cattle keeper who is already losing the production potential of an animal that is taken early.
To conclude, this debate is about technicalities, but it is also about farmers’ feeling that the process with an animal that is taken is somewhat unfair. Having dealt with the Minister, I know he is fair, but the process—in my case, the animal was a pet—is quite brutal. There is a view among farmers that they are always the ones who have to make sacrifices. They are making sacrifices with the cull, and the order creates another slippery slope by reducing yet again the compensation that they have received under successive Governments. Farmers are under huge pressure. I hope that the Minister will be able to allay a lot of those fears and keep the discourse going with the farmers’ organisations, which are not happy.
We need to deal with this dreadful disease, not make it worse. The bottom line is whether people will be tempted to take the law into their own hands if we withdraw compensation. I have always felt that one of the problems is that people under financial burdens are too often tempted to deal with those difficulties in other ways. I am not accusing farmers of any illegality, but these are desperate people who face a desperate disease and have to make very difficult decisions. If they are not compensated for the animals that they have lost, that can only add to their desperation.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
It is very nice to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
Preventing cattle from being brought into herds in which there is an infection that has not been cleared up is an excellent change to the rules, but I am really disturbed by and concerned about proposed new paragraph 5A of the schedule to the Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2012, which relates to compensation payable when
“an animal is presented for slaughter for reasons of tuberculosis, and…the official veterinarian at the slaughter house is of the opinion that the animal is not in a clean condition”.
I must declare an interest as an owner of cattle, as well as drawing the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am bothered by proposed new paragraph 5A because my cattle do not like being tested for TB. They get jabbed in the neck twice, and three days later the vet comes back to feel the bumps. The cows do not know what is going on or whether to expect another jab in the neck. They find the whole thing upsetting, and for a few days afterwards they are very jumpy. These are Herefords, which are the most calm, gentle and wonderful cattle—the world’s No. 1 beef breed.
That is enough plugging. Bearing in mind the pressure on abattoirs, the costs that vets incur and the pressure to make money all the time, there is an inherent temptation for vets to say that cows are dirtier than they would if there were no financial consequences. Equally, cattle cannot be clipped after they have been tested, because it is desperately dangerous. They are not happy animals, and they have four hooves that will smash your head in without meaning to. There is a genuine risk to human health if we not only insist that people have their cattle taken away against their will and with great sacrifice to their business plans when they face the misery that TB inflicts, but then say, “By the way, you’d better make sure they’re clean enough, or the abattoir will dock 50% of your compensation.” That is asking for trouble.
I am led to believe by the Government that at the moment only 20 cattle a year are deemed to be too filthy to be worth killing. However, I think the Government need to do considerably more to put my mind at rest that we are not voting in support of a change in the rules that will cause good farmers who are a bit worried to clip cattle, either before or after TB testing. We need to ensure that this is proportionate. For 20 cows a year, we are talking about £100,000 of compensation. That is not enough to risk one life; no amount of money is worth that. A terrible mistake is being made.
We need to find a different way to ensure that people give their cattle a level of care and welfare that keeps them clean. The suggestion made by the Opposition spokesman was a good one: the abattoir should receive a payment from the farmer to ensure that the animal is in a clean enough condition to be killed. If the vets are going to condemn an animal, they should have to photograph it. I would like to see some sort of appeal process so that when the system starts to proliferate, which it inevitably will, we can say to the Minister, “This is what we did today. What a mistake we made—perhaps we can revisit it.”
I would like to hear good things from the Minister about protecting farmers’ health and safety when they are going through the most traumatic and miserable thing that can happen on a farm in the course of normal business. I have been keeping cattle for quite a long time. There is not just one test a year; there are pre-movement tests as well. TB tests are not fun. My children dread them because they have to help, and we all get hurt—it is not all right. Farmers must do those kinds of things to fight this ghastly risk to human health.
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
It is great to have the opportunity to debate this order and to set out the Government’s position on these matters. I will turn later to some specific points made by the shadow Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire.
Bovine TB is the most pressing animal health problem in the UK today. Over the last 12 months, more than 33,000 TB-affected cattle have been slaughtered in England, which is an appalling waste. The disease is damaging our rural businesses and causing much distress for farmers and rural communities. The cost of controlling the disease is about £100 million a year and a big burden on the taxpayer. To protect industry and to reduce costs for the taxpayer, it is right that the Government should continue to take strong action to ensure that we have a successful and resilient cattle farming industry as the UK enters a new trading relationship with the world.
Our comprehensive strategy to eradicate TB includes commitments to strengthen cattle testing and movement controls; to cull badgers in areas where they are an important factor in spreading the disease to cattle; to support badger vaccination in the edge area of the high-risk TB area; and to improve biosecurity on farms and in trading. Adapting the way that compensation funding is used to incentivise the take-up of good biosecurity practices is an important element of the Government’s long-term TB eradication strategy. That is why we are amending the Cattle Compensation (England) Order 2012 to introduce small but important changes to the compensation regime in England. These changes will encourage more herd owners to take sensible and proportionate steps to improve their biosecurity, thereby reducing the disease threat to their own and neighbouring herds.
I recognise that, for business sustainability reasons, some TB-affected cattle farmers must be able to bring in new stock to replace the animals that they have lost, and there are no plans to stop this. However, paying full compensation for cattle brought into a herd with a known and ongoing disease problem could be a disincentive for some to take action to reduce their disease risks. That is why we have decided first to follow the example set by the Welsh Government in 2016 by paying reduced compensation for any individual animals that are brought into a herd under TB restrictions and that subsequently pick up the infection and are removed while the herd is still restricted. Cattle farmers who register their herds under the CHeCS TB accreditation scheme commit explicitly to take steps to reduce their TB risks. For that reason, I decided that we will continue to pay full compensation to farmers for herds that are accredited in that way, since they have demonstrated that they are already taking action to protect themselves and to improve their biosecurity.
Secondly, herd owners have the option of sending their TB-affected cattle to their choice of slaughterhouse and taking a payment from the slaughterhouse operator in place of DEFRA compensation, but currently they are sometimes reluctant to do so. Many tell me they would like to use their local abattoir because it is closer and it reduces the stress on the animal, but this option has been taken up rarely. Under the existing rules, the keeper suffers a financial loss if the animal’s carcase is condemned at the slaughterhouse, since they receive no compensation and no payment from the slaughterhouse. Incentivising keepers to take this option will enable some to negotiate better prices for their cattle with an abattoir that they know and reduce the cost to the Government of compensation. The order includes a new financial safety net provision so that those who opt to organise the slaughter of their TB-affected cattle locally receive compensation at the same rate as other keepers of TB-affected cattle if the animal’s carcase is condemned. We are therefore removing the risk that farmers currently face when they send their cattle to a local slaughterhouse. This measure has been welcomed by the industry.
Dr Drew
I very much welcome what the Minister has to say about that aspect of the order, but who makes that decision? Is it the vets in the abattoir, or does the farmer who brings in the animal have to put that to the abattoir as a compensation arrangement? I am a bit unclear about that.
George Eustice
The decision about whether a carcase is fully condemned because the disease is rampant and the animal has too many lesions will be made by the official veterinarian at the abattoir. Currently, a farmer who chooses to slaughter privately with a local abattoir will receive no compensation and no payment for the carcase. In the vast majority of cases, the disease is caught at an early enough stage that the number of lesions is very small, so the abattoirs are able to get salvage value from the carcase—they are able to salvage most of the meat and turn it into value. A number of farmers have told me that they would like to take that option with a local abattoir, but at the moment, the risk that they might get no payment at all is a barrier to their doing so. The decision about whether the animal is totally condemned is one for the official veterinarian. If it is totally condemned, the farmer will receive the full compensation payment.
The third and final change that the Government propose is to reduce compensation for TB-affected cattle that are so unclean that the slaughterhouse operator is unable to process them. The UK has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and the Government are committed to raising them further. I believe that there is no excuse for sending unclean cattle to slaughter. Reducing compensation for cattle that cannot be processed for human consumption will send a clear message that the cleanliness of slaughter cattle, including TB-affected animals, is an important animal welfare consideration. Thankfully, the number of TB-affected cattle that have been rejected because they are too unclean to process is very low—we are talking in the region of about 20 per year.
The order targets bad practice. For example, when an animal is condemned, the farmer might not take care of it sufficiently in the 10 days or so that it might take for the lorry to pick it up and take it to slaughter. He might judge that there is no longer any interest or value to him in that animal and he will get compensation anyway. I want to discourage that sort of behaviour. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire is a breeder of Hereford cattle; my family are breeders of South Devon cattle. I, too, know what it is like to suffer TB breakdowns, and I know the trauma and distress that that causes. I can say this much: if animals are condemned, my brother takes care of them and ensures they have plenty of bedding in the week or so that it typically takes for the lorry to arrive. If the animals that arrive at an abattoir are so unclean that they cannot even be processed—if they are in the bracket of the 20 per year—it is likely that they have not been sufficiently cared for, and that other animal welfare issues pertain to that situation.
Dr Drew
The time that it takes to get cattle picked up is one of farmers’ biggest frustrations. I do not regularly get rung up about it, but when I do get rung up about a herd breakdown, the one thing I am always asked is, “Can you get these animals taken sooner rather than later?” That is the worry about this. I am not saying that neglect is in any way acceptable, but if someone has had a massive breakdown and they are told that their cattle may be taken some time over the next week to 10 days, that is not much of an incentive. Those people are really at their wit’s end. If there is one thing the Minister should take away from this, it is that we should speed up the process by which animals are taken—certainly, once they have a whole herd breakdown.
George Eustice
All I can say is that APHA does run certain programmes for that and picks up the animals as soon as it can. It usually happens within days; sometimes it can take a week.
I return to my initial point: typically, once an animal has become a reactor and tested positive to the disease, the farmer will keep it in isolation in a shed somewhere. Is it really too much to ask that farmers ensure there is full straw bedding in that shed for the week or so that it takes for the animal to be collected? My view is that it is not.
Bill Wiggin
I suspect it is because the Minister has such a kind heart that he is worried about the care shown to these poor condemned animals. However, it is an offence, which is properly legislated for, not to look after animals properly. The draft order is no substitute for proper animal welfare—it is misguided in that respect. Proper legislation is already in place. Will he think again about how he will handle the increased complaints that will inevitably follow when abattoirs work out that vets are under pressure to condemn more and more stock?
George Eustice
Vets have a very objective approach to condemning unclean animals. They do that already, whether it is for TB compensation or for commercial animals. It is worth noting that if a farmer sent a steer to an abattoir to be slaughtered for food consumption in the normal way and it was condemned as too unclean even to process, he would get no payment for that animal. Under this scheme, he would get 50% compensation.
It is important also to recognise that when an animal is condemned, it has no salvage value to the Government. At the moment, we pay full compensation to farmers for the value of their animals, and we try to recoup some of that cost through those animals’ salvage value. Where animals are condemned, there is no salvage value.
Bill Wiggin
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but the wording of the draft order is not “the meat is condemned” but
“the animal is not in a clean condition”.
That is why I think he is wrong.
George Eustice
As I said, at the moment the official veterinarians apply a clear, objective set of criteria. I am more than willing to share the full detail of those criteria with my hon. Friend, but they are applied very objectively by official veterinarians who work for the Food Standards Agency and have a great deal of experience of this work. As I said, we are talking about just 20 animals a year—a very small number.
Luke Pollard
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire raised a really interesting point about what happens in the event of a dispute about whether an animal is unclean. It does not look like the draft order provides for an appeal process. If there is concern that this measure will be used to reduce compensation for farmers, it seems logical that there should be an appeal process. Will the Minister deal with that?
George Eustice
The approach will be exactly as it is now. The official veterinarian makes the decision about whether to condemn an animal for being too unclean to process. We have just passed legislation to have CCTV in slaughterhouses, and the official veterinarian collects photographic evidence to demonstrate that an animal was unclean. The OVs have processes to manage this. Ultimately, the FSA is independent and the OVs on the ground will make the decision, as they do on many other such issues.
The shadow Minister asked why we are making these changes. My approach to changes to compensation is clear: I have always rejected such changes simply for the purpose of saving money. In my view, we should change compensation arrangements if that will change behaviour. He also asked about the legal implications. I point out that we are doing exactly what the Labour Administration in Wales did in 2016. We are simply bringing England into line with the approach that has already been adopted in Wales, which has been successful and has not led to legal challenges.
The shadow Minister asked how we would determine whether a breakdown was due to a disease that an animal contracted before it entered the herd or when it entered the herd. We do not intend to make that distinction, since we are trying to incentivise caution among farmers about the animals they buy in. We want to make clear that if farmers are trying to go clear, they should not buy in animals that are at high risk of having TB. If it is possible for farmers to delay re-stocking and be more cautious about the way they do that, they may choose to do that.
I was very clear—we changed the order from its original draft to reflect this—that I want to ensure that any farmer who signs up to the CHeCS-accredited scheme to demonstrate that they are taking biosecurity seriously and taking proactive action to reduce the exposure of their herd will still qualify for 100% compensation. Any farmer who might be affected by this 50% reduction by bringing animals into the herd when they have an ongoing breakdown can mitigate that immediately simply by signing up to the CHeCS accreditation scheme. Anyone can join CHeCS; they have that option.
The second option, which should be seen in the context of earlier points, is that if a farmer has a breakdown or an animal is brought on, he would now have the option to go for private slaughter and get the salvage value under one of the other provisions that we are introducing. Even if a farmer said, for entirely ideological reasons, “I refuse to do biosecurity because I believe badgers are to blame, and I am not going to do biosecurity; I won't sign up to checks,” he still has the option to get a salvage value by sending that animal to a local abattoir of his choosing.
My final point is on scale. About 1% of cattle herds bring animals on to their herds when they are under a restriction. They tend to be predominantly dairy herds. We suspect that around 250 herds might be potentially affected by this measure, but every single one has the option to join the CHeCS scheme and to immediately mitigate that risk. That would be a positive step forward.
George Eustice
The CHeCS scheme is a United Kingdom Accreditation Service-accredited scheme that certifies that farmers are adopting proactive measures to improve their biosecurity. That could include, where necessary, putting additional fencing and protection on yards to stop badgers getting into contact with animals. It can involve adopting a particular risk-based approach to the way they trade. It can also involve investment in special drinking troughs so that badgers cannot get access to them, and so on and so forth.
I often hear from the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party that we should not be doing a badger cull and that we should be doing biosecurity, vaccination and other things. My answer is that we need to do all of those things. In the two areas where we first started the badger cull, we have seen a 50% reduction in the incidence of the disease, but that is not enough on its own. We also have to improve biosecurity and we have to continually refine our cattle movement controls. If the Opposition are serious about this, they must recognise that we must take biosecurity seriously too. That is what we are seeking to do.
Bill Wiggin
I am using this opportunity to check on the CHeCS. The Scottish Agricultural College does not appear on the CHeCS website, yet I believe it is a CHeCS-accredited scheme. The Department needs to have a little look at exactly how the scheme is working. I have been CHeCS-accredited from the beginning, and the tuberculosis bit does not really work. I hope that the Minister will have a little look at that. Could he also ensure that the 20 cattle that are condemned every year are photographed?
George Eustice
On the latter point, yes. I will ensure that that instruction is given to the OVs. I suspect that they would probably do that anyway for their own internal procedures.
On my hon. Friend’s first point, I do not think that is directly relevant to this set of regulations, but I am more than happy to have that discussion with him. The CHeCS system has worked well on other diseases, such as bovine viral diarrhoea. The TB version of it was launched in 2015 with the support of the National Farmers Union and others. It is something that we want to get behind and support.
Dr Drew
We will not push the question to a vote, because we are largely satisfied, but I hope the Minister will keep this under review. Cattle-to-cattle transmission is still, according to all the scientists, about 75% of the causation of TB. I do not want to get into badgers and all that. Anything to bear down on biosecurity is very important. Counterintuitively, my argument is that farmers under pressure would do the very opposite to that which the Minister is asking them to do. It may only be 20 cows, but the danger is that there are other things going on out there that we know should not be going on out there, and the Minister needs to keep reviewing this if we are ever to get on top of this dreadful disease.
On the basis of that understanding, we will not push this to a vote, but we will look very carefully at how these things are going to operate. Farmers need to have confidence in the scheme. If they do not have confidence in the scheme, it will not work.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Cattle Compensation (England) (Amendment) Order 2018 (S.I. 2018, No. 754).
Draft EEA Passport Rights (amendment, Etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. The Treasury is in the process of laying around 70 statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. That is being done to ensure that a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services is in place should the UK leave the EU without a deal or an implementation period. This is the second debate in the House as part of that programme, and I look forward to several more in the weeks ahead.
The overriding objective of that work is, as far as possible, to maintain continuity at the point of exit by maintaining legislation as it currently exists. Where existing EU legislation would not operate properly in the UK context, we need to amend it to ensure it works effectively after we leave. We are therefore using powers delegated to Ministers under the withdrawal Act to fix deficiencies in applicable EU law that will be transferred directly to the UK statute book at the point of exit, and to fix existing UK law to ensure that it is not deficient on and after exit day.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his contribution. I hope he will tell us before he finishes what projections the Treasury has made of the number of potential job losses in the financial services sector if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
John Glen
I will be very happy to address that point in due course, either in my introduction or when summing up.
That work will provide the UK’s financial services sector with much-needed certainty about regulatory requirements in the event of no deal, and ensure that firms can continue to do business in the UK. That is consistent with the Government’s position that, although the best outcome is for the UK to leave with a deal, in the meantime we must—and we will—continue preparing for no deal. I want to underscore the point that the tabling of this statutory instrument was a planned activity that was widely anticipated by the regulator and industry.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Has the Minister ever seen a Treasury matter of comparable scope and importance debated in a Delegated Legislation Committee?
John Glen
No—I acknowledge that this is a significant event. What we are doing today is wholly necessary, and I cannot at the moment envisage anything of comparable significance.
Many of my esteemed colleagues will be familiar with the passporting system, which allows a firm in a European economic area state, such as a bank or an insurer, to offer services in any other EEA state on the basis of the authorisation granted by its home state regulator. That system relies on a set of reciprocal agreements between EEA member states, which are implemented in domestic legislation, in this case under schedules 3 and 4 to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. My Department had to make a key decision about how to deal with those existing EEA passport rights in UK law in the event of no deal.
In such a scenario, the UK would be a third country, outside the EU financial services framework and therefore outside the passporting system. The provisions agreed between EEA states would cease to apply in the UK, meaning any references to EEA passport rights in UK legislation would become deficient at the point of exit. As a result, the Government will need to repeal provisions in the 2000 Act implementing the EEA financial services passport, meaning that any EEA firms currently operating in the UK via a passport would lose their permissions to do so on exit day, just as UK firms would lose their permissions to passport into other EEA states. Instead, firms would need to obtain authorisation from the UK’s regulatory authorities—the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority—by exit day if they wished to continue doing business in the UK.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Has the Minister done an analysis of what that would mean in terms of income for regulators and the extra requirement for them to be the direct regulators as opposed to just having oversight?
John Glen
I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise figure, but it would be a considerable change in the way that the regulators operate and would need a considerable reconfiguration of resources in an ideal scenario. Having had conversations with Sam Woods and Andrew Bailey at the PRA this morning, it is a scenario for which they have made contingency provisions.
The volume of applications received by the UK regulators is expected to increase significantly, as many hundreds—perhaps thousands—of EEA firms submit applications for UK authorisation. That will include applications from large and complex businesses with a substantial UK presence. To minimise the disruption faced by EEA firms and UK businesses and consumers due to the loss of EEA passporting rights in a no-deal scenario, the draft regulations fulfil the Government’s commitment, made on 20 December last year, to introduce legislation to establish a temporary permissions regime.
Ian Murray
The Minister said a few moments ago that the regulations would allow UK financial firms to continue doing business as regulated businesses in the UK. Can he say whether they would be allowed to continue doing business in the EU?
John Glen
I am sorry if I made a mistake in what I said; the regulations actually allow EEA firms to continue operating in the UK. The reciprocal right of UK firms to operate in the EEA does not exist at the moment. That is a reciprocal decision that we hope will be in the interest of EEA states to make with respect to the comfort of their citizens, who receive financial services from UK firms, but that is not something that has happened yet.
This regime would enable EEA firms operating in the UK, via a passport, to continue their activities in the UK for up to three years after exit day, allowing them to obtain UK authorisation or transfer business to a UK entity as necessary. The regulations would also give the Treasury the power to extend the regime, which is crucial to alleviate the potential scenario in which some EEA firms cannot be authorised within the three-year period. The Treasury would not be able to extend the regime as a matter of course, but only if it considered it necessary to do so. The use of the power would also need to be based on a robust assessment from the FCA and PRA regarding the effects of extending or not extending the period. The length of the regime could only be extended by 12 months at a time. The instrument that would extend the regime would be subject to the negative procedure, and that has been drawn to the special attention of the House of Lords by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee Sub-Committee B, in a report published last week, on 18 October.
My officials and I judged that choice of procedure to be appropriate, given that the power to extend the regime is conferred by the draft regulations under discussion today, which are subject to the affirmative procedure. I reassure hon. Members that we take parliamentary scrutiny seriously, and although this affirmative instrument introduces the power to pass regulations via the negative procedure, the Treasury believes that if similar provision were to be made by an Act of Parliament, it would also be via the negative procedure, not least because the power is so tightly drawn.
The temporary permissions regime would ensure both that firms can continue servicing UK businesses and consumers for a temporary period after exit day, and that they have appropriate time to prepare for and submit applications for UK authorisation and can complete any necessary restructuring. The PRA and the FCA can manage the expected applications for UK authorisations from EEA firms that were previously operating in the UK via the passport in a smooth and orderly manner.
The draft regulations are a pragmatic response to a complex problem, and are needed to minimise disruption to users and providers in the UK financial services sector in a no-deal scenario. I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report has acknowledged the importance of the regulations in achieving that objective, and I emphasise to the Committee how widely desirable they are both to the industry and to the regulators.
It is also important that industry understands what we are doing, how it will work and why it is necessary. To aid that, the regulations were published in July in draft form along with an explanatory policy note to maximise transparency and understanding before their introduction. The regulators responsible for the authorisation and supervision of financial services firms are now in the process of consulting industry to ensure that the rules that would apply to firms in this regime function properly when the UK leaves the EU.
To conclude, the regulations are essential to ensuring that we have a functioning financial services regime in a no-deal scenario. They provide reassurance for EEA financial services firms, UK businesses and the customers they serve that they will continue to be able to operate here, no matter what the outcome of the negotiations. The City’s success is based on being the most open and dynamic financial centre in the world. Ensuring that EEA financial services firms can continue to operate here after exit day will help to maintain that status, protect jobs and preserve tax revenues to fund our vital public services. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Austin. This Committee marks the 13th time I have done a Delegated Legislation Committee for the Opposition in my role as a shadow Treasury Minister. In that time, I have seen Committees on issues of varying significance and impact. The Minister and I have done everything from the post-financial crisis regulatory regime to formally dissolving the British Potato Council, but I do not think anyone would deny that the piece of legislation before us today is on a completely different scale because of its importance and the issues of substance that it covers.
As is well known, the Government took a decision to undertake the bulk of the legislative preparation for our EU withdrawal through secondary legislation. As an Opposition, we have voiced our concerns about that on many occasions because of the transfer of power to the Executive that it entails. I very much appreciate the work that has been done by the Minister and his staff in the civil service to brief us on the process, but it is unquestionable that, in a normal environment, changes such as this should be dealt with through primary legislation, given the scrutiny that that would bring. The sheer number of Treasury regulations and the speed with which they have to come forward is deeply concerning in respect of holding the Government fully accountable. As the Opposition, we commit to making every effort to do that, but it is undoubtedly a constitutionally unprecedented and tremendously resource-intensive task, and it leaves room for error.
It is disappointing that we have reached the stage where such contingency measures for a no deal scenario must be laid before the Committee. The UK is very close to our EU exit date, and financial services firms need certainty about the shape of things to come, which has been sorely lacking. As a result, financial institutions have already begun to enact their own contingency provisions such as moving subsidiaries and assets to the EU. They began that process many months ago.
I repeat my thanks to the Minister and his staff for taking the time to ensure that we have as much clarity as possible on what the measures mean, but the extent of the regulations paints a bleak picture, most notably with the consequential amendments, which show what we will be giving up if the negotiations do not progress, including co-operation with the EU on the implementation of sanctions and asset-freezing.
I begin by asking for the Minister’s reassurance about the presence of such clauses and their intended use. We have taken it on trust that the regulations simply provide for a functional statute book in the event of no deal, but in the interests of ensuring full transparency, will the Minister confirm that for the record? We would be failing in our duties if we were not to get that on the record.
Moving from the principle to the substance of the regulations, I want to ask the Minister specific questions about the potential temporary permissions regime and how it would operate. Given that the TPR would underpin the full regime for passporting financial services into the UK, it is a possible fundamental building block of our future regulatory regime. Will he make clear to the Committee what the Government’s current negotiating objective is in relation to the passporting rights for EU financial services firms given that it is the backstop contingency measure? What is the ideal scenario? How will legislative provision be made for it?
Adding to the democratic deficit in the process, elements of the draft legislation seem to bestow significant discretionary powers on the regulators—both the FCA and the PRA. Regulation 6(6)(a) appears to give the FCA and the PRA powers to set landing slots of any length and any notice period for which an EEA firm passporting into the UK must apply for full UK authorisation. Should those landing slots have a minimum duration so that financial institutions are given a minimum notice period before being required to submit an application? In practice, such applications can take weeks or months to prepare and firms will need as much time as possible.
It appears that regulation 6(7) extends the period for which the regulators are able to delay a decision on whether to grant UK authorisation from the current six to 12 months to three years from exit day. That seems disproportionate and unfair to companies, which will endure a long period of uncertainty about whether they will be granted UK authorisation. Will the Minister clarify the reasons for that? We recognise that increased regulatory workload is likely to increase approval times, but surely they should be closer to the current timescale—perhaps they should increase from six months to nine, or from 12 months to 15. Clearly, there must be no outstanding applications awaiting approval at the end of the three-year transition period.
The Opposition argue that regulation 6(8) should include a minimum notice period to tell firms that their UK authorisation has been declined. A refusal will necessitate the winding down of operations and may present a risk of disruption to customers. It is essential that a firm’s withdrawal from the market is as orderly as possible. Firms need time to prepare. Obviously, that has to include a three-year cut-off at the end of the transition period.
Finally, the Opposition suggest regulation 19 should be looked at again. That regulation would give the FCA and the PRA powers to enforce the requirements of a passporting EEA firm’s home state regulator on that firm. However, that creates new practical issues related to the ability of UK regulators to act on an extraterritorial basis. We suggest that alternatives could be looked at. It was suggested to me that co-operation agreements could be set up with local EEA regulators for relevant member states so they retain enforcement powers for breaches, but I am mindful that Ministers and the regulators will have discussed other options. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view about whether it is possible to reconsider regulation 19 with other types of remedial measure.
Those issues show the scope and complexity of what we are dealing with. I am aware that we are under significant time pressure, both with exit day looming and given the volume of secondary legislation that must be passed in the coming months. However, for the sake of one of the UK’s most important economic sectors, we must not let that stand in the way of proper scrutiny and consideration.
Ian Murray
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, to consider what is, in the Minister’s words, one of the most significant pieces of secondary legislation he has known.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that given that, in the Minister’s own words, there is nothing of comparable significance to this statutory instrument, it is extraordinary that no Scottish National party Member is here to stand up for Scotland’s financial sector?
Ian Murray
I am delighted that we managed to contrive that intervention to put on the record that there is no one here from the third party of this House. Under the normal procedures of a Committee of such significance, it gets the right to respond, but has decided to pass up that opportunity. Given what the Minister said about the significance of the statutory instrument, there perhaps should be someone from that party here.
That does not take away from the fact that the statutory instrument says everything we need to know about the Government’s stance on Brexit. They are having to put through a statutory instrument to ensure any EEA firm that does business in the UK will be able to continue to do so after we leave the European Union in the event of no deal. There is utterly nothing from the Government about what will happen in the event of no deal. With the Prime Minister being stabbed in the back and hanging from the noose—in the words of Conservative Back Benchers—it looks increasingly unlikely by the day that we will end up with anything other than no deal or something close to it. What will happen to UK financial services firms that operate in the European Union?
I intervened on the Minister to ask whether he would expand on the fact that the Treasury is doing a significant amount of work. It should be commended for that work, but the Minister was questioned at least a dozen times in the House this week about the impact on jobs and this country’s GDP of a no deal scenario, or indeed a Chequers scenario or a Canada plus plus plus scenario. He fundamentally refused to answer that question.
In my earlier intervention, I asked whether the Minister could tell us the impact on jobs in the financial services sector in the event of no deal, which is what the statutory instrument is about, and he said he would answer in his summing up. I suspect that, by the time he gets to his summing up, he will not have a figure from the Treasury analysis, either because he does not have one, or because it is one that the Government do not want people to hear.
I hope the Chancellor comes to the Dispatch Box on Monday with a copy of the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility and lays out the impact of staying in the European Union, a no deal scenario, which is what the statutory instrument is about, a Chequers scenario, a Canada plus plus plus scenario, an hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) scenario, and the former Foreign Secretary’s scenario. For our financial services sector, it is merely a couple of reporting quarters away. I hope the Chancellor lays out the impact on jobs of leaving the European Union under all those plans, and everything in between, even if the Government give us just a range.
The Conservative party can fight internally all it wishes about who should have the keys to No. 10 and No. 11 and who should be doing the Brexit negotiations, but my constituency of Edinburgh South relies on financial services. We are talking about tens of thousands of jobs across Edinburgh and Scotland and the United Kingdom, billions of pounds in tax revenue to the Treasury every single year, and the underpinning of this country’s entire exporting system. Even if it were to come to pass, the Chequers plan, which looks as if it is just about as dead as the dodo, does not even mention the services sector. It is 80% of our economy, and it is not even mentioned in the Chequers plan.
Ian Murray
The order is about the ability of EEA companies to continue to trade in the UK in a no deal scenario, but makes absolutely no mention of how UK financial services companies will be able to operate in the EU if we end up in such a scenario, and the statutory instrument has to kick in. It is important to highlight that the Government are doing an awful lot of work preparing for a no deal scenario in one way, but they are not doing it in the opposite way in terms of what the financial services sector has said.
The Chancellor said in a speech last March that he wanted full regulatory alignment between Britain and the EU for financial services post Brexit, which would mean that the statutory instrument would be redundant. However, he has been overruled because that is not what is on the table, either from the EU or from the Prime Minister in terms of her negotiating position in Brussels. If the Chancellor has now been overruled, perhaps the Minister can tell us what the Government’s position is with regard to UK financial services post Brexit in any scenario and the impact that leaving will have on financial services.
Is it possible even to deliver what is being asked for in the statutory instrument? The regulators are hardly well known for their efficiency and speed at the moment in dealing with minor issues regarding some of the scandals and overhangs of the financial services sector disaster in 2008. Paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is that firms that currently operate in the UK on the basis of an EEA financial services passport will require a legal expert to examine the new legislation and understand its implications.”
They do not just need a legal expert; they need somebody of a much higher authority, probably a bit closer to God, to understand what the Government’s position will be with regard to the European Union.
Today’s statutory instrument is yet another that I have scrutinised in this place that is packed full of Henry VIII powers—no recourse to Parliament, no recourse to the people, and no recourse to the financial services sector. Has there been any consultation with the financial services sector on this statutory instrument? I expect there has been very little. Has anything been done on whether the regulators can actually deliver some of the stuff in a no-deal scenario? Today, in reports coming out of the Cabinet meeting, the Government are saying that Government-run ships might be needed to bring medicines and goods into the UK in a no-deal scenario—we may need to nationalise the shipping industry. That is coming from a Conservative Government, not the Leader of the Opposition. That is the kind of impact we are going to have if the Government continue on this trajectory of preparing for no deal and turning a blind eye to the interests of this country.
I say to the Minister what I have said to previous Treasury Ministers. I would like him to stand up and promise to my constituents that not one of them will lose their jobs in financial services as a result of the Government’s deal, no deal or otherwise, when we leave the European Union. I would like him to stand up and promise that to my constituents and the country, but I suspect he cannot. The reason is that the Government are jeopardising the whole sector and every single other sector. That is not just my words, but the words of the sector itself. One headline reads: “Finance industry tears into British Government’s Brexit trading plans” with regard to services and financial services. The Government have to go back and reflect on whether they are doing this in the interests of the country or in the interests of their party, and give me a cast-iron guarantee that none of my constituents will lose their jobs.
I am sure we will not be voting against this statutory instrument today because it is incredibly important—hopefully it will be unnecessary. Perhaps in the next few months, the Minister and some of his colleagues will realise that the Government and the country are heading towards the single biggest act of self-harm that the country has ever implemented, and they will put any deal back to the people and get the people to decide whether this is what they want for the future of this country. Anything else would be a total and utter dereliction of duty.
John Glen
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde on his 13th statutory instrument. I assure him that we will have to celebrate at least his 30th together, in this room or one down the corridor.
As he always does, the hon. Gentleman has raised some very important matters and I will do my very best to respond. The first substantive point is whether these matters should be dealt with through primary or secondary legislation. This instrument and many others are affirmative instruments and we rightly have the opportunity to discuss this one today. That process was a matter of considerable debate during the passage of the Bill and was agreed by Parliament as the only practical way of proceeding. That sets the context for why we are doing that here.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of points about the regime and how it will work, including landing slots. The regulators will have the ability to set landing slots if they so choose. We have been working closely with the regulators on that and expect them to organise and schedule the landing slots in an orderly manner. They are limited because they have to be in a two-year period from exit day. I will come on to the specific points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, but I would stress that these are arrangements for a no-deal scenario. The Government are fully committed to securing a deal—and a deal on financial services that is in the best interests, as I fully acknowledge, of the financial services sector, which has a considerable footprint across the United Kingdom.
The amendments to domestic legislation, both primary and secondary, are consequential amendments to provisions of domestic legislation that reference the EEA passporting system, which will no longer be in effect after exit day. This is essentially a clean-up exercise to remove redundant references to passporting arrangements on the UK statute book. It does not result in any policy change. Provisions in any onshored EU legislation that reference the EEA passporting system will be similarly amended in the relevant individual exit statutory instruments that will be laid as part of the ongoing onshoring programme.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised the issue of the extension period of around six to 12 months to three years. The extension is necessary to ensure a smooth transition for firms moving from the current system of passporting rights to full UK authorisation. It will bring the statutory deadline set out under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 in line with the overall three-year duration of the regime and will help to ensure the overall application process can be managed in an orderly manner. It will not disadvantage firms, as every firm in the regime will be able to undertake the same activities they were entitled to undertake before exit day.
Ultimately, the Government are committed to ensuring a smooth transition for EEA passporting firms to UK authorisation. The determination of the three-year window was made in close consultation with the PRA and FCA, based on estimates that they made of the number of applications they would be likely to receive for authorisation. We believe this is good news for firms. It will not give them uncertainty; it will give them assurance. UK businesses and customers will welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about applications for authorisation that are rejected. I can tell him that we will have further statutory instruments laid later on to enable such firms to wind down their UK-regulated activities in an orderly manner. On the Government’s negotiating objectives for passporting, the Prime Minister has made it clear that Brexit will mean an end to passporting. The temporary permissions regime is about managing that transition. We have set out a proposal for an ambitious future relationship in our negotiations. I will set that out in a moment.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South raised the issue of an impact assessment of a no-deal scenario. As he readily acknowledges, the Treasury is undertaking a wide range of analyses in support of the negotiations and preparation. He cited various scenarios, all of which have different assumptions according to the people citing them as being desirable. In a no-deal scenario, there are a range of outcomes. We could make assumptions about a degree of hostility or a degree of co-operation from our friends and neighbours in the EU. EEA members would not serve their consumers very well if they did not offer a reciprocal regime. It is impossible to make a meaningful financial or jobs calculation because it is conditional on a range of assumptions and is not possible to set out.
Ian Murray
I just do not accept that excuse. The Treasury does projections on every single aspect of its work every single day. Indeed, the financial services sector itself has said that up to 10,000 jobs could go on day one if there is no access to the single market, so let me make it easy for the Minister, as I tried to in the Chamber earlier this week. Will unemployment, as a result of any of the scenarios, go up or down?
John Glen
I have stated my and the Government’s position. We are working towards a deal that is in the best interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. There was an awareness of this measure on 20 December last year. It was laid on 11 July. The head of the PRA came to the Select Committee on 11 July and set out how desirable it was. With respect to the wider question of the economic consequences of different outcomes, it would be beyond the scope of this Committee if I set that out here and now. However, I can say that we must have a deal that is right for financial services and allows us flexibility going forward, but this measure is about making sure that we have adequate certainty for consumers who benefit from the financial services of EEA firms, and that is what this is about.
As to what will happen to UK firms that passport into the EEA , the Government, as I said, can take legislative action only in relation to EEA firms that passport into the UK. We cannot, through unilateral action, influence the status of UK firms operating in the EEA. However, as I said, it is hugely desirable for their consumers for them to do it. That is why we really want to avoid that situation and agree a deep and special partnership with the EU, as well as an implementation period, which is important for both.
Jonathan Reynolds
I think the Minister is saying that the Government’s objective is still for mutual regulatory recognition for—essentially without the existence of the passporting regime—similar arrangements to those we have now after we leave. I think most people would acknowledge that that is quite a difficult thing to propose without negotiating a new relationship with Europe that would include such things as being part of a new customs union, as the Labour party has proposed.
Is it not possible that, if the Government agree what we might call the Chequers package—a common rule book on goods—even though a deal might be agreed we should still be using the measures we shall agree today? Even though a deal of some sort was agreed, because it did not cover the financial services sector, we would still be using the regulations that are before the Committee.
John Glen
Of course, the outcome of the negotiations will determine what we do. If we get a deal, clearly the implementation period will take effect. We would then have to look at what new legislation was optimal, from a financial services point of view, to keep us competitive; but such decisions have to be deferred until we get to that point.
I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, but there were other points I wanted to address. On the point about the FCA and the PRA powers to enforce home regulator powers or breaches, it is not an extra-territorial measure, but it has effect in the UK only. It merely preserves requirements imposed by an EU regulator so that the EU regulator does not have to impose such requirements itself. Once in the regime, the UK regulators will be able to disapply the requirements if they choose.
I think I have probably addressed all the points that were made. I am grateful for the number of points that have been fed to me from my left. I do not think that I have addressed all the scenarios to the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, and I acknowledge his dissatisfaction. All I can say is that the Government are fully committed to delivering the best possible deal on financial services. I visited Edinburgh over the summer recess and I acknowledge the importance of financial services to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and to jobs throughout the country. We hope that we shall not need provision for a no-deal scenario, but it is appropriate that we make provision for it today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft EEA Passport Rights (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provisions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Wednesday 24th October 2018
(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 View all Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Notices of Amendments as at 4 July 2018 - (5 Jul 2018)
The Chair
With all electronic devices now switched to silent, we move to the motion to adjourn. I remind the Committee that we cannot consider the clauses of the Bill until the House has agreed the money resolution.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.
The way that we draw our boundaries in this country has until recently inhabited a sacred space in our politics. We have four independent boundary commissions that independently consider the population and community ties across the UK and produce proposals for how many MPs there should be and where the boundaries of those constituencies should lie.
It is essential that that process remains independent. We need only look to the United States to see the danger of their approach. Extreme gerrymandering has eroded public faith in the political system. Debate around boundaries has been poisoned by party-political fighting, and lengthy lawsuits have recently reached the Supreme Court.
I believe strongly that we must keep our process independent. The current proposed boundaries have been expressly designed to benefit the Conservative party, and 2 million people have been disfranchised from the process. The Government have cut the number of MPs to an arbitrary 600 and equalising electorate size has been given priority over community ties.
My Bill has cross-party support. It is nonsense that we are in these endless Committee sittings, wasting time instead of pressing ahead with my Bill to produce the new boundaries our democracy needs.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I will speak briefly. I did not intend to speak—I know everyone says that—but the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton said a number of things that cannot land on the record without correction.
First, I agree with him completely that the process covered in his Bill and the process under way absolutely have to be independent. I agree that the way other countries draw their boundaries, for example, the United States, is not one that I wish to follow. There, elected politicians sit with a map drawing boundaries.
My challenge to the hon. Gentleman is that that is exactly not what happens in this country. The boundaries that are now with Parliament, and with the Government for converting into orders, have not been drawn by party politicians. They have been carefully drawn by independent judicial office holders. They have obviously listened to evidence from the political parties, as one would expect, but all political parties have been able to give evidence. They have heard evidence from other people and produced independent proposals.
Of course, those proposals are shaped by the rules set by Parliament. Those rules are about equalising the size of constituencies, and I think there is general agreement that constituencies should be of equal size, not for our interest, but so that votes across the country are of equal weight wherever voters live.
I do not know whether it is still true, or whether someone has polled it, but I think it would be the case that reducing the number of Members of Parliament remains the most popular policy of the coalition Government. With 600, we would still have more politicians in the country at that level than many other comparable democracies.
Afzal Khan
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could enlighten us as to where the number of 600 comes from.
Mr Harper
It is not scientific. I think I set it out when I took through the original legislation. We made a decision to reduce the size of the House. There is nothing magic about 600. The current number is 650 and we decided to reduce that by about 10%, because that was about the amount we were shrinking of the rest of the public sector, and 600 is a round number. Rather than saying it was 587.5 or 592, it is 600. There was a conspiracy theory at the time about this special number that was specially designed to have some specific effect, but it is just a round number—600 seems a more sensible number than 604. There is nothing magic about it, but there was a general sense that it would be better to have slightly fewer Members. By comparison with similar western democracies, we actually have quite a lot of Members of Parliament at our level of government, and it seems sensible to make a modest reduction.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we have a lot of Members of Parliament, but there are even more Members of the House of Lords. What will the Government do to reduce that number?
Mr Harper
I do not want to go too far into that or you will pull me up, Mr Owen, but I brought forward an ill-fated attempt both to radically reduce the size of the House of Lords and to make it more democratic. If we had received support from the Labour party for the programme motion so that we did not spend the whole of the 2010-15 Parliament talking about it, we might have made some progress. Sadly, that was not to be, and now it is not at the top of this Government’s priorities because we have other important matters to deal with.
I just want to put on record that I think it is incredibly important that we have an independent process for drawing boundaries, but that is indeed what we have in this country. I would like the Government and Parliament to be able to consider the boundaries that are drawn up by that independent process before we make progress with the Bill.
David Linden
It is, as ever, a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Owen. I looked at the Order Paper and saw that this is the sixteenth meeting of the Committee—my goodness, I am sure there will be a Netflix documentary about us soon.
I want to pick up on one or two points made by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean. As I was not a Member of this place during his time as Chief Whip and when he was a member of the Government, I was not aware that he was a great reformer who sought to abolish our cronies in ermine. I am none the less disappointed that he was not successful at that—I am sure he would have had the support of the Scottish National party, and he certainly would have had my personal support. He is absolutely right to make it clear that the boundary commissions are entirely independent; none of the members of this esteemed Committee is questioning the impartiality of the fine civil servants who serve on the boundary commissions.
It comes back to the principle that has been directed to civil servants by Government, which is to reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600. The noise of a reversing JCB digger could almost be heard as the right hon. Gentleman talked about how they arrived at this magical number of 600. The technical way of saying how they found it is that they put a wet finger up in the air, and that is how they came up with the figure of 600 —I have other feelings about that.
I wanted to make a brief contribution today because, having looked at the Order Paper for the main Chamber, we are of course considering some very important legislation for Northern Ireland. One point that I made in Committee last week was that before my time as a Member in this House, when I was a researcher, and now as an MP, I have seen the Government countless times bring forward legislation for Northern Ireland very quickly. The Minister is a former Northern Ireland Minister herself, so she will know how quickly legislation for across the water can be drafted. I find it a little bit bizarre that legislation for Northern Ireland can be drafted so quickly and, indeed, passed so quickly— in one day—yet Orders in Council take months to be brought to the House.
Mr Harper
I may be wrong, but I think the reason why Northern Ireland legislation tends to be dealt with differently is because there is generally a consensus between Front Benchers on the proposals that are brought forward. It is only because there is agreement on the process that it can be done like that. If what is being proposed for Northern Ireland is politically contentious between the parties, it simply would not be possible to bring it forward on an emergency basis. We have established in our relatively limited debates in Committee on Adjournment motions that there is no consensus across the parties on the subject of parliamentary constituencies. I do not think that the process would work in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
David Linden
I caution the right hon. Gentleman—if he wants to talk about contentious issues in Northern Ireland, I do not think that the Government are on their finest form with some of their proposals for how they will treat Northern Ireland over the backstop. It is fine if he wants to lecture me on that—I dare him to do so.
I ask the Minister: how many civil servants in the Cabinet Office are working on the preparation for this? The final number I would like to find out from the Minister—I would be grateful if she gave it to me sooner rather than later—is this. We are talking about cutting the cost of politics, but we are approaching that wonderful time of year again when the turkeys are stuffed—when people put on ermine robes and become new Members of the House of Lords. It is around this time of year when we find out the long list of new Members of the House of Lords. How many new lords can we expect next year?
The Chair
Before I call the hon. Member for City of Chester, I just want to put on the record the fact that I understood every word that the hon. Member for Glasgow East said.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
And of course, Mr Owen, we understand and follow every word you say as you direct us. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, but that pleasure is tempered by the disappointment that, once again, we have failed to receive the money resolution that would have allowed us to proceed.
It is genuinely always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean. I have said previously that his experience is invaluable in this Committee. Let me put on record the Opposition’s view that there is absolutely no question about the Boundary Commission’s integrity—none whatever. There is an issue, of course, about the guidance, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, that the House gives to the Boundary Commission when it makes its decisions and proposals.
The Bill would not reduce the number of constituencies, but it would allow an ever-so-slightly greater tolerance about the national average than the boundaries currently awaiting the House’s decision. It would allow for an equalisation of the size of constituencies, and a greater recognition of communities of interest around them, which make up an important part of the identity that electors feel with their parliamentary constituency. We absolutely want to progress to greater consistency across the numbers in parliamentary constituencies, because it is not helpful to have too great a divergence from the national average and constituencies of too great a size.
Hundreds of thousands of voters were not on the register on which the existent boundary proposals were based, so there will inevitably be a great variation in the number of voters. It has been suggested to me that some of the inner-city seats in London might have well in excess of 100,000 residents—150,000 in two cases—but not voters, because people have fallen off the register.
Mr Harper
On that point, of course whenever we draw a cut-off line and start a process, we cannot possibly be completely up to date. A big change happened with the general election and the referendum, and the analysis that was carried out by Number Cruncher Politics and the Library shows that the distribution of those voters is broadly equal across the country. If they were all on the register, it would not make a material difference to the distribution of seats across the country, so the hon. Gentleman’s fear is unwarranted.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful for that intervention, and I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I shall look up that report, but that still does not negate the problem that there are hundreds of thousands of people who are not actually on the register.
I do not intend to detain the Committee for much longer, save to say that we need progress, and we are being prevented from making progress by the Government’s failure to bring forward the money resolution or the alternative to it, which is the orders for decision by this House. I believe they are doing that because it suits the internal dynamics and politics of the Conservative party. Those considerations are overriding the national need for a decision on this matter. The longer this goes on, the more unhelpful the Government’s position is.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I will respond to the two questions that the hon. Member for Glasgow East asked me. I will not touch the second, because it is absolutely nothing to do with the scope of the Bill. On the first, I will simply say for clarity—
The Chair
Order. May I just say to the Minister that what is discussed is a matter for me? It was not out of order, and if the Minister wishes to respond, she may do so.
Chloe Smith
I beg your pardon, Mr Owen. I spoke too strongly, and of course I respect your decision.
In any case, let me deal with the question about the number of civil servants working on the orders, which, as I confirmed last week, are being brought to Parliament, quite correctly and in line with the expected process. I am not able to give a number, because my civil servants, whom I have the greatest respect for and gratitude to, work on a number of things at any one time. There is simply no way to say how many are working on one thing and how many on another. However, I confirm again to the Committee that that work is being done to a speed I am satisfied with, and that the orders will come back to Parliament as soon as can be.
Afzal Khan
If the Minister is not able to give us those numbers, will she give us an idea of the timescale for the work and when it is likely to make progress?
Chloe Smith
Forgive me, Mr Owen, I am a little confused. Am I continuing my remarks now?
The Chair
No, you have finished your remarks. However, Mr Khan asked a question in his winding-up speech. Whether you wish to answer it is a matter for you.
Chloe Smith
I believe I answered that question last week.
Question put and agreed to.
Overseas Electors Bill (Second sitting)
(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee having divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I had covered most of the contents of the amendment last week, so I do not wish to repeat myself. I am keen that we make more progress in Committee today, Mr Robertson, with your guidance, leadership and permission.
I remind everyone that the amendment concerns the definition of a “resident”. Residence is an issue that affects domestic as well as overseas voters. Existing provisions include no clear definition of electoral residence, which is understood to mean a considerable degree of permanence. For example, someone with two homes who spends the same amount of time in each may therefore legally register at both addresses. That affects many hon. Members, who have a residence in London and one in the constituency.
We are now calling for clarity on the matter of residency. We are not alone. The 2016 interim report by the Law Commission recommended:
“The law on electoral residence, including factors to be considered by electoral registration officers, and on special category electors, should be restated clearly and simply in primary legislation”.
Two years later, the Government have not yet responded.
The Bill seeks to enfranchise millions of British overseas electors based solely on electoral connection to a past residence, but the definition of residency remains complex and vague. At the moment, a residence connects a person to a geographical area that has democratic representation. It provides a person with an electoral connection. There are questions, however, about untypical types of residency, such as an individual living in a mobile home or a boat, or couch surfing. Such cases can be difficult to capture with a universal understanding of “resident.”
A further special category of electors is categorised by the concept of notional residence, which ties an elector to a place even though he or she may not reside there. Such electors include merchant seamen, mental health patients, remand prisoners, service voters, overseas electors and homeless persons. Various legal devices are used to establish notional residence, notably a declaration of local connection.
In 2016 the Law Commission interim report cited one provisional view that
“one legal structure should govern all ‘special category’ electors.”
The detail of the law governing this special category is complex. There is widespread agreement that change is needed. The Scottish Assessors Association, representing registration officers in Scotland, stated that the law is “outmoded and contradictory” and called for a
“clear and simple restatement of the law”.
The existing law does not give a definition of “resident” but provides indicators for registration officers to come to their own view. The amendment seeks to clarify this critical area of law before enfranchising millions of voters. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to propose a definition, which is needed by overseas voters with no physical presence in the UK for more than 15 years.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The purpose of the Bill is to extend the franchise to British citizens overseas. Allowing citizens who were previously resident in the UK, as well as those previously registered, should they move overseas, goes a long way to achieving that. I suggest that to impose additional barriers in regulation goes against the grain of the measures set out in the Bill. The Minister will add a lot more information but I hope that, on the basis of what I have said and of her contribution, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for City of Chester for succinctly restating his arguments on a quite difficult subject. He was right to note today and last week that defining “residence”—what the amendment is about—is difficult.
As the Bill’s promoter, my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, has set out, we who support the Bill do not want to put additional barriers in the way of people who want to register to vote in UK elections, and that is the principle we are putting forward. Our intention is that there should be a wide and open enfranchisement, so we are sceptical about placing additional barriers in the way, in the form of burdensome definitions that might introduce more complexity than solutions.
On a practical note, however, the question of the existing framework arises. The hon. Member for City of Chester explained that an outline is found in section 5 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. His argument is that we should create secondary legislation to go alongside that. I understand the arguments that have been made in other places, which are, as always, helpful contributions to the broader debate, such as those of the Law Commission and the SAA, but my alternative view is that it would be better to use ministerial guidance.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the new section 1G that clause 1 would insert into the Representation of the People Act 1985, which would provide that electoral registration officers must have regard to ministerial guidance in determining applications for overseas electors’ registration and renewal. It goes on to state what the guidance may cover, which includes determining whether a person satisfies the residence condition.
I think guidance is a better route than secondary legislation for assisting registration officers in the matter of how they may determine residence. I say that because I do not want to put additional burdens of complexity or time on those who want to register. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has already made that argument. Also, perhaps we should leave things to the registration officers, who know best how to do their jobs. We discussed in the previous debate how much we welcome and value the way they do their jobs, and the hard work they put in. In my view, guidance would support them in their task better than would the time and complexity involved in trying to define things for them in legislation. It is better to leave it to their professional judgment to gauge residency, given the complexity of the task that both sides of the Committee have acknowledged.
I hope that my comments have been helpful to the Committee, and that the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful for the responses of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the Minister. A definition of residence is still an outstanding requirement, arising out of the Law Commission’s 2016 report. I suspect that as we extend the franchise we shall have to return to the idea of what constitutes a residence that will anchor overseas voters to a constituency. However, the Minister has addressed the concerns raised by the amendment. I am not entirely sure that I agree with her, but in the context of the Committee I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 1, page 3, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
“(3) The second condition is that the person making the declaration (‘the declarant’) proves that they qualify as an overseas elector in respect of the constituency by providing valid supporting documentation to the registration officer.
(3A) Valid supporting documentation for the purposes of proving qualification for the previous registration condition are—
(a) a poll card, or
(b) a letter from the appropriate local authority stating that the person was on the electoral roll at the appropriate time.
(3B) Valid supporting documentation for the purposes of proving qualification for the previous residence condition must include—
(a) one document from List A, or
(b) two documents from List B.
(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3B), List A documents include but are not limited to—
household utility bill (such as gas, electric, water or telephone);
full UK photocard driving licence with signature or ‘old style’ driving licence (including provisional or expired licences);
bank, building society or credit card statement, or bank or building society passbook;
local authority tax bill (e.g. council tax bill);
local authority rent book;
solicitor’s letter confirming house purchase or land registry confirmation, or an official copy of the land register or other proof of title;
HM Revenue & Customs (Inland Revenue) tax document such as a tax assessment, statement of account or notice of coding;
original notification letter from the relevant benefits agency confirming entitlement to benefits or the state pension;
pension or benefit correspondence from the Department for Work and Pensions;
instrument of a court appointment, e.g. probate or court-registered power of attorney.
(3D) For the purposes of subsection (3B), List B documents include but are not limited to—
payslip;
employment document, such offer of employment or reference;
school, college or university (or UCAS) document, such as offer of a place, or confirmation of attendance;
insurance documents, such as full insurance schedule, or letter confirming insurance cover;
student loans company letter;
mobile telephone bill;
other evidence prescribed in guidance given by the Minister.
(3E) To be valid supporting documentation, a document must contain both a date (which can be earlier than the date the declarant left the address concerned) and the declarant’s declared last address in the United Kingdom.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 3, line 34, after “name” insert “and date of birth”.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(aa) state either the declarant’s National Insurance number or the reason the declarant is unable to provide his or her National Insurance number,”.
Amendment 5, in clause 1, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(aa) state any previous full names held by the declarant in the period since they were last resident in the United Kingdom or registered and the reasons for any changes of name,”.
Amendment 6, in clause 1, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(aa) state the number and date of issue of a British passport held by the declarant or, if the declarant no longer holds a British passport, prescribed information relating to the nationality of the declarant,”.
Amendment 7, in clause 1, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(aa) state a telephone number for the declarant,”.
Amendment 8, in clause 1, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(aa) state an email address for the declarant,”.
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(aa) state the declarant’s preferred means of contact by the registration officer,””.
Amendment 10, in clause 1, page 3, line 38, leave out
“that the declarant is not resident in the United Kingdom”
and insert
“state the country of residence of the declarant, and how long they have lived there,”.
Amendment 11, in clause 1, page 3, line 42, at end insert—
“(ea) state that the declarant is aware of the voting offences under sections 60 and 61 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and associated punishments under sections 168 and 169 of that Act,”.
Amendment 12, in clause 1, page 3, line 42, at end insert—
“(ea) state whether the declarant intends to make absent voting arrangements or to vote in person at a polling station,”.
Amendment 38, in clause 1, page 3, line 44, leave out from first “requirements” to end of paragraph and insert—
“(fa) contain a valid attestation of identity under section [Attestation of identity],”.
Amendment 39, in clause 1, page 4, line 48, at end insert—
“1CA Attestation of identity
(1) A valid attestation of identity must contain attestations from two attestors.
(2) The first attestor must be a registered elector resident in the constituency in which the declarant wishes to be registered.
(3) The second attestor must be a registered overseas elector.
(4) An attestor must not be the spouse, civil partner, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild of the declarant.
(5) An attestation must—
(a) be in writing and signed by the attestor,
(b) swear that, to the best of the attestor’s knowledge, the declarant is the person named in the declaration,
(c) state the attestor’s British passport number together with its date of issue,
(d) be dated on the date on which the attestation is made,
(e) confirm that the person attestor is aware of the offence, under section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983, of providing false information to a registration officer, and
(f) confirm that the attestor is a person of good standing in the community
(6) For the purposes of paragraph (5)(f), examples of a person of good standing in the community include, but are not limited to, the following or their local equivalents—
accountant
airline pilot
articled clerk of a limited company
assurance agent of recognised company
bank or building society official
barrister
chiropodist
Commissioner of Oaths
civil servant (permanent)
dentist
director, manager or personnel officer of a limited company
director or manager of a VAT-registered charity
director or manager or personnel officer of a VAT-registered company
engineer (with professional qualifications)
financial services intermediary (e.g. a stockbroker or insurance broker)
fire service official
funeral director
insurance agent (full time) of a recognised company
journalist
Justice of the Peace
lecturer
legal secretary (fellow or associate member of the Institute of Legal Secretaries and PAs)
licensee of public house
local government officer
medical professional
member, associate or fellow of a professional body
Merchant Navy officer
minister of a recognised religion (including Christian Science)
nurse (Registered General Nurse or Mental Health Nurse)
officer of the armed services
optician
paralegal (certified paralegal, qualified paralegal or associate member of the Institute of Paralegals)
person with an honour (such as an OBE or MBE)
pharmacist
photographer (professional)
police officer
Post Office official
publicly-elected representative (such as MP, Councillor or MEP)
president or secretary of a recognised organisation
Salvation Army officer
social worker
solicitor
surveyor
teacher
trade union officer
travel agent (qualified)
valuer or auctioneer (fellows and associate members of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers)
warrant officers and chief petty officers.”
Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(aa) state either the declarant’s National Insurance number or the reason the declarant is unable to provide his or her National Insurance number,”.
Amendment 20, in clause 1, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(aa) state any previous full names held by the declarant in the period since they last made a renewal declaration and the reasons for any changes of name,”.
Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(aa) state the number and date of issue of a British passport held by the declarant or, if the declarant no longer holds a British passport, prescribed information relating to the nationality of the declarant,”.
Amendment 22, in clause 1, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(aa) state a telephone number for the declarant,”.
Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(aa) state an email address for the declarant,”.
Amendment 24, in clause 1, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(aa) state the declarant’s preferred means of contact by the registration officer,”.
Amendment 25, in clause 1, page 6, line 14, leave out
“that the declarant is not resident in the United Kingdom”
and insert
“the country of residence of the declarant, and how long they have lived there,”.
Amendment 26, in clause 1, page 6, line 15, at end insert—
“(da) state that the declarant is aware of the voting offences under sections 60 and 61 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and associated punishments under sections 168 and 169 of that Act,”.
Amendment 27, in clause 1, page 6, line 15, at end insert—
“(da) state whether the declarant intends to make absent voting arrangements or to vote in person at a polling station,”.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester and I are doing some sort of double act. I shall speak briefly, but I shall leave a little meat on the bone for him as well. With amendment 36 I am seeking to clarify what documentary evidence the Government see as necessary to register as an overseas elector. Obviously, I hope that the amendment is accepted, but if not, I hope to come away with a clearer understanding.
Hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Kingswood, may note the plagiarism that I have committed in my amendment, as it comes from the October 2016 policy statement, “A democracy that works for everyone: British citizens overseas”. I have lifted the amendment from there and seek to put it in the Bill. The document says that the standard that I have written “may” be used and I am trying to change that to “must”. That is pragmatic and sensible, although I am mindful of the comments that I just heard from the Bill’s promoter the hon. Member for Monmouthshire and the Minister about hurdles, so I am less confident than when I drafted the amendment.
If an electoral registration officer needed to check on the registration of a domestic voter, they would just go to the property, but obviously that is not the case with overseas voters. Something more stringent will clearly be necessary to demonstrate the applicant’s eligibility to vote in the UK and in that constituency. The amendment supports EROs to do that and puts that clearly in law.
The broader context is that people will make attempts online to subvert democracy and to involve themselves in democracies—it astonishes me that people will go to such lengths, although not that they have an interest in doing so. If there are people out there who are willing to set up whole incredible industries to do that, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that, if they had the chance not just to influence public opinion but to generate votes, they would be minded to abuse that. We ought to have safeguards in place.
I am conscious that, if the Bill passes through all its stages in this place, we are talking about around 5 million new applications for voter registration, which is a lot for EROs to check. We need to have a clear standard if we are going to be accurate about voter identification and prevent fraud.
Under the current law, overseas voters must have previously registered in the UK, as we have said. As I mentioned last week, the EROs must then do some time-consuming research about an overseas voter—it takes about two hours for each one. That job is becoming harder, because the primary port of call for that research is previous electoral registers, which are becoming rarer as organisations are going paperless.
I was not successful in passing my amendment about rolling out the extension from 15 years more slowly on an annual basis, so we are going to have a section of people for whom it has been a long time since they were registered in this country. That will be very difficult for the electoral registration officers, so I am trying to change slightly the burden of proof on the individual. I do not think that is particularly onerous—indeed, it is the Government’s test, not mine. That is reasonable.
I will leave amendment 36 there. What I dislike most in politicians is hypocrisy, so I want to put on the record that I have been and will continue to be vocal about voter ID pilots. I am not enthusiastic about them and I think that, wittingly or unwittingly, they are suppressing voter numbers. I do not think that there is anything inconsistent about that view and the belief that there ought to be a higher standard for those for whom it is much harder to prove fraud, such as people living overseas. That is why there is a variance, and mindfully so. It is not a quiet hypocrisy that I hope hon. Members will let me get away with.
Christian Matheson
I share my hon. Friend’s views about voter ID. He talks about the higher standard to prevent fraud, but of course it is also a higher standard to be able to enforce the law on somebody who might be committing an offence in this country but is doing so from abroad while living abroad, and who therefore cannot be brought to justice.
Alex Norris
That is right. We would get into all sorts of problems around extradition and I cannot imagine that that is where we want to go. Having that standard at the front would therefore deter those things from happening later.
On amendments 38 and 39, which relate to attestation, again I am interested in probing and testing why the Bill is drafted in its current form, and whether we can gently beef up those attestation provisions. My amendment says that there should be two forms of attestation, one from an individual in the constituency where the elector is registering and one from an overseas elector. I think that would make it a bit more robust. Currently, all we are requiring is that the identity must be attested by another overseas registered elector who is not a close relative, and that person needs to be aware of the penalties.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman mean that someone in the home constituency actually writes some sort of form saying, “I know this person. They lived here 15 years ago”? Is that what he is talking about, in practical terms?
Alex Norris
Yes, that sums up neatly, in practical terms, how it would work. My logic for this is that I think it is a really big thing—to the point of not being a reasonable or effective thing to ask—for an overseas British person to verify that another overseas British person lived in another place perhaps two decades ago, at least over 15 years ago. I know the Association of Electoral Administrators has said that applicants themselves struggle to remember what their address was, so to expect a third party to be able reliably to attest to where that individual lived, to the point where we would be happy for it to play a significant role in our democracy, is not quite tight enough for me. It is asking people to be a bit generous with what they are likely to know. I do not think it is realistic.
Bob Stewart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. On that point, I am very worried, because some of my constituents who live abroad and have been lobbying me on this do not actually know anyone left in their home area. That remains a problem for them.
Alex Norris
I can understand that. However, the alternative is saying that they just need to know someone who lives abroad and is British. I will be interested to hear from the Bill’s promoter the hon. Member for Monmouthshire and the Minister, and maybe there will be a Goldilocks solution somewhere in the middle, but I do not think it is sufficient as it is. Again, I think this is about trying to tackle fraud.
To conclude, amendments 36, 38 and 39 seek a clear understanding, so that on Report and at Third Reading we all know what we are signing up to, and what hurdles an individual will have to clear. I am mindful that the Bill’s promoter the hon. Member for Monmouthshire said that he is not looking to put extra hurdles in place, which I understand, but we need to know confidently that this person is eligible to be registered in this way. I am really keen to know how that might work.
Christian Matheson
I rise in support of amendment 36, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. I will also speak to amendments 3 to 12, which are in my name. I will seek your guidance, Mr Robertson, about other amendments in this group.
I intend not to speak at length, so as not to repeat what my hon. Friend said. He made a general point about the need for a higher standard for overseas voters, because it is harder for electoral registration officers to verify their residency or identity, and he is concerned about fraud. He is absolutely right to be so concerned.
In response to the previous clause, the Minister spoke about leaving things up to electoral registration officers. Although I trust the skill and experience of electoral registration officers, I am concerned that there will be a lack of consistent practice across the United Kingdom when it comes to deciding what is acceptable proof of previous residency or a connection to that constituency. I ask the Minister or the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire to address the question of maintaining a consistent approach for electoral registration officers across the UK.
Many of the arguments for amendment 36 also apply to amendments 3 to 12, which carry the same goal as the one we have just discussed. They would put into the Bill the pre-existing guidance provided by the Government on declaration requirements, such as the need for a national insurance number—that is now required for all domestic voters, so it should also be required for overseas voters—full name, passport details and awareness of any criminal penalty for a false declaration. I hope that Government Members will consider these amendments as further developing and pragmatically amending the Bill in order to create better legislation that is less vulnerable to electoral fraud and abuse.
The amendments include additional requirements, such as providing a telephone number, an email address, a preferred means of contact, country of residence and potential proxy vote arrangements. That would provide electoral registration officers with greater accessibility to overseas electors, and provide more data so that we could understand the demographic make-up of overseas electors. That is relevant in this context particularly in the context of some of the consequential amendments.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, whereas an ERO querying a domestic voter can visit the address stated on the register—by definition, that will be in their borough, so it will be close to them—that is not possible for an overseas voter, so such checks at the point of registration become more necessary. By including requirements for information such as a national insurance number and passport details, we aim to create a more consistent approach to voting across the UK. Importantly, it would also make the system clearer for EROs. It would require applicants who could not provide a national insurance number to supply a copy of their passport at the time of application. The provision in the policy statement outlining that it is at the ERO’s discretion whether an original copy of the passport is required would be limited to cases in which there was extreme doubt as to the validity of an application and/or the passport; hence the ERO would have to request the original documentation only if they were not happy with the copy that they had received.
May I seek your guidance, Mr Robertson? Would you like me now to move amendments 19 to 27?
The Chair
You can speak to them. You do not need to move them now, but you are very welcome to speak to them.
Christian Matheson
Perhaps the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire or the Minister would prefer to respond to my first points before—
Christian Matheson
Then with your permission, Mr Robertson, I shall follow the Minister’s lead and speak to amendments 19 to 27, which are in my name. They essentially repeat the amendments on declaration requirements, but relate to the renewal of an overseas voting registration. I believe that the Bill has a number of areas of weakness regarding renewal requirements. If an elector is renewing using a paper form or email declaration, the information already held by the ERO—except for date of birth, for security reasons—may be pre-populated. If the elector is renewing on gov.uk, they will be able to declare that the information pre-populated in the reminder sent to them by the ERO remains true, rather than re-entering their address, for example. That will further reduce the information required for a renewal. It is an attempt by the Government to make the renewal process easier. However, they must be careful to update the online processes.
The policy statement indicates that overseas applications can be renewed online if a voter declares that the information pre-populated in the reminder remains true. However, at present, only a new overseas application can be made online, as the online service is not available for the renewal of overseas applications. Instead, a renewal application must be made on paper. Alternatively, the applicant is required to go through the whole process of applying online as a new overseas application. These amendments are consistent with our other amendments and would make the process of re-registration more secure.
Glyn Davies
I understand the points that Opposition Members have made. We all agree that the only people who should be entitled to register to vote are those who are eligible. We have to have steps in place to ensure that registration is restricted to those people. The Bill includes a number of what I consider to be sensible and precautionary provisions to determine the identity of someone applying as an overseas voter for the first time or renewing their registration, which supplement the existing requirements of individual electoral registration and other provisions.
The proposals set out in these amendments go against the grain of the important change that the Bill aims to achieve. Our ambition is to make it not harder for British citizens to register or renew but more straightforward. The amendments would require all declarations from overseas electors to include two attestations. I submit that that is not proportionate. The Minister will give much more detail on these points, but I hope that on the basis of reassurances from me and from her, Opposition Members will feel able not to press their amendments.
Chloe Smith
I thank hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. It seems to me that this group of amendments is in large part about the difference between a “must” situation and a “may” situation. For example, the hon. Member for Nottingham North is proposing that a set of requirements must be fulfilled, as is the hon. Member for City of Chester. The opening position of the Bill is that those requirements may be fulfilled when registration officers require them. I think that is the key difference.
Two reasons have been offered for these amendments. First, the hon. Member for Nottingham North laid out that he believes there ought to be a higher burden of proof on overseas electors than on domestic electors. Secondly, the hon. Member for City of Chester said that he wishes to see consistency among registration officers’ work, rather than discretion. I disagree with both of those arguments.
First, the Government see overseas electors as equal to domestic electors and do not accept the principle that they ought to be treated differently—that is the principal point of the Bill. I will come on to the important points that have been raised about fraud. Secondly, as I said in the previous debate, we in this Committee want to convey great respect for the work that electoral registration officers do, which we do best by respecting their professionalism and their ability to use discretion. From that position, we are proposing that they may—rather than must—ask for a set of requirements.
I will move on to the detail of the amendments—forgive me, Mr Robertson, but it may take me a while, as there is a fair amount in this group. First, let us deal with registration requirements. At the outset I can say that the Government are absolutely committed to maintaining the integrity of the electoral register and ensuring that only those who are entitled to register have an entry, which I hope is a common starting point for all of us.
As is the case under the current system, overseas electors will continue to be able to register using the digital service on gov.uk, as well as by using paper forms or, in some cases, by telephone. As a matter of status quo they are asked for their name, date of birth and national insurance number, and a range of other information. There is a separate attestation process for those who are unable to provide an NI number, but it is not a standard point. Again, that is a difference with the proposals made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North.
The Bill sets out that the declaration must
“contain any other prescribed information and satisfy any other prescribed requirements”.
That may include other information that is requested or a requirement for the declaration to be attested if necessary. Existing provisions, which date back to 2001, set out that information requested by administrators can include, but is not limited to, name and present address, previous name if that has changed since the last application, and passport number in some circumstances.
On the specifics of national insurance numbers, at present overseas applicants who cannot provide an NI number or who cannot be verified against existing Government records are asked to provide an attestation as proof of identity. Under new measures, if they cannot provide a national insurance number, they may be asked to provide a certified copy of their passport or other documentation. If that is not possible, they will still be able to have their identity verified by another British citizen who is registered to vote in the UK, through providing an attestation.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister have any actual numbers to back up the suggestion that overseas electors may not have those things? I ask that because we could be talking about a relatively tiny proportion of the overseas electorate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North pointed out, the number of individuals who may be enfranchised under the Bill could run to the millions. Does she have some numbers that could put the flesh on the bones of that statement?
Chloe Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for asking for that information, but I do not have it, nor do I think it is relevant. We would not say to a category of domestic electors, “Don’t worry—if it’s only small numbers, you’re not coming in”, nor would we say, “If you don’t have an email address or a telephone number, you’re not going on the register.” No Member would dream of saying that to one of their constituents. We should use the same principle here. I do not think the numbers would help the hon. Gentleman’s argument, and in any case I can confirm that I do not have them with me in Committee.
One germane point, however, is that we have committed to encourage applicants to provide an email address, because it is rather obvious that when we are talking about sending communications around the globe, email may be one of the quickest ways. However, as I say, we recognise that not all applicants will have an email address, so it is not right to make that a legal requirement.
I will move on to country of residence. Currently, electors are not asked how long they have lived in their current country of residence, and I put it strongly to the Committee that again, that is irrelevant to one’s eligibility to register to vote. An individual could have moved from country to country very rapidly, but that would not reduce their Britishness—the key tenet of the Bill is that one is British however far one has gone. That does not change whether someone has lived in a place for one day, 15 years or 15 years and one day, so I do not think it would serve a purpose for EROs to keep records of those periods of time in an elector’s life.
Moving on to voting offences, some of the amendments provide that the renewal declaration must require declarants to state that they are aware of voting offences under the RPA. I appreciate the basis on which those amendments have been tabled; as I said at the outset, we should all endeavour to reduce and indeed eliminate voter fraud and voting offences, but I am not sure that the renewal form is the right place to bring those offences to the attention of the elector. They are already brought to the attention of voters overseas, where they vote by post, in the postal voting pack that they receive. There is currently a requirement to include a statement on the initial application form that it is an offence to provide false information in the application and of the penalty for that offence, so we already have that. I do not think it is necessary to have more than that.
Furthermore, legislation currently prevents a person from having two declarations of the same date with different addresses and brings a declaration to an end if the same person seeks another declaration in a different constituency. That position will not change under the new proposals.
Christian Matheson
I am just seeking clarification: is there a mechanism by which the first constituency’s electoral registration officer is informed that the overseas voter has now registered in a second constituency and that the first constituency registration should therefore fall by the wayside?
Chloe Smith
It brings to an end the current or first declaration, as I say. I will be happy to confirm more precisely what that looks like from the position of the registration officer, which may be what the hon. Gentleman is asking for. The legal mechanism there is certainly that the first validity is brought to an end.
I come now to the absent voting arrangements proposed in amendments 12 and 27. I am not persuaded by what I see in those amendments that it is necessary to ask an elector whether they intend to make absent voting arrangements or to vote in person, because, like any other elector, they can change their mind. I am not in the business of trying to make arbitrary distinctions between overseas and domestic electors. Any elector is permitted to change their mind on that, so I am not persuaded of the purpose that would be served by those amendments.
Turning to renewal, there is no renewal process for electors with an overseas elector’s declaration. The declaration itself lasts for 12 months, so if somebody wishes to remain an overseas elector, they must make a fresh declaration every year. A renewal process is being introduced in the Bill, requiring less information, not more, from electors at the point of renewal. An applicant’s identity will have been established as part of their original registration, so there is no need for an elector to provide all the same information when doing it again.
We are allowing EROs to pre-populate forms with the relevant details, and the gov.uk site will allow electors to confirm that the information pre-populated in the reminder that has been sent to them remains true. We will introduce an online method of doing that, which is a provision that does not currently exist but that we think will make re-registrations easier for voters. The Bill includes a power to make detailed provision on renewal declarations in secondary legislation; as with existing electoral legislation, I think that is the right place for the procedural details of applications.
The requirement for overseas electors to renew their registration annually is in close analogy to how we treat domestic electors, who have to reconfirm their details every year in order to appear on the electoral register. It helps to ensure that electoral registers remain accurate. As we all know, accuracy is one of the core measurements of the integrity of an election and of our democracy. As is currently the case, in the three months before a registration is due to expire, EROs will send two reminders to an elector that they need to re-register. The sending of those reminders will be made mandatory, and it will be possible to send them electronically.
Finally, I come back to attestations, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North began with. The amendments would require all declarations from overseas electors to provide two attestations—one from abroad and one from home. As I said at the outset, that is not the right approach, because it would create a fundamental difference between domestic and overseas electors. Currently, an attestation is needed only as a fall-back. The same may be the case for domestic voters, and comparisons could also be drawn with some of the more specialised processes that we use, for example for those who make anonymous registrations.
The key point is that to suggest that the fall-back position should be changed to a requirement of not only one attestation but two is quite unjust to an overseas voter. I return to my core point: these are voters and citizens like any other, and we should not seek to make that difference. It could be potentially fatally burdensome for a voter to have to find a person back at home to provide an attestation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham said.
I hope that my remarks have been helpful to the hon. Members who proposed the amendments. I thank them for their important probing of the Bill’s details, but I hope they have been able to consider my response and will not press the amendments.
Alex Norris
I thank those who have contributed to the debate. I start with an apology; it has been brought to my attention that I referred to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire as the hon. Member for Monmouthshire. He has been far too kind to correct me. As mitigation, I have been listening to the musical “Hamilton” more than is healthy, where the battle of Monmouth features, but I apologise.
I return to what the Minister said; I noted that she said overseas voters are equal to any of us and are citizens like any other. I do not dispute that at all. When we participate on election day we will be indistinguishable—we will all have the chance to contribute one vote. That is quite right and I do not think there was any suggestion of changing that.
However, the idea that they are citizens like any other does not reflect reality: they are not when it comes to verifying their eligibility at an address, because the electoral registration officer cannot go round their house. To be fair, if my electoral registration officer was offered the chance to go to the Bahamas to verify an overseas voter, he might say yes to that. However, he is also the chief executive of our council so he does not have time. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that the challenges, and the potential for fraud, are different. Therefore, we might need to match our verification process to that situation in a different way. That is not unreasonable and I might want to press the amendment to a vote.
I was interested to hear the Minister say that we would not want people to fall out of the process because they do not have a telephone number or an email address. I have some sympathy for that argument. The direction of travel of voter ID pilots means that lots of people in communities such as mine who do not have passports, driving licences or any of the conventional ways to verify their address might be subject to the same rules. I hope that will not be the case.
Alex Norris
The Minister shakes her head, which I am pleased to see. She is clearly passionate about equal access. As we follow the voter ID reforms that are being suggested, I will continue to remind her of that.
I will finish on localism. The Minister is not keen for amendment 36 to be in the Bill because she wants to leave the experts in the local community some leeway. I am a big fan of localism, but when it comes to our democracy and to the verification of voters, I do not think there is much of an argument for variation among communities. We ought to set a clear position in this place on the rules of the game, for everyone’s benefit. If the voter ID pilots became standard across the board, would electoral registration officers be told, “We don’t mind whether you want some sort of photo ID at a polling station.”? I do not think they will have to be given leeway in that sense, so I do not see why there would be leeway in this sense. With that in mind, I will not contribute any further but I do intend to press for a vote.
Christian Matheson
When I first read my hon. Friend’s amendment 39, I confess I looked down the list of people of good standing in the community and got to
“local government officer; medical professional; member, associate or fellow of a professional body”,
but found no entry for Member of Parliament. I was obviously extremely concerned that my hon. Friend did not think that hon. Members were in good standing. Fortunately, further down the list, after “Post Office official”, comes
“publicly-elected representative (such as MP, Councillor or MEP)”.
It was a matter of some relief to find that, Mr Robertson.
I thank the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and the Minister for responding respectfully and fully to the amendments. The Minister started with the important point that overseas voters should be treated equally to domestic voters. In one crucial sense, that is absolutely true: their vote must be of equal value, wherever they are. That is the same across the United Kingdom. There are differences, however, in the current terms of registration. Within the framework of equality that the Minister talked about, the amendments seek to ensure that it is harder for malfeasance to take place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North made a point about putting up barriers that I want to address to the Minister. The problem is that the Government are putting up barriers to people at the moment with voter ID projects, which they intend to roll out further next year. We await an announcement soon on which local authorities will undertake those pilots. The fact is that the Government are putting up barriers to people who vote domestically. Therefore, with great respect to the Minister, the claim that they wish to remove barriers rings rather hollow in this Committee Room.
I have a concern about attestations being provided on behalf of an overseas voter’s registration, where that attestation is by somebody who perhaps was not in the constituency at the time that the overseas voter claimed they had a link with the constituency. There is the suggestion that under the Bill there is the possibility that we would simply have to take the word of the applicant that the attestor had some knowledge that the applicant was in the constituency to which they lay claim. The amendments are about ensuring greater clarity and, I hope, greater rigour in the battle against fraud.
Finally, the Minister talked about consistency in electoral registration across the UK. I am grateful that she addressed that and that it was a question of “may” rather than “must”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, there is the question of not being able to check an individual. We should go for the highest standard in order to maintain the integrity of our registration process and our democracy. With that in mind, I ask that we put the amendments to the vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Robertson. I apologise for being late. As you hopefully know, I was in another Committee, two Committee Rooms up. I understood that when a vote is called, it is normal practice to allow three minutes for it to proceed, and I therefore seek your leave as to whether I can participate in this vote.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Member. It is actually two minutes that we have to allow, unless both Front-Bench spokesmen agree that we should move straight to the vote, so I am afraid that you will not be able to vote on this occasion.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 37, in clause 1, page 3, line 23, at end insert—
“(5A) An overseas elector’s declaration shall be disregarded for the purposes of registration to vote in a particular parliamentary election if it received by the registration officer after 5pm on the nineteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Closing date for electoral registration applications by overseas electors—
“(1) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 56, after paragraph (7), insert—
‘(8) This regulation does not apply to applications by overseas electors.’
(3) After regulation 56 insert—
‘56A Closing date for electoral registration applications by overseas electors
(1) The provisions in this regulation relate to applications to vote by post or proxy by overseas electors in parliamentary elections.
(2) An application by an overseas elector under paragraph 3(6) or (7) of Schedule 4 shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election and an application under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.
(3) An application under paragraph 3(1) or (2), or 6(7) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.
(4) An application under paragraph 4(1) or (2) or 6(8) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at the election for which it is made.
(5) An application under paragraph 7(7) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at the election for which it is made.
(6) An application under—
(a) paragraph 3(5)(a) of Schedule 4 by an elector to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 3(4) of that Schedule, or
(b) paragraph 7(9)(a) of Schedule 4 by a proxy to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 7(6) of that Schedule,
and a notice under paragraph 6(10) of that Schedule by an elector cancelling a proxy’s appointment shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election if it is received by the registration officer after—
(i) 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at that election in the case of an application by an elector who is entitled to vote by post to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 4, and
(ii) 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at that election in any other case.
(7) In computing a period of days for the purposes of this regulation, the same rules shall apply as in regulation 56.’
(4) The Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 are amended as follows.
(5) In regulation 56, after paragraph (7), insert—
‘(8) This regulation does not apply to applications by overseas electors.’
(6) After regulation 56 insert—
‘56A Closing date for electoral registration applications by overseas electors
(1) The provisions in this regulation relate to applications to vote by post or proxy by overseas electors in parliamentary elections.
(2) An application by an overseas elector under paragraph 3(6) or (7) of Schedule 4 shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election and an application under paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.
(3) An application under paragraph 3(1) or (2), or 6(7) or 7(4) of Schedule 4 shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at that election.
(4) An application under paragraph 4(1) or (2) or 6(8) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at the election for which it is made.
(5) An application under paragraph 7(7) of Schedule 4 shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at the election for which it is made.
(6) An application under—
(a) paragraph 3(5)(a) of Schedule 4 by an elector to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 3(4) of that Schedule, or
(b) paragraph 7(9)(a) of Schedule 4 by a proxy to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 7(6) of that Schedule,
and a notice under paragraph 6(10) of that Schedule by an elector cancelling a proxy’s appointment shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular parliamentary election if it is received by the registration officer after—
(i) 5 p.m. on the eighteenth day before the date of the poll at that election in the case of an application by an elector who is entitled to vote by post to be removed from the record kept under paragraph 3(4) of Schedule 4, and
(ii) 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the date of the poll at that election in any other case.
(7) In computing a period of days for the purposes of this regulation, the same rules shall apply as in regulation 56.’
(7) The Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2001 are amended as follows.
(8) In regulation 57, after paragraph (6), insert—
‘(7) This regulation does not apply to applications by overseas electors.’
(9) After regulation 57 insert—
‘57A Closing date for electoral registration applications by overseas electors
(1) The provisions in this regulation relate to applications to vote by post or proxy by overseas electors in parliamentary elections.
(2) An application under section 6(1) or (5), 8(6) or 9(4) of the 1985 Act shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular election if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the twenty-first day before the day of the poll at that election.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4) below, an application under section 7(1) or (2), 8(7) or 9(7) or (8) of the 1985 Act shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the twenty-first day before the day of the poll at the election for which is made.
(4) Paragraph (3) above shall not apply to an application which satisfies the requirements of either paragraphs (6) and (7) or paragraph (8) of regulation 55 above; and such an application shall be refused if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the thirteenth day before the day of the poll at the election for which it is made.
(5) An application under—
(a) section 6(4)(a) of the 1985 Act by an elector to be removed from the record kept under section 6(3) of that Act, or
(b) section 9(11)(a) of that Act by a proxy to be removed from the record kept under section 9(6) of that Act,
and a notice under section 8(9) of that Act by an elector cancelling a proxy’s appointment shall be disregarded for the purposes of a particular election if it is received by the registration officer after 5 p.m. on the twenty-first day before the date of the poll at that election.
(6) In computing a period of days for the purposes of this regulation, the same rules shall apply as in regulation 57.’”
Alex Norris
Hopefully, by now, the pattern of what the Opposition are trying to do is emerging. From the beginning of last week’s sitting, my angst has been that we will put a burden on electoral registration officers, who are already overburdened—as they have been telling us—and who will struggle to meet the requirements that we are putting on them. What we are doing will have unwitting consequences, and last week I started with an attempt to phase it in gently. Obviously, I was not successful. I have just tried to ask for the burden of proof to be put on the individual, rather than the electoral registration officer. I have not been successful there either, so I have now fallen back on my final line, which is about time limits. I really think this is important, and I hope I can secure support on it because, as I say, while what we are doing is important, it is going to have unintended consequences.
What would amendment 37 and new clause 12 do, taken together? Simply, they would push back the deadline to register by one week to allow electoral administrators more time to process applications. In my view, the current timescale of registration deadlines does not work, and the amendment seeks to improve it. There is already concern among those who administer our elections, and more widely, about the timetable for postal ballot papers to go out to overseas voters, which is not easy. As much as we think that overseas voters are citizens like any others—which of course they are—in practical terms, it is harder to get something to and from them than it is to get something to and from me.
If we do not make the timetable amendment, people will be glad that the Bill has become law and enthusiastic that they are going to have a chance to vote, but we will have marched those people up the hill only for them to miss out for practical and probably quite unavoidable reasons, and they will rightly be disappointed. We know that that already happens and the more we increase the volume of applications, the more we increase the likelihood that it will happen.
At the moment, I do not think that there will be sufficient time for the EROs to process applications, certainly the later ones. Letting the deadline fall back by a week is a practical solution and, I think, a good idea. At the moment, registration is set at polling day minus 12. Amendment 37 and new clause 12 would set registration at polling day minus 19, with similar extensions for proxy and postal voting of 13 days and 18 days respectively. That makes sense, because otherwise the deadline is too tight, as experience shows. That difficulty will only be increased by the volume, as I say, and the work that we are going to ask EROs to do will make it challenging.
I hope that we are mindful of this point, because we have said throughout last week’s sitting and this week’s sitting how much we appreciate the work of our electoral administrators. We now need to heed the call to give them more time.
Christian Matheson
I do not intend to speak for long on this amendment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has introduced it very well. It makes sense. It is not about making things harder, but about bearing in mind the administrative burden on electoral registration officers at a critical time.
In the 2017 general election, certain constituencies and polling registration areas had severe problems with the rush of late domestic voter registrations, with voters turning up at the polling station thinking that they had registered but finding that they were apparently not on the register. Therefore, it is sensible to allow electoral registration officers more time to make the registration.
The amendment is the result of a close examination of the current overseas registration deadlines. There is widespread concern that there is insufficient time in the parliamentary elections timetable for postal ballot papers to be sent out and returned by overseas voters in time to be counted on polling day. Indeed, many overseas voters were faced with the disappointing scenario in which they registered too late for their postal vote to be received and returned in time to be included in the count.
In many cases, there is simply insufficient time for the ERO to process last-minute applications and check for previous revisions of registers. A practical solution is needed because that is a recurring issue. Proper consideration needs to be given to the election timetable to allow time for a significant volume of applications to be processed. People who make applications close to the deadline should still be able to cast their vote.
At the EU referendum in June 2016 and the UK parliamentary election in 2015, the processing and checking of overseas applications was a challenge. EROs tell us that they received a high volume of applications in an intense timeframe in the lead-up to each vote, due to the renewal laws.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, the present registration deadline is polling day minus 12. His amendment seeks to add a week to that to make it polling day minus 19. Similar extensions are proposed for proxy voting and postal voting. The Bill will allow all eligible British citizens who have lived in the UK and who are now living overseas to be given a lifelong right to vote in parliamentary elections. In view of the time limit being removed, consideration needs to be given to the deadline being brought forward for overseas electors to register, to allow sufficient time to process applications.
As we discussed in the debates about previous amendments, under the proposed legislation, EROs will carry out the complex tasks of checking previous revisions of registers, researching past residents—we have even heard of them having to go to the borough archivist to get verification—finding documentary evidence and verifying the residence of an overseas voter who may have lived abroad for decades. Subsequently, EROs must receive and verify the appropriate attestations.
In addition, sufficient time must be required for any absent voter arrangements to be fully put in place so that overseas electors can cast their vote at the election or referendum in time for it to be counted. My hon. Friend’s amendment would provide EROs with an extra week within which to process the applications. I am sure that the Department’s guidance would be that overseas electors should register as soon as possible rather than leave it to the last minute, but that problem is prevalent among domestic voters as well, as I have mentioned.
Once again, we ask the Committee to consider the wellbeing of our hard-working electoral registration officers and their staff. The Bill places a tremendous amount of pressure on civil servants at a local level. Government cuts are already pushing electoral registration officers to their limit, as I referenced in the Committee’s proceedings last week. The amendment gives respect to our electoral registration officers. It is good common sense to provide officers with the time to do their job properly and uphold the integrity of the register. The difficulties that EROs currently experience in registering overseas voters under the 15-year rule will only increase.
Bob Stewart
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend, for giving way. When we talk about 19 days, are we talking about 19 consecutive days or 19 working days? There is quite a difference. If we said 20 or 15 working days, that would make sense because, as I understand it, most civil servants do not normally work on a Saturday or Sunday.
Christian Matheson
I am proud to call the hon. Gentleman my friend. I say to the Committee again that a number of constituents of mine in Chester still reference the hon. and gallant Gentleman from when he was their commanding officer, and do so with pride and affection. My good friend was ever a man for detail. I suspect that we would simply go with whatever is the current practice.
In 2010, the election timetable meant that postal ballot packs could only be issued after 20 April 2010 at the earliest, leaving two weeks for ballot packs to be received by electors based overseas, completed and returned to returning officers in the UK before 10 pm on 6 May.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
As a former Minister for the constitution, when it came to the 2017 general election I was assiduous in ensuring that we had international business post put in place, first class, so that we had the best possible service. In comparison with 2010, we tried to limit the delay.
Coming back to the timetable, I seem to remember from my distant memory of receiving briefings that one of the problems with the question of 19 days or 12 days is that part of the reason for the timetable’s being handicapped in the way it is and being so late in the day is that they have to wait for close of nominations to take place in order to print the physical ballots, which are then sent out. All these things relate to each other in some kind of electoral Jenga process, which needs to be taken into account when it comes to looking at 19 days rather than 12 days.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful for that; the hon. Gentleman speaks with experience as a former Minister in this area. In that respect, he is absolutely right. The one thing I will not do—not least because I have not tabled an amendment on it, but I do not think I would table an amendment even if I could—is to suggest that, as a consequence of this amendment, we should somehow change the rest of the electoral timetable and change the closing dates for nominations. That would certainly open up a can of worms for electoral registration officers. I am grateful for that point; it is something we would need to take on board.
I am also grateful for the idea that speedy business post is necessary. I do not put a cost on democracy. As soon as we start to count the cost of democracy, we call that democracy into question. I simply make the point again that I think the Government would be picking up the election costs of sending more expensive post. That would certainly be my hope, in the context of difficult times for local government finances.
The Opposition support the call of the Association of Electoral Administrators for the Government to consider whether the deadline for overseas voters to register should be brought forward, to allow sufficient time to process and check previous revisions of registers.
Glyn Davies
I think we would all agree that it is important to strike the right balance by providing a system that is both accessible to overseas voters and workable for electoral administrators. I believe that the Bill will do that.
The Government have committed to continue to work closely with electoral registration officers to understand how the process can best be supported. With that assurance, I hope the hon. Member for Nottingham North will withdraw the amendment.
Chloe Smith
I will keep this brief. The Government absolutely recognise the time constraints that can arise when dealing with last-minute applications to register to vote, particularly those from overseas electors because, as we have already discussed, there is more toing and froing involved. For example, the Cabinet Office has fully funded the additional costs faced by local authorities for processing overseas electors and, indeed, all new burdens resulting from the introduction of individual electoral registration in 2014.
We have also already amended the timetable for parliamentary elections in order to maximise the time available for postal vote packs to be printed, posted and returned. It is the standing position to encourage electors to register as early as possible ahead of the registration deadline. I briefly mentioned earlier that introducing online re-registration would help somewhat because that will reduce time elsewhere in the process.
Taken together, those measures seek to avoid a peak of last-minute applications. However, in response to the amendments, I return to an argument that I have used elsewhere. I do not think it would be right to create another difference between overseas electors and UK resident ones, which is what would happen if different registration deadlines are set for both groups. Consequent to that, the process would run into the challenges articulated by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood, which is that there are other parts of the electoral timetable. He called it “electoral Jenga” and I think I might use that phrase myself. It is correct to say that a change in one part of the timetable would affect other important parts of it. That is simply how our democracy has to fit together in those final weeks. I would not want that to be put in peril or for a different approach to overseas and domestic electors to put anybody at a disadvantage.
I will also briefly point out a technical error in the proposed new clause. I never like saying such things to a Back-Bench Member. I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will have worked late into the night to pull this together, and I cast no aspersion on him or his efforts, but I think he might have intended to refer to the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008, which revoked those made in 2001. Given that the proposed new clause is technically flawed, I urge the Committee not to support it.
Alex Norris
I thank everyone for their contributions. To answer the substantive point from the hon. Member for Beckenham, the amendment relates to working days, because that is the language of the timetable. If 19 working days became 17 because of a weekend, the proposal would still get my support.
With regard to the hon. Member for Kingswood, we are lucky to have two successive Ministers for the constitution who really take this issue seriously, because that is not a given. I can understand that for the vast the majority of people this stuff might seem a bit dry, but it is exceptionally important. It is also exceptionally important that those who lead take it seriously, and that is greatly appreciated.
I slightly disagree, however, with the hon. Gentleman’s point, despite his neat reference to “electoral Jenga”. The one thing we know about that tangle of wires, which is how I would characterise it, is that many processes are going on simultaneously. I do not think that the proposed change would impact on the strand relating to the nomination of candidates. The example has been given of an individual whose only reason for seeking registration is their enthusiasm for a candidate whose place on the ballot is not secure, but that is a tiny part of a vaster whole and it would not be good to let it injure the whole process.
All electoral administrators will appreciate the kind words of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. However, I gently express my fear that, although we have been keen to support them and their hard work, I do not think that the Bill reflects that support. We have looked continually at the reports of 2016 and 2017, and at the survey work done elsewhere, but we have not followed their suggestions.
I am grateful for the Minister’s gentle point about my typo. For that reason, I will not press the new clause to a vote. However, I still think that it would have taken the Bill in the right direction, and I ask Committee members to reflect on it.
The Minister regularly says that she does not want a distinction to be made between overseas electors and those living in the UK. I understand that, but that would not be the case—and nobody has suggested that it should be—when it comes to the substantive issue of their participation in democracy. In practical terms, however, there is an obvious difference between the two groups—some thousands of miles’ worth in some cases. If we stopped people in the square to ask them whether overseas electors should be given more time to make an application and to receive and return a voting pack, I think that most of them would think that a sensible idea.
I will not press the amendment to a vote, because of the very good reason that has been pointed out. However, I hope that colleagues will continue to reflect on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 3, in clause 1, page 3, line 34, after “name” insert “and date of birth”.—(Christian Matheson.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Christian Matheson
On a point of order, Mr Robertson. In view of the result of the Division, I will not put the remaining amendments in that group to a vote.
Amendment proposed: 38, in clause 1, page 3, line 44, leave out from first “requirements” to end of paragraph and insert—
“(fa) contain a valid attestation of identity under section [Attestation of identity],”.—(Alex Norris.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Glyn Davies
Clause 1 removes the existing 15-year time limit on British citizens voting in parliamentary elections, which is a very important principle. It makes no change to the eligibility to vote in different types of elections, such as elections to the European Parliament, local elections, mayoral elections, and police and crime commissioner elections, or to British citizens living in the UK.
Christian Matheson
We thought to test the hon. Gentleman and the Minister on clause 1, which is the main part of the Bill. We have raised concerns about the ability of overseas voters to register to ensure that registration is fair and honest. We have also raised concerns over the extra workload that will be placed on EROs. As things stand, the amendments have not been accepted and we accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Minor and consequential amendments and transitional provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Glyn Davies
Clause 2 introduces schedule 1, which contains minor and consequential amendments, and schedule 2, which makes transitional provisions.
Christian Matheson
Much of the work of the Committee and the detail of the Bill is contained within clause 1. Clause 2 presents various minor and consequential amendments, as put forward by my good friend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North has put this little worm in my ear that is stopping me from deciding whether it is Montgomeryshire or Monmouthshire, but it is Montgomeryshire. These are technical and consequential amendments and we see no reason why they should not stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Extent, commencement and short title
Christian Matheson
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 3, page 8, line 11, at end insert—
“(2A) No regulations shall be made under subsection (2) until the report under section [Report on awareness of how to participate in elections as an overseas elector] has been laid before Parliament.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Report on awareness of how to participate in elections as an overseas elector—
“(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State must publish a report on levels of awareness of how to participate in parliamentary elections as a UK elector among—
(a) persons entitled to vote as an overseas elector under the provisions of this Act, and
(b) overseas electors in general.
(2) The report shall consider awareness of—
(a) the law governing entitlement to qualify and vote as an overseas elector,
(b) the processes of registering and voting, and
(c) other matters as the Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State sees fit.
(3) The report shall set out any steps the Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State intends to take to increase awareness of—
(a) how to participate in elections as an overseas elector, and
(b) the provisions of this Act.”
Christian Matheson
Amendment 28 requests a report on the awareness of how to participate in elections as an overseas elector. We heard in the discussion of previous clauses about the dangers of overseas electors piling in as soon as an election is called. We discussed with the Minister the importance of electors participating early by registering as early as possible.
Based on the 2016 survey conducted by the Electoral Commission, it is clear that there remains widespread confusion about what it means to be an overseas voter and the eligibility criteria necessary to vote. This lack of awareness has the potential to create a significant barrier to casting a ballot. The survey found that there was widespread lack of awareness about eligibility requirements, with 31% believing that eligibility required receiving a UK state pension and 22% believing that it required owning a property in the UK.
Knowledge about voting eligibility is surely at the heart of our democratic society. The Government must act to inform British citizens about the eligibility of overseas voters. Indeed, the survey found that, among the overseas citizens eligible to participate in UK elections who responded to this survey, the overriding reason for not registering to vote or participating in UK elections is a lack of awareness of the process of both. Therefore, the amendment calls for a detailed report to be made on how to participate in elections as an overseas elector.
Glyn Davies
The amendment would delay the enfranchisement of many overseas citizens who are calling for the right to vote in our elections. On that basis, the amendment is unjustifiable, and I hope the hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw it.
Chloe Smith
I echo what my hon. Friend says. The new clause makes the important point that we should work to raise awareness of voter registration and how people should take part in our democracy. However, it would be wrong to delay the implementation of the Bill while we conduct that assessment, which is what the amendment asks us to do. Too many British citizens overseas have been denied the right to vote for too long and it is not right to say that implementing the Bill must be contingent on a report and an exercise.
The Electoral Commission runs campaigns before elections to ensure that people are aware of when and how to register to vote and anything else they need to know. As part of its public awareness campaigns ahead of elections, it has noted that it will
“run activities overseas and work closely with the FCO and others to ensure that newly eligible British citizens understand what they need to do to register.”
The Government will work with the commission in communicating the new provisions. I hope billions of citizens around the world are following our proceedings from this Chamber as we speak, but if that is not the case, we have also committed to improving messaging on gov.uk, where people can find the information when they need it.
Christian Matheson
Having not pressed previous amendments to a vote that would provide greater time limits for electoral registration officers or for overseas electors to vote, I am concerned there will still be too much pressure or too little time for overseas voters. As part of the programme, there is a role for the Government and perhaps one of its agencies to promote eligibility, perhaps on gov.uk. I accept that the Minister has confidence in gov.uk, and will have to consider whether to press the amendment to a vote.
Christian Matheson
In that case, taking into account the Minister’s response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Christian Matheson
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 3, page 8, line 11, at end insert—
“(2A) No regulations shall be made under subsection (2) until the report under section [Report on effects of extension of the franchise] has been laid before Parliament.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Report on the effects on the number of registered electors—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report on the effects of the provisions of this Act on—
(a) the number of overseas electors registered to vote in Parliamentary elections in each constituency, and
(b) the policy implications of any such changes.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) whether any differential effects on the electorates of constituencies necessitates a review of constituency boundaries, and
(b) the merits of creating one or more overseas constituencies.
(3) The report must be laid before Parliament within 3 years of the provisions of this Act coming into force.”
New clause 6—Report on effects of extension of franchise—
“(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the likely effects of the extension of the franchise in Section 1 of this Act and any measures necessary in response to those effects.
(2) The report must contain assessments of—
(a) how many British citizens currently resident overseas are eligible to register as overseas electors, and how many are likely to be eligible if the 15-year time limits under sections 1(3)(c) and 1(4)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 were removed;
(b) likely demand for online registration services and how this demand should be met;
(c) the effects of removing the 15-year time limits on the workloads of local authorities, including demands on electoral registration officers, and how any consequent resourcing requirements should be met;
(d) any possible increased risk of electoral fraud by those purporting to be overseas electors related to the provisions in this Act;
(e) whether current election timetables are of sufficient duration to enable the full participation of any increased numbers of overseas electors;
(f) how the electorates of existing UK constituencies will be affected;
(g) how the electorates of new constituencies recommended by the most recent reports of the Boundary Commissions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be affected.”
New clause 11—Evaluation of the effects of the Act—
“(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or the Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the provisions of this Act coming into force, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the effects of the Act and the extent to which it has met its objectives.
(2) That report must include assessments of the effects on numbers of overseas electors registered in each parliamentary constituency.”
New clause 15—Report on electoral offences, overseas electors and the extension of the franchise—
“(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office or Secretary of State must publish a report on electoral offences, overseas electors and the extension of the franchise.
(2) The report must include assessments of—
(a) the effects of the extension of the franchise under the provisions of this Act on the incidence of—
(i) reports of electoral offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983, and
(ii) prosecutions for such offences,
(b) the capacity of appropriate authorities to investigate and prosecute such alleged offences,
(c) the number of reports of electoral offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983 alleged to have been committed by overseas electors—
(i) in the period since the provisions of this Act came into force, and
(ii) in a comparable period before the provisions of this Act came into force,
(d) the number of prosecutions for electoral offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983 alleged to have been committed by overseas electors—
(i) in the period since the provisions of this Act came into force, and
(ii) in a comparable period before the provisions of this Act came into force, and
(e) any steps to be taken to reduce the incidence of such electoral offences.”
Christian Matheson
The amendment is similar to one that has been laid by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, which is about a report on the effects on the number of registered electors. It is essential that there is appropriate evaluation and investigation of the effects of passing the Bill on the number of registered electors in each constituency. We must have a clear idea about the sheer volume of people we are enfranchising in order to establish the necessary procedure to register and deal with the inevitable administrative bedlam that will result from the change.
In my previous contribution, I referred to administrative effects. Furthermore, the potential introduction of millions of new voters will undoubtedly have consequences for constituency boundaries. Indeed, while the Government are attempting to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600, attention perhaps needs to be paid to the great swathes of potential new electors requiring representation across constituencies in the UK. How is it logical that the Government plan to reduce the number of MPs while potentially dramatically increasing the number of voters? Has the Minister considered the impact of enfranchising millions of new overseas voters for the current constituency boundary plans?
Under the 15-year rule, the number of registered overseas voters in the June 2017 general election reached just over 285,000, surpassing the December 2016 record. The Government have estimated that that is about 20% of eligible expats under the current 15-year limit, giving a potential electorate of around 1.4 million. Indeed, the figure has the potential to increase fivefold with the passing of the Bill.
The number of overseas voters registering to vote has risen exponentially over the last 10 years and continues to rise. That can be attributed to the general increase in awareness by overseas voters about voter registration. Until 2015, the number of overseas voters registered to vote had never risen above 35,000. The EU referendum in June 2016 surpassed that record, with nearly 264,000 registered overseas voters.
Christian Matheson
In that case, bearing in mind the time, I will plough on and try to get through it as quickly as possible.
Part of new clause 6 has already been covered. New clause 6 makes it clear that it is essential that a report is provided that details
“how many British citizens currently resident overseas are eligible to register as overseas electors, and how many are likely to be eligible”
if the 15-year time limit is removed following the successful passage of the Bill.
Subsection (2)(b) considers the impact of extending the franchise on the
“likely demand for online registration services and how this demand should be met”.
The Minister has touched on online registration briefly before. It currently acts as a central tool for registering overseas voters and takes part of the burden away from EROs. Overseas electors can now register online and no longer require another British passport holder to countersign the registration form, which reduces administrative work at a local level.
Paragraph 10 of the Government’s policy statement says:
“Applicants will continue to be able to make applications using the register to vote service on GOV.UK, as well as by using paper forms or (in some cases) by telephone.”
However, the Association of Electoral Administrators has outlined several practical issues with sustaining the online system after the 15-year rule is removed. The online platform struggles to stay up to date with new addresses as a result of frequent new housing developments. That problem will be exacerbated with the proposed removal of the 15-year restriction on overseas electors, as previous addresses from many years ago may no longer exist. If the proposed removal of the 15-year application restriction for overseas electors is enacted, the gov.uk online registration service will need to be adapted and improved to allow overseas applications to be made online even though the previous property may have been demolished and/or redeveloped.
I will try to canter through the rest, because I am concerned about the time. Subsection 2(c) considers
“the effects of removing the 15-year time limits on the workloads of local authorities, including demands on electoral registration officers, and how any consequent resourcing…should be met”.
I touched on that in the Committee’s meeting last week, especially the wellbeing of electoral registration staff and the integrity of our local system when staff are overburdened and either cannot process applications quickly enough or give scant regard to the credibility or integrity of an application because there are simply so many to deal with.
Electoral registration officers are valuable, skilled members of our civil service at a local level and provide the vital administrative work behind our elections. Increasing the number of British citizens overseas who are eligible to register to vote will add strain to the already stretched resources of electoral administrators. The Minister has previously indicated that additional resources will be given to meet those extra strains, and I hope that that pledge will continue. Before continuing with the Bill, the Government must consider in detail the effects of removing the 15-year time limit on the workloads of local authorities.
Subsection (2)(d) asks that proper consideration be given to the possibility of increased opportunities for electoral fraud as a result of the Bill. The Government have claimed a strict stance on electoral fraud in the UK, as we discussed earlier, by saying that they are committed to boosting confidence in our democratic process and to safeguarding elections against fraud. That is clearly evidenced by their plans to extend the requirement to show ID when voting. Some Opposition Members worry that that is more about voter suppression, but we have already had that discussion. It is a little absurd that the Government are trying to make it harder for people living in this country to vote by requiring them to show ID, while they are creating a system of overseas voters that is potentially wide open to abuse.
We previously discussed attestation rules. A sworn statement is not sufficient security to prevent fraudulent applications when legal proceedings are very unlikely to be taken forward, given that both applicant and attester are living abroad—that is something I discussed earlier with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North. Considering the strict rules enforced by the Government in UK voter ID programmes, we question how they can take such a hard-line stance on domestic voters but allow more lax rules for overseas voters. That goes back to the point that the Minister made earlier about treating voters equally.
Moving on to paragraph (e), relating to the previous discussion, it is also important that we consider
“whether current election timetables are of sufficient duration to enable the full participation of any increased numbers of overseas electors”.
We have discussed polling day minus 12 being the present registration deadline. We therefore need a proper investigation to see how that works. Forgive me if I am going a little too quickly, but I am keen that we make progress with our consideration.
Paragraph (f) relates to
“how the electorates of existing UK constituencies will be affected”.
That is perhaps the most important part of the new clause. With an estimated 5 million new voters being enfranchised, detailed provision must be put in place regarding how those voters will affect current UK constituencies. As the Minister knows well, the Opposition want a fair boundary system that benefits our democracy, not just the electoral interests of the Conservative party. Cutting the number of MPs by 50 while planning to enfranchise 5 million new voters is beyond illogical. Clearly the political context has changed significantly since the flawed proposals were first floated under the prime ministership of David Cameron, but the spread of new voters across the constituencies, and how they will be allocated, is crucial. There must be detailed consideration to prepare for that.
I would like the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon to be able to speak as well. With your permission, Mr Robertson, I will sit down and return to new clause 11 shortly.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Robertson, for allowing me to speak specifically on new clause 1. Many of the issues that I am trying to raise with it have been well described, not just today but in our session last week.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report about the number of electors. We very much hope that many millions, if possible, of electors register. My concern is that we do not know where they will register, although we can guess. Many young people in particular may have last been in London before they got a job that allowed them to go abroad, so there is a chance that some constituencies could be artificially inflated in numbers and then have to be artificially made smaller geographically by the Boundary Commission to sort that out.
My worry about the Boundary Commission is that, as we all know, we should have had boundary changes already. It should have happened three years ago and it has not. The reason for having a report is not to pre-empt what it might say; we have to ensure that the issue of where overseas electors go is looked at promptly after the first possible point at which they are likely to register, which, let us face it, will be at the next general election.
Bob Stewart
I have a constituent living overseas who would be completely confused, because in the last nine years she would have had three constituencies. Assuming the boundary review goes through, she will not know where the hell she started from.
Layla Moran
I very much welcome that intervention because that is one of the many reasons the Electoral Commission proposes a solution—a solution that is in the Liberal Democrat manifesto.
The number of people who have registered to vote has inflated since the referendum, as it should. What is happening with the UK and Brexit has galvanised people’s interest in having a say in what it means to be British, and the effect it is going to have on them abroad. In particular, those Britons who live in the EU, such as my parents, now have very specific issues. If Brexit happens, they will continue to have those issues. I hope that the negotiated settlement will sort out all of the issues with British citizens living in the EU and European citizens living here, but let us imagine that there will be things to iron out.
So the proposal is that the Government go away and, at this point, now that the political wind has changed, look at the possibility of overseas constituencies. New clause 1 does not suggest that we say now that that should happen; it simply asks the Government to make sure they come back to this House after the likely date of the next general election, having considered how many overseas electors are registered, where they are and what kinds of issues they have, so that as early as possible, this House has a proper chance to sort out what are likely to be a number of major kinks resulting from this very welcome Bill.
I will finish by raising my other concern, which is about the effect of large numbers of constituents coming into small numbers of constituencies, which then go through a Boundary Commission process that artificially shrinks the geographical size of those constituencies. Let us imagine that 70,000 people enter Oxford West and Abingdon. That is fine—I very much welcome them—but it means that my constituency, geographically, decreases by a third or two thirds. [Interruption.] Or whatever it may be. However, the current boundaries also take into account local authority boundaries and ward boundaries. There is a geographical link that matters to the people who live in the constituency. They have different needs from overseas electors. It is not just about having MPs who can specifically address the issues of those overseas electors, but making sure that MPs who are here can properly serve—in the geographical sense—the constituents who live on this land, in our communities.
Christian Matheson
One of my concerns about the Bill as it stands is that there is a lack of clarity as to which constituency an overseas voter might seek to join, and might be added to. That might artificially inflate the number of overseas voters in a particular constituency. Does the hon. Lady share my concerns?
Layla Moran
I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I also share concerns about increased workloads in certain parts of the country, should it be the case that overseas voters are not evenly distributed. We can probably assume—it is more likely than not—that they will not be evenly distributed.
To reiterate, all that new clause 1 does is ask the Government to ensure that, at the first available opportunity after the next general election, they come back and commit to considering all those points. It is not enough just to allow the Boundary Commission to do that, because these two things must be considered together. The Boundary Commission cannot say whether it wants overseas constituencies; that is a matter for this House to consider, and it should be a matter for the Government to consider, in conjunction with the change to the number of constituencies.
Glyn Davies
I must say that I do not appreciate it when Opposition Members say things that I agree with, as that makes my position a little bit difficult, but I want to emphasise that—as has been a trend today—the points that are being made by Members on the Opposition Benches are all reasonable. Our aim in resisting them is that we want to maintain the credibility of the Bill—it is a Bill that will achieve wide support—and make sure that it goes through.
As with amendment 28, which was tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester, these provisions would postpone the enfranchisement of many overseas citizens who rightly want to vote in our elections. I stress that the Bill is a single-issue Bill, and I think the amendments are a distraction from that. I hope that hon. Members will not press their proposals.
Chloe Smith
The first point that I want to make in relation to this pair of amendments—which goes more to the arguments made by the hon. Member for City of Chester—is that the Government have already produced an extensive impact assessment on the Bill, as would be expected. That report has, I am sure, been essential bedtime reading for all members of the Committee and many others. It is not necessary to carry out a second assessment of the kind of material that is already in the impact assessment, and I join to that a general point: it would be wrong to delay the enfranchisement of British citizens overseas through the publication of further reports. I see a common thread in a number of amendments, and I am not persuaded that we should hold on that enfranchisement until we have a library shelf full of reports.
Let me address some of the more specific details that have been raised. First, I stress again the Government’s commitment to funding additional costs that arise from the proposed measures—I said that last week and I say it again. I send that message of reassurance out.
The hon. Member for City of Chester addressed the workload and concerns of administrators. We are addressing the costs, and I am very sympathetic to the arguments about their work. I work closely with the Association of Electoral Administrators, as well as other bodies, and I listen to administrators. I will carry on doing that as a matter of course. I do not need a report tied up with a bow to tell me to do it—I will do it week in, week out, because it is my role. None the less, let it be taken that I take that part of the proposal very seriously. I hope that has addressed that point.
On the issue of boundaries, discussed by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, as she and all hon. Members know, boundary reviews are run by the Boundary Commissions and take into account overarching electorate numbers—they make no distinction between overseas voters and domestic voters, and the way that the hon. Lady explained new clause 1 makes it very clear that that is the starting point we are all going from. It is also the case that the legislation that we work to requires that they are taken from a set point in time and that that will happen regularly into the future.
That legislation is absolutely supported by the Government. Whether we are or are not having arguments in other Committee Rooms at other points in our Wednesdays, we support regular reviews in the future that take into account overarching electorate numbers and, therefore, we do not need a further report that checks on those electorate numbers. The Boundary Commissions’ work can properly take into account where overseas electors are and apportion them.
I very much understand the geographical point made by the hon. Lady. Were what she described to happen, I certainly would expect that to be a matter of discussion with the Boundary Commission. Independent as it is, I imagine that it would observe that phenomenon and wish to highlight it. I would be happy to look into the practicalities of that further if that work were to give rise to results that were surprising or undesirable. The Boundary Commissions are scrupulously independent, and quite rightly so, so I do not at all wish it to be heard from me today that I am suggesting that I would change their work—I am absolutely not—but I am saying that their work exists and does the data job that new clause 1 is asking for. I would be very happy to look into any further issues should they arise in the future.
Let me move on to the hon. Lady’s other fundamental question, which was about the creation of overseas constituencies. She and I have discussed the matter before, and we are probably all aware that there are several ways in which it could theoretically be arranged. There is some variation around the world: some countries take the constituency approach, but generally other democracies that allow overseas voting use the connection principle, as we do. Our policy in the Bill is to continue with that principle, which requires electors to have a connection to the part of the country in which they last resided. That is a bedrock of British democracy and it is important to maintain it. I understand and respect the argument for a different configuration of voters, but I am not persuaded by it personally, and nor will the Government support it. Nor is it what my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire advocates in his Bill.
Several points were raised about new clause 6, which would require a report on voter fraud, and new clause 15, which would require a report on issues relating to offences committed as a result of the changes made by the Bill. Again, it is worth stating the general principle: the Government are absolutely committed to strengthening our electoral processes and enhancing public confidence in the rigour of democratic processes. I described earlier how measures in the Bill will help to achieve that, such as the limit on the number of attestations per attestor for overseas electors, which will guard against fraud.
Hon. Members can be confident that I am committed to maintaining and reinforcing our democracy and strengthening electoral integrity. There are certainly other measures now or soon to be before the House that relate to achieving that across our democracy. Do we need an extra report under the Bill to help us to do that? I do not think so. First, the Electoral Commission already publishes annual reports on electoral fraud in UK elections. That is an important safeguard, and it is the Electoral Commission’s role to oversee it, rather than the Government preparing an extra report. Secondly, I do not believe that there is a body of evidence to suggest that fraud is a problem that relates specifically to overseas electors. The hon. Member for Nottingham North touched on that argument earlier today, but at this point I do not think there is an evidence base for pointing the finger at that issue.
There is no question of the Government or the Electoral Commission ceasing to keep voter fraud under review. We are vigilant about it, as indeed are the registration officers and local authority staff who manage these things—it is their role as much as anybody else’s. All parts of the system are vigilant about voter fraud. We will keep all arrangements under consideration and make improvements where we see that they are needed. However, I do not accept that a report is necessary for that, as the new clauses argue. We would seek to do it anyway.
I hope that I have been helpful to the Committee by drawing out themes common to the amendment and new clauses. The key point is that I will continue to observe the practical implications for fraud and for the hard work of administrators, and the effect on our national data sets, of the distribution of voters across the country. I ask the Committee to agree that a report is not necessary.
Christian Matheson
I do not wish to detain the Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response, and I have no problem with finding myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire, whom I consider a friend. He is showing great patience as we test and probe the details of his Bill.
I remain concerned about the Bill’s effect on constituencies, which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon raised, and about the lack of clarity about how voters might join a constituency. However, we have made decent progress today, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Glyn Davies.)
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
School Funding
(6 years 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
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered school funding.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I wanted to keep the title of the debate broad because school funding does not have the same impact in all areas. We must continue to ensure that all our children get an excellent education regardless of where they live, and that all our schools have the money in place to provide that.
I am sure that hon. Members welcome the record levels of funding going to our schools. The simple facts tell us that, overall, more money is being spent, and that is a good thing, but schools are not feeling the effects of that increase. We must differentiate between the schools budget and the teaching budget: more money is being spent on education, but that does not necessarily filter its way down to the experience for all pupils and teachers.
Last month I met local headteachers and parents as part of a Fair Funding For All Schools campaign that has been going up and down the country, which colleagues may have seen. The overall view of the group was that we need more resources in our schools budget, but they were disappointed by the line repeated by the Government that more money than ever is going into our schools. Although that may be the case, the schools are not necessarily able to feel the effects of the increase, due to the ever-rising costs and additional financial burdens placed upon them.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way—I suspect that I will be the first of many to intervene. I have done a survey of a number of schools in Coventry. Headteachers tell me that they have a number of funding problems. For example, in Coventry they have probably lost something like £295 per pupil over the past seven years. I acknowledge that the Government have put £1.5 billion back in, but they also have a shortfall of about £3 billion from cuts some years ago. Does she agree—I doubt she will—that one of the big problems is the need for specialist teachers for children with special needs?
Mrs Main
The hon. Gentleman is pre-empting my speech; I will deal with special educational needs because they are of great concern.
If the Minister meets headteachers in Coventry or in my constituency, they may well tell him that the reality is that the current budget is not enough. Sian Kilpatrick of Bernards Heath Junior School told me that recently she wrote to parents to explain the financial squeeze that her school faces. Mrs Kilpatrick compiled a helpful list of all the additional things that she has to allocate funding to in order to keep her school running—I will not go through them all, but I am happy to share the list with the Minister. The things she outlined include: outdoor vital risk assessments, legal human resources advice, general maintenance costs and staff insurance payments. Those are just some of the additional costs that schools have to find money for. On top of that, she had to pay £8,000 to get her trees pruned.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Surely one of the problems is that different campaign groups, and indeed the Department for Education, use headline figures that vary from organisation to organisation. In working together to achieve a solution to the problem, it is not particularly helpful for words such as “deceptive” and “dishonest” to be used by one campaign against another or against the Department. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should be a much firmer grip on the use of language by the campaign groups?
Mrs Main
I cannot comment on the campaign groups; I am commenting on what the headteachers in St Albans said, and no one used the words “deceptive” or “dishonest.” The purpose of my being here today is to ensure that there is a degree of clarity about where the funding goes. The headline is that we are putting more into schools—and we are—but the reality on the ground is that teachers face undue pressures. I want to highlight that. I cannot accept anyone’s use of inappropriate language—that is not fair on either side of the argument. We must be respectful of the pressures faced by the schools and by the Minister.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, will meet in half an hour to discuss education issues in Northern Ireland—to be fair, they are not the Minister’s responsibility. In Northern Ireland, teachers, schools and boards of governors have to decide whether to pay for a teacher or to increase class sizes, thereby affecting the quality of education. Are those the sorts of decisions being made in the hon. Lady constituency, as they are in mine?
Mrs Main
My teachers did not exactly raise class sizes, although it was covered in the round that that was a problem. They raised the problem of not being able to refurbish toilets, pay for much-needed decoration or replace outdated PCs in their IT suites.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the picture varies, but the signs indicate that schools are not benefiting universally, as we would wish them to, from the new funding formula. Many schools I have spoken to have reiterated that the national funding formula must cover the funding needed for schools, not just the pupil-led aspect. Pupils and parents expect those schools to be fit for purpose as well as to provide lessons. We must address the concerns raised by teachers; we must not hide behind any basic facts of a rise in per-pupil funding. We must look at this issue in the round.
The Minister said that he is in listening mode. I hope that the Government will look carefully at parents’ requests to direct money to special educational needs, as the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) outlined. The Department for Education reports that we have upwards of 1 million pupils with special educational needs in our school— a number that has risen significantly in recent years and is 14% of school pupils. I welcome the news that the Government have committed to improve funding for SEN pupils and that a further £1 billion has been put into this fund since 2013. Those are good things, but we must look at whether they are sufficient.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. There is an anomaly that schools that accept pupils from poorer backgrounds are rewarded and encouraged by the pupil premium that those schools attract for taking those children, but for children with additional or special needs the first 11 hours of the education, health and care plans are funded by the local school, which often places a financial burden on it. There is therefore a disincentive for schools to take on children from those backgrounds who have additional special needs.
Mrs Main
I completely agree. I will touch on that issue later in my speech. Links Academy in St Albans says that it is mopping up the very pupils that the hon. Gentleman says are being cold shouldered or refused positions elsewhere.
The National Association of Head Teachers carried out a survey on SEN funding, and a mere 2% of those surveyed said that the top-up funding received was sufficient to meet the growing needs of SEN pupils. That was recognised by both teachers and parents in St Albans. Inevitably, that will have an impact on the way that schools look after SEN pupils. Department for Education figures say we have 2,800 fewer teaching assistants and 2,600 fewer support staff in our schools. That puts even more pressure on teachers and can be especially challenging for teachers dealing with SEN pupils. The increased amount of money paid to some of those who are lower paid and work as assistants or support staff was welcome, but it puts an additional pressure on school resources. We welcome the additional funds for people paid lower wages but we must recognise the true impact.
To return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), I have been in contact with David Allen, headmaster of Links Academy, which I recently visited, and he welcomes pupils with special needs. He described his despair at the rising number of SEN pupils being permanently excluded from mainstream schools. In fact, I was due to meet him there on Thursday with parents and the SEN group, but as soon as the SEN group heard that I was coming, it said it would pull out. Unfortunately, I have had to pull out in order to ensure a fair hearing for the pupil in that school. I was concerned to hear that SEN children are regularly subjected to bullying at school and have resorted to either drugs or knife crime as a result—that is anecdotal and not in my schools in St Albans, but the teacher has backed that up.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making some very important points on behalf of pupils with special educational needs. The Department for Education’s statistics show that at the start of this year 4,500 pupils with a statutory right to special educational needs support were not in school at all; they were awaiting a suitable place, and a lot of them were being home schooled because they could not get a place. That is only the tip of the iceberg, because those are only the pupils with a special education need statement or an education, health and care plan. The actual number of young people with special educational needs who are not in school is even higher.
Mrs Main
I completely accept the picture that the hon. Lady paints. If we are here to do anything, it is to try to move forward consensually—education is not a hot potato that we can repeatedly pick up and drop. She mentioned statementing for children with special educational needs. Parents tell me that there is sometimes reluctance to statement a child because of the extra resources that should automatically be associated with that. We must look into that, too.
Instead of stepping in and helping SEN children, some mainstream schools permanently exclude pupils, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned, and academies such as Links in my constituency pick up the pieces. As a result of funding pressures, mainstream schools do not always have the staff or resources to care for those children. I have heard parents say that when they contact a mainstream school that has places—this is what the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) referred to—but inform it that their child has a special educational need, they suddenly find that the place is no longer available. That is a primary concern for teachers, and I hope that the Minister will set out his plans to secure and correctly direct SEN teaching resources, which are absolutely needed.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Has the hon. Lady heard from her local schools, as I have, that one of the barriers to getting a statement in the first place is the severe underfunding of child and adolescent mental health services? It is necessary to go through CAMHS to secure an EHCP. The referral time used to be six months, which frankly is a long time in a young child’s life, but in Oxfordshire it now averages two years.
Mrs Main
If the hon. Lady secured a debate on CAMHS, I would attend it. I can testify that many parents in my constituency experience issues with CAMHS.
Staff and staffing costs are under severe pressure. Schools cite increased staffing costs, and the amount of their budget that those costs take up, as their main concern. WorthLess? surveyed headteachers as part of its fairer funding campaign and found that 60% had had to reduce their staff by one or more to balance their budget. That goes back to the pressures I mentioned.
Sandringham School in my constituency, which hosted the public meeting I attended—it was quite a rocky meeting, but I said I would bring back people’s concerns—explained to me its issues with staff pay rises, national insurance and pension contributions, and teacher recruitment shortfalls. Many schools across the country are grappling with those four key issues. In an area such as mine, where house prices and the cost of living are very high, wages sometimes just cannot keep up so that teachers are able to live in the constituency and work in its schools.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Although I welcome the extra £3.5 million per annum for North East Hampshire’s schools as a result of funding adjustments, there is still a big divergence in per-pupil funding across the country. That is entirely in line with her point about the cost of staffing, which has no relationship with per-pupil funding, given the high cost of living in Hampshire and elsewhere. Does she agree that it is important that future funding formulas take proper account of the cost of living?
Mrs Main
As a former teacher, I know that there are teachers who argue vociferously for universal pay standards across the country and dispute the need for pay to reflect local house prices and so on. That is a debate for another day. However, teachers in my area say—this is awful, but I accept it—that when a valued, top-of-the-range headteacher or head of department goes, there can be a small, collective sigh of relief in the budget department because that means the school can take on a younger, less experienced teacher on a lower pay scale and the budget suddenly becomes a little looser.
It is demoralising for a school not to be able to reward and keep high-value staff because it simply does not have the money to pay them. I am experiencing that cycle in St Albans, where staff are hard to retain. Although it is great to have bright young things—I was one of those once—coming through the door, with all the enthusiasm they bring to teaching, there is nothing like an experienced head of department.
There is widespread unhappiness about the handling of the recent teacher pay rise announcement. The key problem is that schools themselves have to fund the first 1% of that pay rise, which we so generously allocated them but did not provide additional funding to support them with. Declan Linnane, the head of Nichols Breakspear School in St Albans, told me that that 1% alone will cost his school £30,000—money it will have to find from yet further efficiency savings or another member of staff in already difficult times.
With rising national insurance contributions and an impending increase in employer pension contributions, schools are under huge pressure to find more savings at the cost of our pupils’ education. Increasing staffing costs have a huge impact on schools’ budgets. Removing the need for schools to fund the first 1% of pay increases themselves would be welcome. I wonder whether the Minister is in a generous mood and would like to make a grab on the Chancellor’s Budget.
Schools are interested in the Government’s proposal to create a central staffing database to reduce agency fees. Agency staff are a big issue for many schools, which often cannot retain staff and are obliged to use agency staff as cover, or run their staff so tightly that there is no slack in the system if a staff member goes ill, for example. I would be grateful if the Minister updated me on that database and when headteachers should expect it to be available.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which reported last month on education funding in England, found that per-pupil school spending has fallen by 8% in real terms since 2010. That must be considered alongside the fact that, according to the DFE’s own figures, half a million more pupils are in our schools now than in 2010. The IFS also reported that school sixth forms have endured a 21% reduction in per-pupil spending since 2011, and it estimates that by 2019-20 spending per sixth-form pupil will be lower than at any point since 2002.
Those are worrying statistics, which address many of the real concerns of teachers and parents in St Albans. We must aim for funding that meets the needs of schools across the country—as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) said, certain parts of the country are really struggling—and allows them to deliver excellent teaching that inspires pupils to succeed in life.
Worryingly, we have also heard reports of schools having to use the pupil premium to fund their core budget. A recent poll of headteachers found that 70% had dipped into the pupil premium to prop up their core budget. That is borne out in St Albans, where we are aware that happens. It should be of real concern that a fund designed to help students from the most disadvantaged families has to be used for overall school spending. That cannot be right.
Schools are also concerned about their lack of ability to plan their finances. With the NFF being introduced over a number of years and uncertainty about how it will affect individual schools, headteachers are unwilling to commit to long-term planning. That was reflected in a poll of headteachers, which found that 90% feel the NFF has given them no long-term financial certainty and has resulted in no “meaningful financial planning” being carried out beyond year 1.
I do not just take things at face value. Trading statistics is never good, as I said at the public meeting I mentioned. I believe in listening to what teachers say, and they say they are struggling to do long-term planning under the current system. They need longer-term certainty about their budgets.
Tim Farron
Does the hon. Lady agree that the problem with long-term planning and wriggle room in budgets is even greater for smaller schools? In constituencies such as mine there are lots of very small, very good schools of 30 children or even fewer. If a large school has a bad period in which it has an issue with leadership, a poor Ofsted report or whatever, it can absorb the effect of getting fewer pupils as a consequence and still be able to plan ahead. However, that could be curtains for a small school, which would mean a community losing its school for good.
Mrs Main
I do not have experience of that, but I recognise the picture the hon. Gentleman paints. It is vital that we address those concerns about funding.
The UK tax burden is at a 50-year high, so the Minister will be pleased to hear that I do not propose additional tax rises. We are at the limit of how much tax we can reasonably ask ordinary people to pay. Working families have felt the squeeze since 2010 as the Government have tried to tackle the enormous financial burden we found ourselves with. It is good that we have made progress. Far be it from me to tell the Chancellor how to do his job, but the Budget is looming, so I am going to put my thoughts on the record. I am certain that the Government can find the money if we prioritise our spending appropriately.
We had a manifesto commitment—the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will probably profoundly disagree with me about this—to scrap universal free school meals for reception, year 1 and year 2 pupils, but it was dropped. That was misguided. I and some of the teachers who were at the meeting I mentioned think we should have investigated that further. Thankfully, in St Albans only around 6% of pupils are entitled to free school meals. In Hertfordshire overall that figure is about 8%. Perversely, that means we subsidise between 90% and 94% of parents in Hertfordshire who could pay for their own children to be fed. Just as I do not want budgets that should be used for pupils at the poorest margin to be taken away, I do not want wealthier parents to be cross-subsidised when they do not need it. Such largesse is costing my local authority £6 million, and it is money that should be spent on teaching. I would rather St Albans pupils received a universal quality of teaching than that those with more affluent parents should receive a gratuitous free lunch they are not entitled to.
I am a great supporter of the good aid projects that have been carried out around the world, but, again, it seems crazy to me that we ring-fence huge sums of money for foreign aid when vital public services such as the education budget lack funding. The aid budget should be under the same scrutiny and pressures as other Departments’ budgets. We are effectively shovelling money out the door to meet an arbitrary target set in law. That misplaced policy should be brought before the House so we can decide whether to look at that ring-fencing.
I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the issues raised in the debate, including some of the experiences recounted by teachers and parents. There is a funding problem in schools and it does not seem right that more and more schools have to go cap in hand to parents for even the most basic of provisions, such as textbooks. Alan Gray started the public meeting I attended by asking “What price education?” He did not ask the price for pruning trees, painting the classrooms or replacing some broken paving slabs, but the price of education. Of course it is entirely reasonable for parents to be asked for contributions for bonus offerings such as trips, but when they are asked to contribute for vital reading materials, the central funding formula needs to be addressed.
Teachers in my constituency do not tell me that the NFF is bad policy; they want it to be funded correctly. The aim of ending the so-called postcode lottery for school funding under the NFF is sensible, but the lack of overall funding means that it is difficult to deliver. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, and I hope to see some movement on the issue in the Budget. We must answer the call: what price do we put on our children’s education?
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Six hon. Members want to speak in the debate, and we have to start the winding-up speeches at 20 minutes to 11. That gives us about 50 minutes, so Members have about eight minutes each, maximum.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who I congratulate on securing the debate. For the first 19 minutes of her speech she sounded as if she was reading a Labour party brief, and I was about to get out a membership form to pass across to her. It was just the last two minutes that spoiled it slightly, and I am afraid as a result I cannot pass the form across after all. I certainly recognise her analysis of some of the problems that affect our schools’ finances.
I am the only London Member present, so if Members will forgive me, I shall dwell predominantly, parochially, on my own borough and mention at least one issue that affects London schools in particular. The one thing missing from the analysis given by the hon. Member for St Albans—if I may gently chide her—was consideration of the impact of cuts in general local authority funding. As a result of those cuts, most of the support that used to be available from local authorities to help schools in difficult circumstances is no longer there. Schools have had to find their own solutions—some with considerable success and others with less. That is part of the backdrop that we need to consider.
I am privileged to represent schools that, according to independent analysis by the Education Policy Institute, are in the borough that provides the best education in the country—from starting school to leaving school. The increase in achievement is, apparently, best in Harrow, according to the institute. I give particular credit to the teachers, parents and leadership of my borough’s schools, and as a former teacher I recognise the huge contribution to the country that teachers and other professionals in schools make. I want to highlight the pressures that schools in my constituency face. I should acknowledge the generous offer of the Minister for School Standards, who is responding to the debate, to receive a delegation of headteachers from Harrow. We are in the process of organising that. I hope to persuade him not only to meet the delegation but to come to Harrow to see one or two schools in my constituency that face particularly challenging circumstances.
The average annual cost implication of the financial pressures on schools in my constituency—for the current 12 months, compared with the previous 12 months—is more than £203,000 for a secondary school and more than £70,000 of additional net costs for a primary school. That comes from the increase in non-teaching pay awards, non-teaching pensions, the apprenticeship levy, the estimated likely increase in teaching pay awards and other aspects of the incremental costs that come with teachers’ pay rises. It does not include any increase in the cost of pensions. There are pay pressures as the result of rises in utility costs and there is reduced income, in particular for primary schools, which are experiencing annual reductions, related to pupils in receipt of pupil premium grant, of on average £10,000. I have described average pressures, with an assumption that average school budgets are cash flat, but in Harrow some 25% of schools that are currently protected by the minimum funding guarantee expect to lose roughly 1.5% of their pupil budget per annum, as a result of the way that the minimum funding guarantee works. That could equate to a cash reduction of a further £20,000 to £30,000 per annum.
For a primary school, losing £70,000 a year equates on average to the cost of one to two teachers. For a secondary school, an average loss of £200,000 is the equivalent of four teachers. As the hon. Lady said, school headteachers and governors are trying to find ways to protect the experienced teachers who add the most value to a child’s education, but experienced teachers who go are often replaced by a newly qualified teacher. Many of those are, as the hon. Lady said she once was, bright young things. They are enthusiastic and skilled and have a huge contribution to make, but they do not have the same experience, and that is a significant problem. Alternatively, teaching assistants can be lost, as is happening in my constituency. That has a particular impact on those with special educational needs, and there is a knock-on effect on other young people in those classes.
The hon. Lady rightly dwelt on the funding crisis for special educational needs. There has been some helpful media coverage of that, of late. I understand that roughly half of London boroughs face significant shortfalls in funding. They are overspending on SEN budgets, such has been the growth in the pressures. That is partly caused by some helpful changes in connection with the conclusion of the SEN funding review, leading to an increase in the number of post-16 and post-19 SEN children deemed eligible for funding, as well as general demographic growth and the fact that the formula for SEN is currently based on historical data on children aged five to 15, and does not reflect the post-19 inclusion.
Another particularly helpful aspect of the hon. Lady’s speech was the reference to sixth form provision. There has been an 8% real-terms cut for every school, as concluded by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but the 21% cut affecting sixth forms is a particular pressure for St Dominic’s Sixth Form College in my constituency. While I hope that there will be a general funding increase for education, I hope that Ministers will look particularly at sixth forms in that respect.
Lastly, I ask the Minister to come to Grange Farm or Norbury Primary Schools in my constituency. Their headteachers are remarkable individuals who are hugely passionate and determined to do what they can for their children. Nevertheless, given the housing crisis in London, the number of pupils who move on a regular basis, and the scale of the diversity challenge, financial pressures are adding to the general problems facing those schools, and I would be keen to host the Minister on a visit to Harrow to improve his education on the school funding crisis.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for securing this important debate, but there is a sense of déjà vu. Over the past few years I have participated in many debates in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber on school funding, and two years ago there was a debate specifically on school funding in West Sussex, which is what I will concentrate on today. As my hon. Friend said, progress has been made with the new funding formula, but for many of us that is just work in progress. It was a move in the right direction, but it has not yet reached the destination of genuinely fair funding.
West Sussex was able to secure an additional £29.8 million funding as part of the £1.3 billion that the Government added last year, but that must been seen in the context of pupil numbers that are up substantially and the funding pressures coming down the line, such as teachers’ pay, national insurance and the other points raised by my hon. Friend. We will all plead the case for our own areas, but West Sussex has consistently been at the bottom of the table. We were the second to lowest funded local authority in the country, and with the additional money we have now gone to being the eighth lowest funded per unit for primary schools, and the sixth lowest for secondary funding. We have gone from being at the bottom of the lowest decile to nearer the top of the lowest decile. There is still a long way to go, as the Minister will be only too aware, given that he, too, represents a West Sussex constituency.
There is great confusion about what has happened to funding in real terms. Many figures have been bandied around, with banners outside schools saying that West Sussex has lost x millions of pounds. Because of the funding formula and the complications of how the deprivation, prior attainment and rural sparsity factors work, we need greater clarity on exactly what we are getting and where the money is going.
Layla Moran
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no one on the frontline is arguing that more money is coming into the coffers of local schools?
Tim Loughton
Everybody is arguing that more money is coming into the coffers of local schools—that is plainly a fact. It is a question of how many pupils that money has to be spread across, increasing pressures on that funding, and what is left over to fund the basic education of children. It is no good saying that less money is going into schools; it is not. It is just not enough, given all those other factors.
In West Sussex we have the cumulative effect over many years of consistently being right at the bottom of the heap, so that all those savings have been used up years ago and many of my schools are running on empty. Despite that, many schools in my constituency are doing an outstanding job, such as Eastbrook Primary Academy in Southwick, St Nicolas and St Mary Primary in Shoreham, Shoreham Academy, Sompting Village School in Sompting, and Vale School in Worthing, to name just a few schools that have been consistently outstanding and good, despite all those factors. They are a mix of academies, faith schools and local authority schools—I give preference to no particular type of school, and indeed we have no free schools in my constituency. As has been said, there is a particular problem with special needs schools that are not covered by the new fair funding formula, although the numbers of pupils coming forward with severe educational needs has increased. Fantastic schools such as Herons Dale School in Shoreham are suffering huge pressures, and we are seeing the effect on pupils.
I want to concentrate on real examples, not just talk in the round. Last year I invited every head of every school in my constituency to a couple of roundtables to tell me exactly what was going on in their schools—it was not about fears of what might happen, but about what was going on and how they set their budgets there and then. This year I repeated that exercise with the chairs of governors from all schools in my constituency. As a result of those findings, I wrote a lengthy letter to the Education Secretary—I have just had a reply from the Minister—in which I gave real life examples.
There were many common factors, and in the consultation on the fair funding formula, 9% of 25,222 responses that the Department for Education received came from West Sussex. That hugely dis- proportionate figure shows how important this issue is in our part of the world. Common issues were that staffing costs, in some cases, were 90% of a school’s budget. Some years ago they would typically have been nearer 80%, and beyond that figure it becomes unsustainable for many schools. There have been many redundancies and fewer working hours, and non-returning maternity leave cases are commonplace. Senior leadership teams are covering classes to remove the need for supply teachers, and extracurricular activities and trips are being culled due to cost. Infrastructure investment and development is being delayed or ruled out completely.
Let me give a few examples from schools. One medium-sized primary school has reduced teaching assistant support by more than 200 hours and has not replaced its inclusion co-ordinator. It is unable to replace ageing and antiquated IT equipment. A junior school now has a deficit of £40,000, and will require an additional £220,000 for salaries over the next few years. Class sizes are typically 32 or 33 since 113 more pupils came into the school, yet there was an equivalent increase in full-time teachers of 0.8%. Schools are not losing funds because they are losing pupils; they are attracting pupils and yet they do not have the funds to get the teaching cover they need. The professional development budget was between £3,000 and £5,000, but it is now zero. The extended curriculum budget was around £20,000, but it is now £500. The learning resources budget was £120,000, and is now £35,000. There will be a deficit, and in that school 87% of expenditure is on staff salaries and overtime.
In a medium-sized primary school, non-qualified teachers such as high-level teaching assistants are being used to cover classes so that the school cuts the cost of supply staff, and numerous cuts to teaching assistant posts are creating greater workloads for teachers. Schools are unable to pay overtime. Counselling levels have fallen due to cutbacks, and that will be a soft target for further cuts in future. That is a particularly big worry to me because it will create greater pressures on those pupils who require greater attention and resources. They will then fall further behind at school, and they will not get the opportunity to make that time up if we do not deal with the issue soon. In too many cases the waiting list for counselling in school or beyond is many months, and during that time a condition can fester. I have many more practical examples. That is not scaremongering; this is going on now, and this is how governors and heads have to set their budgets to effect those constraints.
What can we do? I have three suggestions. First, the Minister absolutely must lobby as part of the comprehensive spending review and say that the shortfall in funding is a false economy in the extreme. Secondly, it was disappointing that the full teachers’ pay was not covered centrally—just the additional pay over that 1%, and there have been questions about some teachers not getting that full coverage over the 1%. Finally, I suggest that West Sussex, and other coastal areas where there are particular problems of deprivation and high costs, should have something like a coastal communities challenge fund, just as the London Challenge fund in 2003 addressed some of the difficulties in places where affluent areas mask areas of real deprivation, such as those found typically on the south coast, the Kent coast and other parts of the country. I ask the Government to look seriously at addressing the serious deficit in parts of the country such as West Sussex, because we are feeling the effects of it now.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this timely debate.
For some years, school funding in Devon has been a growing concern, expressed on a cross-party basis. My area in the far south-west is a true representation of the wider picture in Devon of not getting our fair share of resources. Last Friday I held my monthly “Politics and Pastries” roundtable, where I fed pastries to some of our hard-working headteachers and got information out of them about the state of education in Plymouth. They listed as their top concerns the pressure on finances, the lack of support for mental health and the urgent need to fund the Plymouth Challenge.
As the proud son of a teacher, I know how hard teachers work. Each of them is full of love for their profession, their students and the subjects they teach, but it is fair to say that at the moment our education system is being held together by good will. I thank Plymouth’s teachers, teaching assistants, support staff, other professionals and volunteers for all they do, but all too often their spark is being put out. Too many are left frustrated and demoralised by the double whammy of a lack of support and an increase in pressure to do more with less.
My argument today is a simple one: every child matters. All children, whether from the north, the south, the east or the west, from London or Plymouth, should be valued equally and have a fair slice of the funding cake. That children in one part of the country should be valued the same as those in another is surely a principle that we can all agree on, but schools across Plymouth have suffered consistent underfunding, especially since 2010. Plymouth has one of the lowest education spends per head in the United Kingdom. Each of our children, on average, is valued £415 less than a child in a London postcode, and £300 less than the national average. A Plymouth child is not worth any less than any other child anywhere else in the country, and the value for their education should reflect that and not treat them as being worth less.
Cuts have consequences; the shortfall has had a damaging impact on students in Plymouth, who continue to fall behind the national average in academic performance. That is not because our teachers are not working hard enough, but simply because the resources are not there to give those children the educational excellence they deserve under fair funding. Plymouth schools face a vicious circle of cuts and increased costs that worsen existing conditions. Class sizes have increased and the numbers of teachers and teaching assistants have decreased. It is worth remembering that some of the poorest and most vulnerable students in our communities are increasingly in the most underfunded schools.
The contrast is clear when we compare Plymouth with London. In the capital, nine out of 10 children go to a good or outstanding school, while in Plymouth only five in 10 children do so. If every child matters, why is it that children in the far south-west are worth less than those in other parts of the country? Why are schoolkids in Plymouth not being given a fair chance to succeed?
I have three simple asks for the Minister, to help our teachers and to stop our children falling behind. First, I would like him to consider reviewing and removing the 3% maximum gains cap that is part of the national funding formula. One of the key principles of the national funding formula consultation was that pupils with similar characteristics should attract similar levels of funding wherever they are in the country. That is a good thing, but the maximum gains cap prevents schools that have been underfunded for many years from receiving their fair share of their current funding entitlement.
To give an example, under the new funding formula, Plymouth is due to gain £10.6 million, but the maximum gains cap means that in practice schools in Plymouth will receive less than half that amount, £4.7 million, in 2018-19 and £8.7 million in 2019-20—less than they should be getting under the funding formula because of the gains cap. Even with that additional funding formula, Plymouth will continue to receive considerably less than the national average, so I would be grateful if the Minister reviewed whether the gains cap is appropriate for where we are and whether it could be flexed or removed to give places such as Plymouth that have received lower levels of funding a chance to catch up.
Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister looked again at funding for mental health support for our schools. It has been mentioned a number of times, but wrap-around support for young people is especially important if they are to achieve their full potential. Plymouth schools are currently sharing a three-year mental health funding deal, but that money runs out this year and headteachers have told me there is no money to replace that funding when it expires. We know that mental health concerns are rising among our young people, with a combination of increasing pressure, social media, bullying and, sadly, for far too many of our children, the additional pressure of caring responsibilities as young carers. Mental health funding is not only an essential part of educational support, but vital if they are to achieve their potential.
Our teachers are brilliant, but they cannot also be mental health workers and professionals. We have seen cuts to mental health provision for young people in primaries, especially with the Plymouth Excellence Cluster—a body that pooled mental health funding for schools—losing its funding earlier this year. The three-year funding deal for secondaries is now due to expire. That cannot be right, and I would be grateful if the Minister gave urgent consideration to providing support, especially for young people who are receiving support at the moment and may lose it if money cannot be found within school budgets to replace that provision.
Finally, I ask the Minister to support the Plymouth Challenge. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned, the challenge opportunities are incredible for coastal communities that have lost out on funding. Plymouth, unfortunately, was not deemed to be one of the Government’s opportunity areas, and so missed out on the social mobility package of funding that was recently announced, but Plymouth City Council, working with the Plymouth Education Board in partnership with the regional schools commissioner and officials at the Department for Education, has come up with the Plymouth Challenge, which aims to work with schools in Plymouth and the far south-west to raise standards, promoting leadership and aspiration.
There have been successful challenges right across the country, most notably in London but also elsewhere. In each case, standards and teaching quality have been driven up by considerable and focused investment of time, energy and money in our teachers and schools. In Plymouth we have the will and the passion, but we lack the funding and the time to make that work. There must be deep learning for our teachers—not simply one hour swapped out of a classroom for a quick update on skills, but deep learning, so our teachers and teaching assistants can receive the benefit of the latest in teaching quality initiatives—and the children who would otherwise have been taught by those teachers must have a high-quality replacement, ensuring that their education does not suffer because their teacher is being given additional training.
Plymouth City Council estimates that it requires between £900,000 and £1.3 million to implement the first phase of the scheme. It is supported by schools across the city, and I would be grateful if the Minister looked positively at the Plymouth Challenge and agreed to meet a cross-party delegation of teachers and political representatives from Plymouth at both national and local level, to look at how the DFE can support Plymouth in funding the Plymouth Challenge and ensuring that we can support our own teachers to do the best they can.
Those are three small asks for the Minister, but they would make a huge difference to Plymouth kids and their schools. Plymouth is unique, due to the diversity of our education provision; we have a school of every kind that every Government since 1945 ever thought of. It is not the range of schools that is the problem, but the lack of funding, and I would be grateful if the Minister met us to discuss that.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this debate, which is vital for most children in our country.
Every child deserves an equal opportunity to get on in life, with the same access to high-quality education as their peers, wherever they are in the country. I am proud that Chichester exceeds the national average for attainment at key stage 4 and A-level, as a result of the hard work and dedication of teachers from early years through to secondary schooling.
Spending on our children’s education has never been higher and the new national funding formula is a welcome step toward rebalancing some of the disparities in the old system, where there were over 100 different models across the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, however, West Sussex historically suffers from being one of the lowest funded authorities. It is currently the sixth lowest recipient of secondary school funding in the country, and eighth lowest for primary school funding.
I am pleased that under the new funding formula, Chichester schools are to receive an additional £1.2 million in baseline funding for 2018-19—a welcome step toward ensuring that our schools are given the resources they need to help and support every pupil. However, speaking to teachers across my constituency, there is concern that the positive impact of the increased funding will not be felt in the classroom, simply because operating costs in the form of salaries, pensions and apprenticeship levies, to name but a few elements, have increased. All the additional moneys are being used to service those additional costs.
There is much innovation across the sector to reduce expenditure and share costs. One example is executive headships. A headteacher’s salary is one of the largest costs faced by schools, particularly small rural primaries, such as those in my constituency. Last term, two rural schools came under the leadership of one head, ultimately saving money. Those schools are just a 10-minute drive from each other, so the arrangement works. The headteacher now divides his time between the sites and is doing a brilliant job of improving Rogate Primary School, just as he did with Rake Primary School. The money saved will go towards additional resources to aid the children’s educational experiences. Of course, such a move comes with strains, particularly because of the close relationships that teachers and staff form with parents and pupils in small villages such as Rake and Rogate. It takes time to build those, and I pay tribute to the commitment shown by headteacher David Bertwistle in that venture.
Rural schools play a vital role in their communities —perhaps even more so than in larger, urban centres. They are the centre of a community and are often the frontline in offering social and mental health support to pupils and their families. The reduction of base funding from £150,000 to £110,000 leaves a £40,000 hole in the budgets of small rural primary schools that cannot easily be filled with additional pupils. Additional pupils will come within a natural catchment area, and schools are not in control of those numbers. It is important that the Government funding formula understands the additional pressures facing rural schools and ensures that the level of funding for which they are eligible through the sparsity grant reflects the uniqueness of their place in our communities.
The number of pupils with special educational needs in West Sussex is well above the national average, with 13.5% of all pupils recorded as needing SEN support, compared with the national average of 11.6%. The number of referrals for education, health and care plans has risen by 43% over the past three years. Although those plans are a much-needed device to ensure that children with special educational needs are given personalised support, we must ensure that the Government are equally adaptable when it comes to tailoring the new higher needs formula to authorities with very high numbers of pupils with special needs.
Let me give an example. I have a constituent who is fighting for her daughter to attend a specialist school equipped to provide the 24-hour care that she needs that is halfway across the country, as she fears that the SEN provision in West Sussex is just not adequate. We need investment in the right provision in West Sussex. No parent should ever feel that their child’s education is worth less than that of others. It is vital that every child has the opportunity to enjoy a high-quality education. It is a one-off shot in most cases and has a massive impact on life chances.
I do understand that the formula is designed to provide more resources for areas with higher levels of deprivation and lower prior attainment. I recently visited schools in Knowsley, where I went to school, and I know that the extra funds are essential to those schools, where 70% of the children are on free school meals and almost half the children are looked after by foster parents or grandparents. Those schools face additional challenges in terms of attracting and retaining the best teachers, but there are additional needs in West Sussex, too. The challenges of rural primary schools and pupil numbers and the unanticipated rise in special educational needs are putting severe pressure on some school budgets. Of course more is being spent on education than ever, but we have increased costs, higher numbers of pupils and more children getting the support they need for their special educational needs.
School standards have been transformed. When I go into my local schools, I am constantly struck by how much better the provision is now than when I went to school, but we should expect the best. We are living in an increasingly competitive world—one that is global and without borders. Providing our children with the best education that we can is vital to their future.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I thank all hon. Members for their co-operation so far. There is eight minutes each for the two remaining Back-Bench speakers; the winding-up speeches will start at 20 minutes to 11.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Here we are again, talking about school funding. It feels to me, as education spokesperson for my party, that it is all I have had a chance to speak about since being elected and taking this post. There is more to a school than just its funding. The problem is that the funding crisis started badly and, over the past two years in particular, it has got worse and worse, to the point that it is now the top concern of both parents and teachers when they contact me. It used to be other things, such as Ofsted and exams, when people were focusing on the curriculum. The debate about school funding has meant that the life has been sucked out of the broader debate and the vision that we should have for education in this country.
As many people here know, I used to be a teacher, but I continue to be a governor of a local school, Botley Primary School. That is important so that I can see with my own eyes the funding pressures on schools. I absolutely agree with the examples given by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and thank him for his helpful contribution to today’s debate. The point is that these are not theoretical cuts, which could happen. We sometimes look at the headline figures and forget the effect that they have on the frontline. I also very much thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for securing this important debate. Although sometimes it feels as though we are in “Groundhog Day”, the most important thing we can ever do is provide a good education for the next generation in this country.
I would like to talk about numbers. As many people know, I was a maths teacher, and I have to say that I was disappointed—to use a teacher’s phrase—when it was uncovered that the Government’s claim that we are spending the third highest amount on education of any country in the OECD was pulled up by the UK Statistics Authority as not true, because the number included contributions by private schools and student loans. When the Government talk about how much “we” spend, any ordinary person outside the House—our constituents—would think that they are talking about public spending, and that it does not include money spent on top of that by those parents who want to send their children to private schools.
When I toured the schools in my constituency during the recess, as I am sure many other hon. Members did, the private schools themselves were appalled that they were being used in that way, because there is solidarity among members of the teaching profession, whether in private or state schools. The feeling was that the numbers were being conflated in that way to hide the fact that the UK is not third but 14th, which is rather different. The UK Statistics Authority therefore expressed its serious concerns, and it was also disappointing that the Secretary of State wrote to us all essentially to defend the claim.
The issue was about not just those numbers, but numbers about reading attainment. The statistic that more children than ever go to good or outstanding schools is not the full picture either, because it does not quite take into account the inflation in the numbers of students—the population increase—or the fact that, as we explored in the Public Accounts Committee, large numbers of outstanding schools have not been inspected for the best part of 10 years, so whether they continue to be outstanding is up for debate.
Sir David Norgrove, chair of the UKSA, went on to say:
“I am sure you”—
this was to the Department—
“share my concerns that instances such as these do not help to promote trust and confidence in official data, and indeed risk undermining them.”
Therefore, my first ask of the Minister today is simply this: can he give this guarantee about official statistics from now on? I appreciate that the Government want to put a positive spin on what is—let us face it—a very difficult time for teachers and headteachers, but can he at least say that any further statistics coming out of the Department will be in line with the code of practice set by the UK Statistics Authority? I ask that because without the actual numbers, without us all knowing what we are talking about, it is very hard to have a proper debate. This should be a cross-party debate; a child’s life in education will span several colours of Government, so it is important that we get the figures right.
As other hon. Members have said, there are many reasons for the current situation. It is an equation: money in versus money out. The money out, which ends up on the frontline of teaching, is less than it ought to be. In fact, when we take into account inflation, rising student numbers, national insurance contributions, the apprenticeship levy and so on, the estimate is that we are £2.8 billion behind where we should be, given all those extra burdens, compared with 2015.
We are seeing examples of all this in our schools. Let me give the example from my constituency of Thameside Primary School, which services one of the most deprived areas in the country—they exist in Oxford West and Abingdon, too, even though that is not always obvious. These schools are not now using their pupil premium money to do things such as fund trips. They try to do that, but actually what they are doing now is employing link workers to help families to access basic benefits. They do not update the books in their library, because they cannot. Meanwhile, local authority cuts have meant that mobile libraries no longer bring the new books to the children of the school. They have had to cut forest school. I do not know whether other hon. Members have forest school in their constituencies, but it is incredibly important and I wish I had had it in my school. At Thameside Primary School they have had to cut it completely. In other schools in my constituency they have reduced the hours, because they do not have enough members of staff to service it.
The Conservative manifesto said that £4 billion would be put into schools by 2022. How close are we to achieving that manifesto commitment? I would get behind it—let us all get together and put extra money into schools. The former Secretary of State attributed £1.3 billion to the education budget. In the Public Accounts Committee we have been asking the Department where that money will come from, and we are yet to get an answer for about half of it. It was all to come from within the existing budget and through the cancellations of some programmes, but at the time of questioning about half of it was still unaccounted for, so I ask the Minister: where will that money come from?
There are broader consequences to this lack of funding for our schools, particularly the paring down of the curriculum. We now have schools that no longer offer the full range of modern foreign languages and creative subjects. Those students who—God forbid—do not love maths and science, which was the case even in my classroom, need the full range of opportunities to succeed. The unfortunate fact is that in the current state of affairs schools are paring down what they are able to offer and providing fewer opportunities for students to get on. I ask the Minister: is education a funding priority for this Government? What has he asked the Chancellor to give to education in the Budget? Can he give a commitment, genuinely, that every school in this country will be able to offer the full-range curriculum, which we want all children to have access to?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this timely debate.
This is not a boast I want to make, but when I came into this place York was the seventh worst funded authority, and today it is the very worst funded authority. We have exchanged places in the league tables. That is why I am speaking in this debate. Some 18 out of 23 primary schools and two thirds of secondary schools in my constituency have had their funding cut. Like most MPs, I meet with my schools on a regular basis. The crisis in funding has come to the fore. I want the Minister to take away the point that when schools are struggling, the outcomes of those schools are affected.
York has one of the biggest attainment gaps in the country, particularly around early years, and we have seen severe cuts to our primary schools. We are therefore seeing a significant minority underachieving by 10%. The Minister needs to focus on those figures, which correlate with funding.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to what is happening in primary and secondary schools, but does she share my concern that sixth forms have been hardest hit? I was shocked by the Institute for Fiscal Studies submission to the Education Committee on school and college funding, which found that per-pupil funding in post-16 education will be the same in real terms in 2019-20 as it was 30 years ago. Does that not show that the Government are failing to address the needs of young people in the future?
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I meet with colleges in my constituency, which are absolutely on their knees with regard to funding. We know that this is an issue right across the education system. It has a real impact on outcomes, which is what I want to focus on.
While our schools have excellent outcomes, in the areas in my constituency where the cuts have been the greatest in real terms, the attainment is the worst. We can easily see the correlation between money and outcomes. If we make those cuts, we must expect those children to be short-changed, perhaps for the rest of their lives.
We are also seeing a change in class sizes. York has the second biggest increase in the teacher-classroom ratio in its primary schools and the fourth biggest fall in staffing numbers in primary schools, with 20 teachers leaving between 2014 and 2017—that has an impact. We have seen the biggest increase in class sizes in secondary schools across the country—the relevant figure is 2.9, with the next biggest being 1.8. In secondary schools, York has the joint biggest teacher-classroom ratio. Pupil numbers are increasing. I know at least one school in my constituency that is really struggling and does not know how it will accommodate its children next year.
We have also experienced a real turnover of teaching staff, as hon. Members have mentioned. Experienced teachers are leaving and being replaced. In one school around 60 teachers have moved and newly qualified teachers have been brought in. That has an impact on the experience of staff and therefore on the teaching of students. We are also seeing the impact on vital support staff. When the pay increase was announced, schools had to find the resource to pay their support staff, which resulted in many having to leave. We must focus on them as well.
The excellent head teacher of Millthorpe School in my constituency, Trevor Burton, had to write to parents to inform them of the reality and what they can expect. The school is unfunded by £169,000, for four years of 1% pay increases, £56,000 for increased employer pension contributions, £78,000 for national insurance, and £21,000 for the apprenticeship levy. The school’s expenditure has increased by £324,000. The school had an 8% real-terms cut, but it received increased funding of only 3.6%, so it has had a 4.4% cut. Of course, that has had a real impact on children through increasing class sizes, cutting events, doing without teacher posts, stopping all year 10 and 11 vocational courses—as we just heard, that has a real impact on children—and not replacing staff when they leave. On top of that, the school, like many others, has had maintenance issues. It has had to spend £900,000 on double glazing in classrooms, to keep them warm and dry, and to replace school roofs in the dining hall, sports hall, gym, language lab and one of the classrooms.
Tang Hall Primary School also faces the pressure of maintaining its building—a matter I have raised since being elected. The school, which has had one of the largest cuts in the constituency, was top of the Building Schools for the Future list to have a new school built. However, that programme was cut, and the school is still struggling and desperately needs a new building. The school is so cold, because it is such an old building, that they have had to change the school uniform so that the children can wear hoodies to school. It is a disgrace that in 2018, after eight years, they are still waiting for their new school. Children cannot study when they are cold. This has an impact on children throughout their time at the school. The head teacher has pleaded for a new school.
Westfield Primary Community School, in perhaps the most deprived area of my constituency, has had the largest cut in my constituency. How can that be the case when children and families desperately need the support? The school does extraordinary work in the face of such cuts. That needs to be looked at, because we are failing some of the most needy children in our communities.
My final point is about budgets and where we need to go.
Rachael Maskell
Yes. I have talked about buildings and attainment, and I concur with all hon. Members about mental health support, which we desperately need. Ultimately, however, schools just need to have funds.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
There are 10 minutes remaining for each of the Front-Bench speakers. If they could give up 20 or 25 seconds of that to allow Anne Main to respond, that would be appreciated.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this timely debate a few days before the Budget. She has stood up for schools in Hertfordshire, which have faced and are facing a £33-million cut since 2015. She is right to defend the schools in her constituency. While reading out the parliamentary Labour party brief, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) pointed out, she also alluded to the disingenuousness of the statistics that have come from the Department. That was also alluded to by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran).
The Department is fast becoming the ministry for dodgy stats. We have heard that we have the third highest spend in the OECD, which was knocked back because it included private school fees and other items. We have heard that there is more new money for our schools, which was knocked back by the Office for National Statistics. We have also heard that 1.9 million children are in good or outstanding schools. I am desperate to see whether the Minister repeats that, because it was pulled up by the UK Statistics Authority. The Minister must have forgotten to tell the Prime Minister that though, because she repeated the stat in Prime Minister’s questions. We have heard that the Government will fully fund the pay rise—another dodgy stat for teachers up and down our country.
Lilian Greenwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s disingenuous attempts to override the statistics are failing, because parents, pupils and teachers know precisely what is happening? That is why I welcomed children and parents from SOS East Midlands to Parliament a fortnight ago. They know that 82 out of 84 schools in Nottingham city face cuts, including every single school in my constituency, they know that their children’s schools are losing an average of £296 per pupil, and they say that that is not good enough. It has to be addressed in the forthcoming Budget.
Mike Kane
My hon. Friend articulates the point for Nottingham city brilliantly, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) did for York, where 32 schools are facing cuts.
The hon. Member for St Albans also talked about special educational needs and disability—SEND—which is vital. Last year alone, 20,000 children were off-rolled because of it. She talked about a school in her constituency, the Links Academy, which takes in many off-rolled children, but we lost 20,000 to the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) highlighted that problem with regard to mental health too—we do not know where 10,000 of those children are in the system. In an age when we have criminal child exploitation going through the roof and the running of county lines, the school system does not know where 10,000 children are.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has stated that the stats that we have heard used are simply not accurate, and the UK Statistics Authority has rebuked the Education Secretary for his inaccuracy. The figures quoted by Education Ministers attempting to defend their pitiful record on state school funding included money spent by parents on private school fees. There has been a concerted effort by the Secretary of State and the Minister to fudge the figures and deflect attention away from the cuts to school funding that they have presided over.
Let us assess the facts. Some £2.8 billion has been cut from school budgets since 2015, and we will find out in a couple of weeks that that will be a lot more. That means that 91% of schools are facing real-terms budget cuts per pupil. For the average primary school, that will be a loss of about £50,000 a year. For the average secondary school, it will be a loss of about £178,000 a year. But those figures are based on last year’s data. When can we expect the Department to release the schools block funding data for 2018-19? With the inclusion of those figures, it is likely that the outlook for our schools will be even bleaker.
Perhaps the Minister will try to deflect the House’s attention away from the reality of the impact of his Government’s cuts to school funding again, but hon. Members already know the impact on the ground all too well, as headteachers and parents are telling us about it. It is right that we are well represented by the hon. Members from West Sussex, the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Chichester (Gillian Keegan). The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said that schools are x millions of pounds down in that borough in his constituency. I have the statistic: they are £8.9 million down based on last year’s data. It will be interesting to see what next year’s data will be when the Minister releases the block funding grants. The Minister’s own schools are threatening a four-day week because of the funding cuts.
We know that the £1.3 billion of additional funding announced by the Secretary of State is nowhere near enough to reverse the £2.8 billion that has been cut since 2015. We also know that none of the money announced so far is actually new money for education. While I, of course, support the principle that all schools should receive fair funding, the answer is not to take money away from existing schools and redistribute it. A fair approach would be to apply the lessons of the best-performing areas in the country to schools everywhere. A fair approach would look objectively at the level of funding required to deliver in the best-performing schools, particularly in areas of high deprivation, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Central pointed out, and use that as the basis for a formula to be applied across the whole country.
The F40 group, which includes my constituency of Trafford, has told us that school funding requires an injection of £2 billion to meet the needs of all schools, and that an early indication is that the shortfall for 2019-20 will be £3.8 billion. Schools need to see plans for the funding formula beyond 2020. They need a three to four-year rolling budget settlement so that they can plan for the future with confidence, and any settlement should take into account inflation, the cost of living increases and the wage and national insurance increases that have been pointed out by several hon. Members.
When will the Secretary of State and the Minister remove their heads from the sand and begin to truly hear the voices of schools, teachers, parents and Back Benchers from across the country? If that does not happen soon, our children’s education in St Albans, Harrow, Plymouth, York and West Sussex will continue to lose out.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. We all admired your agility in mental maths at the beginning of the debate.
Nick Gibb
I am sure that that is the case.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) on securing this important debate. It is always interesting to follow a Labour spokesman talking about school funding. It was the Labour Government who left the coalition Government with a record public sector deficit of £150 billion, which is equal to 10% of GDP—on the brink of collapse—an economy in recession and high unemployment. We have reduced that deficit to under 3%, we have the lowest level of unemployment since the 1970s and we have halved youth unemployment to record low levels. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) should be more careful when he talks about public finances.
This debate is timely, given the looming Budget next week. I am sure that everybody has listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans and other hon. Members who have spoken. We are determined to create an education system that offers opportunity to everyone, no matter what their circumstances or where they live. That is why we have delivered on our promise to reform the unfair, opaque and outdated school funding system by introducing the national funding formula for schools, which previous Governments had shied away from doing, including the previous Labour Government.
The introduction of the national funding formula means that this year, for the first time, funding was distributed to local authorities based on the individual needs and characteristics of every school in the country. This historic reform is the biggest improvement to school funding for a decade and it is directing resources to where they are needed most.
This Government want to ensure that all children receive a world-class education, and we have made significant progress. More schools than ever before are rated good or outstanding; 86% of schools are now rated good or outstanding, compared with—
Nick Gibb
I will not give way.
That figure compares with 66%, which is what we inherited from the previous Government. The attainment gap is beginning to close and we have launched 12 opportunity areas to drive improvement in parts of the country that we know can do better. Children’s reading ability is also improving. We have risen from joint tenth in the reading ability of nine-year-olds to joint eighth in PIRLS, the progress in international reading literacy study.
However, we have made those achievements against a backdrop of inheriting an unfair method of distributing funding, which has hindered and not helped progress. Across the country, schools with similar pupil characteristics used to receive markedly different levels of funding for no good reason, meaning that the right resources did not reach the schools that needed them most. That is why it is so important that we have delivered on our promise to reform the unfair school and high-needs funding systems and introduced a national funding formula.
Schools are already benefiting from the gains delivered by the national funding formula. The formula has allocated an increase for every pupil in every school this year, with increases of up to 3% for underfunded schools. Next year, those schools that have been historically underfunded will attract increases of up to 6% more per pupil compared with 2017-18, as we continue to address historic injustices.
The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans will attract gains of 2.5% per pupil under the formula next year compared with 2017-18, which is an extra £3.1 million for schools in St Albans when rising pupil numbers are taken into account. Of course, how that money is allocated will depend on the local authority. Special needs funding in Hertfordshire will rise by £4.4 million this year, rising to some £107.9 million.
I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and of course I would be delighted to accompany him on a visit to schools in his constituency and to meet headteachers.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has attended many of these debates on school funding, as he pointed out, and made calls for a fairer funding system. He has been successful in that respect; he should acknowledge his own success in putting the case for schools in West Sussex, because they have seen an increase in the funding allocated to them. How it is allocated on a school-by-school basis will depend on West Sussex, but the funding that it has received for schools in my hon. Friend’s constituency for 2019-20 has risen by 5.5% compared with 2017-18.
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) was right to point to improving standards in her constituency and she was also right to refer to special needs funding, which I will come to. Under the national funding formula, the amounts allocated to schools in her constituency will rise by 3.4% in 2019-20 compared with 2017-18.
I was interested to hear about the “Politics and Pastries” roundtable that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) held. I would love to have been there; nevertheless, I would be delighted to meet headteachers from his constituency at some point very soon. Pupils in Plymouth will be funded on the same basis as in the rest of the country, despite what he said, under the national funding formula. That is the whole purpose of the national funding formula: based on the same needs, those pupils will receive the same amount. The hon. Gentleman referred to the gains cap, which ensures that changes in funding can be smoothed over the years under the national funding formula. Approximately 75% of schools that gain under the national funding formula—those that were historically underfunded—will be fully on their national funding formula figure by 2019-20.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised the issue of York’s position in the national league tables of school funding, but I should point out to her that the amount allocated to schools in her constituency will rise by 5.4% in 2019-20, compared with the baseline of 2017-18. We have made a significant—
Nick Gibb
We have made a significant investment in our schools by providing an additional £1.3 billion across this year and next, which is over and above the funding confirmed in the 2015 spending review. The additional money means that core funding for schools and high needs will rise from almost £41 billion in 2017-18 to £42.4 billion this year, and to £43.5 billion in 2019-20. As the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed, funding for five to 16-year-olds will be maintained in real terms per pupil across this year and next year. The IFS has also pointed out that by 2020 real-terms per pupil funding will be some 70% higher than it was in 1990 and 50% higher than it was in 2000.
Of course we recognise that we are asking schools to do more and that schools are facing cost pressures. That is why the Department is providing extensive support to schools to reduce cost pressures. We have recently launched “Supporting excellent school resource management”, a document that provides schools with practical advice on savings that can be made on the £10 billion of non-staffing expenditure in schools. It summarises the support the Department is offering to help schools to get the best value from their resources, including things such as buying equipment more cheaply and the new teacher supply agency framework, which ensures that fees paid by schools to agencies are transparent and that people are aware of what they are signing up to.
Another issue that was raised was, of course, high needs. We are firmly committed to supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities to reach their full potential. That is why we have reformed the funding for these children by introducing a high-needs national funding formula. We have invested an extra £1 billion in funding for children with high needs since 2013 and next year we will provide local authorities in England with over £6 billion in high needs funding, which is up from just under £5 billion in 2013. We recognise the challenges that local authorities face with their high needs budgets, which is why we have provided them with support to deliver the best value from their high needs funding. We are also monitoring our national funding formula for high needs and keeping the overall level of funding under review.
The issue of teachers’ pay and pensions was also raised. We have responded to the recommendation made by the school teachers’ review body to confirm the 2018 pay award for teachers, which will see a substantial 3.5% uplift for the main pay range, a 2% uplift for the upper pay range and a 1.5% uplift for the leadership pay range. That will ensure that schools are supported to continue to attract high-quality staff members and retain them.
Nick Gibb
I will not give way, because of time.
We are funding the teachers’ pay award above the 1% that schools will already have budgeted for, by providing a teachers’ pay grant worth £187 million in 2018-19 and £321 million in 2019-20. This funding will be over and above the funding that schools receive through the national funding formula.
I want to give time to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans to respond briefly to the debate, so I will conclude by thanking all Members who have contributed to this important debate. It is a key priority for this Government to ensure that every child receives a world-class education, to enable them to reach their full potential. I believe that the significant extra investment that we are making in our schools—both revenue and capital, and distributed more fairly through the national funding formula—will help us to achieve that.
Mrs Main
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. Let me tell that the Minister that I am going to mark my own homework. I will give myself four out of 10, because I have obviously not managed to convey the level of frustration that my teachers have been experiencing. The statistics are all fabulous and wonderful, but there is a reason why I am no good at maths, because they actually do not mean a lot to me. To me, they mean that there is a great effort on behalf of this Government to do the right thing from current underfunding, but the reality is that teachers on the ground face huge pressures, and we have got to look into this.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said that teachers are running on empty, and he is not alone. I did not refer to attainments in St Albans because I know that we do very well. However, as a former teacher, I recognise that there is value added that does not always show too well in attainment charts. Nevertheless, teachers have put in a lot of effort to bring pupils from a very low base up to a higher base, and we cannot just say that because pupils have been achieving, funding is therefore not needed. That is not the case. All schools and all teachers should have the resources they need. I will keep pressing on this issue, because this is something that we need to take forward collaboratively, because otherwise we would be letting down the children of the future. So I am sorry to say that I will put my dunce’s cap on and say that I could not persuade the Minister today.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order no. 10(6)).
Asylum Seekers: Right to Work
(6 years 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
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered asylum seekers’ right to work.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful that this debate has been granted. I am also grateful to those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken to me about this important issue and those who have been able to join us today.
Throughout my time as a Member of Parliament, my constituency has been a dispersal area for asylum seekers, so I have seen both models—allowing asylum seekers to work and not allowing them to do so—under Governments of different political persuasions. However, since 2002, regulations have slowly changed, and now most people seeking asylum are completely unable to work. Until 2002, people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom could apply for permission to work if they had been waiting six months or more for an initial decision on their asylum claim. In July 2002, that provision was withdrawn, except in exceptional cases.
In February 2005, there was a further change: a new immigration rule was introduced to allow people seeking asylum to apply for permission to work in the UK if they had been waiting over 12 months for an initial decision on their asylum claim. Most recently, in 2010, the right to work after 12 months was extended to those who had made further submissions on their claim. At the same time, however, the right to work was restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list, which is a restricted list that includes nuclear medical practitioners —or, in parlance that the rest of us might understand, radiographers—and classical ballet dancers.
The Home Office’s target for decisions on asylum cases is six months. In the most recent immigration statistics, released in the second quarter of this year, the number of main applicants waiting over six months for a decision on their asylum claim increased. For main applicants and dependents, 48% of people waiting for an initial decision had been waiting for over six months.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady’s constituency is next to mine, so I fully understand some of the problems that she is raising, and I agree that we need to have a good look at them. A large number of asylum seekers have some very good qualifications, but cannot get the right to work, and some of them have young families to take care of. That drives them into destitution, to say the least. The Home Office now has to look at the asylum process and speed it up but, more importantly, try to give those people work where they can.
Dame Caroline Spelman
The hon. Gentleman is indeed my next-door neighbour in the west midlands, where we have enjoyed an incredible economic boom since the downturn in 2008. A number of businesses are short of skilled labour, which is one of the things that has held our region back, yet asylum seekers waiting for an initial decision have the kind of skills that our industries so desperately need. As a west midlands MP, I find it difficult to ignore that fact.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the right hon. Lady for raising this important issue. The Government have been able to allocate some Syrian families to Newtownards, the major town of in my constituency. In conjunction with local community groups and local churches, we have come together to find those people accommodation and get their children into school, but also enable some access to English language classes, which will enable them to apply for jobs. With all the good will that clearly exists, with Government allocating asylum seekers locations to be housed in and the local community coming together to help, does the right hon. Lady feel that there is a need to do something with English language classes—not a voluntary group, which is the way it is being done in Newtownards, but something separate from Government? Those classes enable asylum seekers to get jobs.
Dame Caroline Spelman
As a linguist, the issue of English language learning for refugees and asylum seekers is close to my heart. If people cannot speak the language of the country that they are in, it is difficult for them to work there, so that learning is indispensable. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have had Syrian families dispersed to my constituency, and I was delighted to discover at a fringe meeting at Conservative party conference that one young Syrian lady had managed to get employment with Starbucks. A number of employers in this country go out of their way to provide job opportunities for asylum seekers, but he is absolutely right that being able to speak the language is a prerequisite.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful that the right hon. Lady has secured this important debate. In my surgeries, I have had a City banker who is now completely destitute, with no recourse to public funds, and somebody who works in the hospitality sector, at a time when we desperately need hospitality workers and care workers. Is it not right that these people should, first of all, be able to work, but that they should at least receive some resources to be able to feed their families?
Dame Caroline Spelman
As I will illustrate shortly with some case studies, being able to work transforms the situation of asylum seekers. It hugely helps their mental health, because they can integrate better, and they contribute to our economy, which is a positive for the host nation.
Waiting indefinitely for the determination of a claim can have serious effects on mental wellbeing. I have seen that all too often in my constituency, because it is a dispersal area. I have seen young men in particular who are very depressed and isolated, and even suicidal at times. I put myself in their shoes: if I had to live on £5.39 a day, struggling to support a family while feeling that my talents, my education, and everything I had learned was wasted, I would feel really down. Sadly, in those moments of isolation, I would be focused on the reasons I had left my country of origin, and some of the terrors that had caused me to flee my home. I have seen far too many asylum seekers in my surgery who have been depressed by their experience, and enabling them to work would, I think, be transformational.
On the positive side, I will share the experience of some of my constituents who managed to get work. I remember well a group of Iraqi Kurdish asylum seekers who managed to get work in a food factory. While it was not a particularly pleasant job, the men were happy. They were only earning the minimum wage, but even that filled them with pride. It meant that they were no longer completely reliant on the state, and while they were out working in that food factory they had a sense of community, both within their Kurdish community and the wider community working in that factory.
Another example from my constituency—one I am never going to forget—is the very long drawn-out battle that I had to solve the asylum claim of a lady from the Congo, who fled after her husband was executed in front of her. It took me eight years to solve that case, and not surprisingly, she was deeply depressed. Many was the weekend after my surgery when I lay awake at night, worrying about this woman and her very young child. You can imagine how I felt when I arrived at my surgery, opened the door, and saw this young woman with a smile from ear to ear and a little thank-you card for me, as her right to remain had been granted. Already, she was working as a care assistant in a local care home, contributing to our economy. I am never going to forget that as long as I live.
Even the opportunity to volunteer can break the cycle of depression and hopelessness. A gentleman called Godfrey arrived in the UK from Uganda and spent a considerable amount of time in the asylum system, and was not allowed to work. During that time he volunteered for several organisations, including the British Red Cross, and attended employability training with the support organisation Restore. In recent years, he has been employed, first in the care sector and then in housing support. His experiences in the asylum system have made him passionate about helping others who, in his view, are worse off than him. Inability to work, Godfrey argues, can lead to problems of isolation among people seeking asylum, including mental health issues, diabetes, blood pressure problems, stress, and the depression I have referred to. Worse, he has known friends forced into poverty and made vulnerable to abuse and manipulation, such as through gangs, prostitution and drug trafficking. There are countless human examples demonstrating the capacity of work to aid integration and promote good mental health among those seeking asylum. It is a good thing.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
On the right hon. Lady’s point about positive integration, is she encouraged by the poll that British Future did, which indicated that 71% of the British public support the right to work as a means towards integration?
Dame Caroline Spelman
I was just coming on to the more recent research showing changing social attitudes. I very much support the research by the Lift the Ban coalition, which suggests that the current system is wasteful as it fails to harness the skills and talents of often well-educated individuals. Some 94% of people seeking asylum want to work. Some 74% have secondary-level education or higher and 37% have a degree, which is comparable with the UK population, where 42% of people have a degree. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has also recognised the gap, saying that allowing asylum seekers in the UK greater access to the labour markets would not only increase individuals’ self-reliance but avoid the loss of skills. Abilities and skills need to be used if they are not to become rusty or obsolete.
Allowing asylum seekers to work could save public money as well as provide an economic boost. Lift the Ban estimates that if 50% of the people waiting six months for a decision on their initial asylum application were able to work full time on the national average wage, the Government would receive an extra £31.6 million a year from their tax and national insurance contributions. Moving them off subsistence support but retaining support for accommodation would save the public purse £10.8 million a year. The total net gain would be much as £42.4 million.
Among European countries, the UK prescribes the lengthiest restrictions before people seeking asylum are given the right to work. In that regard, we are something of an international outlier. In comparable countries, people are largely given the opportunity to support themselves sooner. For example, the USA, Spain and the Netherlands all allow work after six months, Germany and Switzerland allow work after three months, and Canada allows asylum seekers to work on day one. In the UK, however, asylum seekers must wait a minimum of 12 months before they are given the right to work. I ask the Government to review that.
There is an indication of a wider shift in public opinion, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) pointed out. There is a letter in today’s Daily Telegraph from 16 religious community leaders who have signed an open letter commending the efforts of Lift the Ban and calling for the right to work to be restored after asylum seekers have waited six months for a decision. As the hon. Gentleman said, polling undertaken this year shows that when asked, 71% of people agree with the following statement: “When people come to the UK seeking asylum it is important they integrate, learn English and get to know people. It would help integration if asylum seekers were allowed to work if their claim takes more than six months.”
Given public support for such a change and that in these times of near full employment we are short of workers in key areas, surely we can now look at asylum seekers’ right to work more holistically and in a way that better respects their human dignity. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for attending the debate today, and I look forward to hearing whether the Government will consider allowing people seeking asylum and their adult dependents the right to work, unconstrained by the shortage occupation list.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
I did wonder whether the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) was going to contribute. I am not sure whether she had indicated as such to you, Mr Betts.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
First, I want to apologise. I was not just at the Macmillan coffee morning; I was the host. I was giving a speech, and it was a very difficult one to cut short. I apologise. I will not take up the Minister’s time further.
Caroline Nokes
Thank you. That at least clears that up. I very much appreciate the words of wisdom I have heard on many occasions from the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who secured the debate. I absolutely recognise that the rights of asylum seekers and refugees are an important issue to them. It is a subject on which they have spoken many times in this House, with much knowledge and erudition.
This debate on access to work for those claiming asylum is important. We can see that, for a 30-minute debate, it has provoked a lot of interest from the House. Members may well want to intervene, and I will certainly be happy to take interventions, but I particularly want to thank the Lift the Ban coalition for its recent report, which was sent to me. It raised a number of important points.
Members will know that the UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it. This Government are committed to delivering a fair and humane asylum system. We are tackling the delays in decision making to ensure that most asylum seekers receive a decision within six months. In the year ending June 2018, we granted protection or other forms of leave to more than 14,000 people, and we are increasing integration support for all refugees to help them rebuild their lives here and realise their potential.
I am sure Members share my appreciation for the excellent work that all agencies do to help and protect these very vulnerable people, but our protection does not end there. All those claiming asylum are provided with accommodation and support to meet their essential living needs if they would otherwise be destitute. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised that issue. They are entitled to full access to healthcare and, for those under 18, access to full-time education. Those recognised as refugees, including those resettled here, have immediate and unrestricted access to work and other services that can support their integration.
As might be expected from a former Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions, I certainly recognise the importance of work when it comes to physical and mental wellbeing, building a wider sense of contribution to our society and community integration.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Minister knows that I have a lot of respect for her, but given that the Government rightly put a lot of emphasis on tackling loneliness—there are all sorts of strategies about that—surely she can understand that one way of tackling loneliness for asylum seekers would be allowing them to work.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and important point. When I was at the DWP, I was often to be found saying that work was good not only for people’s financial wellbeing, but for their emotional and physical wellbeing. We know that children will have better outcomes if their parents are in work.
I am oft to be heard talking about finding better routes into work for our refugee populations. I absolutely recognise that we have a great deal of work to do in that respect, because the employment outcomes for refugees are way below the general population, and way below where we would want them to be, notwithstanding the fact that we know that many people who come here, particularly under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, have specific challenges, which may be about long-term sickness or having large families or children with disabilities. We in this place and in this Chamber will all know that we have established many of our networks, relationships and friendships through our colleagues and through being at work. It is important that we find successful routes in.
I am referencing refugee communities in particular, but it is not lost on me that I receive many representations from right hon. and hon. Members, from the non-governmental organisation community and from individual asylum seekers whom I have had the opportunity and privilege to meet. They, too, would like the opportunity to be able to make a contribution and establish the same levels of networks and friendships that we all do through work.
I am listening carefully to the complex arguments about permitting asylum seekers to work, and I will of course consider further evidence that comes forward. As many Members will know, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden rehearsed, the Government’s current policy is to grant those seeking asylum in the UK permission to work where their claim, through no fault of their own, has not been decided after 12 months. Those allowed to work are limited to jobs on the shortage occupation list, which is based on expert advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. My right hon. Friend made her point absolutely perfectly by referring to ballet dancers.
The policy aims to protect the resident labour market and ensure that any employment meets our needs for skilled labour. Members will know that the shortage occupation list is currently under review. All asylum seekers can make a valuable contribution to their local communities by undertaking volunteering activities. My right hon. Friend referenced the event she hosted recently alongside Refugee Action. We heard about the experiences of a number of people who had been through the VPRS and the asylum system more generally. The point about language was made repeatedly.
I was most struck by a young lady who had come here on the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. She had been in the country for only six months and she used what I regarded as a terrible term, which I utterly reject, when she said, “When I came here, I was useless.” That really struck home because in no way was that young woman useless. Within six months she had got herself to such a level of English that she gave a word-perfect speech to a packed room at the Conservative party conference. That will not win many accolades from some Members here today, but conference is a tough gig. It is not always the easiest audience to speak to, but she did it beautifully. She said, “Six months ago I was useless, but now I am sitting here, working, and able to give a speech to you all.” It was hugely impressive. We also heard from a gentleman called Godfrey—the same gentleman my right hon. Friend referenced in her speech—who spoke at length about how volunteering had enabled him to feel that he was making an important contribution and given him back a sense of self-worth.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about how his community had wrapped its arms around Syrian families who had been resettled under VPRS. The work that we have done on community sponsorship, learnt from other countries such as Canada, has absolutely shown us that communities are willing to accept and welcome refugees into their midst. They are often best placed to help and are incredibly supportive, providing a network that enables refugees to make friends they can turn to for support in times of crisis. I might sound like a stuck record, but also provided are those all-important routes into work, which we all recognise are important.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. Hon. Members cannot intervene from the Front Bench.
Caroline Nokes
Oh. You have educated me, Mr Betts, but I will certainly be happy to take up any issues that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise with me outside the Chamber.
Our position is also comparable and consistent with the immigration rules for non-EEA nationals wishing to come here and work in the UK, but that approach could be undermined if non-EEA nationals were able to bypass the rules by lodging unfounded asylum claims. It is an unfortunate reality that some migrants make such claims to stay in the UK, and it is reasonable to assume that they do so because of the benefits, real or perceived, that they think they will gain.
Currently, around half of those who seek asylum in the UK are found not to need international protection. Allowing earlier or unrestricted access to work risks undermining our asylum system by encouraging unfounded claims from those seeking employment opportunities for which they might not otherwise be eligible.
Thangam Debbonaire
May I clarify something with the Minister? When she gives figures on those refused asylum, do they take into account the numbers who, having been refused initially, will subsequently be granted asylum on appeal? It is those cases that I am particularly concerned about.
Caroline Nokes
I believe that is taken into account. The hon. Lady makes an important point, because I am conscious that—I will probably say something about this later—for both original applications and appeals, the system takes far too long. We know that throughout the appeal system many people bring forward additional information that, had we had the opportunity to consider it in the first place, would have led to a case being granted at the first opportunity. I am firmly of the view that we need to continue to do more not simply to speed up the processes, but to make sure that the decisions made are the right decisions in the first place, and we need mechanisms whereby people can bring forward additional information throughout the process. Also, the headquarters in Bootle is trialling a system where we sit asylum decision makers with both junior barristers and presenting officers so that they can better understand and learn what type of case is most likely to be granted at appeal so that cases can be granted earlier. They have a much better opportunity to learn from each other and to make sure that the right decisions are made in the first place.
I recognise that there is a significant debate about the evidence to demonstrate that policy changes made by Government act as a pull factor. I am not pretending for one moment that migration choices are not complex, and I know that isolating the impact of individual policy changes is far from straightforward, but there is evidence that policies affect migrant behaviour. It is also reasonable to assume that economic incentive is at least one element in a range of factors that encourage people to choose to move to a particular destination after first reaching a safe country.
Paul Blomfield
I congratulate the Minister on what has been a thoughtful and helpful speech. Can she point us to the evidence about pull factors? The Home Office’s own work on this issue indicates that the right to work is not a pull factor.
Caroline Nokes
I can point to evidence from Germany, where a change in policy saw a significant increase in the numbers arriving. Interestingly—the hon. Gentleman might be fascinated by this—that was a point that I removed from my speech. I am conscious that we are concerned about pull factors. We do not want anybody making risky or perilous journeys with the aim of an economic goal, as opposed to fleeing from persecution, but of course we recognise that they can be in a position where they cannot make a choice and have to make such a journey. I felt that the message given by that chunk of my speech was too harsh. We have a fantastic reputation in this country for being a safe haven for those in need, and I really want to build on that. However, I want to build on it through schemes such as VPRS, Mandate and Gateway. Various hon. Members here have heard me speak previously about ambitions to turn them into far more holistic and comprehensive schemes instead of what strikes me as a piecemeal approach.
Caroline Nokes
I will give way, although I am conscious that I am running out of time.
Thangam Debbonaire
The Minister is being incredibly generous. On that point, I welcome her commitment to more holistic schemes. Does she therefore agree that if we want to prevent dangerous journeys, one of the best things we can do is honour the commitments we have made under the UN global compact on refugees and actually expand resettlement? Let us make it easier so that people do not feel forced to make dangerous journeys and let us encourage our allies and other countries to do the same.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady is right that we need a whole-route approach. We have to look to where we can build stronger alliances, but I am also very clear that we must make sure that refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. We know that in many cases that does not happen. We also know that in many cases—I referenced this earlier—refugees who have been granted status find it difficult to enter the job market, but that is for very understandable reasons. Rather than encourage further integration for those who might eventually not qualify for protection, our priority is focused on our efforts to support those who most need it.
We are taking action to support refugees to integrate and find employment as quickly as possible so that they can establish themselves and build lives here. The “Integrated Communities Strategy” Green Paper, published in March this year, underlined that commitment. It also set out the Government’s priorities to focus on English language, employment, mental health and cultural orientation. When I was in Jordan during the summer recess, I was struck by the work going on there on cultural orientation for people who were yet to be resettled. There were interesting and fascinating discussions in the session that I was able to be part of, but what really struck me was the importance of doing more on that front. In many cases people who are eligible and accepted for resettlement will wait many months before they make the journey here. We should not miss the opportunity to make sure that their cultural orientation and language preparation is as good as it can be. The Syrian refugees who had some level of English were really keen to use it, practise it and have conversations, whereas others in the group clearly felt much more isolated because they did not have that opportunity.
We will publish our response to the consultation later this autumn. There is a great deal more to be said about integration and training and employment. One of my first visits as a Minister was to Bradford, where I visited the specialist training and employment programme, which was all about moving refugees into work and helping them build a CV, improve their English and then find the great employment opportunities that we know are out there, with companies such as Ben & Jerry’s, with its ice academy, and Starbucks. Indeed, the STEP—skills, training and employment pathways—programme was working very closely with Tesco.
I have very few moments left, but I want to reassure Members that I am listening carefully to the argument. There is much merit in it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has certainly conveyed her views extremely clearly and well. The issue is multifaceted and complex. I look forward to further discussions with Members and NGO colleagues. I remain receptive to the views and evidence presented to me on the right to work. However, it is important that we recognise that there is a balance to be struck and that we make sure we make the right decisions.
Question put and agreed to.
Poverty in Liverpool
(6 years 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
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered poverty in Liverpool.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am pleased to be joined by my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Liverpool. Together we will speak up for the communities of our great city and bear witness to the terrible realities for too many of poverty in Liverpool. I know that sadly we will hear some heartbreaking stories of avoidable deprivation, unfair disadvantage and incredible resilience in the face of some insurmountable odds. I hope that the Minister will listen closely and pass on what he hears to his ministerial colleagues, not least because Monday’s Budget will afford his Government an opportunity to put some things right.
I am very proud to call Liverpool my home. It is a vibrant, proud, creative and dynamic city. We are celebrating the 10th anniversary of Liverpool being the European capital of culture. Just last month the Giants came to Liverpool, attracting more than 1.3 million people from around the world to our streets. When we talk about poverty in Liverpool, we are talking about poverty in a hard-working, proud and resilient city. It is a global city that takes knocks and bounces with a smile and a joke. The ancestors of the people of Liverpool sailed the oceans to New York and Sydney and back again. They fled famine, and forged new lives on Liverpool’s streets. They are the people—many still with us—who kept the docks working as bombs fell all around them, and ensured that Britain did not starve.
How dare some people do Liverpool down? I reflect on the comments—I have made him aware that I would mention him—of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who has accused the city of wallowing in victim status, and of having
“an excessive predilection for welfarism”.
Let me be clear that Liverpool’s people are not victims. Liverpool does not want welfare, and it certainly does not want charity. Liverpool wants jobs, homes, skills, investments and opportunities—and the people of Liverpool will do the rest. As the right hon. Gentleman’s great hero Winston Churchill once said:
“Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.”
Liverpool’s strength is its people: the entrepreneurs, writers, artists, actors, poets, musicians, designers, restaurateurs, architects and filmmakers who have carved out a place in world history, and our teachers, shop workers, careworkers, street cleaners, bus drivers and so many more whose hard work and grit give the city its beating heart and soul. However, Liverpool is also a city mired in poverty, which saps the ambitions of our young, mars the autumn days of the elderly, denies opportunities, and can fray the fabric of our city.
A couple who bought a house in the Picton ward of my constituency wrote to me just the other month, saying that they had witnessed something horrible. They wrote:
“'As we walked up the street, I saw two boys who must have been around 10 years old. They were opening people’s bins and seeing what they could find.”
The couple approached the children—it was 11 o’clock at night—and discovered that they had collected a discarded hoody and some half-empty bottles, including shampoo and shower gel. The couple wrote:
“This is not the Liverpool we know and has left us angry, outraged and very upset.”
Those constituents of mine have a right to be angry. We should all be angry. Let me not mince my words, because poverty kills. Infant mortality is a key indicator of poverty in our country. In 2014, across England and Wales the death rate of babies under the age of one was six in every 1,000 births. In Liverpool, the figure was nine in every 1,000 births—50% higher. In Liverpool, the avoidable death rate from diseases such as cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease and diabetes is 326 people in 100,000; in the Chilterns, it is 138 per 100,000. Life expectancy is 10.1 years lower for men and 8.1 years lower for women in the most deprived areas of Liverpool compared with some of the least deprived.
Let me briefly set out some city-wide context. I am grateful to the always excellent Commons Library, and Liverpool City Council’s policy team, for collating some of the facts that I will present. Liverpool is the fourth most deprived local authority in our country. Alongside Middlesbrough and Manchester, Liverpool is ranked joint most fuel poverty deprived local authority in England—that refers to people being unable to afford to keep their homes adequately heated, which is particularly relevant as we embark on the winter months.
Since 2012, Trussell Trust food banks in the city have fed 108,635 people, 36% of them children. Last year alone, more than 6,700 children had to rely on the generosity of our city’s food banks, and in the same period Liverpool City Council has made more than 13,000 crisis payments to help people with the cost of food, fuel and clothing. That was a 6% increase on the previous year. In fact, the council spends £23 million a year dealing with a range of issues surrounding poverty and homelessness to try to prevent that poverty from turning into destitution.
Despite those enormous efforts, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that Liverpool was second in the city rankings on destitution. Let us be clear about what we mean when we talk about destitution, because it is the most extreme form of poverty. It means someone sleeping rough for more than a day, not eating properly for two days, being unable to heat or light their home for five days, going without proper clothes or toiletries, or receiving an income so low that those basic essentials will stay out of reach. That is the reality for too many. Sustained low income coupled with a financial shock were the most significant triggers for a plunge into destitution, against a backdrop of benefit, health and debt issues.
Liverpool was the first council in the country to carry out an assessment of the combined impact of the Government’s changes to various welfare policies. It found that 3,400 households across the city with a long-term sick or disabled resident have been hit by the bedroom tax. It found that families with children have been hit the hardest by the combination of a freeze in child benefit, reductions in housing benefit rates in the private sector, the introduction of the bedroom tax, and the benefit cap—policies introduced by the coalition Government and continued under the current Administration. It found that young people aged 16 to 29 account for one in three applications for council emergency payments, that single private tenants aged 25 to 35 have seen a cut of around £34 a week in their housing benefit, and that women in our city account for 60% of those affected by a cut in council tax support, and 65% of those hit by the bedroom tax.
By 2020, £444 million will have been slashed from our council’s central Government support since 2010. When adjusted for inflation, that equates to a cut of 64% of the council’s overall budget over the last decade. Of course, times have been tough everywhere. Can we be accused of special pleading, or parading our poverty? No. Government policies have created more need, while at the same time Government cuts have made it harder to meet those needs. The Government have changed the funding formulae that once helped to support the most deprived cities such as Liverpool with historically high rates of poverty and low council tax bases.
Central Government support has been slashed and councils such as Liverpool have been told to make up the difference from business rates and council tax payers. However, we are unable to replace that funding with higher demands on our hard-pressed council tax payers and businesses, because such a high proportion of our properties are in the lowest band: council tax band A. In fact, council tax across the city raises just 11% of the council’s annual spending on its vital services. If Liverpool had experienced the average cut for local authorities across the country from 2010 to 2020, our city would be more than £70 million better off. Instead, it is having to deliver services with 3,000 fewer staff.
According to End Child Poverty’s analysis, 32,000 children are growing up in poverty across our city. In my constituency alone, 6,129 children—one in three—live in poverty. In one ward, Picton, more than half of children are growing up in poverty, while in nearby Kensington and Fairfield ward the figure is 45%. Figures from the Children’s Society show that approximately 3,300 children in my constituency live in families who experience problem debt; I do not need to tell the Minister all the pressures and challenges that come with that. Across Liverpool, more than 17,000 children receive free school meals, and there are continuing concerns that during school holidays too many of them are going hungry.
I congratulate Liverpool City Council on ensuring that all our children’s centres have stayed open despite Government cuts. Picton and Kensington children’s centre has been working with the Granby Toxteth Development Trust to provide meals during the school holidays. It says:
“We are dealing with huge issues of food poverty, and as of September we have also built in after school play sessions with a meal included to tackle this.”
I anticipate that hon. Friends will want to talk in more detail about how our amazing football fans are collecting every week for their city’s food banks. They do not just sing “You’ll Never Walk Alone”; they prove it with their generosity—and not just the Reds, but the Blues, too.
Not long after I was elected in 2012, I became the first Member to secure a debate about the food banks popping up across the country to patch the holes that the coalition Government’s decimating policies had created in the safety net for those most in need. But let us pause for a moment and ask: why, in 2018, in one of the richest countries in the world, do we have food banks at all? Why have more than a million people had to access emergency food aid on their own or their family’s behalf in the past 12 months? That is an incredibly sorry state of affairs and we should all be ashamed of it.
Food banks stand as a testament to the generosity and decency of everyone across our country, but the citizens of Liverpool in particular. Like many hon. Friends, I have joined the biannual food collection co-ordinated by the Trussell Trust in local supermarkets. At a recent collection in Tesco, I was told that the people of Liverpool have been the most generous donors in the country. Whenever I have been involved in food collections, I have been struck by how many people stop and say, “This could be me one day—I know that I am just one weekly or monthly pay cheque away from being in that situation.” It takes just one financial shock to affect a household’s income, because so many are living literally from month to month.
Food banks also stand witness to the fact that Ministers are losing sight of their responsibility to protect the welfare of citizens in our country. Kensington and Fairfield ward in my constituency had the largest Trussell Trust food voucher count this year. In just two wards—Kensington and Fairfield, and Picton—more than 2,700 adults have been fed by food banks in the past year. Issuing food bank vouchers during my constituency surgeries and via my caseworker is a regular occurrence.
I am grateful to the Liverpool Echo for its campaigning work on poverty. An article quotes one of my local food bank volunteers, Kathleen Quayle:
“The foodbank gets busier as the weather changes. From about October, when it gets colder, people are having to choose between heating and food. A lot of the people who come are ill and hungry. They’re exhausted…You can see it in their faces and that’s a travesty in a society like ours.”
I echo that sentiment. I have made several food bank visits, and I am sure that my hon. Friends will talk about similar experiences. It is just appalling to bear witness to people having to rely on emergency food aid, through no fault of their own.
We face the spectre of universal credit arriving in Liverpool this autumn. Just this weekend, the Liverpool Echo published a story about “James”, who is originally from my constituency and now lives in another part of the city. He lost his job and was put on universal credit. He is just 31, but his experience was so traumatising that he considered suicide and his wife turned to sex work to bring some income into the family. With no money for three months and all their possessions sold, they were up to their eyes in short-term high-interest loans and left destitute and abandoned by our Government. That is happening now, not just in Liverpool but in other cities. It is absolutely appalling.
Maggie O’Carroll, who leads our local enterprise hub, says that more than 425 businesses have been established by unemployed people and nurtured through the hub since 2016. As I said, ours is a city of creative and determined people, but Maggie warns:
“Universal Credit poses a very real barrier to those who depend on benefits and wish to become self-employed to launch their own start-up business.”
I ask the Minister to respond to that point in particular, because it has so many implications that have not been addressed.
Just last month, Liverpool City Council published its own forensic analysis, “Universal Credit: Unintended Consequences”, which should be in every Minister’s red box. It shows that it is the poorest, sickest and most disabled people—who are living in the city’s most deprived wards and have already been hit hardest by the bedroom tax, failed personal independence payment assessments and housing benefit changes—who will suffer most from the dangerously out-of-control roll-out of universal credit. Debbie Nolan, health programme manager at Liverpool Citizens Advice, says:
“Payment delays and high rates of deductions once UC is in place will cause unprecedented hardship for the most vulnerable”.
To those who are looking for work, it is unfathomable that in the past year the Government have closed jobcentres across our city. In my constituency, Edge Hill and Wavertree jobcentres have both closed, which follows the closure of Old Swan jobcentre in 2012. More than 3,000 people in Liverpool, Wavertree are being denied the local help that they need to find work. I have highlighted in debates and campaigns the distances that my constituents have to travel—another barrier that makes it even more challenging for them to get on with finding work—but it has fallen on deaf ears.
Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that nationally, from May 2017 to April 2018, 359,000 universal credit claimants were referred for sanction decisions, of which 71% related to attending or participating in work-focused interviews. Looking at the jobcentre closures in my constituency, it is not hard to understand why so many people have been affected. I am already hearing from single parents who want to get to their jobcentre but cannot afford the bus because they have not been given their payments. They are having to walk for miles, and they cannot get childcare. I have raised those very real challenges with the Government but they have not been addressed. The latest statistics show that 5% of universal credit sanctions lasted for 27 weeks—more than half a year—with no access to support. That is not acceptable.
Increasing numbers of people are homeless on our streets in Liverpool, despite our council spending £12 million to alleviate the worst distress. That situation is replicated in other cities, including here in the capital. Other constituents of mine have found themselves shut out of work after episodes of ill health because our NHS regularly misses its targets for cancer and other treatment. Families are giving up work to look after elderly parents because our social services cannot afford to provide support. Parents are losing work to look after children who are too ill to go to school, but have been told that they are not ill enough to meet the rising thresholds for mental health and social services.
For example, there is the case of Ms M, a single parent of a young son with autism, who is working three days a week and was making use of 30 hours’ free childcare, only to have it withdrawn because she got lost in a bureaucratic maze. She was trying to do the right thing, but is now facing the risk of having to give up work. Where is the humanity? Where, indeed, is the cold, hard economic realisation that failing to properly and flexibly support people such as Ms M and her son to stay out of poverty raises costs for everyone?
What needs to be done? When the Chancellor delivers the Budget he needs to restore funds to our council and recommit to future Budget allocations that reflect the depth of deprivation experienced by cities such as Liverpool. Today, Liverpool City Council is forced to spend money that it should be investing in the future on patching up the holes in the Government’s botched welfare reforms, including £3.5 million on protecting 42,000 people from the full impact of Government reductions in council tax support and £2.7 million on more than 13,000 crisis payments to help people with the cost of food, fuel, clothing and furniture. A total of £9.2 million has been provided since dedicated Government funding was withdrawn.
Secondly, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must invest in Liverpool and its people. I anticipate that the Minister will tell us today that employment is up but will not mention how precarious much of that employment in our city is, thanks to the widespread and increased use of zero and low-hours contracts. He will not mention that unemployment rates across Liverpool are consistently above the national average and wages below the national average. The median household income for Liverpool is £20,373, which is nearly £11,000 below the UK median of £31,310.
We need a proper industrial strategy, including a regional investment bank, real apprenticeships and lifelong skills training to grow jobs, grow incomes and let our people grow tall. We need to devolve real economic powers to the city region. Liverpool City Region Mayor, Steve Rotheram, has made a great start in bringing our communities together, but now the Government need to get behind his and the combined authority’s efforts to transform our regional economy.
Those of us who call Liverpool home are proud of our city, but we are shamed by its poverty. We are not looking for a handout or even a hand-up. We want a fair deal to allow us to be in charge of our own destinies. Instead, the Government are largely responsible for the poverty of too many of my constituents.
The Prime Minister told us in her conference speech the other week that austerity is over. Ministers need to set out what that will mean for the people in Liverpool. They need to acknowledge the challenge that we face, do everything possible to apologise for it but also, most importantly, help us to do everything possible to turn it around.
Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on securing the debate and on her excellent and graphic description of the reality of poverty in Liverpool for far too many people.
There is no doubt that the city of Liverpool has been transformed since the days when Margaret Thatcher’s Government planned what they called its managed decline, thanks to sustained investment by the European Union over nearly 30 years, at a time when Liverpool was abandoned by central Government. It has also been helped by support from the UK Government since 1997.
Liverpool, Riverside includes a thriving city centre, the iconic waterfront and world-class universities. It is a top tourist spot and the cruise liners have returned, yet too many people in local neighbourhoods struggle with poverty, which means struggling for their day-to-day existence. As my hon. Friend said, Liverpool is the fourth most deprived local authority in the United Kingdom. Three wards in Liverpool, Riverside—Kirkdale, Princes Park and Riverside—contain some of the poorest areas in the whole country.
There are two shameful statistics that epitomise some of the problems of poverty and deprivation experienced by people in Riverside. Only 67% of 16 to 24-year-olds are economically active—regarded fit and able for work—compared with 78% nationally. Such depths of deprivation are sometimes caused by ill health or long-term problems that people experience where the economic base is in fact very low. The second figure is that 40% of children in Liverpool, Riverside—6,500 young people—suffer poverty. That is a shameful figure. Many of those children are in working families. Those are just some indicators of the depths of poverty in some communities in Liverpool, Riverside, despite the great successes of the city of Liverpool and its positive developments over the last 20 years or so. What should be done to address this?
First, we must stop the cuts and fund public services. We must recognise the importance of the public sector, specifically local government and the national health service. Liverpool City Council provides a lifeline to people in need, as well as providing support to local communities and showing civic leadership for the whole city. There should be no more cuts to Liverpool City Council. It is vital that education and social care are funded properly, both to deal with immediate need and to equip young people with the abilities and the confidence to look forward to a more positive future.
Only yesterday in this House, I met young people leaving care who were very concerned about the lack of support given on leaving the care system and moving into adulthood. They were very positive young people who very firmly wanted to be successful citizens, but they were very concerned. That lack of support is not being addressed as local authorities face cut after cut. Liverpool City Council has already lost at least 50% of its central Government grant. As local government looks ahead to the planned removal of all central Government funding, it is staring into the financial abyss.
Secondly, the Government must stop the planned roll-out of universal credit in Liverpool. Without major alterations, it will simply cause more poverty. According to the Resolution Foundation, 3.2 million working families nationally will lose £48 per week on universal credit. We have already heard about the problems of people being forced to go to food banks to eat and the stress, as well as loss of income, that people on universal credit are forced to experience. I say very clearly to the Government that they should stop the planned roll-out of universal credit in Liverpool, Riverside. There are reports that it might be about to happen, and we deserve to know exactly what the position is.
We are often told that the route out of poverty is through people getting a job. Where that is possible, I certainly agree, but there are many people who are genuinely too ill to work and that has to be recognised. For many people, getting a job is the way out of poverty and I support that, which also means that I support investment in the local economy. Regional strategies are vital. There are opportunities for jobs in Liverpool’s key sectors, such as biotech, vehicle manufacturing, the creative arts—including the excellent Baltic Creative—the maritime sector and others, but there have to be specific initiatives that look at what is happening within local communities as well and help people to move from unemployment into work. Above all, there has to be the right level, type and quality of education and skills training for people to enable them to take up those new jobs. That means no more cuts to the City of Liverpool College, which is a vital provider of skills training and further education. As responsibility for skills training is transferred from central Government to Metro Mayor Steve Rotherham under the devolution agreement, it is very important that funding is not lost. Specifically, it is important that the millions of pounds of European Union funding that now go into skills training in Liverpool do not disappear. I ask the Minister for a specific assurance that that is being considered, because it is very important for the future.
I cannot end without mentioning the threats that withdrawal from the European Union will pose to employment and wellbeing in Liverpool. There is a threat to the economy as a whole, which means a threat to jobs and to public funds and finances, estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be as high as £80 billion in the event of no deal. With reduced public funds, there will be less money to pay for education, social services, policing and the whole range of other vital services provided by the public sector.
I conclude by restating that Liverpool has outstanding strengths—its people are perhaps its greatest strength—and has made great strides in recent years. It has recovered from being a place that was described as a “wasteland”, when people were leaving the city—all that is well in the past. It is now a positive, creative force, and more people are coming to Liverpool. It is a place for the future, but the lives of too many people are blighted by poverty. It is indeed time to stop the cuts in public services and to support local communities.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on securing the debate. She will see from the turnout that we are glad that she secured it and that we are keen to support her. I also congratulate her on the way she set out our basic concerns as representatives in this place of the great city of Liverpool.
The Prime Minister said something very important to her party conference: she said that austerity is over. I always like to listen to what Prime Ministers say at their party conference—it is always a very important speech. We will have the chance soon to judge the political coherence of this Conservative Government and how worthwhile or otherwise were the Prime Minister’s words at her party conference, because next week we will see whether the Chancellor acts on the declaration that austerity has ended. I can certainly say that at this time in Liverpool it does not feel like austerity has ended. If it is over, we in Liverpool will expect the Budget to deliver real relief for those in the city who are in poverty and hardship. We will expect the incomes of the poorest to improve as a direct result of the Budget measures that we will see from the Chancellor next week.
Many people in Liverpool really need the Chancellor to deliver on the Prime Minister’s promise to end austerity. Some of them are the most vulnerable people in our society—people who need the most support and who have endured eight long years of that support and their income being systemically removed and reduced by measure after measure from Governments that, from their perspective, do not seem to care about their lives or wellbeing.
I have said before that the use of food banks is an indication of a major crisis and desperation, often amounting to destitution. People do not go to food banks for fun; food banks are an indication of crisis. People are reluctant to go to food banks because they think it is humiliating and an indication of a personal failure to feed their families or to be able to live. No matter how compassionate and helpful the volunteers and staff who distribute food at those distribution points are, it does not take away the humiliation and pain felt by those who have to resort to food banks. Many of my constituents who have been in such a position have made that very clear when I have talked to them about it.
Last year the scale of the food crisis increased, as could be seen at the south Liverpool food bank and at the Knowsley food bank, which covers the Halewood part of my constituency. It is possible to extrapolate from those two centres’ figures that, just in my constituency, in 2017-18, 3,933 people were given emergency food packages to enable them to feed themselves and their families. Some 1,457 of those helped were children—the figure increased from the previous year, which itself had increased from the figure for the year before, which had increased from the year before that. There have been increases for many years.
Last year, there was an 8% rise in the number of vouchers presented at the south Liverpool food bank and at distribution points in the Liverpool part of my constituency. In the Halewood part of Knowsley, which is in my constituency, the number of people who were helped increased by more than 20%. The number of children who were helped was up by more than 50%. In my constituency alone, more people were helped in one year than were helped by food banks in the whole of the UK in 2005. That is the reality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree was correct to make it clear in her remarks that this should not be something that we accept as inevitable. There is nothing inevitable about having to use a food bank. It could be fixed by ensuring that people who are currently in that position have the income to look after themselves. I should make it clear that other, non-food bank, help is available in my constituency, but is not counted in the figures that I just set out. It includes organisations such as Can Cook, a charity based in Garston that provides free, freshly cooked meals to those in food poverty who need help. Although it ranges much more widely than Garston and Halewood, last year Can Cook provided 18,000 free, fresh meals to hungry people in the Liverpool city region, some of them in my constituency.
Things are worse than the Trussell Trust figures imply; the scale of the need is greater. The experience in my constituency is that the need for emergency food help, including food bank use, is increasing, and that the poverty that it represents is deepening. In a parliamentary answer to my question this week, the Government have yet again refused to take any action to begin to collect official statistics about the causes of such an increase in dependency on food banks, suggesting only that they will review existing sources of information to fill data gaps.
In my view, that is just not good enough. The Government seem to not want to know the truth, and so they do not bother to do research or collect statistics. I have been asking them for years to do that. I can tell the Minister what the main causes of food bank use are in my constituency: in the south Liverpool food bank, 49% of those who were helped said that the main cause of their food crisis was delays in the payment of benefits to which they are entitled, or changes to their benefits. Some 32% said the main reason was low income because of low wages, underemployment and not working enough hours to make ends meet at the end of the week or month. In Halewood, the figure for benefit delays and changes was also 49%, while the figure for low pay and lack of hours was lower, at 19%. Those figures are not untypical of Trussell Trust food banks around the country. When Ministers tell me, as they did in a recent parliamentary answer, that
“People use food banks for many reasons, and it would be misleading to link them to any single cause,”
they do not want to accept that the main causes of this increasing food crisis include their administration of the social security system and their austerity cuts to our safety net.
Things are about to get worse. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) spoke about the roll-out of universal credit in Liverpool, which is beginning to happen. The Trussell Trust tells us that where universal credit goes live, there is an average 52% increase in food bank use over the following year, compared with a 13% increase in the areas where universal credit has been operational for three months or less. The increase is there even after accounting for seasonal and other variations. In my constituency, only 13% of the households who are to be placed on universal credit have yet been put on to it, only 10% of the children who will be in households on universal credit have yet been affected, and only 2% of the households on sickness or incapacity benefits have yet been placed in that position. That amounts to a looming tsunami of further hardship, misery, poverty and hunger that the Government are about to unleash on some of the poorest and most vulnerable of my constituents. Like my hon. Friend, I urge the Government to stop and not to roll out universal credit in my constituency. I can tell the Minister now that it will cause more poverty, hardship and desperation if they press on as they have told us they will.
Riverside, a registered social landlord that covers my constituency, has been surveying some of its tenants about the impact of universal credit roll-out. It says that 7% of its tenants are on universal credit, but that their rent arrears amount to 18% of the rental debt owed. Average arrears for universal credit tenants are £600, compared with £218 for households not on universal credit. That is yet more evidence that Government policy is imposing hardship and poverty on some of my poorest constituents through their social security policy. Universal credit roll-out creates more debt and hardship and an inability to meet the basic expenses of living. That is clear from the experience of some of my constituents, who have come to be on universal credit ahead of the roll-out. I have given examples before in this Chamber and in the main Chamber—egregious examples of real hardship and pain caused by universal credit, administrative failures and by other problems with the benefit.
The Church of England and Children’s Society’s recent report “Not making ends meet” highlighted that poverty is not being caused by universal credit alone, and I agree. The lowering of the benefit cap, restrictions on help with housing costs and sustained low income, including in-work poverty, are also increasing problems. I sometimes wonder whether Ministers understand the degree to which multiple changes to benefits, with cuts that were planned and announced years ago but are only now being implemented, and loss of support from other sources, such as the local authority, can affect already vulnerable and poor individuals and families, for whom one more blow might be the final straw. Indeed, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report “Destitution in the UK 2018” made that point. It estimated that in 2017, across our nation, 1.5 million people were deemed to be destitute—unable to access the bare essentials to eat, stay warm and dry and keep clean. Food, clothing and heating were the most common essentials that people were without. Such destitution was found to be clustered in London and northern cities such as Liverpool, with Liverpool second only after Manchester in exhibiting the worst rates. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree also made reference to that study.
Since 2010, Liverpool has had the highest level of cuts in local authority funding. By 2020-21, almost 68% of its money will have been removed by central Government. That is £444 million-worth of cuts, despite increasing demand for the help that the city council provides for its poorer citizens. It provides a lot of help beyond the amount of money it is given by the Government to provide such help. The Liverpool citizens support scheme has seen a 5.7% increase in awards, mainly due to increasing demands for urgent needs awards. The main reasons cited were that the individual was waiting to receive a state benefit or had no funds due to an unforeseen crisis. Universal credit roll-out will increase the need hugely. I know from my own case load that if not for the Liverpool citizens support scheme, many of my constituents would have had nowhere to turn.
Similarly, discretionary housing payments have increased by 35%, and the city has to put more money in than it is given by the Government to support that. The Mayor of Liverpool tops up the money because he is unwilling to let vulnerable people go without help and have nowhere to turn and become homeless, thus imposing an even higher financial burden on the state. Universal credit roll-out could push the resources and schemes beyond the Mayor’s capacity to continue to fund them effectively. Unless we see significant measures in the Budget to alleviate poverty in Liverpool and really end austerity, the trends we are discussing will worsen. We will judge the Prime Minister’s rhetoric about ending austerity by the impact of the Chancellor’s Budget next week on the lives of our most vulnerable and poorest constituents.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on securing the debate. Earlier this year I led a debate here in Westminster Hall on food poverty across Merseyside. I will start today as I did then by saying that this is a debate that we simply should not be having in a wealthy country in 2018.
Liverpool City Council, as we have already heard, faces the near-impossible challenge that when services are needed most they have fewer and fewer resources to respond. I join colleagues in praising the Mayor and the city council for their efforts to mitigate the impact of central Government policy. The citizens support scheme to help the most vulnerable in Liverpool during a short-term crisis has provided a lifeline for some of the most disadvantaged citizens, following the coalition Government’s scrapping of the social fund. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said in her opening speech, last year more than 13,000 crisis payments were made from the fund, which is a 6% increase on the previous year. It has provided a lifeline for some of my most vulnerable constituents.
Earlier this year a family of four in my constituency were served with a section 21 notice when their landlord decided to sell the property, forcing the family to look for another privately rented property, but they were not in a position to pay the one month’s rent and deposit up front. My constituents are both in work, but in low-paid jobs, so they lacked the means to provide the payment. As they faced the threat of homelessness, I referred the family to the mayoral hardship fund, and a contribution towards their deposit and rent was provided.
Another constituent was recently forced to move properties because of the bedroom tax. His personal independence payment had been stopped, so he had no available funds to purchase furniture for his new home. We referred him to the mayoral hardship fund, and funds were provided to enable him to furnish his new home.
A week before Christmas last year, a young mum contacted me, having recently been transferred on to universal credit. She was not due to receive her first payment until 11 January and her gas and electricity were due to run out that evening, just before Christmas at the height of winter. In the face of that dire threat, the local authority stepped in and, through the citizens support scheme, she was provided with a three-week award of almost £300, energy vouchers and a PayPoint cash voucher of £170.
A review of the scheme presented to the council’s cabinet in May this year set out a very stark warning, stating that the scheme
“cannot mitigate the multiple impacts of the government’s programme”.
The same report also warned that more people face greater hardship once the full raft of changes to the benefits system begins to bite, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) has said. Of course, as we know, disabled people often bear the brunt of such changes.
Last month Liverpool City Council published an excellent report, “Universal Credit: Unintended Consequences”. Its key findings were that universal credit risks forcing households into debt, increasing severe poverty and leaving too many people, including children, facing food insecurity, destitution and eviction. The report brought together community leaders, civic figures and politicians across the city to urge the Government, as I join my colleagues in doing today, to rethink the roll-out of universal credit before it is too late.
That call is echoed by people at the north Liverpool food bank. They told me:
“We don’t want to be feeding people emergency food, so we need to fix the system that lands people there in the first place.”
The food bank’s modest suggestion—I would go further—was that the current north Liverpool roll-out date of 5 December should at the very least be moved to new year, to avoid the Christmas period, so that claimants do not have to wait weeks for their benefits before Christmas. I urge the Minister, as a bare minimum, to give a commitment today at least to consider that proposal, which might give some reassurance and comfort to some of the most vulnerable families in Liverpool in the run-up to Christmas.
As has been said, the main reason people are referred to food banks in Liverpool is benefit delays and changes. The Trussell Trust has repeatedly warned that changes to benefits are forcing people to turn to food banks. One in three working-age social housing tenants in Liverpool who receive housing benefit has been affected by the bedroom tax, and there is no doubt that that has pushed many into hardship. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said, the city council last year undertook a cumulative impact assessment of more than 20 major changes made to working-age benefits since 2010. I urge the Government to work with Liverpool City Council and other local authorities to ensure that we have the most up-to-date information about the appalling cumulative impact of welfare reforms, including universal credit.
The other reason for people being referred increasingly to food banks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said, is low income. Yes, unemployment has fallen, but in my constituency and the rest of Liverpool it is consistently above the national average, and for many people who are in work, that work does not pay enough for them to get by. Much of the increase in employment is insecure and low paid.
I have seen at first hand the fantastic work that food banks do in my constituency, and I pay tribute to their selfless and dedicated volunteers. In the year up to last month, the north Liverpool food bank provided food to more than 3,000 of my constituents, including almost 1,300 children. That represented a 10% increase on the previous year. Once a month I volunteer at the north Liverpool food bank at St John’s church in Tuebrook in my constituency. I was there last Saturday. In September we helped 137 people. While I was there I talked about the debate we are having today, and we discussed issues I might raise. The two main points that came out of the discussion, including with the vicar, were the increase in use during the several years that the food bank has been at St John’s, and the change in the profile of the people who come to it. There are still many single people—mostly men—but increasingly there are families with children. Some are people in low-paid work, and some are waiting for benefits.
I also want to pay tribute to a food bank in another part of my constituency. At Dovecot food bank there is concern about the unseen numbers of people not receiving the support they might need. The food bank has been working with local schools to identify vulnerable families and ensure that support is available to them. One of the most disturbing trends that is identified is having to serve food to hungry children because their families cannot afford to feed them. Most schoolchildren in Liverpool are enjoying the half-term holiday this week, but for many low-income families school holidays represent financial stress, hunger and even malnourishment, because of the absence of free school meals. Croxteth Gems was originally set up to provide play and youth services, but increasingly over the past few years the people there have been serving food to hungry children because their families cannot afford to feed them. During the school holidays, Croxteth Gems hosts a play scheme, including a free breakfast and lunch for the children. Sometimes they serve food to almost 100 hungry local children.
The charity Feeding Britain, set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), has established local pilot areas for programmes that provide free meals and activities for children during school holidays. Earlier this year the Government provided £2 million of funding for families to benefit from free healthy meals and activities in the summer holidays. That meant that organisations such as Feeding Britain could reach many more families. It was welcome, but it was a modest step in the right direction. I take the opportunity today to urge the Government to increase the funding provided to those programmes, so that no children should go hungry in the holidays—particularly the long summer holidays—simply because they do not have access to free school meals.
I want to say something about education, and will echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) said. More than 32,000 children in Liverpool are growing up in poverty. Education has a central role to play if we are to achieve a fairer society with less inequality and tackle poverty. Like my colleagues, I pay tribute to the city council for keeping children’s centres open despite austerity. Good-quality early education has a big impact on children’s development.
An area of controversy at the moment is the Government’s potential plans for nursery schools. There are two fantastic nursery schools in my constituency—Ellergreen and East Prescot Road. Both were judged outstanding by Ofsted, but at both there is concern about long-term funding. I know that the Minister responding to the debate is not an Education Minister, but I seek assurances from the Department for Education that the concerns of nursery schools in Liverpool and across the country are being listened to. Those schools equip children, often in some of the most deprived neighbourhoods, with the education and skills they need to have the best chance later in life.
Schools need to know that they have reliable funding so that they can offer the best quality education. There is concern in Liverpool, as there is in many parts of the country, that once the national funding formula is adopted it could disadvantage schools in our city. I implore the Government to ensure that such factors as deprivation, pupil mobility and prior attainment are at the heart of the national funding formula.
Finally, on further education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside said, equipping young people aged 16—and adults—with the skills they need is vital. Last week there was a Love our Colleges campaign lobby of Parliament. I met the principal of Myerscough College, who told me about the great work it is doing, and that it faces tough financial circumstances. Investment in FE would make a big difference in tackling poverty in Liverpool. I hope that the Minister can take that message back to his colleagues at the Department for Education.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on her excellent speech; she set out everything that the city faces, from cuts to local authorities, the hostile environment on benefits and the personal experiences that we come across in our surgeries every week, as well as the evidence in report after report. The Government seem determined to turn a blind eye to those reports and doubt their veracity, and I find it shocking when the Minister shakes his head, when we see such experiences every day.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
I was not shaking my head.
Dan Carden
You were during my hon. Friend’s speech. The experiences I am talking about are things we see every day in Liverpool.
I was elected for the first time last year, to represent a Liverpool constituency, and it is an incredible privilege. When I am asked what the biggest issue facing my constituency is, I say poverty—and it is, because that is the critical issue affecting people, in their long-term health, educational outcomes, job opportunities, living standards and mental health. Most of all, it affects their sense of self-worth. That is the most hurtful part of seeing the decline in our communities. As my hon. Friends have done, it is right to put on the record how proud Scousers are, and how strong our communities are. That is shown by the work that our community centres and food banks do day in, day out. Liverpool is an astonishing city that is doing well in many respects.
This debate set me thinking about what poverty is, and what we are talking about today. If we look back in history, we see different types of poverty. I have seen individuals fall into poverty—people can lose a job, be moved on, and then perhaps another job appears, and during that time, trade unions and charities may help out. Families also fall into poverty. My family was affected by unemployment. My dad was unemployed for seven years, and sometimes it felt as if we did not have much money when we were growing up. Nevertheless, we had a family unit, we had a community and we had support. We still had good schools and public services, the local authority did its bit, and there were youth facilities. Today we are talking about whole communities being pushed into poverty while the safety net is withdrawn from the bottom.
Poverty is man-made. It does not exist in a vacuum; it is the result of decisions made by the powerful. No one person is responsible for their own poverty. Austerity is and has been a political choice, not an economic necessity. Since 2010 this Government have handed out an eye-watering £110 billion in tax giveaways for the biggest corporations and the super-rich, paid for by devastating cuts to wages, living standards and essential public services for the rest. They have starved our schools of funding—something they deny—taken police off our streets, including 1,000 from Merseyside Police, and left our NHS and social care in crisis.
Not only have the cuts themselves been political, but so too has their distribution. New research from the University of Cambridge shows that post-industrial cities in the north of England have been hit by the deepest cuts to local government spending and that, on average, Labour councils have been hit four times harder than Tory councils. Few places have been hit harder than Liverpool, with the staggering 64% cut to local authority funding that we have heard about. Conservative Members tell us not to fear because the Prime Minister announced at the Tory party conference that austerity is over. Leaving aside the fact that we have heard such empty rhetoric three times before, I assure the Minister that the reality on the streets of Walton and across Liverpool tells a different story as austerity rolls on, piling misery on our communities.
We have already heard many of the statistics, so I will not repeat them all. Average wages in Liverpool are £11,000 below the national average, and 40% of children in my constituency are growing up in poverty. Liverpool is now classed as having the second-highest levels of destitution of any city in the UK. On top of that, this Government now heap universal credit—a policy so fundamentally flawed that it has become an exemplar of institutional incompetence. [Interruption.] I think I heard the Minister tut, but this is being played out on our streets, and we see the evidence in report after report. Perhaps he will respond to some of the points raised today, including the Trussell Trust’s report, which states that demand for food banks has soared by 52% in areas of universal credit roll-out, compared with 13% in other areas.
Housing associations, letting agents and private landlords have told me that tenants are falling into rent arrears in areas such as Bootle and elsewhere where the roll-out has gone ahead, and that evictions will increase. The calamitous roll-out in my constituency comes right before Christmas, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) was right to call for it to be delayed, at least until after the Christmas month, when we know it will cause increased hardship. The figures are stark, but they do not do justice to the human misery that I already deal with in my casework under the existing benefits system.
Under this Conservative Government, we are being hurtled backwards to bygone days, reminiscent of when it was a crime to be poor. The Government’s welfare reforms have seen hundreds of millions of pounds sucked out of Liverpool’s local economy. The benefit freeze—in reality it is not a “freeze” but a real-terms cut for millions of low-income families—has meant a loss of £45 million for households in Liverpool. We have heard about the cumulative effect of such cuts.
Given the pressures, some people have to give up employment to care for elderly relatives. A scaffolder came to my constituency office and explained that he has had to give up good, well-paid employment because the care is not there for his elderly mother. We have heard how the local authority already has to act as a sticking plaster, which shows that the current benefits system is failing. I want to congratulate the Mayor and the local authority on their work.
Next week the Chancellor will reveal the Government’s Budget, and we will no doubt have a debate about economic growth and the fudging of figures to mask deep systemic problems in our economy. Not only have we seen the worst decade for wages in centuries, but the UK is the only advanced economy in which wages have continued to fall, even when the economy is growing. That is because of a decades-long trend of the share of gains from growth going increasingly towards profit, not wages. More and more economists tell us the blindingly obvious: having money from economic growth flow to working people and the poor rather than to the rich would stimulate better rates of economic growth and lower unemployment. As income inequality increases, the potential for economic growth is constrained. Since the 1970s, while productivity and the economy kept growing, the average worker’s pay package did not. The Financial Times has stated that since 2007,
“the UK was the only big advanced economy in which wages contracted while the economy expanded. In most other countries, including France and Germany, both the economy and wages have grown…The UK sits on its own as a rich economy that experienced a strong economic performance while the real wages of its workers dropped.”
What does economic growth matter to my constituents if it does not even reach them?
We have heard reports that the Chancellor is considering bringing back regional pay in the Budget in order to deny pay rises to our constituents on a national pay scale. Can the Minister tell us anything about that, and can I urge him to feed back that it would be an absolute disaster for the regions of the country if the Chancellor were to go anywhere near the idea?
The Government’s cuts have not tackled the deficit; they have shifted it on to local authorities and public services, plunging them into crisis, while starving our economy of the patient, long-term investment it needs to thrive. The problems are so stark that the solutions must be radical. The people of Liverpool do not need piecemeal change; they need something much bigger. That is why the next Labour Government will not be satisfied with tinkering around the edges of a rigged economy; they will transform our economy so that it works in the interests of the ordinary people I represent.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on securing this important debate.
Liverpool is a place I have got to know well, like many others who have spoken today. Part of my constituency lies within the Liverpool city region, and many of my constituents travel to work in or visit Liverpool each day. Many—including my wife—have recent personal or family heritage in Liverpool, and people are well aware of what colleagues have already noted. Liverpool is a city with incredible culture, buildings, beauty—Scouse pride, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) pointed out—and history. It is also a city that has places that are suffering deep and scarring poverty and, disgracefully, 32,000 children are living in poverty. That poverty is made even worse by the Government’s austerity measures, and it looks set to deepen further as a result of the roll-out of universal credit across the city and region.
This afternoon we have heard many examples and arguments for why the roll-out of universal credit must be halted and the policy radically reformed and fixed. We heard many more in the main Chamber last week—in fact, we have heard many over the past few months. Of course, universal credit is not the sole cause or trigger of poverty—I will talk about some of the other causes later—but it is certainly not scaremongering to suggest that rolling out universal credit across Liverpool is likely to make the issues worse and the suffering even greater. There are many reasons why the Government should stop the roll-out, but surely the evidence that more people will be forced to use food banks— 69,000 used them last year alone—simply to feed themselves and their children is reason enough.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree said that people in Liverpool want jobs, skills and investment. They certainly do not want to root through bins for food and vital goods. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton rightly pointed out that austerity is a political choice, and that it is driving what we see on the streets of Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) pointed out that only 16%—a stark figure—of young people aged 16 to 24 are in work. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) made a strong case that the end-of-austerity cheque should deal with the growth in food bank use and the decimation of public services in Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) pointed out that this is a debate we really should not be having today—or on any day—and said that universal credit is exacerbating the crisis on the streets of Liverpool.
My question to the Minister is this. If the unacceptable delays, the growing rent arrears in Riverside and elsewhere, and the numerous tales of mistakes and misapplications are not enough to make the Government stop and think again, what will it take? It seems that the prospect of children going hungry in Liverpool and elsewhere is not enough to stop universal credit. That should shame the Minister, the Government and all of us in the fifth richest country in the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby said.
Of course, poverty is not caused solely by universal credit, although it often rises as a result. Good, well-paid, fulfilling and decent jobs can help to tackle poverty, and we have often heard Conservative Ministers talk about work being the best route out of poverty. The question, however, is, what kind of work? We hear lots of spin from the Government about jobs and employment, but beneath the headlines lies a story of insecurity, low pay and wages falling far short of decent expectations. Real-terms weekly pay is £11 a week lower than it was a decade ago. Business surveys suggest that there are 1.8 million people on zero-hours contracts in the economy, and almost 800,000 consider such posts to be their main job. The draconian cuts to in-work allowances from universal credit is a retrograde step. The National Audit Office says that there is no evidence that it leads to employment growth.
Having focused on what little the Government are doing to tackle poverty, I want to take the opportunity to welcome what Liverpool City Council and many other councils across the country are doing to blunt the ever sharper knife of Tory austerity and to support those in need. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree and others mentioned the work of Liverpool’s Labour Mayor, Joe Anderson. The Labour council and its city region Mayor are helping to tackle poverty. They have spent £12 million on services for homeless people, £3.5 million protecting 42,000 people from the full impact of Government reductions in council tax support, £2.7 million on almost 13,000 crisis payments to help people with the cost of food, fuel, clothing and furniture, and £2.2 million on 8,300 discretionary housing payments to people affected by welfare reform and hardship. They have set up a £2 million hardship fund that will run from 2017 to 2020 to help struggling residents. As has been rightly pointed out, all children’s centres remain open. There is a demand for real powers to transform the economy into one that offers high-quality, decent and fairly paid jobs—something that Whitehall control has so far failed to deliver.
My hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton and for Garston and Halewood mentioned those actions in the main Chamber last week, and they are welcomed by all Members from Liverpool. Once again, it is left to our councils—usually, our Labour councils—to help those most in need. They have already faced draconian cuts—Liverpool’s budget has been cut by 64%, or £440 million, in a decade—and yet the Liverpool Mayor is still determined to tackle the root causes of this shocking poverty. Meanwhile, the Government have cut taxes for the richest and wealthiest businesses and corporations—a £110 billion giveaway.
We accept that eradicating poverty requires more than one approach. It requires many partners inside and outside Government. We also know that two key elements are fundamental to the approach: a genuine desire from the Government to do it and the willingness to prioritise that desire and make decisions to underpin it. The Government’s record show that they have neither.
Dan Carden
My hon. Friend will have heard the Government announce, over the summer, their intention to halve homelessness by the end of this Parliament and eradicate it by 2027. As charities that deal with homelessness and crisis said at the time, unless the Government deal with the problems in our economy and put together a cross-departmental strategy, the idea that they will ever get anywhere near that target is fanciful, because they are dealing only with the results, not the causes.
Mike Amesbury
My hon. Friend makes a very strong case and a fair point.
The Minister has heard my colleagues talk about the extent of poverty and its effect on Liverpool and elsewhere. He has heard the genuine fears that the Government’s current policy direction—their cuts to welfare, nurseries, schools, colleges and local government, and their disastrous approach to Brexit—will make that worse. He has heard about the inequality and the unfairness that people, families and children are suffering in Liverpool and places like it. Their lives and opportunities are defined by their postcode, rather their talent, ambition and dreams. Will he now step back and listen to the reality of life in poverty from real people and real cases, look further than the spin of statistics about the jobs market and the economy, which far too many people see as a world away, and lobby the Chancellor?
The time to act is now. End the cuts that push people into poverty, the benefits freeze and the two-child cap. Stop the damaging, catastrophic roll-out of universal credit, which will make poverty worse in Liverpool and elsewhere. Restore the £3 billion-plus cut from the system made in 2015. Act now and fairly fund public services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Justin Tomlinson)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Streeter. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I clearly do not agree with all the points they made—I am sure they will not agree with everything I am about to say—but it is crystal clear that every one of them is driven by a passion to protect the most vulnerable people in society. We all want the same result; we just disagree about how to get from A to B. I am conscious that hon. Members mentioned lots of different issues. I am merely a junior Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, so in the limited time I have got, I will try to cover the points about employment, income and poverty, universal credit migration and food banks. If time permits, I will also cover some of the other points that fall at least roughly within my area.
All speakers acknowledged that we have seen record employment, with 1,000 new jobs created every day, unemployment at record lows, and 964,000 fewer workless households. That is important because research statistics show that workless households are four times more likely to be in poverty. I will come to the specific points made during the debate about that.
Many of the speakers mentioned that there had been an increase in zero-hours contracts, for example. That is not the case: the number of zero-hours contracts actually fell by over 100,000 in the last year alone, and they represent only 2.4% of total employment, which is around the same level as under the last Labour Government.
Justin Tomlinson
Briefly, although I will not take too many interventions because I am conscious of time.
Maria Eagle
Can the Minister explain why 32% of those using the South Liverpool food bank said that the main reason they were doing so was low income?
Justin Tomlinson
As I said, I will come to food banks—a little patience, please.
We all recognise that getting people into work is important, but ultimately the question is whether it leads to real cash in their pockets. Research has shown that there are one million fewer people in absolute poverty—a record low—and 300,000 fewer children living in absolute poverty, but there is still more to do. While food insecurity has almost halved in the last five years alone—we are at 5.4%; the European average is 7.9%—there is still more to do.
Luciana Berger
I have been reflecting on all the positive spin that the Minister is trying to put on various figures, but why then we are receiving a visit from the UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights in the next few weeks? Why is that person coming to this country to see the awful situation that we face?
Justin Tomlinson
We get reviewed as a signatory country and supporter of the UN’s work, and I will be speaking personally to the person coming.
Of the four current measures of poverty—relative, absolute, and before and after housing costs—three are lower than in 2010 and the other is the same. Those in poverty, who are the focus of this debate, are on average £400 better off in real terms than they were in 2010, while those in full-time work on the national living wage have seen a 7% real-terms increase in their income in the last two years alone. We have done that through a combination of increasing the national living wage—there are arguments about what the level should be, but I do not need to remind colleagues that the rate that we first set was higher than the one in the manifesto that Labour Members stood on in 2015—our income tax threshold, which has completely removed the lowest 3.6 million earners from paying income tax, which is worth £1,000 a year, and our extension of free childcare and other areas of support.
Let me turn to universal credit, which is very topical. One thing that surprised me was that nobody mentioned conversations with work coaches. I know that many Opposition Members have been to visit jobcentres—I have done my research and looked at their Twitter feeds. As a constituency MP—I have only recently been recalled as a Minister—I know that the work coaches on the frontline are very enthusiastic about the principle of universal credit. That does not mean that everything is right, but they are enthusiastic about it. For the first time, they can offer personalised and tailored support.
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Lady says rubbish, but has she been to visit a jobcentre?
Maria Eagle
The Minister knows very well that there have been coaches in jobcentres for many years helping people on an individual basis. He seems to be arguing that there is no problem—that food bank use is going down and that poverty is going down. I can tell him that that is not the experience in my constituency.
Justin Tomlinson
That is not what I am saying at all. I said I would come to food banks. The hon. Lady has not been to a jobcentre to talk to work coaches and see what they have to say. [Interruption.] I know that other hon. Members have.
The key is that the legacy benefits are not some panacea, where everything is great. As constituency MPs, we all know from our casework that legacy benefits are complex, involving three different agencies—HMRC, local government, and the DWP jobcentre—and frankly, one would need to be a nuclear physicist to deal with all three.
Over 700,000 families on legacy benefits were, on average, missing out on £285 of support that they were entitled to, worth a total of £2.4 billion. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) is heckling from the sides again, but these are some of the most vulnerable people, and my role as the Minister is to represent them. I have seen in my casework, as a genuine local resident in my constituency, as the MP and, formerly, a councillor, that some people were overwhelmed by the legacy system. Under universal credit, they will have for the first time a named work coach who will stick with them throughout the process to ensure that they are not missing out. That does not mean that universal credit has been perfect—we have had many debates and there have already been many changes. In some cases, under tax credits and legacy benefits we had tax rates of 90%. I know that would please the Leader of the Opposition, but that is not what the decent public want. There were 16, 24 and 30-hour cliff edges, which created a barrier to people progressing in work. The legacy benefits were seeing £2.4 billion-worth of support missed. We cannot knowingly stand by and say, “We’ve got to stop universal credit,” because these are vulnerable people missing out on money.
We are conscious that we have had to make changes to the migration. We have always said that the roll-out of universal credit will be slow and steady—it is a “test and learn”. In last year’s autumn statement, we rightly announced that we would remove the seven-day waiting list, a welcome change that was called for by a cross-party campaign.
A lot of the cases brought up involve people who have not had access to money. We realised that people did not know that the system was not designed to provide advance benefits, so it is now a given that the work coach will push that information in the initial interview.
Anybody currently receiving housing benefit will now get two weeks of housing benefit in addition—no strings attached—which can then be used. We recognised that we should not presume in all cases that they should take full responsibility for paying their housing benefit, so we now offer, particularly where people’s housing benefit payments are sent directly to their landlords.
We have launched the Landlord Portal, which is very much welcomed by local government and housing associations, and we have protected the severe disability premium. In conjunction with the £3 billion-worth of transitional support in place, over one million disabled families will be on average £110 a month better off.
Justin Tomlinson
No, I am sorry; I am running out of time. Severely disabled claimants will benefit from higher rates, ranging from £158 to £326. That is why hon. Members should think carefully about the unintended consequences of seeking political capital by calling for a stop to universal credit. Yes, lobby for improvements, but to stop it would be to deprive some of the most vulnerable people of support.
I am very short of time but I want to touch on food banks. I have met the Trussell Trust and have visited food banks as a constituency MP, a Minister and a councillor, and I have friends who work in food banks. I welcome the work of the football clubs in Liverpool in food collection; I went to see my local football club, Swindon Supermarine FC, which was doing a food bank collection last night. People use food banks for varying reasons, but if they are missing out on formal support, we must do something about that. I made a commitment to the Trussell Trust, with which I want to work closely—I am not precious. It is important that we help those vulnerable people, which could mean having a point of contact in every jobcentre so that if the volunteers spot someone who has been to the food bank first, they can then come to us. My commitment is to do all that we can for vulnerable people.
Luciana Berger
Thank you, Mr Streeter. I was not anticipating this opportunity, but I am grateful for it. I thank hon. Friends and colleagues for joining me and making representations—collectively, we have made a strong representation to the Minister—and I thank the shadow Minister, my hon. friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for his remarks which, equally, elaborated on all remarks made.
We are talking about people—our constituents—who face misery every day. We sit here in a very different position to many of our constituents, who really struggle on a daily basis. I have reflected on the Minister’s remarks and I have captured some of the themes, but I am disappointed that he did not specifically respond to the experience in Liverpool—he gave national figures, but no figures specific to what is happening in Liverpool. He did not acknowledge the prevalence of various different forms of precarious employment—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10 (6)).
Regulation of Materials used in Notice Boards
(6 years 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
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regulation of materials used in notice boards.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, and to see the Minister and her Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), in their places. If nothing else, more people have asked me about this debate than about any other Adjournment debate I have had in this place—I have had a few in my time—so I shall explain. I do not expect the Minister to answer all the points I make, but I am sure that she will read the debate subsequently and we can do something about it. However, I am grateful to have secured the debate, even though the title is rather delphic.
The subject came to my notice because a business in Stroud that makes notice boards from recycled materials came to see me. Although this is at one level a trade matter—I shall not mention the business by name, for obvious reasons—at another level it is more than that, involving safety, competition and fairness. I shall concentrate on two areas: first, the safety regulation of notice boards; and secondly, the implications for small businesses, particularly in my constituency.
Notice boards are everyday things. They are in almost every building, can be purchased in so many different ways and are relatively cheap, so people do not think a lot about them. When shopping online, the important product information is frequently so unimportant that it would not hold a consumer’s interest for long. Nevertheless, notice boards are subject to safety considerations. In the case of fire safety, post Grenfell we certainly know about some of the implications. I do not suggest that Grenfell was anything other than a tragedy; today we are talking about something of much smaller import, but the inside of buildings still matters as much as the external fire safety issues.
What drew my attention to the subject, and why I feel so strongly, is that the materials that some companies use to make notice boards are also, in other contexts, advertised as firelighters. Something that we would want to be safe and secure is also available to people to set fire to, in a completely normal way, as a firelighter. That really drew my attention.
In the United Kingdom, all wall linings—including notice boards—fitted to public buildings must conform to one of two standards: the European BS EN 13501, class D; or the national BS 476, parts 6 and 7, class 3. I understand, however, that the majority of notice boards fitted in schools are made from a material that meets the lower European standard, class E. Again, the manufacturers of the material note that it has a supplementary use, as a firelighter, which is bizarre, to put it mildly.
In addition, research shows a substantial difference in fire spread between the highest and lowest-performing materials on the market. I want the Government to take note of that, because all such materials should be as fire-proof as possible. The EN 13501 standards measure the fire index growth rate—FIGRA, to use the more acronymic description—and tests indicate that non-fire-rated materials can have FIGRA values of 500% of their fire-rated equivalents. In other words, the notice boards can be set on fire very quickly, and they will burn.
Notice boards sold online are not only vague on standards and descriptions, but sold in the same category as fire-tested boards tagged as school supplies. In other words, there is no discrimination between the different types of board, even though in my opinion there should be. For consumers shopping online for their classroom, such vital differences are in essence hidden—they have to know what they are dealing with. There is a clear concern about that because schools and others are faced with cuts—even though austerity is now over—and they tend to look at what is cheapest and most readily available. Safety measures, however, can be compromised by cost and availability—the cheaper substitutes are available online, with all the usual people we know about, whether shopping in convenience stores or, more particularly, online.
The task of eradicating all flammable materials in schools would be exceptionally hard, if not impossible, but the particular danger presented by notice boards is that their primary method of fire spreading is with a convection current. According to the 2006 fire safety risk assessment for educational premises, fire spread by convection is the most dangerous type of fire spread and is the cause of the highest number of injuries and deaths.
The most recent fire statistics from the Home Office show that since 2010 more than 4,100 fires have occurred in primary and secondary schools in England, which is more than 500 a year. Most of those are preventable fires. According to the most recent Local Government Association research report on the impact of fires in schools, there is usually a higher number of fires than 500, but they are not always reported as full-scale ones. Also, metropolitan areas tend to have a higher number of incidents, and a third of all school fires start during school time, which is particularly concerning. People studying and the staff may be affected, perhaps by inhaling whatever is burning. That in its own way is a high risk, and some 90,000 children a year are affected by school fires.
I am concentrating on schools, because obviously they are one of the biggest users of notice boards. The notice boards that fail to meet fire safety standards end up not only in highly populated public buildings such as schools, but in nursing homes. My staff carried out some quick and dirty research in nursing homes in Stroud and, to their alarm, they found that many of the boards that had been bought were not of a fire-proof standard.
That is a cause of serious concern because, according to the Home Office’s 2017 fire statistics, people over the age of 80 are almost three times more likely to die in a fire than people under 80. According to the statistics, between 2010 and 2018 there have been nearly 3,500 fires in nursing homes in England. If dangerous materials keep making their way into those buildings, we can only expect casualty numbers to rise. As the UK has an ageing population, we must be extra careful to have the right procedures to protect people.
In addition to the public health aspect, the lack of regulation has resulted in unfair competition for local and small businesses—the company in my constituency being a classic example, because its materials are fire-proof and therefore more expensive. The Minister should not ignore loopholes for the sake of shortcuts in the market that might have life-threatening consequences.
Small businesses continue to struggle against large companies that sell non-compliant and often dangerous products online. The owner of another Stroud-based business, when asked about this, said:
“I am not against fair competition and indeed I believe businesses thrive on it, provided the rules are the same for all. Goods supplied from non-UK/EU operators can more easily evade safety and other compliance regulations as well as in some cases, VAT”—
we shall leave the VAT issue to one side—
“Of even greater concern is the potential danger from such products, whose manufacturer or supplier is outside the jurisdiction of the UK market surveillance authorities”.
An example is given in a recent study by the UK Lighting Industry Association that showed that of six domestic light fitting parts purchased at random through that model, five posed a real threat of electric shock. In that case, the fulfilment house claimed that responsibility for compliance and safety laid with the overseas supplier, not the fulfilment house. If that is correct, it means there is little to prevent those products from entering the UK market and posing a risk to consumers. Meanwhile, businesses that invest in premises and manufacturers from which we collect VAT are unable to compete on a level playing field.
The purpose of my speech is to ask the Minister to investigate, to ensure that safety is of prime concern and that there is a level playing field in the way in which materials are made available, particularly for public buildings. They should be properly advertised, safe and meet all the proper conditions that we would expect them to be subject to. In preparing for this debate, I wrote to the Education and Skills Funding Agency, to draw its attention to how schools provide their notice boards—largely on a cost basis—so that it takes account of whether those notice boards are fire resistant.
I have some specific suggestions for the Minister, which she may not be able to respond to now but hopefully she can look into them. The Building Bulletin 100 design guidance should be updated to require all boards to be fitted in schools to be fire safe to European BS EN 13501 class B standard or national equivalent, not the cheaper and easier ones that many seem to get through that loophole. That simple rule should be applied to all new build and renovation projects, to substantially reduce the fire risk, and it would be relatively easy to implement. It is not retrospective; it is looking forward.
The cost impact is relatively low. I will not go through the complicated figures but the difference is not huge, although it is substantial for the businesses that are trying to compete. Companies must promote clear advertising to avoid confusion and potential danger, particularly for schools but also nursing homes and other public bodies, labelling what the safety requirements imply.
Lastly, school fire risk assessment guidelines should be updated to ensure that existing boards are checked and brought into conformity with the building regulations—at a minimum, fire safe to BS EN 13501 class D standard or national equivalent—within an appropriate time period. At the moment, I am more interested in going forward, but there is a level of safety checking that needs to be done retrospectively. I will be interested to hear what the Minister proposes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, and not to be grilled by you this afternoon. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) for securing this debate—people often pronounce my constituency incorrectly as Rochester and Stroud, so it is nice to respond to the hon. Member for Stroud this afternoon.
I am pleased to speak in a debate about safety. This Government take product and consumer safety incredibly seriously. Government’s first duty is to guarantee the safety of their citizens. In my role as Minister I focus on product safety and standards, an area that I have a particular interest in, having spent my life dealing with products for sale on the market prior to joining the House of Commons.
I will give the hon. Gentleman an update on where the Government are. In January, the Government launched the Office for Product Safety and Standards, to deliver the highest level of protection for consumers and to build confidence in our regulatory system. In August, the office published its strategy for product safety, detailing how it will achieve its goals. It now has in place a dedicated intelligence unit that assesses information from a variety of sources to monitor trends and identify potentially unsafe products on the market. With a £12 million funding upgrade, it now has an operational budget of £25 million a year.
In March, in partnership with the British Standards Institution, the office published the first Government-backed code of practice on product recalls. We have trained more than 300 trading standards officers to identify products and implement that code. That means that we will be better prepared to deal with product safety incidents and support manufacturers in preparing for potential incidents.
The Government are determined to be a world leader in how we deal with regulatory frameworks. A couple of weeks ago I was at the international regulatory delivery conference, which hosted professionals from more than 60 countries. That is an example of the things that we will continue to do to be leaders in this field.
The hon. Gentleman raises concerns about the safety of notice boards in particular. The points he makes are extremely important; he rightly points out that boards can be found in schools, hospitals, doctors’ surgeries, university halls of residence and workplaces up and down the country. It is vital that products of that kind are safe and remain safe. By law—under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005—manufacturers have a responsibility to put only safe products on to the market. That applies to any product that is intended for or likely to be used by a consumer, including where the product was originally intended for professional use. Products must be safe for any reasonable foreseeable use and the materials used must also be safe.
Furthermore, where manufacturers or distributors identify a safety issue with a product that is already on the consumer market, they must take action, which may, where appropriate, include a recall. If notice boards are for sale only to businesses or public bodies for use at work, they will be caught by the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which applies to all consumer products and products used in the workplace. It places liability for any damage caused by an unsafe product firmly on the producer or importer. The Health and Safety Executive also has a role in ensuring that workplaces are safe. I am aware that a number of universities have banned the use of notice boards or otherwise restricted their use. My understanding is that that is due chiefly to the fact that in the event of a fire, notice boards hold a lot of paper and therefore present a risk.
The hon. Gentleman has a keen interest in schools, which formed a major part of his speech. Having also been a teacher for many years, I am sure we agree that schools must be a safe place for all pupils, teachers and visitors. It was quite shocking to hear his statistics about the number of fires that have taken place. There are already strong protections in place: all schools must follow strict fire safety regulations, including a fire risk assessment that is designed to ensure that they are as safe as possible and well prepared in the event of a fire. In addition, all new school building projects must comply with building regulations, including on fire safety. That is independently checked by building control or other such inspectors before buildings are occupied.
The hon. Gentleman referred to fire safety; the horrific and tragic fire at Grenfell last year was a shocking and terrible event. It is right that the Prime Minister ordered the full public inquiry, which is now under way, in the aftermath of the fire in response to concerns raised about the external cladding on tower blocks. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government commissioned Dame Judith Hackitt to conduct an independent review of the regulatory system for buildings and fire safety. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is responsible for the safety of building products and is leading on the Government’s response. In a statement in the House following the publication of the review, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government made clear the Government’s support for the principles outlined in the report.
On the specific things that the hon. Gentleman said he would like me to investigate, in my experience fire safety regulations and standards are extremely complex and depend on the particular product or market in question. This debate is very important—it is absolutely right that Members should bring such issues forward and challenge the Government about how we will improve standards and conditions. I was interested in his point about the different fire safety grading of products, so I will happily investigate that.
The fundamental objective of the new Office for Product Safety and Standards is to use intelligence and work with trading standards locally so that we do better at identifying bad products or areas where further action is particularly needed. I am extremely hopeful that the OPSS will achieve that, especially as it starts to implement its strategy. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need for a level playing field. He is absolutely right that consumers need to know that the products they buy meet minimum standards and that they must be fully aware of the risks associated with those products.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I hope he is happy with the commitment I made. As the new Minister for small business, product safety and consumer protection are a particular focus and interest of mine. I reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to ensuring that everyone has access to safe products in their homes, schools and workplaces. I am extremely grateful to him for raising his concerns. I am interested to know about the company he mentioned—perhaps we can discuss that outside the Chamber.
Kelly Tolhurst
Yes—that would be good. The Government will continue to do all we can to deliver the highest levels of consumer and product safety, and to use trading standards to combat illegal products that come on to the market. I thank the hon. Gentleman again.
Question put and agreed to.
Coalfield Areas: Sports Facilities
(6 years 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
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that this is an hour-long debate and the Minister has protected time. The Front Benchers have five minutes each and the Minister has 10 minutes.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered sports facilities in coalfield areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. The purpose of the debate is to highlight the importance of properly funding and managing local sports facilities in former mining areas, and particularly to talk about the potential of miners’ welfares as a community hub and asset. It is great to see so many colleagues from all parts of the House present here.
Many community sports facilities in coalfield towns were built by British Coal and have since been handed over to the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, a national charity supporting former miners and their families with help and advice on disability, ill health and financial hardship; the organisation has responsibility for miners’ welfares. There are about 250 recreational charities still operating as independent welfares and an additional 425 where a municipal authority acts as the trustee. In some communities, these facilities are the only remaining social and sporting amenities available for public use.
Some centres have adapted and evolved to meet the needs of their local communities; some trustees run very successful football clubs, while others run bowling greens and other facilities, for example. Unfortunately, many have not been successfully run and their buildings and sports grounds have been run down. I am concerned that those facilities are not receiving the investment required to maintain them to a decent standard.
There are several local clubs that I would like to mention, but I will stick to two key ones, although there are many others like them across Mansfield, north Nottinghamshire and the rest of the country, all linked to former collieries. The first is Welbeck Lions football club, in Meden Vale, which is located at the old miners’ welfare and provides sporting facilities to one of the most deprived communities in the region. It has eight junior and two adult teams, with a further three in development, and has been proactive in forming positive plans for future expansion. I have hosted a meeting for it with the Football Association and other supportive organisations.
The club and its volunteers provide an invaluable service to the local community. The club is keen to grow and expand, but improving its playing surfaces is a priority. It also needs floodlit pitches, which are required to allow the senior team to compete at a higher level and the under-19s to play in a midweek floodlit league. It has an array of further issues: the sports pavilion only has one toilet and cannot meet modern regulations, and security is a concern, with vandalism and pitches plagued by dog fouling. The young people who engage with the Welbeck Lions are often from deprived backgrounds. Statistics show that Meden Vale, where the club is based, is among the poorest communities in Nottinghamshire, and the positive impact that sports facilities have on the lives of local people should not be underestimated.
The second is Forest Town Arena, formerly the welfare and now home to AFC Mansfield. It is still a focal point for the community in Forest Town and a venue for all sorts of local events. There has been good management and investment, and the result is a nice facility; it shows what can be done, and what more could be done, with the right support and co-ordination. The community spirit that once held mining communities together is very much still there, whatever the Labour party’s political broadcasts might suggest. The organisations that kept people together have evolved and some have moved on, but in some areas the pubs and social clubs that used to be the centre of life have disappeared, and coalfield communities are left with often run-down community facilities and a lack of funding and support for sports provision.
A 2008 report by the Audit Commission stated that social regeneration had been the least successful component of regeneration in the coalfields. In 2010, the Department of Health commissioned a report that sought to look at health inequalities in coalfield communities, which raised concerns about whether the previous emphasis on economic regeneration came at the cost of health and social projects. The report stated that the health behaviours of men, women and children in those areas were often characterised by poor statistics around smoking, alcohol, poor diet and nutrition, coupled with inactivity. Unfortunately, it is increasingly clear that the facilities needed to support more exercise and activity are not up to scratch in many of those communities.
More recently, the benefits for mental health of participating in sport have been established. Studies have shown that sport can improve mood, decrease the chances of depression and anxiety and ensure a more balanced lifestyle. Again, we see higher levels of long-term mental health problems across the age range in coalfield communities compared with the rest of the country as a whole. Sports facilities are not just important for locally well established teams and aspiring world-class sportsmen; they offer a wide range of benefits, including improving the health of younger and older people and creating positive opportunities for socialising.
The new community focus criterion of Sport England could be hugely beneficial for areas such as Meden Vale, Warsop or Mansfield, if that sport could be focused on bringing welfares back to life as a community hub for health, sport, social activities and even the provision of services. In Warsop, where they have unfortunately recently lost a leisure centre, a community hub based around a welfare that could bring all those things back together would be life-changing for many people in the community. It is more cost-effective than an expensive new building and could be done in some of the areas of most need, where activities already take place.
The Coalfields Regeneration Trust has supported projects in coalfield areas and helped to respond to the threat of closure of outdoor sports facilities such as pitches, playing fields and pavilions. The trust has invested millions of pounds in sports facilities in England such as multi-use games areas and 3G or AstroTurf facilities. One of the trust’s current priorities is health and wellbeing, and I am pleased that sport features heavily in its work. In 2006, it undertook a comprehensive review of sport and recreational facilities across coalfields, which provided details of facilities that were available to coalfield communities prior to the financial crash.
It would be helpful if the Government supported the trust to update that database and review which facilities remain and which are no longer available. For those facilities that are no longer in use, I would be particularly keen to learn how they were disposed of and what reinvestment was made in the communities when those facilities were lost. If land was sold, where did the money go?
As well as the grants that Sport England provides, dozens of national governing bodies award funding packages, as do local authorities, but trustees of coalfield facilities often do not have the experience to apply for those grants. It is also the case that many applications have conditions covering things such as minimum participation, which can be difficult. Once established, helping to bring different teams, clubs and other community organisations together under one roof in a welfare-based community hub could help to facilitate bidding for and winning investment to make the centres self-sustaining in future.
As I mentioned at the beginning, coalfield communities are often in a slightly unusual position in that many of their community centres and local sports facilities have a background in the coal industry rather than being built and maintained by local authorities. Since the transfer of miners’ welfare clubs and community facilities to CISWO, facilities such as football pitches and bowling greens have often not been looked after effectively. In my former role as a district councillor I was involved, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), in a campaign on Bestwood Miners’ Welfare, which has been affected by ongoing issues surrounding its management and the maintenance of its facilities. I am keen that the Government look at how local authorities and sporting bodies can be encouraged to work with CISWO on local sports and health and wellbeing priorities in order to support such communities.
In my experience, CISWO is not always the best at facilitating effective management of the facilities and ensuring that they are looked after. It works hard to support former miners and their families and provides important assistance to those individuals, but I am concerned that, in prioritising the individuals rather than the long-term community legacy, it is allowing facilities to become run down and in some cases turning a blind eye to poor management, which is detrimental to communities.
Money raised from community buildings seems often to be invested in other priorities of the organisation and not put back into the community it came from. While that money might be spent nationally on campaigns, or on information and support for individual miners, it is being drained out of local facilities and leaving coalfield communities worse off. I am concerned that CISWO might not be providing suitable support for the trustees of these facilities and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to investigate how the process could be improved to support the facilities more effectively.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood has previously raised concerns in the local press about CISWO taking money out of Nottinghamshire with little investment in return. He has rightly criticised it for profiting from the sale of land but not reinvesting the money back in local facilities. That is not happening only in Nottinghamshire; I know that in Yorkshire there have been similar problems. The Yorkshire Post ran an interesting story about recreation grounds in mining communities last year. I fear that CISWO’s strategic decision to focus on former miners as individuals rather than on communities, while perhaps understandable at one time, is now increasingly to the detriment of those communities.
The good news is that in Mansfield and Warsop, and across many other mining towns, there are facilities that still exist and space available for sports amenities. I am not asking the Government to commit to funding a series of brand-new facilities. It is often cheaper to refurbish and improve current facilities, with some help. I am convinced that some money already exists within a number of external organisations that could be utilised in this way.
I am keen to highlight that improving sports provision in coalfield communities will not take huge resources. I want Ministers to consider a small injection of funding to support coalfield areas in improving sports provision, which will improve health and wellbeing and rebuild social cohesion. However, it is just as important to get the political will behind improving facilities, and the Government should look at ways to encourage CISWO, local authorities and sporting bodies to work together to improve sports grounds. For the most part, facilities have willing groups of trustees and volunteers, so the main challenges are getting them to work together, giving them the skills and getting CISWO to release funding, along with support from national sports governing bodies.
As I touched on earlier, Sport England helps many communities with health and wellbeing programmes, looking at ways to support community assets and to provide multiple services from one facility. Miners’ welfare clubs and sports grounds in coalfield communities have traditionally been used for a range of purposes, and I hope that Sport England sees the potential of many of those facilities as hubs for multiple services. That would also tie in with its work with deprived communities.
Sport England’s funding programmes, such as Inspired Facilities and Protecting Playing Fields, are helpful, but I would like to see a specific focus on coalfield communities and protecting the facilities that currently exist in those areas. As a Government, we should aim to prove that we are committed to supporting coalfield communities, to advancing the cause of some of the country’s most deprived areas and to genuinely be about helping the “just about managing” to have a better quality of life.
At the end of 2015, the Government published “Sporting Future: A New Strategy for an Active Nation”, which emphasised the importance of harnessing sport for social good. It was a positive publication and a step in the right direction, and the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said that the Government would
“target funding at groups which have traditionally had lower participation rates”.
That includes places that are less active and less healthy, and coalfield communities generally top the charts in those statistics. Coalfield communities are generally some of the most deprived in the UK, with poorer health outcomes and lower levels of physical activity. I hope that Ministers look to coalfield communities when considering their duty to ensure that absolutely everyone can benefit from sport, because, as the report notes,
“the biggest gains and the best value for public investment is found in addressing people who are least active.”
I thank the Minister for her attendance, and hope she will be able to address some of my questions. I also hope to hear positive contributions from Members from across the House. I thank hon. Members for their time.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that I will call the first Front-Bench spokesperson at 5.10 pm.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), for securing this timely debate. I represented part of his constituency until the boundary changes of 2010, so I know Warsop and Welbeck extremely well. I recall the work that I and my office put in to get the initial significant grants to bring Meden Vale’s playing fields up to any kind of reasonable standard, but that was the beginning of the process, not the end. In former mining communities such as Meden Vale, with the level of enthusiasm and the number of volunteers there, it is fairly obvious to me that the Government are sitting on a health gold mine.
CISWO, with its legacy from the coal industry, is responsible for more playing fields in England than any other single organisation—a phenomenal fact. However, it has never taken that responsibility seriously. It has never had a plan. I have had many battles with it, even over basics such as getting investment in. That contrasts totally with the less well funded Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which has done and still does a superb job with meagre resources; it has pennies where pounds are needed. Its approach has been absolutely to the point in terms of recognising the economic and health benefits of investment, including in sporting facilities. The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the important role that the Coalfields Regeneration Trust still plays. It could do more with more resource.
I am interested in the possibilities around CISWO and its land. The CISWO land in my area includes land in Harworth, a former colliery. It has cricket and football clubs. There was also provision for weightlifting and archery—Olympic sports. It was given £43,000 for floodlights, so that the football club, which has been very successful, can be promoted. The colliery is good at raising its own money, but it has never had any significant outside investment, only small amounts.
The land is there, and one of the Football Association’s multi-purpose, floodlit, full-size 3G or 4G pitches could be put there instantly, losing no facility whatsoever. It has a car park and changing rooms. It has the infrastructure. It has the community involvement, including among kids, and, critically, it has the volunteers. This is low-overhead sport. It does not require paying loads of people to do loads of things; it is volunteer-led. That kind of investment there would work. However, those volunteers are not the kind of people who have spent their time learning the routes to bid for various sums of money, so the money goes elsewhere, and they continue to spend their time running mass-participation events.
Costhorpe does not have any infrastructure. It has the fields, although it gave them over to the district council, and it has the cricket pitch. It lost its tennis facilities, and the bowling facilities are long gone, although the land is still there. However, there are no changing rooms, so kids playing football have to change in cars. There are no toilets, although the youth club is sometimes open to give that generous assistance. Again, it is pretty simple and pretty basic: any plan for sport—or for football, which is the biggest sport played there—would have that automatically built in. Football bodies, with their mass wealth, are not doing that.
There is also Manton. I actually employed a member of staff, Kamini Patel, who spent three years battling with CISWO to allow investment in the facilities there. We pooled our money, Sport England money and various other types of money and put in changing rooms and a little multi-use games area. It was transformed from virtually nobody using it—one club, one football team—to thousands of kids using it, and thousands of girls playing football there. That continues to this day. It has decent changing rooms, decent toilets, a proper, safe car park, safe access and a little tuck shop room to make teas and coffees.
An all-weather facility could be put in Manton and the numbers would dramatically increase again. It needs a bit of assistance to get that going. It could also do with infrastructure money for the boxing that is held there, which is only just legal in the building used for it. There is also athletics there, which is highly successful. We are talking about potential Olympic medal winners training in the summer on grass marked out at the miners’ welfare. That is not the standard that we should aspire to in this country.
It seems to me that there is a huge opportunity for the Minister and for the Government. The facilities, the land and the consent are there. CISWO is not a dynamic organisation, but it is not the irritable blocker that it was when I dealt with it five or 10 years ago, when it tried to block every single thing. It gave me plenty of grief simply because we wanted to turn drinking clubs into sports clubs for kids. That has now changed, and CISWO will not stand in the way, but it needs some pump-priming. It needs the Government to say that they will put in extra money if it opens up football, cricket or athletics facilities, but what should the Government’s price be for doing that?
My final point, Mr Owen, is the biggest and the most important, and the one you will be most interested in, as will the Minister, I am sure. Any Government funding should be conditional on putting the NHS in the middle. The Government should tell the NHS that it has to be part of this. We put some good money into Manton miners’ welfare, and you cannot move for the vast number of parents and grandparents watching young girls and boys play football there on a Saturday morning. It is a wonderful sight, and statistically it is the Football Foundation’s most successful ever project. I hope it is listening in and recognising that.
What if NHS involvement was one of the conditions? Doctors could recommend walking round the pitch three times for each grandparent. Reading University’s academic research suggests that that will probably add half a year to their life if they do it every time they watch their grandchild play football. Let us bring in a little bit of quantified active participation and literally bring in NHS branding—force the NHS to think through using these facilities as part of its work. The key target group in Mansfield, Bassetlaw and other coalfield communities is the parents and grandparents watching their kids involved in physical activity. If what I have suggested is part of the deal, we will save the taxpayer a fortune. Three times walking round the pitch is quantified activity. We should say to those running the facilities, “It is part of your responsibility to get all the parents and grandparents doing it, because that is why we are putting the money in.”
That would be huge for the NHS. That is the little twist that I would build in. It would be transformative in coalfield communities. It would be great for mental health stuff and all the rest. Say to people, “Aye, go and have a drink if you want on a Saturday night, but these aren’t drinking clubs. They are sports clubs. As they were originally, so they are going to be again—a great national asset brought fully back into use.” What a chance for the Minister to be performing round the country and seeing great success in what she has done!
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) on securing this important debate and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on his passion and enthusiasm for the changes that we are seeking in coalfield communities.
Coalmining was a major industry in Ayrshire from the mid-1700s until the mid-1980s, which saw the last of the deep mines in Ayrshire—or the National Coal Board west area, as it was known. Today, the surface scars of the collieries are all but gone, leaving a unique landscape of pine forests, moors, lakes and recovered open-cast sites. There are also many sites of special scientific interest, and I am pleased to report that the area hosts an abundance of wildlife.
When the coalfields were thriving, sport and culture also thrived. Over the past 150 years some remarkably talented individuals, including musicians and sports personalities, in sports ranging from boxing to bowling—not least Bill Shankly, of football fame—have hailed from Ayrshire mining communities. Bill Shankly was born not quite in my constituency but in a neighbouring constituency, in a small village called Glenbuck. It produced a number of world-class footballers.
Sadly, many such villages have disappeared, but since the mines closed the communities have remained proud and resilient. In recent years, for example, members of the Dalmellington curling club have worked to reinstate the outside curling pond at Craigengillan—currently the only self-levelling curling pond in Scotland—and almost certainly using granite curling stones quarried on the island of Ailsa Craig, off the coast of my constituency. Moreover, the Dalmellington band—it is well worth going to hear it play; it does very well in competitions throughout the UK—is playing on after 150 years in the Doon Valley.
There is much evidence to suggest an unhappy correlation between lower indices of health and fitness, life expectancy and deprivation in former coalfield communities, and a great deal of evidence to suggest that sports facilities are an excellent means by which to improve that particularly bad situation. At the moment, a number of organisations are doing sterling work for the welfare of former coalfield communities. Locally, we have East Ayrshire Council, the East Ayrshire Coalfield Environment Initiative, the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, to name but a few. Indeed, another local organisation, the Coalfield Communities Landscape Partnership—it aims to reconnect communities with the landscape by creating opportunities for leisure, tourism and, we hope, jobs—has recently secured £2.5 million of national lottery funding, which will do much to support its work.
There is, however, a danger of overlap, and although I am very much aware that elements of sport are a devolved matter, community health and wellbeing is a matter of UK-wide importance. In many communities, the loss of sports facilities such as games halls, golf courses and bowling greens has left a significant health gap. Will the Minister therefore consider whether, despite the devolved elements, a UK-wide approach, with some form of joint working between Governments and the various support organisations, might see increased efficiency in the improvement of existing sports facilities, and in some cases the construction of new ones in former coalfield communities UK-wide? I will just mention that the proposed UK prosperity fund might be a till that one could dip into to improve some of these facilities, which are much needed.
There is the potential to make a significant contribution to the health and wellbeing of these communities, which in the past have played an immense part in the success of industry throughout the UK. We have taken the deep-mine coal, we have taken the open-cast coal and, as if that were not enough, we are now stealing the wind—for renewable energy—from these communities, particularly around the Doon Valley. I say to the Minister that it may be time to pay them back for what they have given to the United Kingdom.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for raising this matter. The Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation has been mentioned. Its headquarters are in my constituency, and I have worked with it over many decades. I am referring to the work that it has done and continues to do for mining communities and individuals in those communities. Its core activity includes services to individual clients through the organisation’s personal welfare service. That includes advice, guidance, advocacy and grant assistance to former miners and their families. The organisation’s website states that that is its medium-term priority. Sadly, we all know that that medium-term priority will be lessening all the time, because there are not many ex-miners around now.
Obviously, it is a long time since the coalmines closed in some parts of my constituency and, as has been pointed out, what we have left, as a consequence, is many recreation grounds that were tied to the local coalmine. When I was a miner in Maltby colliery, we used to pay a certain amount a week from our wages to the miners’ welfare field, which was there to assist with the different activities that took place. Providing support for mining charities acting within mining trusts and preserving recreational facilities in former mining communities is difficult at this stage, but I believe very strongly that we should look after these facilities for current and future generations.
I have discussed individual projects with the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. I ought to declare an interest. My grandson, 10-year-old Ted Barron, plays for Maltby Miners Welfare junior football club. His older brother used to play for them, but he plays for another club now. There is still a hive of activity in these ex-coalmining communities, but there are a lot of problems.
I will not talk about all the grounds—there are many in my area—but one has been empty for years and we have argued about redevelopment and getting some sporting activity back on to it. It is in a village called Dinnington, where my constituency office is. Through CISWO, we tried to get some movement on that many years ago. We have had problems with other grounds as well. It may be argued that personal fallouts have been an issue. The biggest issue we have had recently at Maltby—I am going to ask the Minister whether her Department can help in some way—concerns the local football team. There are many people there—there is bowling and cricket, and whippet racing is still an activity—I have not seen a human beat one yet, but anyway, it is still an activity that takes place. There is an issue about ground improvement. Because no miners work down Maltby colliery any more, nobody is paying money into the welfare scheme, and the bar takings are depleting by the day. The culture is changing. We have a situation that is potentially a serious threat.
There was a scheme involving the football club, called Maltby Miners Welfare. This year it was streamed in the first FA cup round playing Pontefract Collieries. Sadly, Pontefract Collieries won—I was at the match and saw it. But the main thing about that is that there was an attempt to get some improvements through the Football Foundation, but that was not possible because of the lease arrangements between CISWO, the local Miners Welfare trustees and the users themselves. There is constant debate about the costs.
There are football clubs peppered throughout south Yorkshire playing in major amateur leagues. The football clubs have abandoned those grounds and gone elsewhere. At Kiveton Park in my constituency the football club left about three years ago—it could not get one locally. The priority for CISWO is the issue of independent advice, which I accept is important, but I and others would like the legacy left by coalmining to carry on now, in terms of health and activity in our constituencies, especially given the levels of childhood obesity. I am not saying that they should necessarily get an NHS grant, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) says, but these clubs will need advice as they move into the future.
It is clear that CISWO has some assets in buildings and land. Its priority at the moment is to look after people who worked in the coal industry and their dependants, which I understand. In my view, it needs some advice about the future, so that we can get Football Foundation money to keep the recreation going, and to keep our young and elderly people fitter by using these facilities, which are a legacy from coalmining throughout the UK. I am sure that, with some assistance, CISWO would be the right organisation to do that.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) on securing this important and timely debate. I am pleased to follow the important and passionate contributions of hon. Members, which reflect a combined view across parties in this part of the world. I am a near neighbour of those who have spoken, except for my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), who comes from north of the border but whose points were just as valid.
This issue is close to my heart. I did not have the privilege of being a miner, but both my grandfathers were miners and both of them effectively died from mining. I represent one of the pits that one of my grandads worked down, before he lost his leg and was retired. I have the privilege of representing lots of coalmining villages, including my own, which I lived in and my family have lived in for nearly 50 years. I know that the passion and community spirit is still there and I know how important it is to support that. I know the experience that has been discussed already. I have been to lots of the working men’s clubs and community facilities in these villages over the past few months, because I have been renting them out to hold public meetings and to talk to residents. Huge camaraderie and community spirit remains.
We will not debate this extensively, but it is fair to say that such places had the stuffing knocked out of them in the ’80s, and over the last 30 years or so they have got back on their feet and are moving again. Yet challenges remain, and it is places such as these where the community can still come together. Often some of these communities are somewhat isolated. I represent communities that are not that far away from the main town, Chesterfield, but actually most people look internally within that community—the bus routes are not great and not everybody has cars—because that is what people see and experience day to day. As a Government, we should think very hard about how we can support and improve this area.
There is some fantastic work already going on—I will name a few examples. I recently went to Tupton to talk to the local rugby club, which is doing fantastic work with the local community and is a real asset for the village. I have been to watch Eckington football club pull together dozens of young people every single week, to work in teams and learn to play football. Killamarsh Dynamos is doing the same in the next village. Last Friday evening I was at a local basketball club, Arrows Basketball in Dronfield, which operates across Dronfield, Yorkshire and Killamarsh. I have also seen Killamarsh Juniors, a club that is run to support local activities from a sports perspective. It has its own challenges, not least with npower—something I have been trying to help with over the past six months—which has put in four different smart meters and is getting different answers every time. I know that is slightly ancillary, but it demonstrates how close some of these clubs are to the bread line in supporting the activities they are doing. As a Government, we need to ensure that we recognise the important contribution that they make.
In my section of the party, I am somebody who believes in a small state and in Government only spending where it is necessary, rather than spending badly in lots of places. However, I am a strong supporter of infrastructure spending, and this is social infrastructure. I can see from the places that I have the privilege to represent and the place where I have grown up how important these kinds of facilities are for the communities that we have been speaking about today. If there is something that we can do here, we should consider it strongly.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen—in a different forum from our usual Wednesday morning standing engagement. I am conscious that the Division bells might ring in a moment, but I will keep the Chamber going until such time as we are interrupted.
I commend the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing and kicking off this excellent debate. We have heard excellent contributions from the hon. Gentleman himself, the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann), for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant)—who I will come back to in a moment—and for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), and the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron). I do not always agree with my friend, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock. I did not agree with him—as hon. Members will have seen from my excessive gesticulation—when he suggested that we should have a UK-wide approach to spending on these matters, but I suspect that we shall have to disagree on that.
I am delighted to begin the winding-up speeches on behalf of the Scottish National party. I want to refer to one or two initiatives in Scotland, as the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock did, before placing on the record my plea—not to the Minister, because this is a matter not for her but for my colleagues back home on Glasgow City Council—for some sports facilities in Glasgow East.
Before I do that, I want to pay tribute to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust, which receives financial backing from the Scottish Government in Edinburgh. Some £750,000 has been pledged to the trust this year to support the enabling of grassroots activity, which can tackle issues relating to employment, sport and training. We know the good work that the trust does and what good value for money it is—it has been reported that it delivers £1.81 for every £1 it receives, so it almost doubles the money it receives.
One of the three current priorities of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is health and wellbeing, and encouraging sport. Since 2014 it has run an annual football event for five-a-side teams aged 14 to 16 in each country, with finalists going on to play against each other in the home internationals. It is one of the few occasions when Scotland seems to do well at the moment, so I will certainly support that. The trust also recently ran a sports challenge, inviting sports clubs and groups to bid for financial support, to encourage those young people to get involved. It was not just football and rugby that benefited; we saw basketball, lawn bowling, boxing and even an Australian rules football club receive support.
The hon. Member for Mansfield was right to frame the debate in the way he did. A particularly hot topic in my constituency at the moment is the need for a new sports facility in the village of Baillieston. The village grew out of a number of small hamlets, including Crosshill, Barrachnie and Bredisholm, which developed as farming and weaving communities in the latter part of the 18th century. However, the opening up of the Monklands coalfield, with the construction of the Monklands canal and later the railway, stimulated the rapid growth of Baillieston. It soon acquired the typical character of a mining village, although some weaving survived until the end of the century, and we still have the last weavers’ cottage on Baillieston Main Street, which I am glad to see has been done up.
A continuous programme of pit sinking drew in workers from across Scotland and beyond, and the population grew rapidly to reach almost 4,000 by the time of the first world war. Of course, for reasons of politics, Baillieston does not have that mining industry now, but it is a radically different place. We once again have a growing population and the issues associated with that, and for that reason residents in that part of my constituency are quite right to say that they want proper amenities and facilities that reflect the dynamic and growing population that now lives in Baillieston and its surrounding communities. Since being elected, I have been working closely with my SNP colleague, Councillor Elaine Ballantyne, to apply maximum pressure to Glasgow City Council to make sure that the community gets what it was promised many years ago. A sports hub is what they were promised, and it is what we will deliver.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, for what I believe is the first time. I thank the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for leading this debate. His constituency is directly affected by this important issue, which his predecessor was also concerned about.
One in 11 people in the UK live in coalfield sites, and as many hon. Members will know, coalfield sites fall well below the national average in most national indicators. My husband is from a little mining village in Wales, and we often talk about the challenges faced by people who live in such rural communities. Whether in employment rates, prevalence of ill health or life expectancy, coalfields have some of the worst statistics on deprivation in the UK. The 1980s miners’ strike may be a distant memory for some, but for residents in coalfields across the country, the job losses that came afterward have cast a long shadow. The Government of the time were responsible for ripping coalfield communities apart, and the then Prime Minister did little to repair the fabric. We are still trying to rebuild those communities up and down the country. Sport programmes delivered in coalfield areas have been shown to have a positive impact on communities. They reduce antisocial activity, increase feelings of public security and reduce the number of young people involved in violent crime. In many of those communities, only one or two pubs in certain villages bind people together, so sports facilities provide an essential opportunity.
As the shadow Minister for Sport, I have seen at first hand how sport can change lives, especially young people’s. The physical benefits are plain to see, but just as important are the support structures it can provide: mentoring, friendship and a place to belong. I will continue to be an advocate for community sports. However, we need more than somewhere to play sports; we need coaches—people who can spot talent, or who can spot vulnerable young people and go on to help them. Sometimes people cannot get the support they need from their families and they look to coaches in sports facilities to be the person they can rely on. It is about camaraderie, the team, being together and knowing everyone is there for one another. The power of sport should not be underestimated.
Most sports facilities in coalfield sites are still privately owned and operated by the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation, which we have heard about already. It is a national charity that supports mining communities and oversees hundreds of formerly British Coal-owned sports facilities, which are leased out to local miners’ welfare schemes. Recently, however, the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation made “a strategic decision” not to offer grant aid to support welfare schemes running recreation grounds, but instead to focus on providing support services to individuals. That was part of a three-year plan created in 2015 to cut spending by £600,000, to extend the organisation’s projected lifespan. It has led to a growing number of sports facilities in coalfields having to close because they just do not have enough money to keep going. That has happened at a time when Government cuts have forced secondary schools to cut the provision of physical education teaching by almost 35,000 hours.
It seems clear that the Government owe a historical debt to the communities in coalfield sites. For years, people in those communities worked in incredibly dangerous conditions, as we heard from the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who spoke about his family’s involvement. They worked in those conditions to produce the coal that fired this country’s economy for decades. What reward have they received for their service? A Prime Minister led an attack on mining in which miners were described as “the enemy within” and which decimated the mining industry and the communities that depended on it.
I urge the Minister to consider the points that have been made in this debate, to do everything she can to reduce deprivation in coalfield sites, and to focus particularly on the sustainability of sports facilities. Sport can improve lives, increase community cohesion, give young people a purpose, give families an opportunity to be together and change young peoples’ futures. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation has the financial support to ensure that coalfield communities do not miss out.
Albert Owen (in the Chair)
I call the Minister to respond to the debate. Perhaps she can leave a couple of minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I would be delighted, Mr Owen. Unlike the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), I do not think that this is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship. I am sure that it will be as much of a pleasure as last time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to raise awareness of this important issue and to explore with hon. Members what can be done. I am grateful to him, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) for meeting me earlier this year. It was a helpful introduction to their concerns about the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation and to the aspiration of hon. Members to seek greater investment in their communities. I would also be very happy to meet the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) to discuss Maltby, if that would help. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) about devolution is interesting, albeit challenging, given the way that funds are distributed for sports across the UK. I will take that away and think about it.
This is clearly an important subject. Like all hon. Members who have spoken, I firmly believe that sport and physical activity should be for everyone, no matter where they come from or where they live. Sport has the power to transform lives and the benefits go far beyond the physical, which is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve through the sport and physical activity strategy. Sporting Future was one of the first strategies that I delivered as the Sports Minister in 2015. At its core is a desire to create a healthier, happier and more productive nation. Supporting people to be more active in whatever way best suits them is a crucial part of that.
One of the greatest factors that affects people’s desire and ability to get involved is the environment and facilities that they can access. Facilities are key. For some people, especially for older generations, taking part in sport can bring back memories of crumbling changing rooms, muddy pitches and jumpers for goalposts, so good-quality, inclusive and welcoming environments are important in encouraging people to get active and, more importantly, stay active.
I am pleased that the Government are doing so much to transform sporting facilities across the country. I recognise that Sporting Future is not perfect, but we are insistent that facilities and the environment for sport and physical activity should be a priority. It made clear our support for bringing together sport and physical activity facilities with other community services. It also highlighted the benefits of multi-sport facilities in improving usage and sustainability. More than that, it placed the customer—the person—at the heart of facility design. Gone are the simple days of “build it and they will come”. We must be smarter and we must think harder.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Given the local government cuts in leisure, given that the industry does not support sport as it used to, certainly in my area, and given the real problems of modern illnesses such as child and adult obesity across the UK, particularly in our coalfield communities, what more does the Minister think the NHS can do to make a large-scale material difference in improving the health of our country by promoting physical activity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) suggested? The Minister’s strategy is worthy, but will it make a sufficient difference to deal with modern killers? Do we need to be much more ambitious and involve the NHS?
Tracey Crouch
We already involve the NHS, but we can do more. That is not within my portfolio, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that a lot is going on in terms of the social prescribing of physical activity in local communities to combat the issues that he mentioned. Other things can be done—he should remind me to tell him about some girl guides from Wales who just visited me, who have been working hard to get sports such as rugby into their schools, despite opposition from their headteachers to allowing girls to do traditionally boys’ sports. I will talk to him about that outside the Chamber, because it is not the issue that we are talking about today. There is no simple solution, though; we need a partnership across many different agencies.
To support the Government’s ambitions, Sport England is investing £40 million in large-scale facilities up to 2021 through its strategic facilities fund. Its community asset fund provides grants of up to £150,000 to organisations and communities that want to take more ownership over the spaces and facilities in their local areas. I am pleased to see the extensive support that Sport England has already provided to mining communities, with £4.8 million of public investment having been awarded to 30 miners’ welfare organisations since 2005.
I was very interested in the comments by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley, because it says here in my script that the Kiveton community sports park in South Yorkshire is a particularly successful and recent example of how Sport England funding has helped to regenerate land and support mining communities to be more active. The park is used for sports as diverse as football, cricket, tag rugby and bowls; there are also para-sports such as boccia and goalball. Clearly, we need to talk about Kiveton outside this Chamber. It also says here in my script that it is a wonderful facility, and I am thrilled that so many people are being introduced to such a wide array of sports. Clearly, our perception of what is being delivered at Kiveton is very different from the reality on the ground, and I welcome his feedback on that.
It also says here in my script that Kiveton is a great example of how local interest and drive can be harnessed to make a real difference for communities. Regardless of Kiveton, however, it is clear that facilities only work properly when they are properly planned, properly used and properly maintained. That means being clear about which people we think would benefit the most from using them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and others spoke about CISWO. Although colleagues will appreciate that I am not in a position to comment on specific details of CISWO’s operations, I encourage all interested parties, including CISWO, the local trusts, local county sports partnerships and others to come together to discuss how local communities and facilities can best be supported and managed. Sport England has huge expertise in this area and I am sure that its staff would be very happy to contribute to such conversations. If that is of interest to colleagues, we can help to facilitate it.
We all know that many of the mining communities that we have talked about today include people from some of the hardest-to-reach groups in society, who are exactly the people who benefit the most from becoming more active. That is another key message in the sport and physical activity strategy. We want a strong focus from the whole sport and physical activity sector on how we can reach people who traditionally have not got involved in sport or who think sport or physical activity is not for them.
A great deal of support is already out there. Sport England has delivered a range of opportunities that place tackling inactivity and engaging under-represented groups at their core, and it is investing up to £100 million in 12 local delivery pilots across the country. These pilots focus on bringing together a wide range of partners to solve inactivity challenges in very specific locations. We are monitoring those pilots very closely, as they will be vital in helping to deliver better interventions across the country in the future.
Public funding and support can only stretch so far, but I shall make sure that the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield is passed on to the Chancellor as soon as possible. However, as I said earlier, there is no simple answer and therefore no one solution. Organisations that have great ideas about developing their facilities need to be encouraged and directed to other sources of finance and support. They need to be brought together—even cajoled—and it is in this regard that local leadership and understanding is key. Local authorities are the organisations best placed to understand what is needed in their communities and how to build support for any proposal, and the brokerage that local leaders can offer is invaluable. I urge the parties involved to get around the table to find a solution. Whether it is the challenges of planning regulations, access to finance or a lack of co-ordination, there is an opportunity to address real community need.
What we must avoid at all costs is building facilities that do not have the support of local organisations and that have not been tested by the community. I know that as someone whose constituency received funding for a major sports facility in the early stages of Sport England and lottery funding. That facility was developed, but a few years later it went into administration, because it had not been subject to community testing and did not have the right business plan. I really encourage thinking through the bids that go into the lottery organisations.
Sir Kevin Barron
I am very grateful to the Minister for what she has said. I will make contact with the CISWO officer in my constituency to see whether I can facilitate a meeting between CISWO and Sport England, to look at all these issues that are affecting people up and down the land in former coalfield areas.
Tracey Crouch
We all want to see more and better facilities. It is important that we work together in partnership to help people to get active, but sporting facilities all need to be properly planned, and that is where the leadership of colleagues here in Parliament, including leadership of their colleagues in their own constituencies, is incredibly important. Understanding the needs of local communities and building a broad consensus are crucial, and those of us in central Government in Whitehall are probably not best placed to do those things. However, we can provide the expertise from Sport England to help to support those conversations.
In addition, the Cabinet Office and the Local Government Association’s “One Public Estate” programme brings together partners from across a range of different local backgrounds to help to deliver property-based projects. I know my colleagues in the Cabinet Office would be very happy to meet interested Members to discuss that programme further.
At the very centre of this debate is the importance of understanding how we can help communities to be more active, including how they can access better quality facilities. We all know of the benefits that people gain from sport: it improves mental and physical health, improves skills, brings communities together, and makes the country a more productive place. That is why we want to see strong local partnerships coming together to understand the needs in their area and consequently to reinvigorate their local facilities and green spaces.
That already happens in many places, but there is scope to do so much more. I want communities to be supported to ensure that everybody, regardless of their ability or background, feels able to get active and live a healthy, happy and full life. I urge Members, CISWO, the relevant local authorities and county sports partnerships to meet urgently to identify a way forward. It is only through local collaboration and the drive of the community that meaningful progress can be made.
I thank all the Members who participated in today’s debate. Their contributions have been thoughtful and insightful. The points that have been expressed have been well made and I hope that progress on this matter will be forthcoming, because, like everyone else in this Chamber, I passionately believe that sport should be for everyone and is at the heart of a happy and healthy nation.
Ben Bradley
I thank the Minister for her response to the debate, for her consideration of this issue and for touching on the many positive things that the Government are doing to help grassroots sport. I particularly welcome her interest in discussing the matter with CISWO and the national governing bodies of sports. I would appreciate her help to facilitate that, whether the discussion is about finding new money—I have spoken to the Treasury about this issue—or how we co-ordinate and bring together the partnerships that she has mentioned, to make sure that any new money reaches the kind of facilities and communities that we have been discussing today. All of that would be very welcome.
I apologise for coughing my way through the debate; my next speech is about weaponising toddler germs for use by the Ministry of Defence. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) made some comments about the historic success of local clubs and sportsmen, and the positive contribution that lottery funding can make, which was a very good point to include. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) told us about his experience of local clubs and laid out the challenges with CISWO. We have touched on how important it is that we can bring CISWO funding together and get CISWO to put a plan together, as the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who represents a constituency neighbouring mine, mentioned. His point about NHS involvement was interesting; the health aspect of sport is certainly critical. He is right to say that it is the parents and grandparents of children who are the health priority in areas such as ours, and sporting facilities are clearly an access point for health services to reach those people. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who is my Nan’s MP, touched on the community spirit that remains in coalfield areas, and the resilience and grit of these communities. He is absolutely spot on.
It was a shame, therefore, after such a positive debate about the future of our communities that the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who is the shadow Minister, could not help harking back and politicising the issue. I find that even in communities such as ours, my constituents tend not to appreciate that. My predecessor’s will to continue to do that is part of the reason that I am now here in Parliament, truthfully. I find that very interesting.
I strongly believe that investing in sports provision in coalfield communities should be a huge priority, particularly in terms of improving the health and wellbeing of those communities. Without spending a great deal of money, there are opportunities to create a really positive legacy for the coal industry and these communities.
I appreciate everybody’s support here in Westminster Hall today and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered sports facilities in coalfield areas.
Written Statements
Valuation Office Agency
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I am today announcing the start of a tailored review of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). As an Executive agency of HM Revenue and Customs, the VOA is required to undergo a tailored review at least once in each Parliament. The structure, efficiency and effectiveness of the VOA and the governance arrangements it has in place will be considered as part of this review. I will inform the House of the outcome of the review as appropriate.
[HCWS1092]
Teachers’ Pay Grant
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Today I am confirming the allocations for the teachers’ pay grant for 2018-19.
The teachers’ pay grant was announced on 24 July by the Secretary of State for Education. This will be worth £508 million in total and will fully fund the 2018-19 academic year pay award to the end of the spending review period, over and above the 1% rise schools would have expected and been planning for.
On 14 September the Department for Education published the rates and high-level methodology for the teachers’ pay grant.
The grant will be paid to all state-funded schools and academies, including maintained nursery schools. This will be on the basis of pupil numbers in mainstream schools, and place numbers in special schools and other specialist provision. All schools will be funded for at least 100 pupils or 40 places.
Funding for mainstream schools will be allocated on the basis of pupil numbers and each school will have a specific allocation which cannot be modified by the local authority.
Local authorities will receive an allocation in respect of specialist provision in their area. This will be based on the number of places in each school, with all schools being funded for at least 40 places. The local authority will have the flexibility to allocate funding to the schools in their area, taking into account the particular circumstance of the schools and following consultation with them.
Further details and guidance will be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS1028]
Grand Committee
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, we will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations 2018
Baroness Manzoor
That the Grand Committee do consider the Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations 2018.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the retention of, and access to, communications data is crucial in enabling investigators to obtain intelligence and evidence that can prevent terrorist attacks, disrupt the activities of serious organised crime groups and establish culpability so that offenders can be brought to justice. It is used to investigate crime, keep children safe, locate missing persons, support or disprove alibis and link a suspect to a crime scene.
These regulations introduce additional safeguards in our communications data regime to ensure that it complies with EU law. They also bring into force the code of practice for communications data under the Investigatory Powers Act. We have consulted publicly on the changes to the legislation and the code between November 2017 and January 2018.
The regulations provide for the independent authorisations of communications data requests. Sir Adrian Fulford, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, is given this power and will delegate this responsibility to a newly appointed body of staff, to be known as the Office for Communications Data Authorisation. The OCDA will report directly to the IPC and will be responsible for considering the vast majority of requests to access communications data made by public authorities. The new body is expected to begin operating in April 2019, with independent authorisation being rolled out across public authorities over the course of 2019. Internal authorisation of requests will continue to be permitted in urgent cases—for example, where there is a threat to life and where requests are made for national security matters which are outside the scope of EU law.
The regulations restrict to serious crime the crime purpose for which events data such as call histories and location information can be retained and acquired. The primary safeguard to ensure that communications data is not acquired for trivial offences is the important test of necessity and proportionality, which must be considered every time an application for communication data is made.
The code of practice provides detailed guidance on how a public authority should consider the seriousness of an offence, including taking into account important factors such as the impact on the victim. In addition to this test, the regulations create a new threshold of serious crime, below which data cannot be acquired. As intended by the European Court, we have carefully considered how serious crime should be defined in the UK in the context of communications data. We propose to use as a starting point the definition which already exists within the IPA for the more intrusive interception and bulk powers, then making some adjustments in relation to communications data while leaving the original definition in place for more intrusive powers.
For communications data, we propose an adjusted definition, which includes offences that attract a sentence of one year rather than referring to offences for which the expected custodial sentence is three years, as in the case for interception. This reflects the less intrusive nature of the communications data, but nevertheless prevents data being acquired in the investigation of trivial offences. We have worked closely with the operational community to consider the importance of obtaining communications data against a range of offences, with a particular focus on cases where it was anticipated that communications data will be an important—or indeed the only—investigative tool. One area highlighted by law enforcement agencies was stalking and harassment offences. These can attract low sentences or fines, but such activity can often escalate into more serious offences, and when the activity takes place online, the ability to obtain communications data is a vital tool. Our proposed definition of serious crime for communications data acquisition also includes offences which involve, as an integral part of the offence, the sending of a communication or breach of a person’s privacy to ensure that all offences related to stalking and harassment are in scope.
The final adjustment of the serious crime definition already existing in the Act is to enable communications data to be obtained for investigations of offences committed by corporate bodies. We consider offences such as corporate manslaughter to be sufficiently serious to warrant the use of communications data in their investigation despite being punishable by fines. The generally less intrusive entity data—such as the name of a subscriber to a service—can still be obtained in relation to the full range of crimes, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. To ensure that the serious crime restriction can be brought into force on 1 November, the regulations amend the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 until Part 3 of the IPA is brought into force early next year. RIPA remains the legal framework for accessing communications data.
The new code of practice provides comprehensive guidance on the data retention and acquisition regime. It is well over 100 pages long, and provides further detail on roles and responsibilities. The code takes account of the changes made in these regulations, particularly the role of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the OCDA.
These changes support the important right to privacy and the right of citizens to be protected from crime and terrorism. They ensure that public authorities can continue to access retained communications data in a way that is consistent with EU law and our responsibilities to protect the public. The additional safeguards, the clear requirements set out in the code of practice and the independent oversight provided by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner establish clear limits around the use of these powers, and provide reassurance that communications data is being used only where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Committee that I was a police officer for over 30 years, rising to the rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, and—contrary to popular belief—my certificate of service states that my conduct was exemplary. I acknowledge the importance of communications data in the investigation of serious crime as the Minister has outlined. I also welcome, as far as they go, the independent authorisation provisions contained in these regulations.
I should like to give the Committee some background to discussions I have had with Ministers and officials on these regulations. Two weeks ago, at a meeting with the Minister of State for Security and Economic Crime, the Minister of State for Countering Extremism, the Minister for Equalities, and officials, I raised my concerns about the definition of serious crime in these regulations and one other issue. The Minister for Security and Economic Crime and his officials were unable to answer my concerns at that meeting but the Minister promised to find the answers and get back to me. Having heard nothing by yesterday afternoon, I alerted the Government to the fact that, in the absence of any explanation, I would seek to oppose the regulations when they reached the Floor of the House. At 8 pm last night, the Minister of State for Countering Extremism called me because she had been told that I was unhappy with the regulations. I repeated my main concern, as clearly expressed in the meeting with Ministers and officials on 10 October, and she undertook to provide me with a copy of the relevant part of the Minister’s opening speech this afternoon. I received this at 10 am today and I am grateful for the advance sight of the relevant part of the speech. Having reflected for some time on the Minister’s opening remarks, provided to me in advance in writing, I wish to explain to the Committee why I am still not satisfied with the Government’s response.
In the Investigatory Powers Act 2016—the Act of Parliament under which these regulations are being made—“serious crime” is defined as offences for which the expected custodial sentence is three years for a person over 18 with no previous convictions. In other legislation currently before the House—for example, the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill—the definition of serious crime is the same as in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. An expected custodial sentence of three years’ imprisonment for a person without any previous convictions is not, as I understand it, a maximum sentence of three years’ imprisonment. Taking shoplifting as an example, the maximum sentence for theft is 10 years in prison but someone stealing a can of beans from Tesco could not be expected to be sent to prison for three years for such an offence. Can the Minister explain exactly what “expected custodial sentence” means in practice? Can she give some examples of the types of offences that would fall within this category?
However, these regulations not only lower the bar to 12 months’ imprisonment or more, down from three years, but—the Minister will correct me if I have this wrong—defining serious crime as an offence that someone is capable of being sentenced for must mean that the maximum sentence is 12 months or more, which is a much lower threshold than the definition in the Act. Furthermore, it disregards any enactment prohibiting or restricting the imprisonment of individuals who have no previous convictions, as opposed to the Act, which has regard to such restrictions. If I am right, this shows that this is a much lower standard for defining serious crime than is contained in the Act itself.
The Minister talked in her introduction about preventing data being acquired in the investigation of trivial offences. The CJEU judgment on this matter, which has prompted these regulations, talks about the objective of fighting serious crime, not the prohibition on using communications data to investigate trivial crime. There is a significant difference between serious crime and trivial crime. My view is that the Government have stretched the definition of serious crime beyond credible limits, to an extent that is not compliant with the CJEU judgment in this matter.
However, the regulations go further still, to include any offence committed by a body corporate and any offence,
“which involves, as an integral part of it, the sending of a communication or a breach of a person’s privacy”.
Clearly, “any offence” does not differentiate between a serious offence and any other type of offence. The CJEU explicitly stated that the use of communications data must be restricted to the investigation of serious crime but these regulations define any crime as being serious if it is committed by a body corporate or involves the sending of a communication or a breach of privacy, when clearly some of these offences will not be serious by any reasonable definition. I am reminded of the Oxford undergraduate who tried to get around college by-laws prohibiting undergraduates from keeping dogs in their rooms by calling his dog “Cat”.
The Minister has explained how the Government arrived at such a position:
“We have worked closely with the operational community to consider the importance of communications data against a range of offences, with a particular focus on cases where it was anticipated that communications data will be an important—or indeed the only—investigative tool”.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has compared these regulations to a dog masquerading as a cat. My feeling about them is that they seem more like the plotline from a political thriller than a reality that we ought to be facing. The regulations are actually a barefaced attempt by the Government to expand their creepy surveillance powers deeper and deeper into our lives. We seem to be the last bulwark here against the Government adopting Henry VIII powers that are simply unacceptable in these areas. These changes are unacceptable and we are going to do as much as we can to stop them. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act was already hugely controversial, and these regulations seek to extend those powers even further.
Big changes to legislation, such as this, should be done through an Act of Parliament, rather than sneaking it through, without full scrutiny, under secondary legislation. I think it is quite outrageous of the Government to try to do this. In particular, I too was at that meeting on 10 October—one of the two Peers who attended, out of 800—and I feel that at no point have our concerns raised at that meeting been looked at, discussed or taken into account. I also take great issue with the definition of “serious crime” which these regulations use to justify state intrusion into people’s communications. Serious crime, we are told, is any offence which is capable of leading to a prison sentence of more than 12 months. Such serious crimes would therefore include possession of small quantities of cannabis, the obscene performance of plays or petty theft. I personally would not indulge in any of those, obviously, but I imagine there are categories that I could fall into, in total innocence, and that offends me very deeply.
Detecting and preventing even these pettiest of crimes would be grounds for the state to collect communications data. There does not need to be reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence, just a general intention to make sure that you have not done anything wrong. Using these powers for so-called serious crime, the police will be able to gather the location data transmitted by your phone and any other electronic device. So with very few legal safeguards, the state can track you at will. These ever more oppressive data collection laws make it ever easier to spy on each and every one of us, for even the vaguest of reasons.
These laws are going the wrong way. Of course we need proper powers to tackle terrorism and truly serious crime, but alienating a lot of the populace is not the way to go. These powers should not come at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the majority of people, who are innocent of any serious crime. I feel that the Government are turning into an ugly, greedy surveillance monster, willing to sacrifice civil liberties that are, or should be, at the heart of real democracy.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As the Minister said, the purpose of these regulations is to reflect a ruling of the European Court on communications data acquisition and retention that the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is incompatible with European law. In the light of that ruling, these regulations have been brought forward, seeking to bring our legislation in line with European law, and of course what is before us also contains the code of practice to which the Minister referred.
The regulations and the code of practice provide for independent authorisation over the use of the relevant powers. The regulations also restrict the crime purpose for acquiring retained commissions to what is described as “serious crime”.
In the Commons, where this matter has already been discussed, we said that we did not oppose the changes made. We also said that we supported strong powers, but added that we supported strong safeguards. Although it is not entirely about safeguards, the issues that have been raised have also been about powers, but certainly much of the comment that has been made, although not exclusively, has been about the extent to which there are or are not appropriate safeguards in relation to these measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised issues about the definition of serious crime, which, as I understand it, is up to the member state to define. However, he also raised questions over the issue of whether the Government’s definition is too wide ranging, since it covers offences for which a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or more can be imposed, as opposed to what might realistically be expected to be imposed for the offence, and the fact that the definition covers, as the noble Lord said, any crime by a body corporate or any offence that involves as a key part of it,
“the sending of a communication or a breach of a person’s privacy”,
which it would appear could include minor transgressions as well as matters for which one would quite definitely expect these powers to be used.
On the issue of the custodial threshold, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has said, it is in relation to offences which would, as I understand it—and as I think he understands it—carry a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment. He has contrasted it to the present definitions, which can be found elsewhere, including under the Investigatory Powers Act, where the reference is to three years—I think the noble Lord said he expected it to be three years. That is of course, as he has already said, a very different issue to an offence having a potential maximum of 12 months, which it is now suggested it should be in this case.
Clearly, that having been said, and the decision having been made to lower the threshold—I think I know from what was said in the Commons what the Minister is likely to say in respect of that, and I will listen with great interest to her response—there is the issue of how, as far as the powers stand at the moment under these regulations, we will be able to stop them being abused by using them in respect of offences which could hardly be deemed to be serious. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, if you look at the kind of offences for which there can be a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment, they can include—because you have a lower and a higher level of defence—types of offence which it would be difficult to describe as serious.
The Minister referred to the Office for Communications Data Authorisations. As I understand it, if there is a desire to use the powers under the Bill, it is to that office under the Investigatory Powers Commissioner that an application will be made. Reference has been made to using the powers in a way that is proportionate and necessary. Bearing in mind that we are talking about an offence being investigated and so do not know fully its level of severity or otherwise, an obvious question in the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has raised is how those deciding whether to authorise the use of those powers will judge whether we are dealing with a serious crime.
I await with interest the Minister’s response to the points that have been raised not only by the noble Lord but by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I am glad that we have been able to have such a wide-ranging discussion, because this is a very important subject. All three noble Lords who have taken part in this debate have spoken of the vital role that communications data and investigatory powers generally have in protecting the public and bringing criminals to justice.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Paddick I all him my noble friend—that the Government take seriously the need for strong protections and safeguards. We want to ensure that the powers are still used appropriately and fairly.
I turn to the questions put to me; there were common elements in all of them. All three noble Lords raised the important issue of the serious crime threshold and suggested that it might be too low. UK law contains a variety of definitions of serious crime specifically designed to be relevant to the particular statute or power to which they relate. The existing serious crime threshold in Section 263 of the Investigatory Powers Act is a high threshold—conduct for which an adult could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to three years or more in prison or which involves violence, substantial financial gain or a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose. This relates to the much more intrusive interception of communications and bulk powers.
The Section 263 definition would exclude a wide range of offences where it would be appropriate to be able to acquire communications data; for example, child cruelty, stalking, harassment, some sexual offences and some offences relating to theft and fraud, as well as offences committed by a body corporate such as corporate manslaughter—I mentioned this in my opening comments. We have therefore proposed an adjusted version of the Section 263 definition for the purposes of acquiring events data to reflect its less intrusive nature and the importance of such data as a tool in investigating many serious online crimes.
An offence capable of attracting a year or more in prison is not a trivial matter. In addition to this serious crime threshold, a public authority will still need to show in every case that the data is necessary and proportionate for the specific investigation. The code of practice also provides detailed guidance on the factors that public authorities need to take into account when considering seriousness.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to the European Court of Justice. The court acknowledges that the level of intrusion depends on the data being acquired. While the serious crime threshold prevents data below it being acquired, the important test of necessity and proportionality, combined with clear guidance on seriousness in the code of practice, will ensure that the level of seriousness is appropriate and that this appropriateness is taken into account. This is set out in a subsequent ECJ judgement.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked about the carve-out related to communications. For this to apply, the communication must be integral to the offence. For example, it would ensure that if a person is being stalked or harassed online, this could be fully investigated, even if the specific offence being committed does not involve a sentence of 12 months or more. As I have said, such offences can quickly escalate, and it is important that such conduct can be investigated and action taken at the appropriate opportunity.
The noble Lord also asked about EU issues in terms of adequacy. As I have stated, the UK is already fully compliant with EU data protection legislation. We have implemented the new EU data protection framework, the GDPR and the law enforcement directive through the Data Protection Act 2018. We believe the changes we are proposing to our communication data, retention and acquisition regime will allow us to comply with EU law while continuing to keep the public safe, so there should be no impact on our ability to share data with the EU in the future. Although the European Commission can consider our national security arrangements as part of any adequacy decision, we do not feel it would conclude that the UK’s decision not to require independent authorisation in relation to national security requests makes the UK data protection framework inadequate. This is particularly the case in circumstances where we consider that no EU member state is required to put in place independent authorisation for its national security applications. Indeed, we know that other member states agree that national security is not within the scope of EU law, and therefore this judgment does not apply in national security cases. In any event, the regulations permit national security applications to be rooted through the OCDA, should that be considered appropriate or necessary, now or in the future.
A question was put about corporate offences, and why we are capturing them all. This relates to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in terms of the carve-out. The carve-out ensures that communication data can be acquired in relation to serious offences such as corporate manslaughter, which are punishable only by fines. As with all applications for communications data, the necessity and proportionality test will prevent it being acquired in relation to more trivial matters, and I think that that is key.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, indicated, the Commons approved these regulations on 15 October. If they are not approved by 1 November, we will be in breach of a court order. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, wishing to take this to the Floor of the House. I was not party to the meetings he had two weeks ago, and can only apologise that he did not receive the information he requested from those meetings until 10 am today. But I hope that he will reflect on the answers I have given.
There is nothing more I can add to what I have already said, but I remind noble Lords that there is still ongoing litigation in relation to domestic and EU courts on the investigatory powers. For example, the ECJ ruling raises the issue of notification. The Government’s position remains that our regime already provides for sufficient notification of individuals where appropriate and is consistent with the requirements of EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights. These regulations address the areas where the Government have acknowledged that changes are needed to comply with the requirements of EU law, and that is exactly what we are doing.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, feels that I have addressed the issues around the level or threshold of serious crime. She also asked whether we are extending the powers of the state. We are not extending our powers—rather, I understand that we are narrowing them. The current law permits communications data to be used for all crimes. This is about being fair and proportionate, being transparent, and having clear oversight of the data that is being requested and reviewed. This area has been greatly strengthened by that oversight.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, also raised the issue of using EU regulations as a way forward. I can only say that these regulations have been made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 which permits the Secretary of State to amend primary legislation by regulations to implement EU law obligations, as in this case. The regulations are of course subject to the affirmative resolution procedure which requires the formal approval of both Houses of Parliament, including a debate and vote in each House before they can become law, if noble Lords so wish.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked why we are not complying with all the elements of the judgment. We have accepted that there are aspects of our regime that do not meet the requirements of the ECJ judgment and it is those which the regulations address. Subject to the changes, we believe that our existing regime complies with the requirements set out in the ECJ judgment.
I have already addressed the issue of using the Section 263 definition for intrusive powers and I do not think that there is anything else I can add to that. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness both asked where such powers can be used. I have some examples before me that may help, but I hope that I will be forgiven if they are not fully inclusive. I will write to noble Lords. The examples include inciting a girl aged under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse, contempt of court, racially aggravated harassment, common assault, sexual communications with a child and child cruelty. Again, I will write to the noble Lord with further examples in order to provide greater clarity in this area and I will ensure that the information is distributed to all noble Lords.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her assurance that she will give the details in writing, which I am sure will be very helpful. I did ask how the Office for Communications Data Authorisations would make its judgment as regards whether to agree to authorise the use of powers under the Bill. As has been said, we are now in a situation where included in the definition of serious crime is a penalty which can be at its maximum a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment. As I am sure the Minister knows, that covers an awful lot of offences where, in the normal course of events, you would not expect an individual found guilty of that offence, when you look at the nature of the offence, to get anything like 12 months.
I am still not too clear, and it would be very helpful if the Minister could address this, how the Office for Communications Data Authorisations would make its assessment when it relates to a crime for which the maximum penalty is 12 months. How will it be able to make the assessment of what the penalty is likely to be if the individual is found guilty of that offence? Presumably, if it were to end up going to court and a fine imposed, which can happen even for something that has a maximum penalty of 12 months, surely we would not expect them to agree to authorise a power under the Bill.
Baroness Manzoor
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, makes a very important point. When I write, I will ensure that the issue of how it will be overseen by the oversight body and how it is dealt with is addressed very clearly. I will write to all noble Lords and I will also place a copy in the Library.
Lord Paddick
In that letter perhaps the Minister will expand further on harassment and stalking offences, which can quickly escalate, to use the expression she used. Of course, if stalking involves fear of violence, or serious alarm or distress—in other words, if it escalates—the maximum sentence is five years and therefore it would be covered anyway by the definition of serious crime as being something with a maximum sentence of 12 months. Therefore, an offence involving communications as an integral part would not be necessary. Perhaps she can clarify that as well when she writes.
Baroness Manzoor
Of course, I will be happy to do that. I shall address the points put by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He asked how we will prevent the powers being used for less serious offences, which is essentially the question on which I have been asked to write, but I shall try to give a brief view of our response. The Office for Communications Data Authorisations will receive a full case setting out the need for communications data. It will need to set out why the request is necessary, proportionate and sufficiently serious to warrant the intrusion. The IPA then provides for oversight of this.
The Investigatory Powers Act provides for an Investigatory Powers Commissioner, whose remit includes providing comprehensive oversight of the use of the powers contained within the Act and adherence to the practices and processes, which as noble Lords know are described in the code of practice. The IPC is a member of the senior judiciary and is entirely independent of Her Majesty’s Government or any of the public authorities authorised to use investigatory powers. That is very strong oversight. The IPC is supported by inspectors and others, such as technical experts and legal experts. The IPC and those who work under the authority of the IPC will ensure compliance with the law by inspecting public authorities and investigating any issue which they believe warrants further independent scrutiny. If there were any issue, they would be there in an independent capacity—it is not just somebody locally at the authorities making that decision.
The IPC must report annually on the findings of its audits, inspections and investigations. This report will be laid before Parliament and made available to the public, subject to any necessary redactions made in the public interest. Separately, the Investigatory Powers Act requires that the security, integrity and deletion of retained data by telecommunications operators is overseen by the Information Commissioner, who provides the UK’s data protection oversight function. Just to conclude on that, because the oversight is important, Section 260 of the IPA requires that the Secretary of State must publish a report reviewing the operation of the Act and lay it before Parliament after five years of its passing.
I hope that I have answered most of the questions that noble Lords have put to me. As I said, if there are any issues that I have missed or not grasped as fully as I could have done, I am happy to write to noble Lords and place a copy of the letter in the Library. I am aware that across from me there is greater expertise than I have, but I hope that I have been able to allay any fears and concerns and that noble Lords are assured that we are looking at safeguarding and protecting, as well as ensuring transparency, in this important area.
Civil Aviation (Insurance) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Aviation (Insurance) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed if the UK leaves the European Union next March without a deal. The regulations amend EU regulation 785/2004, which sets out insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators, and the domestic legislation made to implement this regulation.
EU regulation 785/2004 requires air carriers and aircraft operators to be insured in respect of passengers, baggage, cargo and third parties and against other risks such as acts of war, terrorism, hijacking, acts of sabotage, unlawful seizure of aircraft and civil commotion. It also requires air carriers and aircraft operators to demonstrate their compliance with the minimum insurance requirements set out in the regulation and makes provision for exceptional situations where a failure of the insurance market means that carriers are not able to demonstrate that they are adequately insured in respect of all the risks specified in the regulation.
The withdrawal Act will retain in UK law EU regulation 785/2004 in its entirety on exit day. The draft instrument that we are considering makes the changes necessary so that the EU regulation continues to function correctly after exit day, alongside the domestic Civil Aviation (Insurance) Regulations 2005, which were made to implement the EU regulation. This is essential to ensure that the regulatory regime in place after exit continues to make the UK a safe place for passengers to travel by air.
The changes that the draft legislation makes are technical in nature. Both the risks against which air carriers and aircraft operators must be insured and the levels of insurance required, which are measured in special drawing rights—an international reserve asset created by the International Monetary Fund—remain the same.
To illustrate some of the proposed changes: they ensure that the scope of the retained EU legislation is correct so that it applies to “the United Kingdom” rather than,
“a Member State to which the Treaty Applies”,
and ensure that EU processes set out in the regulation, which will not apply to the UK after exit, are replaced with equivalent domestic processes. The EU regulation also makes provision for certain legislative functions. For instance, Article 7 sets out the minimum insurance cover in special drawing rights per accident for aircraft according to mass, and the EU regulation provides that the values in Article 7 may be amended where this is required as a result of changes to multilateral treaties, such as the 1999 Montreal Convention.
As the EU legislative procedure prescribed in the regulation will not apply to the UK once it has left the EU, this SI makes provision for the Secretary of State to amend these values by regulations if, and only if, required as a consequence of changes to international treaties. To ensure that any use of these powers is subject to appropriate scrutiny, we have provided that any such regulations must follow the affirmative resolution procedure and be approved by both Houses of Parliament.
We remain confident of securing an agreement on aviation with the EU. Across Europe, people benefit from liberal aviation market access, and we are focused on securing the right arrangements for the future so that our aviation industry can continue to thrive and passengers across the UK and the EU can continue to benefit from high levels of connectivity and choice. However, irrespective of the outcome of negotiations, it is crucial that we prepare our regulatory and legislative framework so that it continues to enable the UK’s aviation industry to operate safely and effectively in all scenarios. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on moving these regulations. I will take the opportunity to raise a number of personal concerns. I declare an interest in that when I was an MEP, I was Conservative spokesman for aviation in the European Parliament for a number of years, and at the time I met my husband, he was working for Delta Air Lines.
I imagine that the list my noble friend gave is not exhaustive, but there are increasingly incidents of drones—indeed, there has been a near miss. Is this currently covered by the EU legislation, and will that also transfer? Is this an opportunity that my noble friend and the Government may wish to look at in order to increase the cover? As I understand, there was a near miss involving a passenger aeroplane at a London airport, which would have had devastating consequences. I remember once looking at my insurance policy when I lived in a rented flat in Brussels, and one of the exclusions was from a plane falling from the sky. I wondered what the chances were of that happening, until a cargo plane did just that at Amsterdam airport, and the consequences were obviously absolutely devastating, not just for the passengers on the plane but for those in the apartments underneath.
I do not know whether this is the correct time to ask, but can my noble friend confirm that we will continue to have reciprocal cover, so that we will recognise the insurance cover of European carriers and other international carriers who use our airspace, emanating from EU airports? I understand that that is covered at the moment, but reading the specialist press, there seems to be some concern about whether this will carry on.
As my noble friend will be aware, there is deep concern among the airline industry, and no doubt airports as well, that we will continue to enjoy use of European airspace, and that our membership of EASA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, will continue. Does that fall within the parameters of these regulations or will my noble friend have another opportunity to update those of us who are concerned?
In her latter remarks, my noble friend said that the value of the insurance cover will continue to be reviewed. From memory, these values are set by either the Geneva or the Warsaw convention. Is my noble friend able to tell us when these values were last reviewed and whether in future we will continue to review the values of the insurance cover on a multilateral, reciprocal basis with our existing EU partners and others, such as Norway and Iceland, with which we will have reciprocal arrangements—I imagine that through the EEA they are already members of EASA—or is it the intention of the Government to do that on a bilateral basis? I believe that would be highly regrettable.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s introduction of these regulations. I imagine it is the first of a very large number of statutory instruments—and it just covers insurance. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, there is the whole question of EASA, which we will come to another day.
I have a few questions about the insurance cover itself. The Minister said that it covers the insurance requirements for air travel in the UK. Does that cover airlines registered in the UK? Does it cover airlines registered in the EU which are flying to or from the UK? Does it cover airlines registered in third countries which are coming into the UK and going on somewhere else or stopping here? Is there any requirement under these regulations for an airline registered in the UK to demonstrate that it has insurance outside the borders of the UK, specifically in the EU? I am sure that airlines do not think, “We just want to be insured in this country, we do not care what happens when we cross the frontier”, but it would be nice to have some comfort on that. Does the Minister expect the EU to want to know whether all these insurances that we have just talked about are valid in the UK before it will allow planes to arrive in its own airports from the UK? There is a large number of different scenarios here, leaving aside the fact that London to Dublin is the most traffic-heavy air route into and out of this country and Dublin will still be in the EU and apparently we will not be.
I would be grateful if the Minister could address those questions and give us some idea of what other SIs will be coming to cover all the other things that are required to enable continuity of flying after 29 March. I gather that either the Minister or her Secretary of State was given a bit of a telling-off by Mr Barnier for trying to prejudge the Brexit negotiations by going round every other member state and trying to get quiet deals with each one. I am sure she had a great time going round all those places but I do not know what has happened with this. I look forward to her comments.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the airline industry in this country is intensely competitive. It is a commercial environment where there is a real danger that airlines seeking to reduce costs will cut their insurance to the minimum in order to do so. It is obvious from this SI that freeing ourselves from EU standards means that we could allow airlines to have a lower level of insurance. The Minister read out an impressive but rather grim list of the risks that airlines face. Obviously those risks are also faced by their passengers and therefore I would be grateful if she could give some more detail about what restrictions will be put on airlines that are registered in Britain: how low can they go as regards their insurance cover?
It is obvious that the Government are anticipating a reduction because paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum makes it absolutely clear that this legislation will free airlines in the UK to take up lower levels of insurance cover than those required in the EU. It gives the example of “non-commercial operations”. As an aside, I would like to ask the Minister if she could define what the Government mean by that phrase. What sort of operations will need to have or will be allowed to have a lower level of cover? There is no point in freeing yourself up from EU controls if you are not going to allow variations from the standards that the EU has set. Will there be any guarantees of a minimum level of insurance cover or will we have some sort of free-for-all as a result of this? Air passengers will be concerned that there should always be an adequate level of cover.
I reiterate the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: exactly how will this work? I have been trying to envisage the process. Thank goodness that several of our airlines have decided that they will neutralise some of the risks of Brexit and life after Brexit by registering in other countries. That covers their risks, which is a very good thing for them to have done. However, airlines are often based in more than one country. They may have their headquarters in one country but have most of their aircraft based in another one. Of course they fly between countries, so who will set the level of insurance that is required on each occasion? Will it depend on their country of origin, the flight that day, or will it depend on where the airline’s headquarters are based? If our UK-based planes fly from the UK to an EU country, will they not have the right to demand that those planes have an EU level of cover, not the reduced cover that the Government seem to envisage would be possible?
Finally, I put a rather prosaic point to the Minister. Paragraph 3.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The territorial application of this instrument includes Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
What has happened to Wales, which has more than one airport? Can I ask for an assurance that the Scottish Government—sadly I cannot ask about Northern Ireland at this moment—have expressed their agreement to the concepts behind this SI and that the Welsh Government have done so as well, particularly since they do not seem to have been mentioned?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I also thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the regulations before us. Perhaps I may pursue the point that has been made about paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to clarify what it means—or at least to establish that what I think it means is correct. It states:
“Article 6 sets out levels of insurance in respect of liability for passengers, baggage and cargo. Under Article 6(1), the minimum insurance cover for liability in respect of passengers is set at 250,000 SDRs per passenger”.
Can I take it that, as far as these regulations are concerned, there is no change and that the minimum insurance cover which applies at the moment will continue to be applied in the future and not be reduced? The memorandum continues:
“For non-commercial operations by aircraft with a MTOM of 2,700kg or less, there is an option for Member States to set a lower level of minimum insurance cover”—
I take it that that is the present situation with us being within the EU and that we already have the option because the memorandum says—
“which the United Kingdom has chosen to exercise. To ensure that the flexibility provided for in Article 6(1) is retained, Article 6(1) is amended to include a provision for the Secretary of State, by regulations, to set a lower level of minimum insurance cover in respect of non-commercial operations by aircraft with a MTOM of 2,700kg”.
Does the Secretary of State intend to go to a lower level of minimum insurance requirement than we have already exercised under what I understand is provided for under the existing arrangements? It is clear from looking at it that the Secretary of State could take the first opportunity to reduce it even further. What are the advantages of having the lower level of minimum insurance cover that the Secretary of State may set by regulations? To whose advantage is it? Is it safer to have a lower level of minimum insurance cover? It would be helpful to know what the advantages are and whether the Secretary of State intends to lower the level even further than I presume we have already reached.
Lord Berkeley
Will my noble friend clarify his thinking on non-commercial operations of aircraft with a minimum take-off or landing weight of 2,700 kilograms? That covers small private planes. Does he agree that it would be quite difficult if those private planes had such a small amount of insurance cover that anybody who might be affected by anything they did could be seriously out of pocket?
Lord Rosser
That would seem to be one issue, but I was posing the question to the Minister with no particular objective in mind other than simply to find out the thinking behind it, given that we have already moved to a lower level of minimum insurance cover than would have applied if we had not exercised the option. At the moment, I genuinely do not know what the thinking behind it is, to whom it is considered advantageous and whether there are any downsides. That is the point of my question and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to it.
The Minister referred to international treaties. Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Article 6(5) sets out that the values referred to in Article 6 may be amended if required because of changes to international treaties … Article 7(2) sets out that the values referred to in Article 7(1) may be amended where it is required as a result of changes to international treaties, and this is amended to enable the Secretary of State, by regulations, to amend the values in Article 7”.
I think that the Minister has already said this, but I would like an assurance that those changes will be made only in response to changes in international treaties and that the Secretary of State will not use this instrument to make changes that are not required under international treaties.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for considering the draft regulations. Many questions have been asked and I will do my best to get through all of them, but if I do not I will follow them up in writing. As I have said, the regulations just make the changes necessary to ensure that the retained EU legislation setting out the insurance requirements continues to function properly. They do not change that legislation.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the level of insurance. The regulations do not change the prescribed level of insurance in any way. I agree with my noble friend that drones are a real threat and that is why we are taking action. We have brought in height restrictions and flight restrictions close to airports, but there is more to do on that. We will bring forward a draft Bill which will look at police powers, among other things.
Reciprocal cover on insurance is required under international treaties. That will continue to be the case. Our continued membership of EASA is a matter for negotiations, but we have made our position clear that it is in everyone’s interest that the UK should remain part of EASA. We have played a leading role in it and will want to continue to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked whom this insurance will cover. It will apply to all aircraft flying into the UK, including EU carriers, third-country carriers and UK carriers. Everyone who flies into the UK will be required to hold this insurance as a condition for their permit to operate in the UK. The noble Lord is right to point out the number of pieces of secondary legislation coming our way. There will be around 14 aviation SIs to get through.
Lord Berkeley
The noble Baroness mentioned international treaties. Will those need to be redone because we are leaving the EU or are they ones to which the whole world is signed up and so there will be no change? In other words, did we sign up to them or did we sign up to them through the EU?
Baroness Sugg
We signed up to the international treaties as a member state—as the UK—so we will not need to rejoin them. Obviously, EASA is a separate group of which we are a member as part of our membership of the EU, but we have signed up to the Montreal convention, for example.
Regarding the member states negotiations mentioned by noble Lords, sadly I have not been on a Europe-wide trip negotiating bilaterally with member states. We are working closely with the Commission on agreeing a liberal deal, and that kind of multilateral level agreement is our primary objective. We want to be as ready as we can be for when we leave the European Union, and so the noble Lord was quite right to point out that we have approached member states, but our preference would definately be a multilateral deal on that.
Turning to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, regarding the minimum level required and how low we could go. Just to be clear, it is not about reducing cover in any way. Article 7 sets out the minimum insurance for special drawing rights and that is carried across, so we will still have that same minimum level. I can assure all noble Lords that the amendments to regulations will be made only in response to an international treaty change.
Baroness Randerson
Can I ask for a little more clarification on that because the Minister said in a previous answer that these regulations are not changing the prescribed level of insurance in any way. Yet by freeing ourselves from the EU prescribed level, is it not up to us if we wish to change the level? I am happy to accept the Minister’s assertion that the Government have no plans to do that, but would these regulations enable the Government to change the prescribed level if they wished to in the future?
Baroness Sugg
I think with all the SIs we are doing, we are literally transcribing EU law into UK law and treating it the same way, as the UK, as we would as a member of the EU. I think any change of policy in the future is not going to be part of these SIs, it would be done as a separate policy decision and debated in the normal way in both Houses. All these SIs are specifically correcting deficiencies which will exist after the withdrawal Act to ensure we have the correct regulatory frameworks. They are not changing; any changes to the minimum requirements would be done if and only if there is a change to international treaties. Some of these SIs do have executive functions which are being carried across; that is why we are giving the reassurance that any time an executive function is used, it will be in the affirmative way.
I will say more about the minimum insurance cover as several noble Lords have mentioned it. Article 6.1 gives member states the power to set a level of minimum insurance cover in respect of the liabilities for passengers, baggage and cargo, and that is lower than 250,000 special drawing rights per passenger for non-commercial aircraft with a maximum take-off mass of 2,700 kilograms or less. In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, non-commercial just means that no money has changed hands for the flight. That applies primarily to light and experimental aircraft, and cover must be at least 100,000 SDRs per passenger. The UK has exercised that power, as have other member states, and set the lower minimum of 100,000 SDRs within the Civil Aviation (Insurance) Regulations. This SI does not give us an option to set it lower—not that we would want to—it just carries across the minimum level. I hope I have assured noble Lords that this is not an attempt to change that in any way. We have no intention of doing so.
In answer to questions on airspace, this is not dealt with in the same way as an air services agreement; it is an International Air Services Transit Agreement which accompanies the Chicago Convention. Almost all EU member states are separate signatories to an IASTA, meaning they allow overflights and will continue to do so whether or not we are a member of the EU. On the devolved Administrations, obviously aviation is primarily a reserved matter and civil aviation insurance is fully reserved in respect of all three devolved Administrations, but of course we are continuing to engage with them on all aviation matters.
There were a couple of questions from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I think the last exceptional failure of the insurance market was in response to 9/11. We are working closely with passenger representatives throughout the development of our position on EU exit and aviation in preparing these SIs.
Lord Rosser
If the Government are having discussions with passenger representatives, why did it not say so in the consultation outcome paragraph?
Baroness Sugg
I apologise that it did not. I will be looking at what we say in the consultation paragraphs in future to ensure that there is proper information to give assurance to noble Lords. I personally, my officials and indeed the Secretary of State regularly meet with industry and passenger interest groups to ensure that we are getting this right as we leave the European Union.
As I say, I hope I have answered the majority of questions. I apologise if I have missed any but there were quite a few, so I will follow up in writing. As I have said, we remain confident that we will reach an agreement with the EU, but of course it is important that we prepare our legislative framework in case we leave the EU with no deal. That is what this SI is doing. The regulations do not make any changes to the substance of the insurance requirements that air carriers and aircraft operators are expected to meet, but they are essential to ensuring that the retained EU legislation which sets out these requirements continues to work effectively in the UK immediately after exit day. That is what these SIs are designed to do. We need to ensure that we have the right regulatory and legislative framework to provide passengers and industry with choice, connectivity and value for money irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations. I beg to move.
Merchant Shipping (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Carbon Dioxide Emissions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the Grand Committee do consider the Merchant Shipping (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Carbon Dioxide Emissions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the draft regulations that we are considering will be made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, and are needed if the UK leaves the EU in March without a deal. The regulations will amend EU regulation 2015/757 on the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport. The effective monitoring and reporting of carbon dioxide is an important step towards achieving a more environmentally sustainable shipping sector. The emissions data gathered will help the international community to develop more effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships.
The EU regulation established rules for monitoring, reporting and verifying CO2 emissions from ships above 5,000 tonnes that make voyages starting or finishing in a port in an EU member state. Shipping companies have already prepared monitoring plans and have been collecting data since 1 January this year. Ships within scope are required to carry a valid document of compliance from 30 June 2019. The EU regulation applies only to ships visiting ports that are under the jurisdiction of an EU member state. Currently, it would therefore cease to have effect when the UK leaves the EU.
The changes made in the regulations are therefore necessary to ensure that the monitoring, reporting and verification requirements of the EU regulation continue to apply to ships serving UK ports. If we failed to correct the EU regulation, ships calling at EU ports would still need to report under the EU system but those trading between the UK and non-EU ports would not need to report. Not only would this create an uneven playing field between companies but the evidence on greenhouse gas emissions would be weakened.
The UK is a strong supporter of global action to tackle climate change. In April this year we helped lead a high-ambition coalition to secure agreement at the International Maritime Organization on an initial strategy on greenhouse gas emissions. That included an historic first emissions reduction target for ships of at least 50% by 2050, which is an important step forward in tackling emissions from international shipping, one of the last major sectors not to have an emissions reduction plan.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these draft regulations. Before I get into the substance, I would be interested to know how much monitoring has happened in the UK up to now, both in the ports and on the seas between the ports. As the Minister implied, and taking the Dover Strait as an example, ships going in a south-westerly direction may be going from a continental port to somewhere else in the world but they are still in UK waters for a time. It would be interesting to know what monitoring has taken place inside and outside the ports.
I declare an interest: until last year I was a trustee of Plymouth Marine Laboratory, which developed a very interesting means of checking the emissions from ships from up to five miles away; it was mainly CO2 but other emissions as well. It tested it off Rame Head in Plymouth. I think it found that the few naval ships that were running on this kind of fuel were the worst offenders but I am sure that has changed. It does not really matter; the point is that it could do it. The idea would be to put this equipment in the middle of the Dover Strait, for example, where you could check ships going both ways. I do not know where that has got to, but it is important that monitoring is carried out not just in the ports but out at sea where the emissions can still be quite dangerous.
Can the Minister explain what the difference will be when we have left the EU? If a ship in the Dover Strait has set off from Rotterdam and is due to end up in China, how will we monitor the emissions, let alone enforce any limits? What are we going to do about that? It is all very well having these regulations. I believe that there is another regulation which requires cleaner fuel to be burnt when you are travelling in the English Channel, which I think is to the east of Lizard or Scilly and up to the North Sea. I think that that is going to change in a few years’ time in order to cover the whole of the UK. Has that position changed as a result of our potentially leaving the EU? How will the monitoring be done?
It is good that the Minister has brought forward these regulations, but my doubts are around whether there will be any monitoring at all, whether there is any monitoring, and what action will be taken if a ship is found to be exceeding the limits. I look forward to hearing her comments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will follow the noble Lord in the same vein by asking a simple question. I remind the Committee of my historic interest as the Conservative spokesman in the European Parliament on transport issues. Can my noble friend the Minister explain the current enforcement mechanism if either a UK-registered ship or an EU-registered ship breaches the carbon dioxide emissions limit? How does she imagine that that enforcement mechanism will change in the future? Presumably the whole point of having carbon dioxide emissions limits is to ensure that, along with every other form of transport, maritime shipping abides by air quality standards. Will we be able to enforce this unilaterally going forward?
I turn to something that is very topical. Is there currently any jurisdiction for the European Court of Justice over a breach of these emissions standards?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I should declare that I am a board member of the Marine Management Organisation. I do not think that it conflicts with what we are considering here, but I mention it for the avoidance of doubt. I would like to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, by saying that in her role as leading the group in the European Parliament when the Conservatives were part of the EPP, which is exactly where they should still be, she was a fantastic advocate for her position. I was in a different group that sometimes became involved in things like trans-European networks, and I noted that she was very successful in what she tried to do. She presented a difficult opposition.
I want to come back to a few points about carbon budgets, which is what this comes down to. In her remarks the Minister alternated between talking about carbon emissions and greenhouse gas emissions. There is a very important difference between those two phrases. I would be interested in understanding whether these regulations are in fact concerned with greenhouse gases or carbon dioxide emissions. I know that they refer to carbon dioxide, but most of the monitoring that is done is for greenhouse gases. Although emissions of methane are lower, it is a much more potent greenhouse gas. The difference is important and I presume that it is particularly relevant to the shipping industry, given its emissions.
I congratulate the Minister on reminding us that international shipping is the one area where we still have not solved this issue internationally. In aviation we have this rather dodgy—if I am honest—offset system. We will see how it works, but I suspect that the Amazon rainforest will not grow at the rate that aircraft emissions will. Given that sympathy, I am interested to understand whether, given the fact that we have international paralysis, and with the Government perhaps frustrated by the fact that that sector is not represented within European or British carbon budgets, the UK, as the Climate Change Committee has often advocated, will take on its leadership role in this area again and start to reconsider whether the sector should be. I am not expecting a policy decision today in the Moses Room, but I will be interested to know if the Government will start to look at that issue.
When it comes to individual matters of these particular regulations, I shall quote from the Explanatory Memorandum as the legislation refers to European regulations all the way through and it is very difficult to read, as I am sure the Minister understands:
“The amendments … remove what will become redundant requirements on the UK to make certain reports to the Commission”.
I wanted to clarify whether those requirements, whatever they are, or those reports will actually now be made within the UK anyway.
I am in particularly interested in documents of compliance. I do not know much about this topic although I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is clued up on them. I presume that they will be issued by the Marine and Coastguard Agency. I am interested to understand whether these are existing EU systems. If they are, are we having to replace the IT systems? Are they ready? How many of these things do we issue at the moment and how many are we going to have to issue after March 2019, or after the transition period if we manage to come to an agreement? As we all know, IT systems and the increase in documentation and red tape are one of the biggest challenges in making Brexit work.
I have to ask about this ability to expel ships from a port, which we are getting rid of because we already have the ability to get rid of ships for safety and environmental reasons. I am interested to understand, in terms of EU legislation, what other scenarios the Government were thinking of in that legislation other than safety and the environment, in order to understand what rights we are forgoing.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations have already been through the Commons, as obviously the Minister knows better than I do. We indicated our support for them when they were considered there last week, and I hope she will not be too surprised when I say that that is still our position today. In the Commons, in response to points that we raised about the impact of these regulations on compliance with the IMO strategy and targets for carbon reductions from shipping by 2050, the Government said they would provide assurances in writing. I am afraid I genuinely do not know yet whether those assurances—I see the Minister is waving the letter, so if one is not already on its way to me, I would be extremely grateful to receive a copy.
I turn to Part 2 of the annex to the Explanatory Memorandum, headed:
“Statements required when using enabling powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) 2018 Act”,
which refers to the undertaking that has been given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State that:
“In my view the draft Merchant Shipping (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Ships) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 does no more than is appropriate”.
The Explanatory Memorandum to the previous SI that we were considering went on to say that the changes,
“do no more than is strictly necessary”.
This one does not contain those words. It says:
“This is the case because the amendments being made do no more than ensure the continuing effectiveness of the existing regulatory regime”.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of these draft regulations. Again, I will endeavour to answer as many questions as I can; those that I cannot, I will follow up in detail in writing. Shipping, like other modes of transport, has a responsibility to control emissions. That is what we are doing with this SI, which replicates the current EU regulations.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about monitoring and enforcement. I will go through the main requirements of the current regime. By August 2017 ship owners had to send the monitoring plan for their vessels to an approved verifier. That plan includes information such as the fuel consumption of the ship and how it will be monitored. It will be done in many different ways. The noble Lord described an interesting way of monitoring, which I had not come across. It will be up to the owners of vessels to explain how they are doing the monitoring and to get that approved. From January this year, ships have had to collect CO2 data on their voyages for the calendar year. That data is collected and recorded separately for each voyage. By 30 April 2019 ship owners must submit their accumulated yearly data to the verifier. By 30 June each year after the reporting period, the document of compliance for the ship will be issued by the verifier and will be valid for 18 months from the reporting period.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. Can she explain who they submit these documents to?
Baroness Sugg
Yes, absolutely. They are issued by the independent verifiers and then checked by the MCA. On compliance and enforcement, the existing regulations bring in fines if people fail to comply. That also allows for the detention of non-compliant ships that come into UK ports. Inspectors from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will ensure that ships have the correct documentation and will do the enforcement on UK-flagged ships. Other ships using UK ports will also be liable for inspection as part of the port state control regime. Non-compliant ships can be detained and their owners prosecuted via the courts and fined. The enforcement will stay the same, it will just be done under the UK regulation rather than the EU regulation.
I hope I have answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Rather than it being about greenhouse gas emissions or carbon, it is about the fuel consumption and reducing that over time.
Lord Teverson
I am trying to understand whether this is about just carbon dioxide monitoring or greenhouse gas monitoring because if it is just carbon, it is not compatible with UK carbon budgets, which include national shipping. There is a big difference. It seems a fairly straightforward question to me—yes or no? The Minister is welcome to write to say yes or no.
Baroness Sugg
I probably will have to write to the noble Lord with details on that. The current monitoring system is about fuel consumption by vessels. When collated, that information will help inform future policy on the reduction of emissions, which will obviously cover greenhouses gases and carbon. I will take up the noble Lord’s offer of writing to him in detail on that.
The noble Lord also asked about the documents of compliance. We want to ensure that the MRV system works as smoothly as possible after we leave the EU so we have taken the decision to recognise all EU MRV certificates issued by other member states as being equivalent to our own. We have the capacity to issue our own but we have already stated that we will recognise those from member states and we hope, of course, that the EU will mutually recognise ours.
We will also ensure that there is no duplication of reporting for ships travelling between the UK and EU states. If a ship notifies us that it has submitted all its verified voyage data to the EU we will not require it to provide us with a duplicate report. We are trying to minimise the burden on businesses as we leave the EU.
Lord Teverson
I thank the Minister and I will not intervene again. I welcome the fact that we will recognise EU documentation. That is an excellent decision that will reduce bureaucracy. Do we need to invent a new IT system ourselves and have we managed to do that? I suppose that that is the key point here.
Baroness Sugg
No. We already have the ability to issue these certificates so a new system is not needed.
Reference was made by the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Rosser, to expulsion orders. It is not the Government’s policy to ban or exile ships from a port unless there is an immediate risk to safety, as both noble Lords said. Neither of those conditions would apply to the requirements under this regime. It is a reciprocal requirement that will no longer be relevant when we are not a member state. There will be a practical problem in that when we exit the EU, there is no requirement under the European regulations to notify non-EEA states that a vessel has been banned from an EU port. There is actually no mechanism if we leave without a deal either for us to tell the EU or vice versa. That is why it has not been replicated. However, there is no reason why we cannot share data in the future. As we made clear in the White Paper, it is in our interests and those of the EU that we should continue to co-operate through the EMSA. However, that will be subject to negotiations.
The question of reporting was raised in the other place and I will certainly forward the letter from my honourable friend Nusrat Ghani on this to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others. On the assessments of the impact of the maritime sector on carbon dioxide, we have not retained the paragraph on that in the draft regulations because that obligation applies specifically to the European Commission rather than to member states or to the UK in particular. It is necessary for the effective functioning of the MRV system, so the Secretary of State has taken over responsibility for what was previously held by the Commission. There will be an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish the results of the CO2 data which we will receive annually from ships in much the same way as the Commission will be doing with the other 27 member states. We will just be taking on the responsibility to publish the data, which obviously will be made available to all those who are interested in it.
Under our domestic legislation, the Secretary of State would not be required to conduct a similar biennial review of the impact on the global climate. The fact that it is not in retained EU legislation of course does not preclude us from undertaking such a review and we are keen to maintain our position of leading the way in this area. I have already spoken about our leading role in the agreement with the IMO in April.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the IMO system which will take effect on international voyages from 1 January 2019. The systems are very similar in that they both apply to vessels of 5,000 gross tonnes and over, but there are a few differences. The European regime which we are carrying over applies only to voyages undertaken to carry passengers and cargo for commercial purposes rather than other maritime activities such as dredging. It requires more information such as on the cargo being carried by the vessel and more transparency in terms of disclosing data. It also includes a more robust verification process. Ideally, we want to see the IMO and EU systems become aligned while maintaining the environmental integrity of the overall scheme. That is something that we will continue to work on with our international partners in order to achieve it going forward. However, as I said in my opening remarks, at the moment we are allowing the systems on UK-flagged vessels to collect the data so that they are able to report to both systems easily enough.
I hope that I have covered the points which were raised, but if I have not gone into them all in detail, I will certainly write to noble Lords. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the objective of the regulations, which is to maintain an effective regime to monitor emissions from ships, is the right thing to do.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to be here today to discuss the regulations before the Committee, which form one small part of the Government’s wider programme of secondary legislation that is being brought forward before exit day to ensure that the UK’s legal system continues to function effectively once we leave the EU.
So far my department, the Department for Exiting the European Union, has laid three statutory instruments using the consequential powers granted to us under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This is the first of those SIs to be debated under the affirmative procedure. These three statutory instruments made using the consequential powers are of an essentially technical nature, as will become apparent. To be fair, during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, some concern was raised in this place and the other place about the scope of those powers. The Government were clear at the time that these consequential powers would be used for changes of a small and technical nature. I hope noble Lords will see that this statutory instrument is indeed extremely technical, with the purpose of ensuring a functioning statute book upon exit from the EU.
Specifically, these draft regulations make technical consequential repeals and amendments to certain pieces of legislation using the consequential power in Section 23(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, for two main purposes. First, they repeal legislation that has become redundant in consequence of the repeal of Sections 1 to 13 of the European Union Act 2011 and Section 5 of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008—I hope noble Lords are following this—which provided mechanisms for the approval or ratification of certain EU decisions or treaty changes that would result in the transfer of power from the UK Government to the EU.
Sections 1 to 13 of the 2011 Act and Section 5 of the 2008 Act were repealed on 4 July this year, following the acceptance by this House and the other place that these were redundant in the context of our exit from the EU. This matter was pursued particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, during the passage of the Act, and the Government set out on Report that the repeal of this legislation would be effected shortly after Royal Assent, and indeed that is what we did.
In consequence of those repeals, legislation that approved matters in accordance with those Acts has become redundant. That includes Sections 1 and 2 of the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013, which approved the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the EU and the protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon. It also includes the European Union (Approvals) Act 2017, which approved decisions that allowed Albania and Serbia to participate as observers in the work of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, and an agreement between the EU and the Government of Canada regarding the application of their competition laws.
Also now redundant is Section 23(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which created an exemption from the normal procedures on scrutiny of treaties under that Act where a treaty was approved following the procedures in the 2008 or 2011 Acts instead.
Lord Callanan
This legislation is being repealed in consequence of the repeal of the 2008 and 2011 Acts, which has rendered them redundant and no longer necessary. Removing this legislation from our statute book is consistent with our goals of ensuring an effective, functioning statute book on exit day by providing clarity and avoiding confusion by making reference to legislation that no longer exists within our statute book. For reassurance, I make it clear that the repeal of the legislation that approved matters in accordance with the 2008 and 2011 Acts does not have any effect on the validity of anything done in relation to those decisions or treaty changes approved by them.
Secondly, these regulations also make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act 1948, and the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979, to reflect the introduction of a new category of law, called “retained direct EU law”, into the UK’s legal system. Retained direct EU law is the directly applicable EU law that existed immediately before exit day that will be converted into UK law on exit day by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act.
The Statutory Instruments Act established a number of rules that apply when making SIs, and similarly, the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order applies when making statutory rules—the Northern Irish equivalent—under powers in primary legislation. To provide certainty, it is important that we ensure that these same rules apply to instruments made under powers in retained direct EU legislation so that it is clear what procedures must be followed to ensure that instruments made under powers in retained direct EU legislation are properly made.
These regulations therefore make consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 and the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 to make it clear that the normal rules apply to making statutory instruments and statutory rules under powers in retained direct EU law. This will create certainty about the proper procedures to be followed where such powers are used in the future and will assist Parliament in considering the use of such powers.
Similar provision has already been made to deal with Scottish statutory instruments made under retained direct EU legislation through the amendments to the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act in Schedule 8 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Therefore, these regulations take an approach consistent for the purposes of England, Wales and Northern Ireland with that taken for Scotland by the Act itself.
The Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act established the rules for laying documents before Parliament where an Act or piece of secondary legislation required that documents be laid before Parliament. Similarly, therefore, the consequential amendments made to the Laying of Documents before Parliament (Interpretation) Act will ensure that the same rules on laying documents before Parliament apply where retained direct EU legislation requires those documents to be laid before Parliament.
Given that these regulations amend primary legislation that is of constitutional importance, we thought it would be appropriate to allow Parliament the opportunity to debate these regulations through the use of an affirmative instrument. However, I hope that after my explanation noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible use of the consequential power, and that what we are seeking is appropriate to ensure continuity as a new category of law is introduced into our legal system on exit.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for his explanation, which, in so far as is possible on the subject, was admirably straightforward. He is quite right, as he said at the beginning, that there was—and will continue to be—a lot of controversy over the ministerial powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. This one is perhaps not yet of mountainous dimensions in terms of controversy, but I have some questions.
First, no doubt simply because of my unfamiliarity with the field of secondary legislation, can the Minister remind me whether there are any limits on the ability of SIs to amend primary legislation under the Act? I have entirely forgotten—perhaps mercifully—a lot of the debates on the Bill. The regulations amend primary legislation. I would welcome a reminder of whether there are any limits on that.
My second question is about the European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Act 2013. I appreciate that the implementation of those measures—the accession of Croatia and the Irish protocol to the Lisbon treaty—is not affected by these regulations, but what will happen to their implementation when and if the ECA is repealed? How will they continue to be implemented? They have been implemented through the European Communities Act by making them EU treaties for the purposes of that Act. Paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum rightly states that their,
“implementation is unaffected by these regulations”,
but that prompted me to wonder what happens when and if the ECA is repealed. I would be grateful to learn how they carry on being in force, or will that matter be dealt with during the standstill transition by repealing a lot of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in the EU withdrawal agreement Bill? I hope that I do not stray too far, but this subject is quite complicated.
Similar issues arise in relation to the decisions mentioned in paragraph 2.11. I remember spending time during the passage of the European Union (Approvals) Act 2017 speaking about Albania and Serbia being observers in the work of the fundamental rights agency—I cannot remember whether I referred also to the Canada competition laws; it was in the same Act, so I must have done. These approvals are no longer necessary if Sections 1 to 13 of the European Union Act 2011 are being abolished, so the 2017 Act becomes redundant. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The repeal of the Act approving those decisions has no effect on the validity of those decisions or anything done in relation to those decisions”.
So if we repeal the European Union (Approvals) Act 2017, paragraph 2.11 of the memorandum states that such repeal,
“has no effect on the validity of those decisions”,
which is interesting. How are they still valid? The Government are repealing the Act which approved the decisions about Albania and Serbia being observers in the fundamental rights agency, et cetera, but they state that it has no effect on the validity of the decisions. On what basis, then, do those decisions approving Albania and Serbia continue to be valid?
That takes me back to my previous point. That statement implies that we want those decisions to continue to be valid. If we want to continue the validity of the Serbian and Albanian observership in the fundamental rights agency, I presume that we want to continue the validity of the recognition of Croatian accession and the Irish protocol. I am wondering whether my question about how they get knocked out by the repeal of the ECA is correct, because presumably they are on a similar level. If the Albania and Serbia observerships are to remain valid—which they would be in a standstill transition anyway—presumably that also applies to the Croatian accession, et cetera. So how do they continue being valid, and if they do, will they still be valid after 29 March? I apologise if I am just being dense.
Then there is the question about the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applying. Obviously, that is welcome. It is interesting that it is being done now. Perhaps the Minister could remind me why the Government did not agree to incorporate this in the EU withdrawal Act. Our attention is drawn to the 12th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, published last February. One of the things it objected to was tertiary legislation—the ability for Ministers or other bodies to make further subordinate legislation without there having to be any parliamentary procedure or any requirement for it to be made by statutory instrument. The committee wanted all tertiary legislation to be subject to the same parliamentary control and time limits as are applicable to secondary legislation. If I understand this correctly, it talks about the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 applying to SIs. Does it apply? The DPRRC report also referred to tertiary legislation which is not made in statutory instruments. Is this extension of the 1946 Act limited to what is made under statutory instruments or does it meet the entire objection in the DPRRC report of last February? I hope the question is clear, because I am confused about why the Government are doing this now and did not do it in the Bill.
I am also trying to understand the scope of this welcome reform—whether further transparency and normal rules of scrutiny should apply. The answer would appear to be only where that secondary legislation is in statutory instruments, and not if it was made by some new agency, for instance. In paragraph 2.12, the Explanatory Memorandum talks about the ability to subdelegate regulations made under certain withdrawal Act powers—tertiary legislation made by an agency, for instance. It says that,
“it is important that the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 is amended to cover these scenarios”,
so you would think that meant all tertiary legislation, but then it goes on to say,
“so that there is certainty about the proper procedure for making SIs under such powers”.
I am dependent on the report from last February to understand that not all tertiary legislation is made in SIs. I suppose it makes sense, but I am a novice in secondary legislation. What is the extent of the concession—the welcome reform—that the Government are proposing for the extension of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946? Does it apply to all tertiary legislation, including that not made under SIs or by Ministers but by other bodies?
I think that covers all my questions. I hope that I have not been too confusing and that the Minister is able to answer my questions.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the first of what I hope is going to be a very small and select group of DExEU orders. Indeed, luckily for myself, for the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and for the Minister, I think the vast majority of these Brexit orders will be handled by other departments. However, I do wonder how on earth our colleagues covering those departments will cope, given the near 800 they will have to handle between now and March. They have not exactly got off to a great start: since the Act received Royal Assent on 26 June this year, a mere 71 have been laid, and only two have completed their passage through Parliament.
The delay is slightly hard to understand if the bulk are indeed to make relatively simple, perhaps technical amendments. Why then have we only seen such a tiny proportion of them so far? I assume that the pace will quicken in the coming months, but the tardiness to date means that while 45% of the time between Royal Assent and the supposed exit day has passed, only 9% of the likely total number of orders have so far been laid. Can the Minister therefore confirm that proper time will be allocated to those of our colleagues who will have to handle this to do the necessary scrutiny, that full consultation will take place with all outside stakeholders—this was something we discussed a lot during the passage of the Bill—and that feedback from those stakeholders will be available to our colleagues as they go through the various statutory instruments?
The sheer number of orders exposes the sheer scale of the legislative challenge facing Parliament. It also puts into perspective the Prime Minister’s claim that Brexit is 95% complete. As far as our work is concerned, that is clearly not the case. I have a slight problem with the 95% figure anyway. I am reminded of the man falling from the 10th floor of a building. After going past the first nine floors, he said, “So far, so good”. I hope that we are not facing the same crash that he did after the 10th floor. Aside from this particular order, I know that work is now gathering pace in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee: I can say only good luck to the committee.
Turning to the order in front of us, while it may be what the Minister calls “technical in nature”—which I think means “hard to understand”—it gives effect to decisions taken by both Houses during the passage of the withdrawal Act. As has just been mentioned, during debates on that Act, there was quite a bit of confusion over the new category of “retained direct EU legislation”. The provisions in Schedule 2, which respond to our Delegated Powers Committee, will, we hope, provide some certainty about the exercise of the relevant powers, particularly for our learned friends: I trust that they are clearer now about the significance of how those powers will be used. We certainly welcome the confirmation that the withdrawal Act powers to make secondary legislation will be exercised under the normal rules for SIs, with which we are familiar.
I want to raise one other point, absolutely unrelated to this one but within the broad remit of Brexit. Yesterday we read that Sir Bernard Jenkin said:
“While some SIs may need to be rushed through with less consideration, they can always be amended later”.
First, we simply must not rush these through. I am sure that is not the intention of the Government. On our Benches and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, it is not something we would want to happen. Secondly, and perhaps more substantially, given how important some of the SIs will be to maintaining standards on environmental, consumer and workers’ protection, and that they will include some quite important decisions about the supervision and enforcement of those standards, that comment from Sir Bernard Jenkin—I recognise that he is not a Minister—seems to fly in the face of the government assurances we received many times during the passage of the Bill that any such change to any of these standards or anything else would be by primary and not secondary legislation. We were very clear, I think, that secondary powers were going to be used for a lift and shift so the existing rules could be brought across but not for changes. Perhaps the Minister could confirm what I know he has said before—but now that we are into the SIs it is important for him to say it again—that from the point of view of the Government there is absolutely no intention to allow any backdoor changes to legislation in the way suggested by his honourable friend in the other place.
Of course, the order is based on the assumption that we will have a deal. Given the wishes of some of the Minister’s close friends that we should not have a deal and the inability of the Government so far to strike a deal, the risk of no deal looks alarmingly likely. All of us in this Room, because we are a bit sad, have read all the technical notices about what would happen in the event of no deal, but it is not clear what the task facing this House would be in those circumstances in relation to statutory instruments that would need to be got through very quickly. If the Minister has any information on that, perhaps he could share it with the Committee.
As your Lordships will have gathered, the order itself presents us with no problems. I hope that that will be the case for all the others that will come our way.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baronesses for their comments and questions. I will try to deal with as many as possible and then write to them on any that I have not answered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked: are there limits to the ability of SIs to amend primary legislation? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, touched on this point as well. The consequential power is a standard power to make consequential amendments as appropriate—that famous word again, about which there was much debate during the passage of the legislation. These amendments may repeal or revoke but of course the use of that power will be strictly constrained. Provisions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act speak about the scope of that power.
The noble Baroness’s second question concerned protocols to do with Croatia and Ireland. The answer is that even though the power to make the regulations is going, the regulations that were made under that power will carry on as appropriate. She also asked about the 1946 Act and why the SI applies only to powers conferred on Ministers and not to powers conferred on regulators. The SI makes consequential amendments to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. The Act applies only to SIs made by Ministers, government departments, Welsh Ministers or the Privy Council. It is less common for legislative powers to be delegated to other individuals or bodies such as regulators, and where legislation confers on a regulator the power to make legislation it also makes special provisions as to how the power is to be exercised and scrutinised. In this case, the SI does not address those particular powers.
On the question of the consequential amendments made in the withdrawal Act for Scotland but not for England, Wales or Northern Ireland, the Act addresses a wide range of issues and impacts on the application of a large number of existing pieces of legislation. As far as possible at the time, those were addressed in the Act. However, it was also recognised that it would be impossible for the Act to identify and address every single amendment that was needed to existing legislation, and that is why at the time the Act conferred on Ministers the limited power to make regulations containing those amendments that are appropriate as a consequence of that Act.
The noble Baroness asked me what happens to the implementation of the Croatian and Irish protocols when the ECA is repealed. The protocol/treaty will still apply until exit day and in a no-deal scenario since those protocols/treaties presuppose EU membership and the protocol will become retained EU law unless repealed, which goes back to the point that I made earlier. So even though the power to make those regulations is being repealed, the regulations and Acts that were originally made under them still apply.
I turn to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I totally accept her point about the considerable number of SIs that are required. I shall give her some numbers if that is helpful. As the drafting, legislation and negotiations have progressed, departments have had a clearer picture of what legislative requirements are needed by exit day. This has meant that we currently anticipate that the number of SIs might actually be fewer than the figure of 800 to 1,000 that was quoted and that I used many times during the passage of the Act. However, the exact number of SIs needed will depend on a number of factors and the total number is fluctuating; some are able to be combined into one while others will require a number of different individual SIs. Departments began laying Brexit SIs straight after Royal Assent and over 70 have already been laid. Our aim continues to be to be prepared for all scenarios. Again, without harming the negotiations, some SIs would be applicable in both deal and no-deal scenarios, some are applicable only to a deal and some are applicable only in a no-deal scenario.
We expect that the number of SIs being laid will significantly increase from this month onwards, and we are working closely with departments to try to ensure a manageable flow throughout so that Parliament has the proper time to scrutinise them and we have the critical legislation that is required in place by exit day. The secondary legislation programme is on track and we remain confident of the passage of the required number of exit-related SIs before exit day. I said there had been about 70; the exact number as of Friday 19 October is that 72 SIs have been laid or made, with 38 in July, 34 before the Recess, four in August, 10 in September and 19 so far in October. That includes the 43 proposed draft negatives that have been submitted to the sifting committee for consideration.
The noble Baroness referred to comments made by Bernard Jenkin in the House of Commons. I have not seen those particular remarks but I assure her that we have no intention of tabling SIs and then altering them later. We are doing a considerable amount of work to improve the quality of statutory instruments and to ensure that Parliament is appropriately informed and that the appropriate back-up documents, briefing documents and statements are provided along with the SIs. There is no question of back-door changes to legislation. Actually, we would have had the power to propose this particular SI as a negative procedure—it would have been legally possible—but we thought that as it potentially alters legislation of constitutional significance, it would be appropriate to be up-front and take it as an affirmative statutory instrument, so this is legislation by the front door. I hope she will accept that.
Once again I thank both noble Baronesses for this good debate and for their contributions. This statutory instrument aims to make consequential amendments to legislation in order to clarify how new powers and duties in retained direct EU legislation and new powers in regulations made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act will work within our existing legal frameworks. The instrument will also repeal some provisions of primary legislation that are redundant due to the commencement of provisions in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act that were brought into force by commencement regulations made on 3 July 2018. The instrument will also make some transitional and savings provisions in relation to those repeals. With that, I beg to move.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2018
(6 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2018, the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2018, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2018, the Tees Valley Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2018, the West Midlands Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2018, and the West of England Combined Authority (Adult Education Functions) Order 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, these six orders, if approved and made, will provide for the transfer of certain adult education functions and the associated adult education budget—the AEB—to the mayoral combined authorities. This provides an opportunity for them to help their residents to fulfil their potential in life and contribute to the growth of the region. As noble Lords will be aware, in 2015 and 2016, through a series of devolution arrangements agreed between the Government and the mayoral combined authorities, we made the commitment fully to devolve the AEB to specified mayoral combined authorities. These orders will deliver on this commitment.
These orders are made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. They will transfer certain adult education functions of the Secretary of State, as set out in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, to the mayoral combined authorities in relation to the area of each specified mayoral combined authority for the academic year 2019-20 and thereafter. This transfer does not include the functions in so far as they relate to apprenticeships or those subject to adult detention.
In the 2015 spending review, government made available £1.5 billion annually until 2020 for the adult education budget. Across England, this budget is supporting adults with the skills and learning they need to equip them for work, an apprenticeship or further learning. These facilities provide an integral stepping stone, particularly for disadvantaged adult learners.
In 2016-17, the AEB supported adults to study English, maths and courses of English for speakers of other languages, full level 2 or 3 qualifications and a wide range of community learning provision. Devolution will mean that mayoral combined authorities are able directly to shape the adult education provision available to their residents. This means that, from the academic year 2019-20, the provision can be more focused around local area need.
We are currently undertaking a wide-ranging programme of skills funding reforms across areas such as T-levels and apprenticeships. Post-16 education plays a crucial part in supporting future economic growth. In leaving the EU, it is important that our homegrown workforce is skilled and able to make the most of the new opportunities that arise. Devolution of the relevant functions and the associated AEB forms a key part of these reforms. Alongside devolution, the department is opening dialogue with mayoral combined authorities and other sectors on how skills provision and reforms can best be shaped to fit the needs of local areas.
These orders will transfer certain adult education functions of the Secretary of State in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to the mayoral combined authority in relation to its area. They will enable the transfer of that relevant part of the AEB to the mayoral combined authority. In particular, the following functions will be exercisable by the mayoral combined authority instead of by the Secretary of State in relation to its area: Section 86, which relates to education and training for persons aged 19 or over; Section 87, which relates to learning aims for such persons and the provision of facilities; and Section 88, which relates to the payment of tuition fees for such persons.
Conditions are set in relation to the transferred functions—in particular, that the mayoral combined authority must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State and must adopt eligibility rules in accordance with any direction of the Secretary of State. The Department for Education will transfer the relevant part of the adult education budget to the mayoral combined authorities to undertake the functions. It will be the responsibility of each area to manage its overall AEB allocation efficiently and effectively to ensure that it delivers for its local residents. The department is assisting the mayoral combined authorities to be ready for taking on the functions and has provided implementation funding to each of them to prepare effectively.
From the 2019-20 academic year, the mayoral combined authorities will be responsible for providing funding for statutory entitlements for eligible learners in maths and English up to and including level 2, first full level 2 for learners aged 19 to 23, first full level 3 qualifications for learners aged 19 to 23, and the forthcoming digital skills entitlement. We talk about the northern powerhouse and the Midlands engine among others. Skills are an essential driver for economic growth in all our regions.
We are already seeing the mayoral combined authorities make a real difference locally. For example, Tees Valley Combined Authority has implemented the Tees Valley Routes to Work pilot. This is an innovative pilot that has a total fund of £7.5 million, with £6 million from the Department for Work and Pensions and £1.5 million from the combined authority cabinet. It will run until 31 March 2021. Routes to Work will support at least 2,500 individuals who are long-term unemployed or who have significant barriers to employment. The pilot aims to move at least 375 individuals, 15% of the cohort, into sustainable employment. It aims to work with those most disengaged from the labour market and support them in engaging, identifying and addressing any potential barriers that they may face in gaining employment.
In Greater Manchester the mayoral combined authority has implemented the Working Well programme. This stream of work responds to one of its strategic aims of reducing long-term unemployment and helping more residents into sustained employment. The £52 million devolved programme offers intensive and tailored support to individuals who are out of work due to poor health or disability and the long-term unemployed, to help to address their barriers to employment. The programme, which takes referrals from Jobcentre Plus, will support around 22,000 individuals over its five-year life. In the first six months more than 1,700 residents had started to receive support.
Those examples give a picture of the specific interventions currently taking place at a local level and illustrate the positive impacts that devolution can have. Devolution gives all mayoral combined authorities the opportunity to address the skills challenges that they face and enhance economic growth in their areas. The scale of the challenges faced is both significant and different dependent on region. For example, there are currently 41,000 Greater Manchester Combined Authority residents with no qualifications. There are significant variations between residents’ skills levels across the districts. West Midlands Combined Authority currently has the lowest employment rate of any of any mayoral combined authority—72.3%, against a national average of 78.4—whereas Liverpool City Region Combined Authority has one of the highest rates of economically inactive residents of any combined authority area. Similarly, despite employment levels rising at a rate faster than the national average, Tees Valley Combined Authority still has higher levels of claimant unemployment compared to national averages, with a Tees Valley average of 4.2% compared to 2.2% nationally. Cambridgeshire, Peterborough and West of England combined authorities have skills shortages and hard-to-fill vacancies that are constraining local businesses. These examples show that each area has specific challenges. These can be addressed through the devolved AEB, and the orders give the mayoral combined authorities the opportunity to address specific regional problems.
The orders will enable mayoral combined authorities to support their residents into good jobs with opportunities for people to progress and develop; improve the earnings potential of their low-paid, low-skilled workers; and help to deliver a thriving and dynamic economy. Without these orders, the mayoral combined authorities will not have the ability to address these challenges and bring greater prosperity to their regions. I beg to move that these orders be approved.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. No doubt he will share my relief that in your Lordships’ House we are considering all six of these orders together, not following the procedure adopted in another place, where they required three sittings over a period of eight days. I think we can do things more efficiently.
The devolution of powers and funding for adult education that the orders introduce is welcome, as much of the most effective adult education provision is delivered locally in line with the needs of local communities. The Explanatory Memorandum characterises the transfer of functions as giving local areas a prominent role in managing and shaping their own economic prosperity. Who could argue against that? But—there is almost always a but—the transition from national funding to devolved funding may have unintended consequences for some national providers if it disrupts their existing local provision. A long-established national charity, the Workers’ Educational Association, is one such provider that may be adversely affected. I declare an interest as a former employee of the WEA. I shall say more about that organisation in due course, but before doing so it is appropriate to put the effect of these instruments into context.
The Explanatory Memorandum also states:
“The transfer of the specified functions to the combined authorities will result in an associated transfer of funds to each combined authority to facilitate the exercise of those functions. This will take the form of a proportion of the overall adult education budget moving from the Department for Education to the specified combined authority”.
The key question mark over the future delivery of adult education concerns how much funding will transfer and how that will affect the ability of the combined authorities to deliver a full provision. The Minister delivered an upbeat assessment of what the combined authorities will achieve through the powers contained in these orders, but the current experiences of providers are not so upbeat.
The report published last month by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which the Minister and his officials will be aware of, found that between 2004 and 2016 the number of adult learners fell from 4 million to 2.2 million. That alarming 45% drop means that apprenticeships now account for over one-third of total adult education funding, as opposed to 13% in 2010. That may be good news for those fortunate enough to work for an employer that is part of the apprenticeship programme, but of course millions more people never get the chance to undertake an apprenticeship, such as those working part-time, in the gig economy, for a microbusiness or on zero-hours contracts.
For the majority of adult learners, the IFS report painted a rather bleak picture. The numbers show that there are fewer evening classes and opportunities for people to learn, whether it be to improve literacy and numeracy, to update technical skills that might help get a job or a promotion, or to take GCSEs and A-levels to help to access higher education. Each year there are 1.8 million fewer adults able to improve their life chances through education. This is not the place for discussing the Open University, but in recent debates in your Lordships’ House I have highlighted the serious decrease in adult part-time education on Open University courses since the tripling of tuition fees in 2012, and that fits with the pattern across adult education.
Of course, cuts in funding which have the inevitable consequence of reducing the numbers participating in adult learning have a direct impact on the economy. One of the obvious benefits of adult education is helping people, as the Minister said, to equip themselves with the skills that employers need now and will need even more in the future. This is a pressing issue, with fewer EU nationals being allowed to bring their skills to the UK. In the context of our leaving the EU, opportunities for upskilling and reskilling should surely be going up not down, yet figures on enrolments in key areas of the labour market are worrying. Enrolments in health and social care courses dropped by a third between 2006 and 2016. The reduction was of a similar percentage in both construction and engineering. If the Minister, his department and the Government are not concerned by these figures, I think we should be told why.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the orders that will devolve elements of the adult education budget that are currently held centrally to the mayoral combined authorities. I always welcome devolving budgets to authorities, either combined or local. We can have local decisions to help local people, which is much better than having national decisions made by people in London who, in my experience, know little about the folk I represent in Yorkshire. One of the factors that is holding back business development, business expansion, economic development and GVA in many regions, and in the north in particular, is a lack of appropriate skills and the low levels of skills in the population compared with the more prosperous parts of the country.
I want to highlight four issues, broadly supporting what we have before us today. The first, which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, also raised, is that of funding. The question should be: how much funding are each of the combined authorities going to be allocated, and how does this allocation of additional funding fit in with the significant reduction of government funding to further education colleges, where much of the skills provision is delivered? It does not bode well for the adult education elements of the budget. I know from my own experience in Yorkshire that there is a huge demand for construction workers, yet the colleges delivering those skills are finding it difficult to do so because of the funding squeeze on them. There is also a danger that we will end up with a very fragmented adult skills funding mechanism and delivery. This will not help achieve what the Government have set out in what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, has said; namely, enabling those areas of the country with combined authorities to really support skills being developed by people who left school without the appropriate skills for the economy and for their own well-being.
The second point I want to make is about one of the phrases in the document; it talks about the challenge of encouraging more training and education. Obviously, as someone who has spent a lifetime in education, I totally support that. What is interesting is that the Government have had rather limited success in addressing the issue of what are crudely called NEETs—those who are not in employment, education or training. We ought to focus much more attention on that group of people, who, as we have heard, will need those skills for their lifetime of employment, and the country needs them to have skills. I want to understand, from that element of what is before us, how that is going to be measured. We are talking about it being important to encourage them, so how are the Government and the combined authorities going to measure that?
The third issue that I want to raise is the business of consultation, which the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has raised in a different way. All the documents say there is no need for additional consultation because it was done three or four years ago for the original orders for the combined authorities; adult education and skills were in all those original functions for the combined authorities, and this is just giving the funding to allow that to happen. However, now that we have a specific defined allocation and devolution of a function and funding, a consultation ought to take place in those combined authority areas as to how that should be carried out. There are institutions that will be affected one way or another—one in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has pointed out—and I think there ought to be consultation among providers in those areas to listen to any issues that they raise. I am disappointed that in here it says that no consultation will be necessary.
The fourth issue that I want to raise is accountability. Right from the start of combined authorities, I have been concerned about the lack of accountability for the devolved functions and the funding that has been made available. The governance model that the Government have decreed is very light on accountability. Perhaps the Minister will be able to describe how the combined authorities will be held accountable to the Government for the delivery of the function that is being devolved, and how he anticipates the constituent local authorities being able to hold the combined authority decision-makers to account in a public way. I hope he will not tell me that they all have scrutiny panels or committees, because I do not think they have the necessary powers to really hold the combined authorities to account for the functions that they fulfil and the public money that they spend.
In summary, I support what is being proposed here. I know from the examples that have been given that the combined authorities will set up different models to fit the needs of the people in the regions, and that is positive. However, there are some issues that we need to be concerned about: consultation is one, accountability another, and the third is the fragmentation of funding. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I thank noble Lords for their comments and questions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for their broad although perhaps qualified support. I will try to address the various questions that they have both raised.
To start with the funding question, as that is something that both speakers raised, the overall budget, as I mentioned in my introductory words, is £1.5 billion a year, which was set for this current spending review. In aggregate, the amount of money being devolved to these combined authorities—including the Greater London Authority, which has a slightly different legal structure, although we have issued a delegated letter to that authority to give it the same or very similar powers—is about £750 million. I cannot speak for beyond the spending review, but I can certainly reassure noble Lords that this is an area of huge focus of this Government. We are very committed to supporting adult learners into improving their skills and their future life chances.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I shall finish off on the WEA. Devolution gives the WEA an opportunity to work with the mayoral authorities and shape the ways in which they can contribute to meeting skills needs locally so that people of all ages are given those opportunities. It is vital that providers such as the WEA make contact with the MCAs to support them.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
The WEA provides the contacts for these opportunities and possibilities. At the moment it is delivering adult education courses but it may not be able to do so in the future. There is not going to be a transitional period during which it can adjust. As I say, it is discussing these issues with the authorities but it may not always be successful, and that is the problem. There could then be a significant reduction in what the WEA is able to provide.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
What I can offer the noble Lord is that if he does not feel that the mayoral authorities are engaging constructively with the WEA, he should write to me and I will take the matter on. When the noble Lord, Lord Bird, wrote to me in April, I passed the letter on to the Minister, my right honourable friend Anne Milton, who wrote to the noble Lord and offered to meet him. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that I believe such providers to be a very important part of the further education landscape and we certainly do not want to see them put out in the cold.
To address the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, on NEETs, or that category of vulnerable young adults, we are trying to help them through further studies in GCSE English and maths. In each case, more than 500,000 adult learners are studying maths and English to get them on to a platform that will enable them to go on and acquire the broader skills that are needed. We already require information about further education to be submitted to the DfE and we will continue to complete the individualised learner records in respect of provision delivered to learners resident in authority areas. This will continue to feed through into the national statistics publications. For transparency, the national statistics publications will include provision delivered to residents of the authority areas.
On accountability, we have put in place a number of measures to deal with the issues raised. There will be a robust governance arrangement between the department, the Education and Skills Funding Agency and the MCAs to govern the transitional year. As part of these arrangements the department is working with the MCAs to monitor and evaluate the performance of AEB-funded provision. This is assisting the MCAs in determining their commissioning and provision strategy when the budget is devolved from 2019-20 onwards. The Secretary of State has issued guidance on the approach an MCA should take to commissioning adult education. This includes guidance on how the approach should align to the existing adult education funding milestones which a provider operates under when commissioning. They have statutory requirements, which gives the department powers to intervene in the event of a failure to deliver decent provision.
Introducing these orders now will allow the mayoral combined authorities the opportunity to work with providers to tailor adult further education provision in preparation for the academic year 2019-20. This will give their residents the chance to reach their potential, improve their earnings and gain progression in their jobs. It will allow the skills system to deliver in responsive ways to sustain a flexible labour market. I commend these orders to the Committee.
International Solar Alliance: Framework Agreement
(6 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Framework Agreement on the establishment of the International Solar Alliance.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I feel that I should do something that Ken Livingstone told me never to do, which is to start with an apology. I feel the Minister might not have expected to deal with this particular issue; I gather it is quite unusual to table a debate on a treaty like this. I thank the Government Whips for allowing this to happen; I know we are always short of parliamentary time, so I am very grateful to have this opportunity.
I felt compelled to bring this debate when I saw the Government’s accompanying notes to the International Solar Alliance Treaty. At first I was excited; it looked like a very positive step forward. However, that excitement gave way to disappointment and now I almost feel despair. It was bad enough getting the UN report this month about having only 12 years to make a difference to our future as humanity, and I feel the Government are not acting in the best interests of this country or indeed globally.
My excitement came from the ambitions of the International Solar Alliance. It is an international agreement, formed at the United Nations by treaty between 121 states. Importantly, the alliance is being led by India, which makes it the first large-scale climate initiative to be led by a developing country. Together the signatories seek to raise $1 trillion US dollars for investment in solar power, and by 2030 the treaty aims to provide affordable green energy to a billion people who do not currently have any electricity. These are lofty goals and a considerable source of excitement. They demonstrate an understanding that green investment gives the opportunity to significantly increase the living standards of the world’s poorest while protecting the ecological resources on which all our livelihoods depend. So far, all good.
However, my excitement gave way to disappointment when I read the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum to the treaty, written by the Secretary of State for International Development. Those notes celebrate the UK’s involvement in the alliance but then nakedly expose the true lack of ambition behind our involvement. It is stressed that our membership,
“places no legal or policy requirements on the UK”,
and that,
“initial UK ISA collaboration will be through existing UK government funded programmes”.
The focus is placed on developing our bilateral relationship with India, with this being a nice green gesture to move that along. It seems to me that the largest contribution that our Government will be making is creating new commercial opportunities and investment opportunities for UK business. My conclusion from the Explanatory Memorandum is that we are signing up to yet another impressive-sounding green initiative but then doing absolutely nothing of substance. I find this deeply disappointing and a continuation of this Government’s “promise big; deliver disaster” approach to green issues.
My disappointment then gave rise to despair when the International Panel on Climate Change published its report this month. These are the world’s leading climate scientists, who have been asked to give an authoritative review of the world’s climate future. It makes grim reading and, frankly, blows the ambitions of the International Solar Alliance out of the water. The IPCC report sets out the devastating scientific consequences of what will happen if global temperatures rise by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which at current rates is likely to occur between 2030 and 2050, well within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren. The report makes clear that limiting temperature rises to 1.5 degrees will expose 10 million fewer people to the impacts of rising sea levels, particularly in small island nations such as the British Overseas Territories. They are why we are involved in the alliance in the first place; we would not normally merit being included, but we are because of those territories.
Fish stocks, which Brexit has suddenly got so many people passionate about, will be devastated if temperatures rise beyond 1.5 degrees. Other risks of climate change, such as drought, crop failures and disease, will all be lessened by keeping temperature changes below that amount. Even someone like me, who has spent most of my life warning about the dangers of climate change, was deeply depressed to see all this written in one place and to be reminded of the rate at which we are hurtling towards climate breakdown. The IPCC report tells us that even the best-case scenario is bad. A 1.5 degree change will still wipe out 70% to 90% of the world’s coral reefs and lead to the displacement of millions of climate refugees. Importantly, though, the panel tells us that that limit is achievable with the right mix of political will, financial resourcing and international co-operation.
This is where the International Solar Alliance, and our Government’s attitude towards it, are really exposed. The ambitious $1 trillion investment by 2030 is pennies when compared to the $2.4 trillion that the IPCC says must be invested in clean energy each and every year to avoid catastrophic climate change. More than 2% of world GDP must be invested in avoiding climate change if we are to keep within safe limits. The report also highlights the importance of tackling global poverty and reducing inequality. Put simply, we cannot save the planet unless we significantly improve the livelihoods of the world’s poorest. When I talk about saving the planet, I do not mean the planet itself because the planet will survive whatever we do to it. What I mean is preserving the ecosphere that we as a human race need to survive.
It is noteworthy that the very reason why we are able to sign up to the International Solar Treaty, whose membership is limited to tropical nations, is because of our territories that lie in the tropics. It is those overseas territories, most of which are small islands and coastal nations, that are most exposed to the risks of climate change.
Before I conclude, I want to stress how much our domestic energy policies are undermining any possibility of showing climate leadership on the world stage. This Government have decimated subsidies and support for domestic solar panels and made new onshore wind power virtually impossible. The 10:10 Climate Campaign says:
“Incredibly, the government is now planning to stop guaranteeing that people will be paid for the surplus energy their solar panels produce. Instead, in effect, the power will be donated for the energy companies to sell on. People installing solar after March next year will be left empty handed. Meanwhile millions of pounds go to fossil fuels. That isn’t just unfair. It’s quite literally daylight robbery—and it’s terrible news for the solar industry”.
We seem to have completely abandoned financing for energy efficiency and insulation schemes. The Green Deal was a failure and nothing ever replaced it, and of course our Government are obsessed with fracking to open up a whole new source of fossil fuels right at the time when we should be locking carbon up in the ground. I do not see how anyone can take us seriously when they see such anti-green policies in the UK.
Those are the reasons why I have called this debate today. I challenge the Government to increase their ambition on the global stage. We really ought to be making green investment the central plank of our international aid and development efforts. I want to give Ministers the opportunity to clarify their dismissive approach in the Explanatory Memorandum and set out a pathway for rapidly increasing our investment in the alliance.
Lastly, I ask the Minister to set out the Government’s analysis and response to the IPCC report, as we are reminded that climate change is the most pressing—and depressing—issue of our time. We all want to avoid climate catastrophe. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest, which will become apparent later, as a trustee of the Green Purposes Company, which holds the green share in the Green Investment Bank.
I welcome this debate. I do not think the noble Baroness should apologise at all because I do not think I would have been fully aware of this treaty if it had not been for this debate. I am going to take a rather different approach but I agree with the vast majority of what she has just said. We probably need Claire Perry from the Commons rather than the Minister here to answer some of these questions, although I am sure he will answer them very adequately.
I thought that this alliance and the agreement itself were good news globally at a time when we have bad news in terms of climate change, with the international consensus rather falling apart in this area. I also welcome the fact that India is the leader in this. I have to say that the history of India in climate change talks internationally has not been great. In fact the country was a blocker of some of the earlier global agreements on climate change—for good reason, in many ways, in that as a developing nation it sees the problem is one that has arisen from industrialised, developed countries and one that we are now throwing back to economies such as India to help us to solve, having been profligate in terms of our emissions in the past. Indeed, as the memorandum states, there are still issues in India with regard to the development of solar through protection in tariffs and in terms of wanting, understandably, to have its own internal solar industry rather than rely, as much as the rest of the world does, on China’s production.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating this debate, and I, like the noble Lord, do not think she should apologise at all. When I read that she had put down a Motion on an international treaty, it prompted me to do the same, so I am having a debate on an international treaty next Tuesday. It is a great opportunity for more public scrutiny of treaties.
Like the noble Lord, I think this is a good agreement, and we should praise the international community and the United Nations for their focus on this, and also praise Britain’s involvement. I have a number of questions, which have already been partly raised. Why this is good is that from a DfID responsibility, we know that the key to economic development is access to energy. Many local economies, particularly in Africa, are inhibited from growing because they cannot access energy, and I think the key to this ISA—if I can call it that—is that it will not only use existing new technologies but a range of them that are not simply reliant on big generation. It is moving into smaller and local generation that can help more remote economies to grow.
I have some specific questions. Initially, DfID said that its engagement would be limited to providing expertise, and that there would be no monetary contributions, but then in the memorandum it states that the United Kingdom,
“may consider committing financial resources”,
directly. Have discussions taken place with the ISA over potential future financial contributions?
I also want to pick up the point that we are members of the alliance because of our overseas territories; the noble Lord raised the fact about consultation. The memorandum confirms that all the overseas territories were in agreement with our membership. That is good, but what else did they say? Did they actually ask how it will impact on them, what concerns do they have, and will they be able to utilise it? What is DfID’s programme in terms of the alliance and the overseas territories? The Minister may not be able to reply tonight, but it would be good to receive information about how the overseas territories were engaged.
I agree completely with the noble Baroness in terms of us advocating one thing internationally and doing something else domestically. The noble Lord has said many times that the UN 2030 agenda does apply. It is universal, so what we are practising in the alliance is something we should be implementing. We are accountable for all the SDGs—the decision to set up the alliance came out of the UN 2030 agenda and the SDGs. I hope that the Minister can talk about how the policy that DfID is leading on will be addressed in the cross-department activity on the implementation of the SDGs. Perhaps he will commit in the report that is going to be made next year to the United Nations—our voluntary review of the SDGs—on how we will meet this particular aspect.
I have mentioned the possibility of direct financing, but of course we have a development instrument in the United Kingdom, a huge one for which the Government have committed to providing additional investment funding, and that is the CDC. Of course, the CDC does have as part of its five-year business plan a commitment to address the SDGs. I am not sure whether the CDC is an instrument that might be involved in the implementation or be part of our ISA engagement, particularly in terms of investment. One of the things I have raised in the past, along with many other noble Lords, is the fact that there are CDC investments which are not carbon neutral. It has made investments which are contributing to global warming mainly because, as I have said before, there is an urgent need in some developing countries for access to energy. I would like to see how the CDC strategy fits in with the memorandum that has been circulated.
In the end, it is important that we are able to review these international agreements. I will conclude by saying that we welcome the Government’s commitment to the alliance. I hope that that will be more than just simply providing specialist assistance and that we ensure that we support fundamental changes. As the noble Lord said, India has a requirement to use energy and it has been utilising quite dirty energy. We want to see our support being given not only to middle-income countries but spread across all developing countries. Given that, I welcome the report.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue and initiating this debate. It gives us a good opportunity to put several points on the record. I shall try to cover most of the questions which have been raised. Some relate specifically to other departments and therefore I will take up the kind suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, to write to noble Lords about them.
Perhaps I may begin, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, by setting out the Government’s position in relation to the alliance and then move on swiftly to the specific questions. The International Solar Alliance is a ground-breaking initiative which aims to accelerate the deployment of solar energy. That deployment is critical to achieving the seventh sustainable development goal which seeks to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. The ISA plans to raise $1 trillion of investment for solar projects, enough to provide 700 million of the 1.1 billion people who are currently without electricity with solar energy. It was quite right of the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Teverson, to point out the rural aspect of this issue because most of those who do not have access to energy live in rural areas. The development of off-grid solar energy sources therefore offers life-changing opportunities for them. In doing so, it would reduce CO2 emissions by over three gigatonnes per year. That is around 10% of the global CO2 emissions from energy—a very significant contribution to SDG 13 on tackling climate change. In doing so, the ISA will also support global development, providing the energy that enables businesses to be productive, services—such as health centres and schools—to function, and providing safe and affordable light and heat to the hundreds of millions of people who currently live without it. The ISA can play a critical role in contributing to the low carbon future we need to ensure that dangerous climate change does not wipe out past development gains. If we are to protect our citizens and companies, we must tackle climate change abroad as well as at home; UK membership of the ISA will help this to happen.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked specifically about the British Indian Ocean Territory and the Chagos Islands. We have regular dialogues with the overseas territories: there are Joint Ministerial Councils that are chaired by my noble friend Lord Ahmad and which I attend as the Minister responsible for some of the islands that are eligible for overseas development assistance. Of course, their attentions have been focused on the consequences of climate change, including hurricanes in the Caribbean last year. There was certainly a lot of interest and support for doing more on this. We are having discussions on the development of geothermal on Montserrat and about solar and wind on St Helena. These are very important elements.
It might be helpful for the Committee to note that at the ISA General Assembly on 3 October the restriction on members having to have a territory within the tropics was removed from the original provision. It is correct that France and India established the ISA in 2015 in Marrakesh, but it is incorrect to suggest that the UK is slipping behind France. More solar is installed in the UK than in France. Significantly, 49% of all EU solar investment is from the UK. In the first half of this year, one in five EU electric vehicles was sold in the UK, second only to Germany.
Internationally, we do more too. The Powering Past Coal Alliance has been launched with Canada. Over the weekend I was in Copenhagen at the partnering for green growth summit. The initiative is being led very powerfully and effectively by the Prime Minister of Denmark. There was significant recognition on the international stage of the contribution that the UK is making in terms of green growth finance. One of the delegates specifically mentioned the Powering Past Coal Alliance which was launched around a year ago, and of course the International Climate Finance facility.
As for how this links with the SDGs, we had a light grilling by the Environmental Audit Committee just a couple of days ago on our readiness for the SDGs. What I was able to say there I also say to the Committee, which is that we view these issues through the lens of the SDGs: they are the best hope we have and they must be applied rigorously, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, domestically as well as being the focus of our efforts internationally.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke about fracking. In the UK we have been regulating for gas and oil drilling for many years and we have tough regulations in place to ensure on-site safety, prevent water contamination and mitigate air pollution. All projections suggest that the UK will require gas for decades ahead. By 2030 we could be importing three-quarters of the gas we need, and that is the rationale for exploring an alternative section of development.
We welcome the IPCC report on 1.5 degrees. We are a world leader when it comes to cutting carbon intensity but the evidence is clear: Governments, businesses and communities must take further action to confront this challenge. That is why we are asking the international climate experts of the Committee on Climate Change for a road map to a net zero economy, including how emissions might be reduced and the expected costs and benefits of doing so. Those will also be followed up at the next meeting, which will take place in Katowice in December.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked what we are doing domestically. The UK was the first country to introduce legally binding emission-reduction targets through the Climate Change Act of the previous Labour Government 10 years ago. Our current 2050 target is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% relative to 1990 levels. That was set in 2008 and we are already making progress, as evidenced by our strong domestic performance. However, there is more to do. Low-carbon innovation is at the heart of the Clean Growth Strategy published last year, and over £2.5 billion of government investment in low-carbon innovation from 2015 to 2021 is a key part of delivering that. This forms part of the largest increase in public spending on UK science, research and innovation in almost 40 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the specific bodies that might be involved in the ISA. We have a list that I am happy to provide to him, but the one that he may have been referring to is the India/UK virtual clean energy research centre, UK Research and Innovation India, formerly RCUK India, one of those announced some time ago by my colleague Sam Gyimah, a Minister at BEIS.
On what we are doing domestically about renewals and emissions reduction, we are committed to maintaining our position as a global leader in renewable energy. We hope that the ISA will present opportunities for British business abroad. Private sector investment, subsidy-free, may soon be a viable option for technology. The key message here is that the SDG gap in terms of funding to meet the SDG goals is running at some $2.5 trillion per year, and therefore it is impossible for $150 billion of aid flows to go anywhere near meeting that. That is the reason why we need to use vehicles such as the CDC, the City of London and the ISA to leverage in private sector capital investment. Of course, that is now available because the technology is now so advanced that solar-powered energy is indeed competitive and economic and can provide a return on investments.
We are pleased to see that the establishment of technologies such as onshore wind and solar is reducing the cost. If this continues, they may have the capability to play a significant role in the generation mix in future. No decisions have been taken about the future of CfD allocation rounds for established technologies but it is right that we should focus support on those technologies where the need is greatest.
Lord Teverson
Perhaps I can give the Minister good news. He may not be aware of this but UK Climate Investments is the organisation in question. The British Government, along with Lightsource Renewable Energy and UK Climate Investments, part of the Green Investment Group, are putting in the seed asset for the partnership that will lead to a 60-megawatt project in the Indian state of Maharashtra. The Government have made that investment this year and I congratulate them on that programme, but I was interested to understand what else they would manage to deliver in future.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord’s skills know no bounds. Would he like to take a place in the Box behind me? That is very good research and I am grateful for it.
Solar PV is a UK success story. The last eight years have seen the technology deployed rapidly, with over 99% of the UK’s solar PV capacity deploying since May 2010. In 2015, 49% of total EU investment in solar PV occurred in the UK. We have installed more than twice as much capacity as any other European country—more than Germany, France and Australia combined.
On how the UK is contributing to the environment of climate change following the IPCC report which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about, we have launched our 25-year environment plan. It sets out how we will replenish depleted soil, rid seas and rivers of rubbish and cut greenhouse gas emissions. We have talked specifically about eliminating avoidable plastic waste and supporting the creation of a new northern forest. We have embedded environmental net gain principles for development, including housing and infrastructure. We have created a new network of sites covering 500,000 hectares where nature and wildlife can thrive, and we have implemented a sustainable fisheries policy.
Those are the main points that were raised during the debate, but of course I will review the Official Report and write to noble Lords should there be any gaps.
Lord Teverson
Can I clarify a point? The report says that all the overseas territories were consulted. As the British Indian Ocean Territory is on that list, who do the Government consult with?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord makes a very specific point. He will be aware of some of the challenges we are currently facing in our consultation with the Chagossians, who are based largely in Mauritius. I do not have the name of a specific individual, but I can certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord and set out any other points that have not been covered.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I thank the Minister for his response. He has raised a lot of issues and I could not keep up with them all. I can assure him that, probably against his preference, I shall pick up on them when I read the transcript. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Collins, for supporting me. I take back my apology for bringing this issue to the table. Ken Livingstone was right: one should never apologise.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, appears to be more optimistic than I am. Perhaps it is my job in the House of Lords to bring a hefty dose of green pessimism to our debates so that we have to stretch ourselves to accommodate it. As regards the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I am absolutely delighted that I have set a precedent for testing these treaties. It allows for more scrutiny of the things that the Government are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Bates, talked about the road map and I would be interested to hear more about that. I am sure that there are links which I can refer to. We cannot live on past glories. I realise that some of the things he talked about are happening not because of the Government but in spite of the Government. People like me have put solar panels on their houses in spite of the Government slashing feed-in tariffs simply because the technology is becoming cheaper. The Government should support solar panels. I lived on a semi-tropical island in the Seychelles for six years and I am well aware of the impact that climate change is going to have on many islands in the Indian Ocean, as well as other places. Even a small rise will mean the loss of a lot of land because many of the islands’ perimeters are quite shallow. That in turn will mean the loss of livelihoods. I can well understand why the small island states are extremely anxious about the fact that we are such big polluters. It is up to us as well as places such as China, India and the USA to make sure that we limit our disastrous carbon emissions. One of the points made in the UN report is that we have to reduce inequality and poverty. That will be a major factor in helping to reduce our impact on the planet. It is something that I believe in very strongly as well. Most of these states do have a source of energy. The tides are small, the waves are often big, but of course they have the sun, so solar energy is a way to find more energy.
On fracking, I am sure the Minister knows that up at Preston New Road in Lancashire the fracking started and within days there have been six tremors. Fracking is a nasty way to recover fossil fuels at a time when we should be keeping fossil fuels in the ground. Fracking is not only unnecessary—it is not necessary for a secure energy future—it is dirty and dangerous. I am delighted about the growth of green finance, but Greens have strong suspicions about the growth of finance and whether or not there is real green finance. It is wonderful if there is growth in green areas, but there has to be a concomitant scaling back in other areas.
Finally, I know that a Conservative Government, naturally, but a Labour Government as well—or even a Lib Dem Government—would care very much about the cost of things. The question of how much this is going to cost us is a good one, but of course the real question, the question Greens always ask, is: how much will it cost us if we do not do it? Actually, the amounts are phenomenal, and they include global insecurity and a lot of quite bad impacts on us. I beg to move.
House of Lords
Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I would like to say a few words about the latest report by the Burns committee on the size of the House, which is now available in the Printed Paper Office and online. I am pleased to announce that in the first year of the scheme, the target for departures was exceeded, and there have been 42 departures from the House since the beginning of this Parliament. As she promised, the Prime Minister has shown restraint on new appointments and we are on course to reduce the size of the House to 600 Members within the timeframe set out in the original report. Importantly, I should add that we are achieving this reduction without the benefit of legislation. Lastly, I would like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lords Burns, and his committee for their very hard work.
Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their most recent assessment of access to treatment in Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy)
My Lords, the Government are improving and expanding access to children and young people’s mental health services. Because of the additional £1.4 billion available for these services, we expect that an extra 70,000 children and young people will access NHS specialist mental health services each year by 2021. We are either on track or exceeding waiting time targets for eating disorders and early intervention in psychosis, and the plans published in the Green Paper will further widen access to mental health support.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. Last week, Action for Children reported that one in three young people now have mental health issues. It also estimated that only a quarter of those who need help are currently able to access treatment from NHS services; this is quite often because they are not considered “ill enough”. I am particularly concerned by the often non-existent provision of crisis care for young people who are experiencing suicidal thoughts, self-harming, or just desperately needing help, often in the evening or at weekends—certainly outside of nine-to-five office hours. Could the Minister say whether setting up 24/7 crisis care provision for children, young people and their families will be a key priority for the Government in the forthcoming NHS long-term plan?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I certainly think that is an interesting idea which I am very happy to feed into that process. I know the noble Baroness is a great campaigner on this issue, and the numbers of young people who are suffering from mental health problems are, frankly, terrifying. On the point about access, she was right that around one in four children and young people have been able to access these services. Our ambition, which we are on track to meet, is that this should rise to 35%. Clearly, we ought to reach 100%, but that involves recruiting a very large workforce, which we are in the process of doing.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister comment on whether there will be significant investment in trying to take psychology graduates into mental health nursing to enhance the number of people entering the profession?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I do not know the specifics on psychology graduates; I will write to the noble Baroness. If the number of nurses in mental health nurse training at the moment comes through into the profession, there will be 8,000 more mental health nurses by 2020. I am sure we will be keen to recruit them from wherever we can.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, on the issue of 24/7 services, CQC evidence suggests that the number of children visiting A&E departments for mental health treatment has more than doubled since 2010. Earlier this year, a CQC review highlighted growing demand as children, young people, their families and carers find that they have to reach crisis point before they can get help. On top of this, the recent FOI response to the BBC’s “Panorama” programme showed that at least 1.5 million under-18s were estimated to be living in areas where there are no 24/7 child mental health services. What steps are the Government taking to join up services across health, education, local councils and the voluntary sector to ensure that these vital crisis and support services are available and funded?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I recognise that there is variability across the country. Indeed, waiting times vary, which is not acceptable. That is why a new four-week waiting time standard is being trialled as part of the Green Paper I mentioned. I should also point out that new, community-based eating disorder clinics are being set up so that people do not have to go to an A&E environment and can access something that is better for them, frankly, both more easily and locally.
Baroness Fall (Con)
My Lords, I start by commending the Government for their important work in this area. It remains true that many people who seek help are often either not helped at all or put on a waiting list. Can the Minister outline the exact thresholds that are used when many people who seek referral are turned away? In the interests of transparency, it would be important for us to know what they are.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank my noble friend for her question. The definition is a “diagnosable mental health condition”. That is the performance target, or threshold, we work against. At the moment, unfortunately, only around 30% of children and young people with a diagnosable condition access care and treatment but we are clearly trying to increase that figure.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, have the Government made an assessment of the number of children and young people referred to community eating disorder services? Given that anorexia has the highest mortality rate of any mental health disease, how many of those referrals do not go on to get treatment?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. There are 70 new or enhanced community eating disorder services. The intention is that they should serve over 3,300 children and young people every year.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, what consideration is being given to refugee children who come with tremendous trauma from the camps in Dunkirk and Calais? Is any consideration given to them and the threat that when they reach the age of 18, their status changes and they can face deportation? Can we not do something to relieve that anxiety?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
As I hope the noble Lord will know, refugee children have as much right to access these services as other children. I should also point out that a new mental health assessment trial is being funded by the Department for Education specifically to design mental health assessments for looked-after children of all kinds, including refugee children.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister say what work his department is doing with the Department for Education in making consistent the level of pastoral care available in schools, particularly for young people who have experienced mental health problems and may not be in an acute stage but need ongoing monitoring?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that extensive work is being done. It was summed up in the plans outlined in the Green Paper last December and revolves around two things: every school having a designated senior lead for mental health and the recruitment of mental health support teams that will sit in and around schools. It is precisely about joining up education workers and health workers in the community to provide that kind of support.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, too many people in our young offender institutions are suffering from mental health problems. The Minister mentioned the likely increase in the number of nurses, but one of the problems with the young offender institutions is that there is an acute shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists. Will he please tell the House what the situation is regarding those vital people?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not have the specific number on psychiatrists. The plans to extend the mental health workforce as a whole cover all settings, including the recruitment of a further 1,700 children and young people’s therapists. I will find out whether the young offender institutions are included in that and what the figure is for psychiatrists.
Brexit: Economic Forecasts
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Strasburger
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their forecasts for the next ten years show a better outcome for the United Kingdom economy if the United Kingdom were to remain in the European Union than if it were to leave.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is leaving the EU on 29 March 2019 and will begin to chart a new course in the world. The Government’s proposals set out in the 12 July White Paper are the best way to protect jobs and avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. When we bring forward the vote on the final deal, Parliament will be presented with the appropriate analysis to make an informed decision.
Lord Strasburger (LD)
My Lords, as full EU members we currently enjoy the best possible trading terms with the EU 27. Any other deal must, by definition, be worse. Our Government are striving for a deal with our biggest trading partner that can only downgrade what we have now—that is worth thinking about. Does the Minister know of any other country that has deliberately degraded its trading relationship with its biggest customer?
Lord Bates
I do not accept the proposition behind that question. The world is changing. Some 90% of the growth that will happen over the next 10 years will be outside the European Union. Six of our largest trading partners are in the EU, including Germany, France and the Netherlands, but the United States is No. 1, China is growing very significantly and there is Switzerland too. This is a great country in which to invest and trade. That is why we have the largest stock of foreign direct investment and why our exports and employment continue to grow, and I expect that to go on happening once a deal is reached.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is answering on a hope and a prayer. In this age of uncertainty, to claim categorically that Brexit will be beneficial to the nation is extraordinary. Will he not accept that economic predictors in the past have been broadly correct? They have been right over the last seven or eight years that the economic growth rate in the United Kingdom would decline to one of the lowest in the G7. They also got right that the people who would pay for austerity would be working people, as their wages would not increase over this period. But there was one prediction that the Government got wholly wrong; the Minister partially reflected on it a moment ago. That was for the Prime Minister to go post-haste to the President of the United States to take steps towards an advantageous trade deal after Brexit. What was the reply? “America first.”
Lord Bates
As far as we are concerned on this negotiation, we want a deal, we expect a deal and we want good, positive relations with our European friends. If it is important that we continue to have access for goods worth £423 billion into the EU, is it not also crucial that it continue to have access so that it can sell us goods worth £518 billion each year? It is in the enlightened self-interest of both parties to reach a deal, and that is what the Prime Minister seeks.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, in dealing with this Question, would it not be best to ask what will happen to the European Union over the next 10 years? Visegrad countries are pulling away, nationalism is growing in many European member states, Italy is considering whether it should leave the European Union, and Greece continues to have difficulties. Would it not be wise for us to work for a modern and completely different kind of European co-operation in the future, which might be better for Europe and us?
Lord Bates
My noble friend speaks with great knowledge and expertise in these areas. Of course, one of his points is the one I made right at the beginning: the fastest-growing economies will be outside the European Union. Last year, our exports to India rose by 31% and to China by 15%. Those are significant sums. Not just the UK but the EU needs to wake up to the competition around the world, and to ensure that we have markets that can compete in that new environment.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, what are the Government’s economic forecasts for the next 10 years worth when their forecast of catastrophe in the 12 months following the referendum was so abjectly wrong?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord will remember the catastrophe that happened in 2008. I do not necessarily want to remind him of that. Growth has continued in every quarter since the referendum. We expect that to continue and that is what we are working for. We are also working for a deal—that is what the Prime Minister is working for tirelessly. She deserves our full support.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I am tempted to comment on our shocking growth numbers at 1.2% compared with those of the US and the EU, which are close to 6%. The noble Lord is relying on future free trade agreements. I am shocked to learn how low the utilisation of free trade agreements is. The requirements to qualify for zero tariffs under any existing free trade agreement are so heavy in documentation on rules of origin, certification, dealing with royalties and valuation that the overwhelming majority of companies choose to pay the tariff rather than opt for the zero. In some free trade agreements only 10% of qualified transactions opt for the zero tariff because of the costs; at best it is only 60%. Does that not damn the future trading relationships that he describes?
Lord Bates
I point out to the noble Baroness that some of the markets in which we are trading most successfully and where growth is increasing are ones that we do not have a formal free trade agreement with and where we operate on WTO terms. But that is not the objective we are setting for the future; we want a good trade agreement with our friends in the European Union and good free trade agreements that we will be able to negotiate with other countries around the world.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I have had the advantage of listening to the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, speak about the reliability of economic forecasts. In summary it was, “Stuff happens”. No one 11 years ago would have foreseen what would happen in 2008 or the problems with the eurozone ever since. Indeed, the Treasury document that we had to see in private across the road itself fluctuated 5% this way and 5% that. Will the Minister understand if we take the forecasts with a great dose of salt?
Lord Bates
We should do, although of course we look at them. We somehow behave as though economic forecasts are some kind of target that we have to meet, when they are not. Our future is entirely in our own hands. What is better news for us is that it is entirely in the hands of British businesspeople, who have shown themselves to be world leaders the world over. I have great confidence in them and their ability to continue.
Freedom of Religion or Belief
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to (1) promote freedom of religion or belief, and (2) mark International Freedom of Religion or Belief Day on 27 October.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion or belief, I am leading the work with our diplomatic network to achieve an increased focus in our efforts on this agenda across government. We are seeking to effect change in key countries and to promote respect in education, supported by £1 million of funding. In this respect, I am also working across Whitehall to bring together ministerial colleagues from DfID, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department for Education, and defence. We are marking the international day with an event, which I am delighted to be co-hosting with my noble friend Lord Bates, on 7 November.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. He holds an important position as the Prime Minister’s special envoy. Can he explain what progress has been made in, for example, providing religious literacy training to departments such as the Department for International Development, so that it can cope better with some of the challenges it faces in countries such as China, Pakistan and Nigeria, where there are repeated assaults on the idea of freedom of religion or belief?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises a significant point about literacy in the important area of freedom of religion or belief. You need only cast your eye around the world to see how freedom of religion or belief is being usurped in many countries, including some of those named by my noble friend. With regard to increasing our focus on this, the noble Baroness will be aware of the work done through the diplomatic network, and I am already speaking to colleagues across DfID, and in the Ministry of Defence, to ensure that those deployed to our international posts are well versed in the local challenges on this important priority.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, has the Minister noted the 40% increase in religious hate crimes in the United Kingdom between 2017 and 2018? In that context, does he feel it appropriate that Tommy Robinson was entertained in the Lords by a Member of this House?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the second point, I do not think that it is right. We need to take a long hard look at ourselves as a House, and I am sure that the House authorities have been alerted to the presence of the said individual. The views he expresses are not just appalling for the community he targets—we are all, rightly, appalled. It is important that we review our procedures to ensure that individuals such as Tommy Robinson do not enter the heart of democracy. I am minded, however, to defer that to the House authorities.
On the important issue of rising religious hatred and hate crime, I think we all stand united against it. We have seen an increase in anti-Semitism. I have spoken out very strongly on that, and I think that I represent many in this House in speaking out, whether it is against anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, anti-Muslim hatred or any form of religious hate crime. Regrettably and tragically, there are people in our society who target us—those who have spoken out—for that very reason. It is important that we unite against this and that a clear and unequivocal statement comes from this House, from the Houses of Parliament and from the country as a whole, to those who seek to divide us: “We are united against you, and we will defeat you”.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that each and every one of us in this House shares the responsibility to ensure good racial and interfaith relationships, and that this House has a specific responsibility to ensure that its own estates are not used in that way?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I am sure, as I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that the House authorities have taken note. I also agree, however, with the premise of the noble Baroness that each of us has a responsibility. We need to raise the bar: no longer should it be about tolerance; it is about respect and understanding, and that is what we should be promoting.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that freedom of religion and belief is an absolute right, and that it would become more of a reality if we, and other leading countries, put aside considerations of trade and so-called strategic interests in its pursuit?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The strategic relationships that we have around the world are important—indeed, the Statement I made yesterday reflected that—but I assure the noble Lord, and your Lordships’ House, that human rights in the broad sense are an important consideration and priority in the relationships we build across the world.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Will my noble friend the Minister work with FCO and DfID country heads to produce a country-specific strategy for promoting freedom of religion and belief?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend makes a very practical and useful suggestion, and I am looking at my new role to see whether we can provide that kind of country detail.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly associate myself and the rest of these Benches with the remarks of the Minister in respect of the person who attended this place last night. We strongly support his attempts to stop that kind of behaviour. We do all have a responsibility. One of the things that happened at CHOGM was a conference at Lambeth Palace, involving religious leaders and politicians. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about what progress has been made since CHOGM? It is not simply a matter of Governments; it is about all community leaders and faith leaders taking the initiative.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important point, and we of course welcomed the progress at CHOGM. I have continued to work closely with Lambeth Palace and other faith leaders as well. I am working closely with the Vatican, through Archbishop Gallagher, and I recently met His Highness the Aga Khan. We are looking across the piece with leaders from different faith communities, and from humanist societies as well, to ensure that we can work together as one on this important priority.
Brexit: Civil Service Impartiality
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, before I answer the noble Lord’s Question on the Civil Service, noble Lords may have heard that Sir Jeremy Heywood has announced his retirement as Cabinet Secretary to concentrate on his recovery from ill health. The whole House will wish that recovery to be swift and complete and we look forward to welcoming him to your Lordships’ House, where the wisdom, patience and humour that marked his career in the Civil Service can be harnessed by this House as it scrutinises legislation and holds the Government to account.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the Ministerial Code is clear that Ministers must uphold at all times the impartiality of the Civil Service. This impartiality is a fundamental tenet of our system of government, set out in legislation and in the Civil Service Code. As always, the Civil Service is focused on doing its duty to implement the decisions and policies of the Government, including on negotiations and preparations for the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. He speaks with authority, having been a civil servant as well as a distinguished former Minister. I am sure the whole House will appreciate the tribute he has paid to Sir Jeremy Heywood. Since a politically impartial and independent Civil Service recruited on the basis of merit, in which civil servants are advised to speak fearlessly in giving advice to Ministers, has been one of the strengths of our unwritten constitution in the last 150 years, will the noble Lord condemn all those politicians—of all political persuasions and different views on Brexit—who blame the civil servants for policy decisions which are the sole responsibility of Ministers? Does he not agree that this is damaging to confidence and trust in the Civil Service?
Lord Young of Cookham
As the noble Lord has indicated, I have an interest to declare: I was myself a civil servant in the 1960s, working for such agreeable political masters as George Brown and John Stonehouse. But on the serious issue the noble Lord raises, I agree entirely with what he has just said. I think that Oliver Robbins has the most difficult job in the Civil Service; it is quite wrong that he should be the lightning conductor for those unhappy with the negotiations. I deplore the anonymous allegation that he is following his own agenda, against the wishes of Ministers.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this may be a sad day for the Civil Service in losing Sir Jeremy Heywood but it is a happy day for us. I am sure that even the Lord Speaker, having commended us on reducing the size of the House, will welcome this exception for our new colleague. We wish him well. The best tribute to him will be if we can continue what he says in his farewell letter: that he has tried,
“to challenge lazy thinking and … to find solutions rather than simply identifying … obstacles”.
Our tribute should be that the Civil Service can continue to do that without being attacked because, rather like saying “Fake news”, those who attack it are doing so to undermine the words that civil servants say. When the Minister reaffirms the independence of the Civil Service, as I am sure he will, will he urge those Brexiteers to play the ball and not the man?
Lord Young of Cookham
I agree with what the noble Baroness has just said and I am grateful for her tribute to Sir Jeremy. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, has best summed up the merits of our Civil Service, speaking of its,
“core values of integrity, propriety, objectivity and appointment on merit, able to transfer its loyalty and expertise from one elected government to the next”.
I agree with the noble Baroness’s final point that, whatever one’s politics, one should play the ball and not the man. Ministers bear responsibility for any difficulties in negotiations, not civil servants.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, as someone who strongly supports Brexit, may I say how much I support and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Luce, has said? I deplore all the attacks made on civil servants. I particularly deplore—and have said this to several people—attacks on Sir Jeremy Heywood. He was my Private Secretary in three separate jobs and is an outstanding civil servant, devoted to giving impartial advice. I am deeply sorry to hear about his illness and wish him all the best.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to my noble friend. Like him, I worked with Sir Jeremy. I sat round the Cabinet table for a number of years with him and worked with him when I was Chief Whip and Leader of the House. One of his successes was building on the work of his predecessors and creating a more open, diverse, plural Civil Service that was also more professional but never lost sight of the basic principles of the Civil Service: honesty, openness, impartiality and integrity.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, speaking for all his predecessors as Cabinet Secretary, I share and express our regret that Sir Jeremy Heywood has felt obliged to retire on health grounds. Sir Jeremy served many Prime Ministers and, as we have just heard, many Chancellors of the Exchequer. He served with great skill, unremitting hard work, distinction, impartiality and integrity. He has given the state some service and is well deserving of the gratitude and approval of the Government, Ministers, his colleagues in the Civil Service and both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Young of Cookham
I agree with the noble Lord’s every word and gently suggest that there will now be so many former Cabinet Secretaries in this House that perhaps they should form their own group.
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact on this country of the United States withdrawing from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of the statements made by the United States on the future of the INF treaty. However, it is important to recognise that the United States has not formally withdrawn from the treaty. While the treaty remains in force the United Kingdom will continue to support it and, in particular, to press Russia to return to full and verifiable compliance. We, of course, want to see the treaty continue to stand, but that requires all parties to abide by it and at the moment one side is in violation. Russia needs to respect its obligations as this treaty has made a valuable contribution to European security for over 30 years.
Lord West of Spithead
My Lords, the greatest existential threat to our people and nation is a miscalculation during a period of increasing tension, leading to an ill-thought-through use of a nuclear weapon. Indeed, Putin’s strategy of de-escalation posits early use of a nuclear weapon. The repudiation of the INF treaty—and let us face it, these weapons can hit us all in Europe but they cannot hit America—and the breakdown of US/Russian relations bring this existential threat to our nation, the only existential threat that is there, much closer. I think all of us should be extremely concerned.
Will we bend every sinew to try to get Trump and Putin in the margins of the number of meetings that they are having over the next few months to relook at a whole raft of limitation treaties and possibly renegotiate an intermediate-range treaty, a ballistic treaty and also an arms reduction set of treaties? Only in that way will we ease back on this risk of an existential threat to our people.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord speaks from great experience in this respect. I assure him that the United Kingdom will do all within its power to ensure that this treaty is sustained and strengthened. But it is a bilateral treaty between the United States and Russia and one party—Russia—has not complied. The other positive note in this respect is that, as the noble Lord will know, at the last NATO meeting in July all NATO partners stressed the importance of sustaining this treaty. It has kept the peace for more than 30 years, and that is evidence of its importance.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, by leaving the treaty the US has no way of pressuring Russia into compliance. The Minister is right about the need to ensure compliance. With the New START treaty on strategic arms due to end in 2021, we could be left with no limits on the arsenals of nuclear states for the first time since 1972. So my noble friend is absolutely right to raise this critical issue. Will the Minister tell us what conversations we had with our ally the United States and whether the United States consulted any of its European allies on this question before making this announcement?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the New START treaty. It is important to recognise that major strides have been made in de-escalation and the destruction of missiles. That treaty remains on the books. Both sides are complying with it, and we will continue to work to ensure that it is sustained. On this treaty, we all heard the US President make the announcement. The issue of Russia’s non-compliance was not new to the NATO alliance. It was reflected in the communiqué in July. The noble Lord will also be aware that subsequent to the discussions a member of the US Administration recently visited Russia, and we hope that productive discussions will come from that. We continue to work very closely with the United States and other NATO allies to ensure that our efforts over the past 30 years are not just sustained but strengthened.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Will the Minister answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about consultation? It is surely rather important that there was some consultation—perhaps there was not—because countries in Europe who are in the alliance are much more in the firing line than the United States. Can he say whether the United States consulted us or any other European allies—and, if so, what opinion did we offer?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I think I have partly answered the second part of the noble Lord’s question. The US has not withdrawn from the treaty. President Trump announced an intention to withdraw. On consultation prior to him making that announcement, this was discussed at the last NATO meeting, so American concerns about the treaty came as no surprise. On the specific question of the announcement, we were informed subsequently, but the material issue of the non-compliance of Russia was not new to the US or to any NATO ally.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Will my noble friend tell the House whether there is any evidence that Russia has been breaking the treaty, and to what extent? If there are now a great many more weapons capable of being aimed at Europe or anywhere else, that is quite disturbing.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is not just the United Kingdom: all NATO allies have long-standing concerns about Russia’s deployment of a range of new capabilities that undermines strategic stability in Europe specifically. Returning to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord West, that this issue of is primary importance to Europe, I assure my noble friend that, acting together as NATO, we will continue to pressure Russia to ensure that all treaties that have been signed are not only respected but strengthened.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister concerned about the erosion of nuclear arms control, as evidenced by this statement of intent by President Trump following his determination to resile from the nuclear arms deal? Added to that is the uncertainty about the renewal of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. In all those circumstances, what prospects does this demonstrate to us for the review conference in 2020 of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? What work are the Government already embarking on in relation to that review?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important point about the renewal of that treaty. I assure him that we are working across NATO to ensure not only that the principles of that treaty are sustained but that the peace that we have seen on the continent through the de-escalation and reduction of weapons of all kinds—both nuclear and others—is not just sustained but maintained. There is a concern that I have already alluded to. In recent years we have seen Russia’s non-compliance and concerns about its technology-enabled development of new capabilities. It is right that NATO stands firm against this and we will continue to work very closely with NATO allies including—importantly—the United States.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister appears to have conceded that this was yet another surprise unilateral announcement by the President, without consultation with allies. But the President was right in one respect: things have moved on since this bilateral treaty. China is outside the treaty. Are there any prospects at all of engaging China in any form of treaty similar to the INF?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord talks again about the concerns of the United States, which are about not just China but North Korea and other countries that are not subject to such bilateral agreements and are therefore outside the remit of such a treaty. It is important to recognise that, in the world we live in today, there is a real need to acknowledge that different alliances need to be strengthened and that some countries are developing certain technologies in this area. The important task is to ensure that our dialogue, along with our partners, is sustained not just with Russia but elsewhere. Indeed, we are encouraged—certainly when it came to the discussions between the United States and North Korea—by the agreements that have been reached on the de-escalation of various capabilities in that region of Asia.
Financial Regulators’ Powers (Technical Standards etc.) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 16 July be approved.
Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Building Societies Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 October.
Department for Transport (Fees) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 July be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 17 October.
Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (Consequential Amendment of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 June be approved.
Non-Domestic Rating (Nursery Grounds) Bill
Wednesday 24th October 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Non-Domestic Rating (Nursery Grounds) Act 2018 View all Non-Domestic Rating (Nursery Grounds) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I express my thanks to noble Lords for their helpful insight at Second Reading and support throughout proceedings. Additional thanks are due to Duncan McLaren at the Valuation Office Agency, Eleanor Griggs and Michael Parker at the National Farmers’ Union, the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the select nurseries that provided assistance.
I also thank officials and the Bill team who have contributed to the Bill: Phil Shere and Kirsty Roberts at Defra, and my own officials—Nick Pellegrini, Lisa Gouveia, Joshua Hardie, Matthew Scales and Ed Clark—for their work and support in preparing the Bill.
The Bill has wide support across the House, restores a long-standing policy position and will support a vibrant and sustainable rural economy. I beg to move.
Ivory Bill
Wednesday 24th October 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (22 Oct 2018)
17:49 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 20 / Noes: 323 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
19:02 - Division on Amendment 24 - Ayes: 18 / Noes: 249 - Amendment 24 disagreed.
19:48 - Division on Amendment 40 - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 127 - Amendment 40 disagreed.
Lord Cormack
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that there are not more in the House at the moment. I think if I were to ask any of your Lordships, individually or collectively, if you believed in the deprivation of the value of legitimately acquired private property, you would give a unanimous answer.
I have a retired friend in Lincoln who has spent his life collecting English watercolours. Some are very beautiful and he has collected them because he believes that they are beautiful but also because he always felt that in acquiring a watercolour, he was safe- guarding his money and knew that if he or his wife came upon difficult times, he could realise his assets. So it is, so it should be, and so, if he hits on hard times, it will be.
But if he had been like the gentleman who wrote to me only last week and collected ivory chess sets made at the same time that the watercolours were painted—the late 18th and early 19th century—he would be facing the prospect of having no assets that he could realise. This must surely be the law of unintended consequences. It cannot be that any Government, least of all a Conservative Government, would wish to act in that way against someone who has studiously—I use the word properly—collected items of interest and of some value, though not superb national value necessarily, and done no harm in the process.
There is probably not a single Member of your Lordships’ House—I hope there is not—who is not fundamentally opposed to the activities of ivory poachers. To that degree, we all welcome the Bill and applaud the Government’s desire to deal with poaching and punish those who trade nefariously in ivory items. But how many elephants will be protected in 2020 by forbidding someone from selling an ivory chess set made in 1820?
In Committee, I moved a slightly more far-reaching amendment, but I had the impression that it would not necessarily prosper, so I have made this amendment much simpler. It merely deletes the paragraph in Clause 1 that refers to,
“exporting it from the United Kingdom for sale or hire”.
If we are to prevent people realising their own legitimately acquired assets, surely we will not prevent them selling them in a country where it is entirely legal—as it is in France—to sell their ivory objects.
This is common justice as well as common sense. I beg to move.
Lord Hague of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Cormack but I am opposed to his amendment, which would be destructive of the objectives of the Bill. It is important on this and other amendments to remind ourselves of the objectives of the legislation. Our ultimate objective and the objective of international policy on the ivory trade is to end the demand for new ivory. We probably all agree that this is the ultimate answer. Whatever we do in anti-poaching measures, conservation and the interception of shipments is really only mitigation. The answer to keeping elephants alive today is to end the demand for ivory.
That means bringing that demand to an end in China, Vietnam and south-east Asian countries. For years, some of us have been trying to persuade them of that, including when I was Foreign Secretary and began the conversation with China about ending its domestic ivory market. Now I am pleased to say that China closed its domestic ivory market at the beginning of this year. The British Government, including my noble friend the Minister at the Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference two weeks ago, were persuading other Governments to close their domestic ivory markets, including that of Laos, which is an important piece of the jigsaw, and, I hope, Vietnam and Malaysia in the future.
In every one of these conversations, including that with China, the first thing they say is, “Are you going to do the same? Are you going to close your domestic ivory market?” Secondly, they say, “If you don’t stop your exports from the United Kingdom, it is much harder for us to close our markets if thousands of items are exported as they have been each year”. The CITES figure is of 54,000 ivory pieces from the UK in a 10-year period, largely into Far Eastern markets. It is not credible to say to those countries, “Please close your domestic ivory markets so we save the elephants for the future. However, we are going to have a lot of exemptions and export to wherever we can from the United Kingdom. We have all these nice things we picked up during the Empire and we would like to be able to sell them in the future”.
It is very important to what is becoming a sensibly agreed international policy, not only that we support the Bill in general but that we do not make an amendment that would cut out of it the prohibition of exports, which would largely defeat the object of the Bill.
Lord Cormack
I am grateful to my noble friend but that does not address the issue of antique ivory. He may not be aware that most of the ivory exported is in the form of piano keys, but let us forget that for a moment. Does my noble friend think that in his desire to preserve the rainforest—a desire I am sure he and I share—it would be sensible to prohibit the sale of 18th-century mahogany furniture? His argument is devoid of logic, which is unusual for him.
Lord Hague of Richmond
We have not come to that point on the rainforests, but I would do whatever was necessary to save them. There is no doubt that the legal trade in the UK is cover for an illegal and illicit trade. We can see it for ourselves. Last month, I went to Heathrow Airport to meet the Border Force officials and Royal Mail personnel whose job it is to open suspicious boxes and so on coming into this country. I have seen with my own eyes and opened the boxes of the new worked raw ivory from elephants being killed today that is made to look as though it is antique ivory. That is why the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime says that, globally, there is no doubt that a legal trade is cover for an illicit trade. So there is a powerful logic in enacting the Bill as it stands, including paragraph (d), referred to in Amendment 1, if we are to play our part internationally in saving the elephants of today.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendment. I really just want to add to my noble friend Lord Hague that one of the great problems that the drafters of the Bill faced, and never really answered, is the claim that there is an inability in the ivory markets to tell the difference between modern ivory, newly carved from poached elephants, and antique ivory. It is in fact extremely easy to do and is done as a matter of course; indeed, it is enshrined in the Bill by museums having the expertise to determine whether an ivory item presented as of exceptional international and domestic importance—and therefore exempt under the Bill—is old or new. There is the expertise to determine whether ivory is old or new and to tell whether an ivory chess set—the example used by my noble friend Lord Cormack—is an old ivory chess set or one carved for the Hong Kong market. The reality of all this is that we are destroying a great many highly prized historical artefacts in this country for, probably, zero effect on the elephant population. That is the great tragedy of the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised by this, but we are very much opposed to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hague, put the case much more strongly than I will, but I was disappointed by the position of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on this. The very fact that his amendment focuses on exports goes to the heart of what the Bill is about. I am sorry that he has sought to start this debate in such a negative way. I hoped that we would have learned from our debates in Committee and that we had made the case in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Hague, said, that we are trying to stop the illegal exports of illegal pieces. That is the heart of the problem.
The latest CITES statistics show that there has been a dramatic increase in the amount of both raw and worked ivory being exported from the EU: in 2014-15, the last two years for which data are available, the EU exported 1,258 tusks. That is what has happened according to the CITES information. Over and above that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hague, said, there is the undercurrent of all the illegal trade of which nobody has any record. That is at the heart of this, and I am very sorry that we have started this debate looking at exports, which is the real problem that we have. I know we will go on to talk about other issues, but I regret this and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in other contributions that he might make, will do more to persuade us that he really understands the basis of the Bill. He said that he welcomed the Bill, but I think he has more of a responsibility to demonstrate how. I therefore urge noble Lords to oppose the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment would allow commercial exports of ivory to be exempt from the ban. Given the rationale of the Bill, this amendment would be contrary to its purpose. We have heard from all sides, and we are all united behind the need to tackle the devastating decline in elephant populations, which is being driven by the global demand for ivory. While key demand markets are primarily in the Far East, the UK has, by introducing the Ivory Bill, acknowledged that its own legal ivory market is one of the largest in the world. By closing this market we want to ensure that the UK no longer plays a role in driving the global demand for ivory, including in the Far East.
Currently, the UK ivory market is linked to the Far East. As I mentioned in Committee, a 2016 report by TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, shows that a shift has taken place over a number of years, with the UK legal market increasingly serving consumers in the Far East. UK Border Force officials have uncovered numerous antique ivory items being sent to Asian markets, often mislabelled as items other than ivory. Market surveys in the Far East have also shown that demand for ivory rarely distinguishes between legal and illegal ivory, with both found to be sold side by side. It cannot be denied that antique ivory from the UK is being exported to those markets, where it fuels the social acceptability of ivory and, in turn, perpetuates the demand.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hague for setting it out so clearly—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has said it much better than I possibly could—and I agree with every word he said. If we were to exclude exports from the UK’s ban, as proposed by this amendment, we would not only be allowing this link to continue but would also be condoning, internationally, the export of ivory items to demand markets. This would set back the actions already taken by other countries such as the United States and China by allowing new markets to grow in the Far East. It would also undermine the global movement to close markets and remove the value associated with ivory, which African elephant range states are calling upon us to do.
My noble friend Lord Hague referred to—as I will describe it—this global movement. The Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference was held earlier this month in London, where the UK Government launched the international Ivory Alliance, which will work to close domestic markets and reduce demand for ivory. It was a privilege to introduce a session at the conference—jointly chaired by my noble friend Lord Hague and Dr Zhou Zhihua of China, with a panel including the Assistant Deputy Secretary from the US Department of the Interior and the former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark—which focused on the importance of closing domestic ivory markets.
The action the UK has taken by introducing this Bill is already helping to encourage other countries to take action. As my noble friend Lord Hague has said, both the Cambodian and Laotian Governments announced at the conference that they will be closing their domestic markets. This is an important step forward. Our work in the UK has also resulted in an Australian parliamentary committee recommending that Australia close its domestic market. The committee urged the Australian Government to follow the UK’s approach, which they described as an example of best practice.
Our actions are already having an impact and will continue to, if we make the right decisions. The current restrictions in place are not strong enough and there is an international movement, endorsed by a CITES resolution, to address the gap and in turn protect elephants. The UK must play its part, and it is for these reasons that the Government cannot support my noble friend’s amendment. As is customary at this stage, I therefore respectfully ask him to withdraw it.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
If this amendment is not passed, what would happen to objects that are confiscated at the border? I am thinking in particular of significant cultural objects that were destroyed in America, because all ivory is disallowed from entering the United States.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I say to the noble Earl, as my noble friend Lord Carrington mentioned, that there is no intention to destroy any objects. Indeed, there are further amendments on exemptions that we think strike the right balance regarding outstanding and the rarest items. We have a strong and proportionate package of exemptions, which will come up in the next group of amendments.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, the Minister’s response to that intervention from the noble Earl illustrates the lack of knowledge among those who are indulging in the gesture politics occupying us this afternoon. The fact of the matter is that, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, referred to, already the United States is destroying items that have ivory as an ingredient. We will come to that later in today’s debate, but take as an example an Art Deco figure with an ivory head and a silver body. The ivory head would be taken out. There is a particularly graphic example of a Victorian salt and pepper pair, dating from, I think, 1874. They were beefeaters, and the faces were ivory. They were destroyed. This is the stuff of madness.
My noble friend Lord Hague speaks with passion, and I hope I rival his passion in wanting to preserve elephants, but he does not seem to understand the difference between antique objects and artefacts and modern things. He talked about fakes, but there are fakes in every walk of life and in every form of antique—we know that. But we would not clamp down on the sale of pictures because occasionally a fake appears on the market. We have to be moderate and sensible in our approach.
I will reflect on what has been said and I may well bring something back on Third Reading. I shall certainly test the opinion of the House on a later amendment this afternoon, but—
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
With respect, on this matter and with this amendment, I have no option but to tell my noble friend that I will say exactly the same at Third Reading. He says he intends to bring it back at Third Reading, but it is really a matter that we should deal with today, on Report. That is the way to deal with it. We have considered it in ministerial meetings and it goes to the very heart of the Bill. To take “exporting” out rides a coach and horses through the Bill’s premise, and I respectfully tell my noble friend that, at Third Reading, I will say exactly the same. If he does wish to test the opinion of the House, it should be at Report.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, obviously I will reflect on what my noble friend has said. I wish to test the opinion of the House on a later amendment but, for the moment, I will withdraw this one.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, sits down, he is normally on the ball on such issues but unless the Companion has changed, this is not an appropriate way to put down an amendment on Third Reading. That is done only on a narrow basis, including due to new information or clarification of something that was unclear at an earlier stage. I think he may have a bit of trouble with the Table Office should he try to put down a similar amendment on Third Reading. I am surprised by what he has said, as he is so fluent in these matters. I hope he will acknowledge that, on this, I am right and he is wrong.
Lord Cormack
I am aware of the general position—of course I am. But we are at the first debate and we do not know quite how the Bill will emerge today from Report. We will then reflect. The noble Lord would agree, I am sure, that that is entirely logical and sensible. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Cormack
Lord Cormack
My Lords, this is an amendment about which I feel particularly strongly, because it illustrates very graphically some of the nonsense in the Bill. The sentence that I wish to amend is Clause 1(5)(b), which states,
“an item that has ivory in it”.
If one accepted—and I do not—that there is any fairness at all in depriving people of the value of antique ivory objects, surely one can accept that something with an element of ivory in it does not need to be embraced by this Bill. We are talking of such things as the escutcheons on chests of drawers, the insulators of the handles of tea-pots and coffee-pots and the handles of fish-knives and fish forks. What a bureaucratic morass we will create if every item with ivory in it comes within the ambit of this Bill.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 28, which is grouped with Amendment 2, which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. Once again, I seek to entertain Members of your Lordships’ House with tales of the Northumbrian pipes. My amendment covers a very narrow part of the music industry, but I hope that it will receive sympathetic consideration today. I should declare that I am the president of the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society, which is not a paid role but one that I am very proud to have. I also declare that I own two sets of Northumbrian pipes, but neither contains any ivory.
In Committee, sympathy was expressed on all sides about the fact that the sale and hire of a small number of Northumbrian pipes—even a small number of Northumbrian pipes is quite a large proportion of the Northumbrian pipe market—would be caught by the Bill. I was very grateful that the Minister agreed to meet, and got his officials to meet, representatives of the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society to discuss their concerns about the Bill. I am also grateful to the senior official who met Andrew Davison, the chair of the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society. They discussed things in some detail in Newcastle. I know that that was appreciated by members of the piping community.
However, following that consultation and the serious look that Defra undoubtedly gave to the situation of the Northumbrian pipes, the Minister wrote to me and said that, while he recognised that a number of instruments were made after 1975 with ivory repurposed from billiard balls and other ivory items found in antique and bric-à-brac shops, those instruments would not meet the Clause 8 exemption for musical instruments as the ivory would have been worked into its present form after 1975, even if it came from—I understand that it almost always does—an older piece of ivory. That decision by the Government still causes concern among Northumbrian pipers, as the Minister will understand. Therefore, I tabled the amendment in my name to try to deal with this particular issue.
In his letter, the Minister said that although they had looked closely at the particular circumstances of the Northumbrian pipes, he regretted that it did not prove possible to amend the Bill in such a way as would not undermine the premise of the Bill or inadvertently create a significant, exploitable loophole. I agree with the Government’s desire to avoid the creation of a loophole—very much so—so the amendment that I have tabled tries to deal with that particular problem. The amendment states:
“An item that has ivory in it is exempt from the prohibition if it is a musical instrument that has been certified by the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society, or a similar approved organisation, as being a set of, or part of a set of, Northumbrian pipes made before the passing of this Act, and covered by a valid Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) certificate”.
Even if that is not the perfect formulation, something like that is an alteration that could be made to the Bill in order to deal with this specific issue.
I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Hague, said about exports and I agree completely, but we are not talking here about exports but about a limited UK market, which is being somewhat threatened by what has been proposed. Therefore, it behoves us to try to look for a way through to see if an appropriate amendment can be made.
I know that, all along, the Government have not wanted amendments to the Bill and have wanted speedy passage of it, but as we can see from the Order Paper today, the Government have had to introduce a large number of amendments themselves. Given that the Bill will go back to the House of Commons, it seems to me that it gives us an opportunity to make one or two minor amendments, such as the one that I am proposing, which in no way undermines the principle of the Bill.
We are talking about ivory from old billiard balls and broken umbrella handles; I have seen some of the instruments that have been made with ivory of this kind. I also believe that it is very difficult to remove ivory from most of the Northumbrian pipes that I am talking about, without causing both irreparable harm to the pipes and quite a bit of damage to the ivory itself. We are also talking about small quantities of ivory. If there was a verification process of the kind I am talking about, that would deal with the issue in a way that would be satisfactory to pipers, as well as helping to keep this important regional musical tradition going.
In tabling this amendment, I have had the support of the noble Lords, Lord Vinson and Lord Beith, both of whom live in Northumberland and understand the issue of Northumbrian pipes very thoroughly. Therefore, I hope the Minister will take account of the amendment. I am glad that my noble friends on the Front Bench have a later amendment which talks about a report on the workings of this Bill and what effect it might have on the sale and hire of musical instruments in the UK. I am very grateful for that particular form of words, and hope to support that amendment at a later stage. In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the fairly minor and limited nature of the amendment that I am putting forward.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, I once again declare my interest as chairman of LAPADA, the art and antique dealers’ trade association. The views I express today are my own, but they are informed by my involvement with LAPADA. I will speak to my Amendment 23 in this group, which, like my noble friend Lord Cormack’s, goes to the matter of the 10% de minimis rule. Given some of what I am about to speak of, I would like to say at the outset that my noble friend the Minister is not personally responsible for this Bill. When I had his job at Defra, I was the Minister responsible for the UK’s contribution to efforts to bear down on illegal wildlife trafficking, but by a quirk of restructuring of ministerial responsibilities, he is not. As always, he has conducted himself perfectly correctly through the passage of this Bill, even if I would have loved him to have persuaded his colleagues of its perverseness.
I am very disappointed to report that I have received no response on the points I raised concerning Art Deco artefacts and the UK’s ivory export figures—points which I at least regard as important. A vital element in any decision-making process is that those decisions should be made with as full a knowledge of the facts as is possible in the circumstances. For the last 18 months, profoundly misleading information about the extent of the UK’s role in the international movement of antique and worked ivory objects has been allowed to circulate and be regularly repeated, without being corrected by those who have been in a position to refute, or at least clarify, it.
In the period leading up to the Government’s ivory consultation, the UK’s “official” ivory export figures were employed by several high-profile wildlife organisations to justify their demands for a very restrictive ban on the sale of antique ivory. I refer to the information supplied by Defra to CITES each year. The Born Free Foundation claimed that for the period from 2006 to 2015, the UK’s exports represented 54% of the ivory exports from the entire EU, and that these exports comprised 25,352 ivory items. Indeed, my noble friend the Minister stated in Committee that, between 2005 and 2014, the UK had been responsible for 31% of the ivory exported from the EU for commercial purposes. The Environmental Investigation Agency claimed that the UK is the “world’s largest” ivory exporter. From this language, any sane, trusting person who cares about the welfare of endangered species would be forgiven for imagining that the UK exports thousands of ivory tusks to China as a commodity for carving—something that, if true, would indeed help to fuel the Chinese passion and demand for ivory. I should point out that, in fact, the world’s largest supplier of ivory to the world’s ivory markets is, of course, the continent of Africa.
The EIA announced:
“UK ivory exports are stimulating consumer demand globally, especially in Hong Kong and China, two of the world’s largest markets for both legal and illegal ivory. Even as the Government of China works towards closing its domestic ivory market by the end of 2017, the UK continues to inject a large amount of ivory into China”.
By any reckoning, those are strong and serious allegations, made even more powerful by the language employed and the standing of the body making them.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 24, 32 and 36. Before so doing, I reiterate my declarations of interest in the register from Committee stage. In particular, I am president of the British Art Market Federation. I also own a number of ivory objects, as defined in the Bill. At least as relevant as that, I begin by saying that I like and am interested in old things. I had the privilege to chair for 10 years the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art. I am proud that I was appointed by the party opposite and reappointed by the party on this side of the House.
The purpose of my three amendments, which are linked, is simply to remove the requirement for registration of those items containing a de minimis amount of ivory, as described in Clause 7, prior to any possible sale. My arguments seem, in general terms, rather aligned with those of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, and those concerned about musical instruments. The fundamental point is that my amendments entail no change to the substantive law being proposed, nor to the fundamental structure of the scheme around which the Bill is made.
We all know, as others have said, that we all support the underlying purpose of the Bill, which is to stop elephants being slaughtered for their tusks. The means that have been deployed to bring that about is to stamp on and out the trade in ivory that endangers elephants, graphically and appropriately known as bloody tusks.
The point behind my amendment is simple. The category of items I am looking at has no impact on the trade in ivory to the Far East that is endangering elephants. This point is recognised on all sides. The Government have spelled that out in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. The conservation movement has specifically said the same, for example in the World Wildlife Fund’s briefing on the Bill. TRAFFIC, probably the most respected collector and interpreter of data about the ivory trade, as reported in the Art Newspaper, agrees. The art world—I draw your Lordships’ attention to a couple of articles by that respected authority Anna Somers Cocks in the Art Newspaper over the summer—is absolutely clear that these items in no way have anything to do with the demand in the east for ivory. Rather, we are talking about—as has been mentioned—inlays, shards and veneers: thin slivers of ivory, not the kind of thing that the noble Lord, Lord Hague, saw at a London airport. The Far Eastern market likes chunks and lumps of ivory that can be carved. The kind of things that I am concerned about cannot be, because they are physically no longer capable of being dealt with in that way.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
If that happens, there is a real risk that the artefact in question will be destroyed.
Lord Inglewood
It is as the noble Viscount rightly says. But some will then say, as mentioned in Committee, that it is not necessary: “Selling it doesn’t matter—give it away to a charity shop”. What is a charity shop to do with it? It will want to sell it to somebody else, so it will be caught by the requirements for prior legislation. The only way that I can see this chain of argument evolving is that we may end up with refugees from other parts of the world surrounded by battered Georgian furniture, which seems a pretty surreal destination.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, the likely result of all this is that a significant quantity of all the items—which, let us not forget, have real cultural and historical significance for this country—will end up on the tip. In addition, let us not forget that going to the tip along with the ivory will be a lot of tropical hardwoods such as mahogany, rosewood and so on. For a country that cares about these things and tells the world how much they matter, as we do, to legislate and consign them to the tip in Britain seems ludicrous, and a sad end to the ivory and mahogany involved. If I might misquote John Betjeman:
“Goodbye to old things. We who loved you are sorry
They’ve carted you off by refuseman’s lorry”.
By no stretch of the imagination could these things harm anyone or anything. In a free country one should, as a matter of principle, be able to sell freely items of that character. You should not need a state commissar’s authorisation to do so. From what I have heard, the Government’s case for this registration is illogical, not based on the evidence, completely disproportionate, philistine and a gratuitously destructive proposal. As a consequence, I am strongly opposed to it.
The Duke of Wellington (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 22 but, before doing so, I should like to support the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. I knew little about Northumbrian pipes until she spoke in Committee but her amendment seems entirely reasonable and I really hope that the Government will support it.
As I did in Committee, I declare an interest in that my family’s collection of works of art includes many items containing ivory but, as I also said in Committee, this is really a non-interest as I have no interest whatever in selling any of those items. However, the main point of the Bill, which I think we all support, is to try to protect elephants. I therefore completely support it and am very persuaded by what the noble Lord, Lord Hague, said in respect of Amendment 1. I agree with him that to exclude exports from the Bill would undermine some of its objectives and am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, withdrew that amendment.
However, I say to the Government that some of the restrictions on the exemptions are too restrictive. Amendment 22, which I am speaking to, has great substance and we should support it. After all, the Government have accepted the principle that portrait miniatures should be exempt. As we all know, they are painted on a tiny sliver of ivory. In no way does the value of a portrait miniature consist of its ivory content; it is in the quality of the painting or the identity of the sitter. Therefore, one really cannot pretend that it is a significant factor that so many portrait miniatures are painted on ivory.
The Government, therefore, have rightly accepted this principle. However, it is so surprising that they then restrict this to miniatures with an area of 320 square centimetres. I think I remember the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, in replying in Committee, saying that this restriction would capture 90% to 95% of miniatures. I have to say to the Government that if you accept the principle of exempting miniatures but wish to capture only 90% to 95%, why not exempt all portrait miniatures? That seems logical and I cannot imagine that it creates a loophole that would give any concern to all of us who support this Bill.
That is really the main thrust of what I wanted to say. I really hope the Government will think again on the matter. I am minded to support a number of other amendments about percentage of content and other matters, which seem to make the Bill a little more flexible. It will be easier to establish that an object is exempt if we do not define the percentage of ivory content too narrowly. Therefore, I hope some of these other amendments will be put to the vote.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, like others I am in favour of conservation, especially of endangered species. I noted with satisfaction the introduction of this Bill, intended to help with the conservation of elephants. Like most Members of this House I find elephants fascinating. They are magnificent creatures that have impacted on human history in many varied ways—by accompanying Hannibal, by logging in the Asian jungle and by delighting us in literature such as Kipling’s Jungle Book and in Disney’s blockbuster.
Many other noble Lords are much more expert in this area than I am so initially, I did not seek to contribute, for instance at Second Reading. However, I was approached by an acquaintance who is an antiques auctioneer in my native West Country. He complained that the detailed arrangements proposed in the Bill—the subject of this group of amendments—would have a significantly adverse effect not only on business but on many who enjoy artefacts, often made with small amounts of ivory. Comparable conservation benefits could be achieved by less onerous arrangements.
I examined the detail of the Bill about which complaints were being made. I am afraid that I was disappointed to find that his claim was in essence true. As the Bill stands, many objects which have given pleasure to many people sometimes over many decades or, indeed, centuries will be rendered valueless and unsaleable. There is every chance that as a consequence, many will simply be dumped—the logic of my noble friend Lord Inglewood’s example. This is appalling, especially since the conservation benefits for elephants from such actions when the Bill comes into effect in 2019 will be vanishingly small. Claims to the contrary are, if I am polite, unconvincing.
In the impact assessment of 23 May there appears to be no estimate of the disposal cost of dumped items as over time, millions of low-value products are sent to landfill or to be burned. It is indeed one of the least impressive impact assessments I have seen. For example, there is an assumption that the many small antique businesses and market stallholders will spend only half an hour each on familiarising themselves with the new rules, and at an hourly rate of £11.34, that would not pay for the time of a lawyer or a responsible business owner or manager seeking to address the minutiae of the new rules and registration process. My experience of business suggests that the cost of compliance will be 10 or 20 times that.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s Amendment 2, but what I have to say is in support of all the amendments in this group, including that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, on Northumbrian pipes. Sharp-eyed noble Lords will have noticed that I put my name to a number of these amendments and then withdrew it. That was not because of lack of support but because I thought I was not going to be here performing professional duties, and I thought it discourteous to your Lordships’ House to sign amendments and not be here. That depends on noble Lords’ point of view.
I think everyone who has spoken in this debate and all the other debates about the Ivory Bill endorses the principle of trying to prevent elephant poaching—it is a dreadful thing—and thinks that we need to do all we can to stop it. As a matter of fact, robust action against poaching is probably the most effective way, but an effective, proportionate and reasonable way of disrupting the trade is also appropriate. That is the purpose of this Bill, but we have to apply the test of proportionality to identify whether the actions contemplated by the Bill are proportionate in their consequences both ways. There are two very serious disadvantages associated with what this Bill is about—I shall come to the amendment specifically.
The first, which my noble friend Lord Cormack dealt with quite correctly and at some length, is the interference with private property. This Bill is flagrant interference with private property, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood takes the same view. At the same time, there will inevitably be a consequential loss and destruction of the artefacts. The description of trying to sell a low-cost bit of brown furniture—although of quite interesting historical value—and it proving impossible will inevitably lead to the skip.
There is therefore a cost in all of this: a cost to principle and a cost to artefacts. That takes me on to the question: what will this Bill achieve in stopping the elephant poaching or trade? I share the view of my noble friend Lord De Mauley: I suspect very little. What this is actually about is sending a message, but messages go unheeded and unheard, and I am sure that this one will. It is about making gestures, but often these gestures should not be made. I remember the Dangerous Dogs Bill. I remember unit fines in the magistrates’ court. These were gestures that should never have been made and messages that should never have been sent.
Against that background, I turn to the way of addressing what has been identified. This Bill is going to pass, and I agree with my noble friend the Duke of Wellington that it should pass. However, there are defects within it, and the defects are being addressed by looking at the exemptions. This House should be trying to enlarge the exemptions and seeking to put in further provisos. It is in that spirit that I propose to support probably all the amendments in respect of which your Lordships’ opinion is sought, and I hope there will be quite a few Divisions. I think, too, however—and this will be to the great relief of your Lordships’ House—that the views I have expressed, which are general to the amendments in this group, actually apply to all the other amendments and will not require any repetition from me.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 25, which is a very specific amendment and rather esoteric, but I will come on to that in a moment because I really just wanted to register my agreement with the previous speakers that this Bill is far too restrictive. We are banning ivory items and ivory inlays and items containing ivory that have no possibility of being recarved in the Far East for sale on to that market and no prospect of having any value in themselves. An ivory carver sitting in Vietnam, for instance, would have no interest in carving a sliver of ivory to go into a false 18th century box. It would just make no sense at all and it would be nonsense. We ought to have a sense of proportion about what we are trying to do in this Bill.
What we are trying to do is to stop large lumps of ivory being exported to countries where they will be recarved and converted into the items that their populations think are attractive and for which they will pay good money. This is not an emotional business; it is purely a financial business. If we ban the export of large items of ivory, or their sale in this country—because they will be smuggled out of this country eventually, just as rhino horns are smuggled out of here, which is a similar problem—we will achieve what we can achieve in respect of saving the African elephant using the antique ivory trade.
As has been said, the protection of the African elephant is not down to what is sold at Christie’s in King Street in London. It is down to whether we can finance the actions against the poachers, whether we can train the police and protection officers in those countries, whether we can arm them properly, and whether we can ensure that the supply routes where the ivory is taken out of the country are shut down. That is what it is really all about. It is not about this gesture politics Bill. That is what it is about, and that is what we should be concentrating on.
I add something that has not been mentioned because it is not politically correct to do so. A lot of ivory is not obtained by rogue poachers; it is done with the connivance of people who are very powerful in the countries where the elephants are, and they make a lot of money out of it.
My noble friend the Minister assures me that several of the countries which have large numbers of elephants are in favour of us banning the sale of ivory. I am perhaps too cynical. Perhaps I have lived too long a life dealing with rogues and rascals both in politics and in business, but if I were trying to make money out of selling ivory, I would try to shut down part of the market which I thought conceivably—however misguidedly—could be competition. In other words, I would of course say, “Ban the ivory market. Ban, ban, ban”, so that I can kill the elephants in the savannah and make money by selling those tusks to Hong Kong.
I should apologise, because perhaps I should have made that speech during Committee but, as some noble Lords will know, I was under the depredations of various surgeons then, so I apologise for not making it then.
My Amendment 25 is rather esoteric. It is even more esoteric than the Northumbrian pipes of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. Under the Bill, an item which is detachable and can stand alone is an individual item and is therefore treated as such. This is not usually important, but it is very important if you are dealing with scientific instruments. The way that 18th-century or early 19th-century mercury barometers are regulated is by a little knob that pulls out. It is detachable and independent of the barometer itself. You would use it to adjust the vernier on the scale to measure the height of the mercury and to put pressure on the mercury reservoir at the bottom of the barometer, when you regulated the barometer to show the correct barometric pressure, to make sure that the mercury was at the right level. So it has two functions.
My amendment is specifically designed to say that this knob should be treated as part of the barometer, not as a separate item, because these knobs were almost always an ivory disc—not dissimilar, I have to say, to the discs used in so many other things, such as portrait miniatures, tickets for theatres, and so on, which have no commercial value for recarving. They have commercial value because there are artistic elements to them, but the knob has no commercial value. If I tell your Lordships that they are 2.54 centimetres in diameter, those of you with a scientific bent will know that that is an inch. They are of a maximum of an inch in diameter, very thin and on a metal shank. All I am trying to do by the amendment is to ensure that antique dealers do not have to throw away the integral knob when they sell the barometer.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken at Second Reading, so I shall speak very briefly. I fully support Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, as well as the other amendments in the group. I believe very strongly in the protection of endangered species, but I also believe strongly in the protection of cultural heritage. The principles I hold on culture are no different from those I held on a previous Bill that passed through this House concerning the protection of cultural property in time of war. As it stands, this is a lop-sided Bill. We need to prevent the destruction of our cultural heritage, which, for some objects, is a far more likely outcome than the Minister thinks, unless the exemptions are allowed.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak against this group of amendments, and I shall not repeat arguments made at length at Second Reading and in Committee. I have tremendous respect for the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and his obvious passion for antique ivory and for others who have spoken in this debate, but I fear that I am not persuaded by their arguments.
It is essential in ensuring the success of the Bill when it passes into law that the restrictions and exemptions are very limited. To increase the exemptions to 20% for furniture and other objects and to 30% for musical instruments and to have unlimited size on pre-1918 portrait miniatures risks driving a coach and horses through the Bill. Any widening of the criteria will increase the market for ivory objects, weakening the entire purpose of the Bill by allowing trade in many additional items containing significant amounts of ivory. Similarly, moving away from the de minimis cut-off should be rejected. Registration of ivory-bearing items is fundamental to ensuring that items sold commercially meet the criteria set out in the Bill.
Having listened to the arguments made in Committee and this afternoon, I acknowledge that there is no meeting of minds over the rationale for the measures in the Bill. The Government and those of us who support the Bill believe that these restrictive measures will help to protect the elephant. Those who oppose it do not believe that this will happen and are therefore not prepared to support these measures. This is regrettable in the extreme. Everything that we know about CITES supports the Government’s Bill. We do not support making the Bill more flexible in terms of exceptions. I urge your Lordships to reject this group of amendments.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, if one passes a Bill that defies common sense, one is inviting the law to be broken. Most people will never have heard of the Ivory Bill and will just carry on giving, swapping or doing what they do. However, if the Bill is drafted in such an overly restrictive manner, as previous speakers have illustrated so well, it will invite people to be dishonest. This amendment is important because it enables common sense to be brought back into the whole equation.
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, the more difficult it is to register, the more difficult it is to decide what needs to be registered and the more difficult it will be to maintain the register. You cannot watch everybody doing everything. It is very important that matters are simple and can be taken on board by everybody. When I was 12 years old, my father had my portrait miniature painted on ivory. I hope it will not be caught by the Bill.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Bill and its intentions, but it has failed the test of proportionality in many respects. I would not have supported my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendment, because I thought it was too wide, but I support Amendment 24, in the name of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, on the need for de minimis registration. To introduce bureaucracy of that sort is quite crazy. Some of us have been fighting for years to prevent intrusion into people’s houses. I am glad to say that that has been reduced with the help of the Law Lords and happens much less now.
However, something like this is absurd. I remind your Lordships that in 1966, when there was a Labour Government and an economic crisis—they went together at that time—they introduced a statutory instrument requiring anybody who owned more than three gold coins to hand them in, but it was tokenism. People did not do it, of course. I remember various questions being asked about how many convictions there had been, and how many coins had been handed in. The answer was none.
Unenforceable law is bad law and we really must not encourage it. Some of the provisions of the Bill are so OTT that we must stand up to them, particularly as they have nothing intrinsically to do with the Bill. I support my noble friend Lord Inglewood’s amendment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Quin has spoken eloquently on the effect of the Bill on future generations of Northumbrian pipers. Like her, we cherish musical tradition and would not wish the music played by pipers and enjoyed to cease. I pay tribute to the department for organising a visit by a member of its team to assess the instrument and thank her for meeting the society. However, as has been reported back to the department, some of the pipes have problems under the Bill. It is my hope that the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society itself can take on a role in seeing that instruments are recycled to new pipers through bequests and other measures, and that new instruments avoid the provisions of the Bill. It would be difficult to create a new exemption for Northumbrian pipes. As the House will later see, we have tabled Amendment 78 to report on the effects of the Bill on musical instruments more generally. Evidence provided through the consultation, including from the Musicians’ Union, showed that the vast majority of commonly played and traded instruments, including violins, pianos and bagpipes, comprise less than 20% ivory.
Turning to Amendment 2 and others in this group, we do not support what they wish to achieve, which amounts to a reduction in the provisions and effectiveness of the Bill, which is a commitment of both parties to introduce a ban on the sale of ivory. The Bill includes limited exemptions to the ivory trade that are sufficiently narrow to ensure that they will not contribute to the poaching of elephants. The carefully crafted clauses represent the culmination of a productive collaboration between NGOs, law enforcement, museums, art dealers and musicians. It is Labour’s view that the Bill strikes the right balance. I call on all the proposers of amendments in this group to withdraw or not to move their amendments so that future generations can enjoy living in a world with elephants.
The Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference, held earlier this month in London, underlined the importance of the UK putting in place a near-total ban on UK ivory sales as soon as possible. This legislation builds on the resolution agreed at the 2016 Conference of the Parties to CITES to phase out domestic ivory markets and will give the UK greater credibility in continuing to press other key countries in south-east Asia with a history of ivory trade to commit to closing their markets and to implementing strong domestic ivory bans. China closed its ivory market in 2017. Ivory poaching is now the fourth-largest crime sector after arms, drugs and trafficking. I remind your Lordships’ House that 20,000 elephants are killed each year, or some 55 a day.
I turn to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, which seeks to remove registration as a precondition of allowed sales of de minimis objects. The noble Lord raised concerns about proportionality and others have followed with remarks on both the registration fee and administration involved, which would necessitate photographing, measuring and examining the object for any distinguishing features before uploading the information to a database. I am sure the noble Lord would accept that photographing, measuring and examining the object for any distinguishing features would be part of any normal process of listing an item for sale at an auction house or on an online marketplace. It is our view that registration is necessary for enforcement. The proposed system places a small administrative responsibility and a small financial cost on the seller, who, in turn, will gain from the exemption to the ban on dealing in ivory. Crucially, by registering an item through the system, the applicant will be confirming that, to the best of their knowledge, all the information provided is correct and the item therefore meets the exemption. The APHA, the regulator and the police will have access to the registration system to enable them to carry out any enforcement and monitoring action necessary. The APHA will also carry out spot checks on items registered to check for accuracy and compliance. This is also a key and necessary part of the regulations.
Amendment 22 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, would remove the size criterion for portrait miniature exemptions. The noble Lord will recall from our previous consideration of this issue that the Government added the category of portrait miniatures to the list of exemptions in Committee in the other place. Emma Rutherford, a representative of Philip Mould & Co, an expert on portrait miniatures, gave evidence on how the exemption for portrait miniatures could be refined to add a size limit, and agreed that the suggestion of six inches by eight inches would be sensible. This is 320 square centimetres, which would allow between 90% and 95% to be exempt. The Government have moved considerably on many of these features and I therefore call on the House to reject these amendments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, these amendments relate to the scope of the ban and, in particular, some of the exemptions to it. I emphasise how uncomfortable I am in having to address this to a number of my noble friends, but I do so with great sincerity. The department has undertaken extensive consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, including the music sector, the antiques sectors and all the sectors engaged, as well as NGOs interested in conservation, to shape the Bill and, in particular, to establish a narrow and carefully defined set of exemptions.
I was struck by what my noble friend Lord Hailsham said—he used the word “proportionate”. The architecture of this proportionate approach has been carefully designed to balance the need to close our domestic markets with consideration of the interests of those who currently own certain items of ivory and the obligation to protect our cultural heritage. I think that my noble friend Lord De Mauley was in his position at Defra when my party had a manifesto pledge, in 2015, for a total ban. We have considered with the consultation that there are proportionate ways of approaching what is an imperative: to do everything that we can to stop the incidental and direct pressure on the elephants on this planet. That is why I will cut to the chase and say that the Government cannot support the amendments in this group. But I would like this opportunity, as is only reasonable, to set out why in more detail.
Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Cormack, serves to alter the definition of ivory in Clause 1 of the Bill. This amendment would mean that any item with less than 20% ivory or any musical instrument with less than 30% ivory would be excluded from the ban, meaning that it would remain legal to deal in such items. Indeed, they would be within the scope of the rest of the Bill. The amendment does not state whether this threshold refers to volume, weight or another measurement. There is no backstop date referred to. This amendment would mean that items of any age with less than 20% ivory or any musical instrument with less than 30% ivory would not be affected by the ban and would only be subject to existing CITES regulations. This amendment would greatly undermine the scope and purpose of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Cormack’s Amendment 22 refers to the exemption for pre-1918 portrait miniatures. The amendment would remove the size qualification, excluding the frame, from the exemption. We had this discussion in Committee, and my noble friend the Duke of Wellington referred to his own personal and rather considerably sized portrait miniature, which he rightly said he had no intention of dealing or selling. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, this size qualification was developed from evidence provided during a House of Commons evidence session by a portrait miniatures expert. This evidence suggests that the size qualification, as we have heard, would include in the exemption 90% to 95% of pre-1918 portrait miniatures, which is the majority. Any item that falls outside this size qualification may also be exempt as an item of outstanding artistic, cultural or historical value and importance if it meets the criteria, which will be set out in regulations. The Bill makes clear that a frame would not be included in the calculation of the surface area of a portrait miniature. As I said, we will be developing detailed guidance on how to measure surface area, in consultation with relevant stakeholders.
Lord De Mauley
I am very grateful to my noble friend. Can he give us an indication of what the level will be?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
No, I am not going to give an approximation. I used the words “a small fee”, and it will be considered in what would be the normal manner in which fees are considered. I have put on record that it will be a small fee. It is not intended to be burdensome or bureaucratic. I emphasise—given that we wish to reduce demand for ivory, as it is no longer a desired object around the world because of the continuing slaughter of elephants—that we need to do everything we can. That is why we want to protect sellers and buyers in those exempt areas which we have agreed in the Bill and to give them an assurance, given the fact that around the world we are seeing the closure of domestic markets of ivory, that this protects future sellers and buyers of the items within our exemption package.
I believe, and the Government believe, that the online self-registration system will have a range of benefits. It will provide assurance to those dealing in ivory through an exemption that they are complying with the law. It will also be an essential tool in identifying breaches of the ban. Enforcement officers will be able to use material submitted to the online system to monitor compliance and to support investigation into potential offences.
Of course, every individual has the right to own and enjoy items made of or with ivory and to bequeath and inherit those items without the need for registration. Indeed, many of these items will have sentimental value. It is only in the case of selling, hiring or using an item for commercial gain that registration will be required, which we believe is a proportionate response. We must ensure that robust measures are in place to enforce the Bill. Therefore, it is critical that all exempt items are subject to registration to support the rationale of the Bill but also, as I said, to support the interests of the sellers and buyers of exempt ivory.
Amendment 25, tabled by my noble friend Lord Carrington, seeks to clarify, with reference to the de minimis exemption, what is to be considered integral to the piece. Ivory must be,
“integral to the item’s design or function and contemporaneous with the item”.
I preface my remarks by saying that I am very pleased to see my noble friend returned to his place following his time in hospital. We have given this issue very careful consideration, and I hope that my forthcoming explanation will provide him with reassurance as to the intent of this exemption.
My noble friend correctly identifies that the ivory content of an item meeting this exemption must be incorporated into the piece at the time of its manufacture and to constitute an irremovable aspect of the item’s form and function. The ivory cannot, of course, have been added at a later date or be superfluous to the design and/or function of the item. As drafted, the Bill takes account of these concerns. Clause 7 provides that the ivory must be integral to the item, and may not be removed without difficulty or without damaging the item. Most obviously, that would apply in the case of inlaid furniture. But it would also apply where the ivory element were part of a detachable part of the item that is itself integral to the piece. If I may explain further, I would point to a teapot or serving dish with an ivory handle to the lid. The lid is clearly integral and contemporaneous to the teapot or serving dish, and the ivory handle is integral to the lid. Therefore, providing that the total volume of ivory in the item is less than 10%, it would meet the de minimis criteria.
There are other types of items, such as barometers and maybe small sewing boxes, for which the ivory content may be an entirely separate element, such as a knob on a barometer or the lid of a sewing box. These elements were clearly designed to be removable yet are integral to their design and purpose. For instance, without the knob—my noble friend Lord De Mauley raised this in Committee and my noble friend Lord Carrington raised it today—one may not set the mercury level on a barometer, and without the lid, assuming that it is less than 10% of the volume of the whole piece, the item could not function as a box. We will set out in guidance not only what I have described as examples but more fully the points that my noble friends have raised.
Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, would add a new clause after Clause 8 to exempt any,
“musical instrument that has been certified by the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society, or a similar approved organisation, as being a set of, or part of a set of, Northumbrian pipes made before the passing of this Act, and covered by a valid … (CITES) certificate”.
In Committee, I gave an undertaking that my officials would meet the representatives of the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society, and a very informative meeting was held.
As the noble Baroness knows, I am sympathetic to the Northumbrian piping community and the traditions. However, her amendment would constitute a widening of this exemption. Interestingly, my official identified that most pipes contain less than 20% ivory by volume, which was the initial concern in Committee. It then became more apparent during the detailed consideration —for which I am most grateful to the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society—that some Northumbrian pipes were made after 1975 with ivory repurposed from other items, and therefore will not be covered by the musical instruments exemption. The noble Baroness’s amendment would, however, allow Northumbrian pipes made with ivory right up until this year to be exempt from the sales ban. We believe that that would create an unjustifiably broad exemption for one instrument over all others. I should emphasise that those instruments not covered by the exemption will still be able to be played and enjoyed, and that the ban will not affect the ability to pass on or donate those instruments for future generations.
I apologise to noble Lords for taking some time, but I want to emphasise that the Government have embarked on considerable consultation in bringing forward the exemptions package. We remain of the view that they are reasonable. Phrases such as “gesture politics” do not chime with me. I attended the Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference, as I said on an earlier group of amendments. The word that came from that group, which represented over 80 countries, was “leadership”. It was about the leadership that this country is taking. That point was endorsed by five heads of African states. I hope that my noble friend Lord Carrington will forgive me, but my impression from meeting people at that conference was that they were not cynical.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
They were not cynical. They were men and women from countries that are the most dramatically affected by the slaughter of elephants. These are the vulnerable villages and communities of Africa that are losing one of the most important economic engines for their prosperity. If any of those people had heard some of the comments this afternoon about gesture politics and cynicism, they might have despaired of this country. That is not the purpose of this legislation. Its purpose is to ensure that this country does everything possible—everything—to play our part in saving one of the planet’s most important and iconic animals. I have to say—and I will close with this—that in the end, whatever points my noble friends have made this afternoon, the interests and importance of these animals must always come before those of privately owned objects.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I do not think there is anyone in your Lordships’ House who would find a bad word to say about my noble friend Lord Gardiner. He is rightly popular in all parts of the House; he is assiduous, diligent and personable. In every sense, he is someone we can all like. However, he has a touching faith in certain people from certain countries, and a touching faith in his ability to create an unbureaucratic system. I beg to differ. I do not want to make a long speech; I made a very short one in moving this amendment, and my noble friend has made a fairly considerable response—for which we are grateful, of course. The fact of the matter is that he fails to understand that you can be passionate about preserving elephants—as I think every Member of your Lordships’ House is—but at the same time see that this Bill is riddled with anomaly, and has many faults.
As for miniatures, why let 5% or 10% “get away”? Why not have a clause that covers and preserves all miniatures? And why have this obligation to register everything? It will create a great bureaucracy. No elephant in 2020—or 2019, when this Bill comes into force—will be saved by the insistence on registering a chest of drawers with ivory escutcheons made in 1790 or 1810. No elephant will be saved by insisting that, if a miniature comes above the stipulated size, it cannot be sold. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and I know we will never agree on this. She talked about miniatures and failed to accept the point made by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington, who said that their ivory content is of no substance or value at all—never mind the fact that it is generally 200 years old. It is the work of art, or the likeness of the person depicted, that gives value to the miniature, not the thin bit of ivory on which it is painted.
We could have a much better and less bureaucratic Bill if only these simple points were registered and accepted. I know that my noble friend is obdurate. I know, from talking to the Secretary of State—who is always courteous, but is inflexible on this—that my noble friend really has no leeway when he stands at the Dispatch Box. However, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord De Mauley
Member’s explanatory statement
Without this amendment, Art Deco objects of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value, for example, will not be eligible for an exemption certificate.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, some noble Lords have noticed that the wording of Amendment 3 was jointly tabled by my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham and me in Committee. At that time, I said that I reserved the right to bring it back on Report, particularly as some of the issues I had raised had not been addressed in the Minister’s responses. I want to reiterate what I said in the last debate but the points are all, none the less, relevant. The types of items that would be exempted by the amendment to change the Clause 2 date from 1918 to 1947 could in no way be seen as directly or indirectly encouraging demand for ivory in Asia. Unless they are musical instruments or contain less than 10% ivory, items incorporating ivory may be sold only if they are,
“of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value”,
and must predate 1918. Objects such as pianos with ivory keys need only predate 1975, and the low ivory content objects, 1947.
Art Deco style is a highly regarded genre that flourished between the Great War and the Second World War. The V&A Museum held a major Art Deco exhibition in 2003 and some of the 20th century’s greatest designers and sculptors, including Demétre Chiparus, produced Art Deco artwork that sometimes incorporated ivory elements. One of his works—the sculpture in bronze with ivory elements—was regarded as such an important work of art that it sold at auction for a six-figure sum. Examples of his work feature in the collection of the world-renowned Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. Yet as the Bill stands, it would perversely forbid the sale of the most outstanding and rarest examples of Art Deco design while allowing the sale of ordinary upright pianos mass-produced as recently as the 1950s. Changing the dateline for Clause 2 from 1918 to 1947 would bring it into line with the Clause 7 exemption dateline for objects comprising less than 10% ivory.
Turning to my Amendment 4, to benefit from the Clause 2 exemption and be granted an exemption certificate, an historical artefact incorporating ivory needs to be inspected by appointed specialists and to pass the hurdle of being,
“of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value”.
The antiques trade supports the concept of ivory artefacts being checked by third parties and granted exemption certificates—something both LAPADA and BADA suggested should happen more than two years ago. As I said at greater length in Committee, reports compiled by concerned parties into the problem of identifying old ivory have all focused on the low-priced, solid ivory carvings and trinkets and not on culturally valuable works of art such as portrait miniatures or inlaid Georgian furniture. The trade fully agrees that all solid ivory carvings should be subjected to third-party scrutiny since they are more difficult to appraise than objects made from a mixture of materials. Other materials provide a context in which the style, workmanship and condition of the ivory element can be judged.
Regrettably, the unnecessarily narrow formulation of the Clause 2 exemption will end up prohibiting the sale and, over time, result in the inevitable loss of many thousands of genuine antique objects that fail to meet the “outstandingly high” requirement. Among examples of what will become prohibited items are Victorian chess sets, ivory crucifixes, Georgian silver teapots with ivory handles, 18th-century ivory portrait silhouettes, and 19th-century sandalwood sewing boxes. I could add to this list items of cultural significance for other cultures, such as Japanese netsuke. These types of item are not made from modern ivory and have been acknowledged by the Secretary of State as having no connection to the trade in recently poached ivory. They are all capable of being assessed for authenticity by knowledgeable specialists who can readily tell them apart from most modern-day bangles or trinkets. I point out to your Lordships that museum curators and experts such as those on “Antiques Roadshow” regularly make judgments about antique objects and most of the time do not need scientific evidence to do so. Scientific dating of ivory is, though, available as a last resort.
There is no evidence that Far Eastern buyers are purchasing vast quantities of items such as English silver cutlery with ivory handles or 19th-century gentleman’s travelling boxes containing inserts with ivory lids. Those who appreciate history and an understanding of our past are concerned for the many thousands of objects which are of intrinsic historical, social and cultural value but will fail to meet the “outstandingly high” test. That the Bill does not ban their ownership or prevent their being inherited or gifted to a museum will not prevent their destruction or loss over time. Museums do not have the resources or storage space to accept large additional numbers of artefacts, many of which will already be represented in their collections. There is no guarantee that the family members of an owner of an early 19th-century chess set will want to inherit and care for it themselves. What precisely will be its fate if it has no resale value? I can tell your Lordships now: it will be thrown in the bin. An item that is part of our cultural and social history will simply be unavailable to future generations.
One cannot understand history and learn its lessons by destroying it. I would be more willing to accept losses such as this if I felt that some good would come of it—that the life of a living elephant in Africa would be saved as a consequence. Yet no one has provided any evidence to demonstrate that the sale in this country of a genuine, third-party authenticated Victorian chess set has any direct or indirect connection to the poaching of elephants in Africa. First, if it has been checked as being genuine, by definition it cannot be made from poached ivory. Secondly, as I have already demonstrated, it is untrue to suggest that large numbers of these items are being shipped to the Far East. Thirdly, the United Kingdom is not itself importing raw ivory to fabricate fake Victorian chess sets. To be quite frank, we do not have the skills to do so anyway. Finally, British antique collectors are not interested in any modern ivory items.
The Bill’s aim is to help to conserve elephant populations and, more specifically, to reduce poaching. Paragraph 6 of the Bill’s Explanatory Notes expresses the entirely understandable desire that objects from the UK should not, whether intentionally or inadvertently, contribute to markets that create a demand for ivory. The vast majority of the many thousands of cultural objects that will fail the current Clause 2 test are of no interest to Asian buyers because they do not acquire English or European antiques. Where the Explanatory Notes refer to a demand for ivory, they automatically characterise all objects made from ivory as homogeneous and interchangeable, regardless of their age, cultural origin or historical significance.
Since most of the ivory objects offered for sale in the UK are of no interest to Chinese buyers and those that do hold their interest are exported in only very small numbers, restricting exemption certificates to items that are of “outstandingly high” rather than “high” artistic, cultural or historical value is disproportionately restrictive. The term “outstandingly high” never featured in the Government’s consultation document. The concept envisaged a year ago was that “significant” cultural or historical items should be exempted. No one has brought forward any evidence to demonstrate why this change was required to fulfil the Bill’s aims.
My small amendment would therefore result in the Secretary of State’s assessors being required to conclude that objects containing more than 10% ivory are of high artistic, cultural or historical value. This would remain a significant hurdle for objects to surmount: assessors would be required to conclude that an item that incorporates ivory provides us and future generations with a high degree of valuable historical or cultural information. The sale of ordinary mundane objects such as bangles or ivory chopsticks would continue to be prohibited. I beg to move.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I wish to refer briefly to Amendment 6, which is grouped with my noble friend Lord De Mauley’s leading amendments, as is my Amendment 5. I will not speak to that amendment; my noble friend Lord De Mauley has effectively covered it, because I also want to take out the word “outstandingly”.
My Amendment 6 would take out the words “an important” and put in “a significant”. That might sound of no significance, but it is. My noble friend Lord De Mauley talked about the sorts of objects we will be dealing with here. One of the things that attracts me to social history is the things that people used and gave. I once knew a man—I have mentioned him in your Lordships’ House in earlier debates—who had an amazing collection of theatre and race tickets. Many of them were in ivory. They could not be called outstanding and I do not think that any of them could be called important, but significant they most certainly were. This was a collection that reflected the social history of the mid-18th century: the people who patronised the playhouses or went to the racecourses and gained admission by presenting an ivory ticket or token. A large collection such as the one my friend had is of some value. Many of the examples were indeed individually unique; no other tickets to that particular theatre or performance were known to exist.
I referred to this earlier when I talked about the first amendment: he collected these things because of their intrinsic interest and his own fascination with social history, but also because of the knowledge that collectively, even though he probably had not given more than £10 or £20 for any individual item, the collection was worth something. He knew that if he fell on difficult times or wanted to help a son or daughter, there was a little nest egg that would probably produce a few thousand pounds. If we enact the Bill, we will deprive a collection and a collector like that. We are effectively confiscating private property. We are not physically destroying it, although, as my noble friend Lord De Mauley said a few minutes ago, that might well be the ultimate result, but we are saying to somebody that that property, legitimately and lovingly acquired, is no longer theirs to dispose of for any money at all. That is unjust and wrong. I return to the old, worn record: how does preventing the sale of such a collection, the items in which are all of some significance, help in any way to preserve an African or an Asian elephant in 2019 or 2020?
We are all concerned about the elephants—we keep coming back to that—but there is nothing incompatible between being desperately keen to save elephants and being desperately keen to save elements of our social history.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
My Lords, I do not want to intervene for long, but there is a slight problem with the definition of “outstandingly”. What is outstanding to one expert may well not be to another. I raised this at Second Reading. It comes down to what sort of museum collections you are trying to create. Museums such as the V&A or the British Museum are interested only in outstanding items, and they can define what they mean by an outstanding item by reference to what they already have in their collections: to be outstanding the item should add to that collection.
Many museums, however, are not trying to do what the British Museum or the V&A do. The example that I have used before is the Geffrye Museum, a series of old almshouses on the continuation of Bishopsgate, just outside the City of London. The Geffrye Museum recreates middle-class rooms down the ages. Those middle-class rooms will have ivory items—ivory cutlery and tea caddies for example—none of which is outstanding in itself. However, items are outstanding in the sense that the Geffrye Museum considers them exemplars of what was used at that time by middle-class people—and increasingly, in some museums, by working-class people in this country. The definition of outstanding is, therefore, somewhat open to interpretation and it would be much better to remove “outstandingly” and replace it with a word such as “significant”, which would allow much more leeway in deciding whether an item is worthy of a national collection or is something that no one is interested in preserving.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, my concern is with the effects of this Bill, which may come to be criticised in the fullness of time, as elephant stocks recover and beautiful objects are lost as a result of it, and collectors of Art Deco work containing ivory are stopped in their tracks. I accept that, as we have heard from the Minister, Defra Ministers consulted during the Commons stage of this Bill, but the debate here has shown that some further changes are needed in the interests of common sense. So I support the amendments in this group from my noble friend Lord De Mauley.
I hope that the Minister will be a bit more receptive than he was towards the previous group, and ask whether he can think of any ways to reduce the concerns of people such as us about the perverse effects of these arrangements, for example in the guidance he described earlier.
Lord Hague of Richmond
My Lords, as on Amendment 1, I briefly draw attention to the importance of international co-operation in implementing the policy of which the Bill is a part and which these amendments would affect. We will not be able, by anything we do in our Parliament of our own volition, to save the African elephant, but we are able to be part of a concerted and perhaps, one day, successful international effort, represented by, among other things, strong bans on domestic markets.
I mentioned in my earlier intervention that China is now implementing a near-total ban, and the effect of China announcing that last year was to reduce the price of ivory in China by about two-thirds in one year. Pursuing that policy is the way to destroy the profits and attractions of the criminal networks engaged in this trade. That is why strong domestic bans in many parts of the world—in range countries, demand countries, transit countries—are so important.
If I have understood these amendments correctly, they could represent a more serious dilution of the exemptions in the Bill than the previous group. That would be serious, because in some respects it would leave us with much less of a total ban than exists in the United States or China. The Minister was right to say, on the last group, that the Government have consulted widely, and I believe that they have reached the right balance, so unlike my noble friends I would not encourage him to be more receptive to this group than to the last.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hague, for so eloquently setting out the case. The removal of “outstandingly” or “outstandingly high” would substantially increase the number and types of items that qualify for exemption. The purpose of the outstanding artistic value exemption is to allow the older items of exceptional artistic value to be traded.
The exemption before us would undermine that purpose and risk weakening the Bill by enabling trade in many pre-1947 worked items. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to replace “important” with “significant” will similarly severely weaken the exemption criteria. It will already be possible for Art Deco items to be purchased by museums from private owners under Clause 9, which intentionally does not specify the age of ivory artefacts that can be acquired by museums. It is unwise and unnecessary to widen the exemption further.
As I said, those who support extending the exemptions do not see that this increase in items containing ivory will impact on the elephant population. Unfortunately, they are not correct. It is also wrong to assume that anything that is not exempt, or does not get a certificate, will be destined for the rubbish dump. Families will keep their personal artefacts and furniture containing ivory and pass them on to their children or grandchildren. Unfortunately, a lot of hysteria is being generated.
The monitoring of the elephant population, particularly in Africa, is much more sophisticated nowadays—due to the use of drones—than previously. The sad truth is that the population is down to 400,000. For the first time since records were kept, the number killed each year is higher than the number of live calves born. It is time to make a stand, and it is obvious that this House—across the political divide—supports the Bill. While the Ivory Bill is not perfect, it is a significant step forward in protecting the elephant. We must show the world that we are serious, in the hope that others will follow suit. We cannot support this group of amendments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I shall respond to these amendments, which would move the applicable date for exemptions from pre-1918 to pre-1947 and would lower the threshold for exemptions, allowing larger numbers of items containing ivory to be bought and sold.
As has been said, these amendments will considerably weaken the impact of the Bill. As the Minister explained in Committee, 1918 was chosen because it defines items which are 100 years old and therefore classified as antiques. A move to include more recent items for exemptions, as suggested in Amendment 3, would inevitably increase the number of items containing ivory in circulation. It would include a much wider group of objects than the Art Deco items which the noble Lord seeks to protect. In any prohibitive Bill of this kind, it is impossible to find a perfect date from which to apply the constraints. As we have mentioned several times, we would have preferred a complete ban on ivory sales but, if there has to be a cut-off date for exemptions, we agree that 1918 has the best logic. Of course, as has been said, that would not affect the ownership or gifting of items, nor the continuing trade in Art Deco items which do not contain ivory.
Lord Cormack
It is perfectly possible to forbid online sales, full stop. We would not object to that. Again, as has been implicit in all our arguments throughout every stage of the Bill, it is perfectly possible to insist that only registered auction houses and registered dealers, whose expertise has been established, can deal in ivory. All of that we have said time and again, so it is quite unfair for the noble Baroness to make such a sweeping statement.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I find it ironic that the noble Lord talks about sweeping statements. The fact is that we talked about having a complete ban on online sales. Indeed, colleagues on the Lib Dem Benches proposed that in Committee; it is perhaps sad that they have not brought it back on Report. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, will also know that the reason we are here today is that we already had a ban, which was meant to constrain what auction houses and so on were doing. It was then found that illegal pieces were passing through the auction houses.
I am not saying that the Bill is perfect; it is not, but it is a considerable step forward from the previous legislation. The Government would not be pursuing the Bill, with our support, if they did not feel that the evidence was compelling and overwhelming. The noble Lord, Lord Hague, is absolutely right: we have to close down the domestic ivory market, not for its own sake but because this is part of an international movement. Only when we all share the same broad objectives internationally will we actually be effective in all this.
I was quite offended by some of the comments from the Benches opposite in the previous debate, which somehow implied that there was a conspiracy among some African countries on this issue. I do not see it on that basis. I too attended the Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference and the Minister was absolutely right. There were Heads of Government there and people in various senior positions from all round the world, including the African nations. They were absolutely passionate about needing to protect the elephants and protect their economic interests in the longer term, and therefore to close down the illegal ivory trade. Until we all understand why that is necessary, we will not be able to make much progress on this. On that basis, I therefore urge noble Lords to reject all these amendments.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, these amendments seek to widen the scope of the Clause 2 exemptions, which provide for:
“Pre-1918 items of outstanding artistic … cultural or historical value”,
and which are rare and important examples of their type. Their effect would be to increase—in some cases quite significantly, as noted by my noble friend Lord Hague—the number of items that would meet the criteria to be exempted under this category. This exemption is just one of a package of five carefully balanced and deliberately limited exemptions. This package was developed following extensive consultation with stakeholders and represents what we believe is a proportionate and reasonable approach, while retaining the integrity of the Bill’s critical purpose. The exemption in Clause 2 recognises that there is a strata of items, made of or containing ivory, which are traded for their artistic, cultural or historical value rather than their ivory content. This exemption is specifically intended to be narrow and applicable only to rare and important items of their type.
Amendment 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord De Mauley, would change the backstop date of this exemption from 1918 to 1947. That would significantly increase the number of items which fell under the exemption. I recognise my noble friend’s concerns that ivory items from the Art Deco period would not be included in the exemption. However, I emphasise that the intention of the Bill is to ban dealing in ivory with narrow exemptions. In the case of any ban, there will always be items that fall outside any exemptions. We believe, as I am sure many other noble Lords do, that the 1918 backstop date is reasonable and proportionate.
However, as per the exemption set out in Clause 9, acquisitions by qualifying museums will not be affected by the ban—this was noted by my noble friend Lord Carrington and mentioned in her speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. Significant items from the Art Deco and Art Nouveau periods may be sold to accredited museums, where they may be enjoyed by the public and preserved for the nation. I reiterate: the Bill has no impact on any individual’s right to personally own, bequeath, gift or inherit these items.
Amendments 4, 5 and 6 would alter the definition of items in this exemption by removing “outstanding” or “outstandingly high”, and replacing “important” with “significant”. The effect of these amendments would be similar to others, by significantly increasing the number of items which fall into this category. In setting the criteria for this exemption—my noble friend Lord Carrington raised this—we will draw on existing criteria used to assess pre-eminence and national importance, such as the Waverley criteria and the export licensing regime for cultural objects. We will of course consult and work alongside expert institutions, museums and other key stakeholders to establish regulations setting out the detailed criteria for this exemption.
We are clear that items must be valued for their artistry, historical or cultural value, not their ivory content. As my noble friend Lord Gardiner and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State have said on a number of occasions, the Government intend to reduce the desirability of ivory items domestically and internationally. But nothing in the Bill will prevent anyone continuing to appreciate, enjoy or admire the artistry or craftsmanship of any ivory item that they own, have collected, have been given or have inherited.
My noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lady Neville-Rolfe talked about the inevitable loss of items. Why will these items be lost? The items might be artistic— perhaps an Art Deco sculpture. Why would they be destroyed? They might be theatre tokens, as in the case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cormack. These items are interesting and elements of our social history; you would not destroy them.
Lord Cormack
They are also personal property, legally and properly acquired by people who felt that they would at some stage be able to sell them if they needed to. This is an invasion of private ownership and the principle of being able to dispose of what you legitimately acquired and own.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I think that we have been through that particular hoop a number of times. Indeed, this Bill complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a proportionate response to an issue of global concern.
These objects will not be destroyed. Perhaps even if individuals no longer want them, they could do what I do and give them away or use Freecycle for items with little sale value. I find items on Freecycle last for about a day. There are many options available to individuals who want to pass on their items containing ivory.
With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I have seen the result of the whipping by the three main parties in your Lordships’ House this afternoon, despite none of them addressing, or apparently even understanding—as was amply demonstrated a moment ago by my noble friend the Minister—the critical points some of us have raised. To divide the House on Amendment 3 would be futile and I am not in the business of wasting the House’s time. Let me therefore withdraw the amendment by quoting our Lord from Luke, chapter 23, verse 34:
“Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they do”.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 2(3)(c) currently allows the Secretary of State to use guidance to specify matters that must be taken into account when considering whether an ivory item is of outstandingly high artistic, cultural or historical value. This amendment requires these matters to be specified in regulations instead.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The amendments in this group arise from the recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill. I thank the committee for its report, which has been extremely helpful in developing further how key parts of the Bill are to be implemented. The committee made a number of recommendations suggesting that negative resolution regulations, instead of guidance, should be used to set out certain matters.
First, Clause 2(3)(c), which allows for “other matters” that may be taken into account when deciding whether a pre-1918 item is of outstanding artistic, cultural or historical value, will be amended to be set out in regulations. “Other matters”, in this context, are in addition to consideration of the rarity of an item and the extent to which it is an important example of its type. Such matters might include an item’s religious significance, scientific importance or whether it has previously been on public display.
The Government agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that in this case, guidance would not be an appropriate method of detailing the other matters that prescribed institutions—museums with expertise in ivory items—should take into account when providing advice on whether items are of outstanding artistic value and importance. As the committee notes, setting out regulatory requirements in guidance can mean that a person can have an element of choice about whether to follow them. This is not the Government’s intention and we therefore accept the committee’s recommendation.
Amendments 7 and 11 also replace powers to set out in guidance additional information that those applying for an exemption certificate under Clause 2 and those registering items as exempt under Clause 10 must include in their applications. This is in addition to that set out in the Bill under Clause 3(1) and Clause 10(1). Work on the implementation of the Bill has revealed that it already lists all the information we will need to issue exemption certificates and handle registration applications. We therefore accept the committee’s recommendations with respect to Clauses 3 and 10 by requiring additional information requirements to be set out in regulations rather than guidance, should a future Government need to do this. While important details will be set out in regulations, the Government will still produce guidance that will help applicants navigate their way around the application processes for both the exemption certificate and registration regimes.
Amendments 14 and 38 remove Clause 4(8) and Clause 11(5) from the Bill. These provisions allow guidance to be used to set out how applications for exemption certificates and registrations must be made. Guidance may, for example, require applications to be made electronically or online. The Government have decided to allow maximum flexibility with regard to how applications may be made and will therefore be removing these powers from the Bill because they will no longer be necessary.
Applicants for exemption certificates and those registering items as exempt will be able to apply online or download forms to be completed in hard copy for postal submission. They will also be able to telephone or email requests for copies of forms to be sent to them by post. This is to reflect the diversity of persons who may wish to submit applications, which may range from private individuals without internet access to large auction businesses.
Lord Cormack
Will they be able to apply by post? Do they have to download it or get it by email? My noble friend said they can send things in by post. Many of these people will be very elderly and will not necessarily be familiar with modern devices.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I will make sure that I get a precise note. The whole purpose of us saying that people can apply online and offline is precisely to cover the diversity of private individuals, as I mentioned. I will just check for my noble friend whether a form can be sent or whether it has to be downloaded.
The answer, apparently, is that there will be a range of opportunities for people to receive forms—online or not. I am told that a hard copy application can be requested by telephone. I think that covers, in one way or another, most people in this country.
The committee also recommended that Clause 5 should include more details about the appeals regime, rather than leaving it to secondary legislation. Amendments 17 to 21 deliver the committee’s recommendation. First, the amendments set out in the Bill that the First-tier Tribunal will hear any appeals against a decision by the Secretary of State not to issue an exemption certificate or to revoke an existing certificate. As many of your Lordships will know, the First-tier Tribunal has wide experience of hearing appeals concerning regulatory matters and, indeed, is the body to hear appeals against decisions to serve civil sanctions in Schedule 1 to the Bill. The amendments also set out in the Bill the grounds on which an appeal may be made and the powers of the tribunal on hearing an appeal. The only matters that will be left to secondary legislation will be any further grounds that the Secretary of State may wish to add and the cost of an application for an appeal to the tribunal. I acknowledge once again the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I support these amendments. We are very pleased that the Government have listened to the Delegated Powers Committee and have addressed its concerns about too much detail being contained in guidance. We will return to this issue when we debate our Amendment 40, which seeks to establish regulations about how those dealing in ivory can verify the exempted status of the piece being bought or sold.
We also welcome government Amendments 17, 18 and 21, which considerably tighten up the basis on which appeals on exempted certificates can be made. We raised this issue in Committee and are very pleased that the Government listened to those arguments and have produced specific grounds for appeal that cannot be used to undermine the clarity of the decision-making process. We therefore support these amendments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I think it is customary that I thank the noble Baroness very much for her support for this group of amendments. It is an indication of the importance of the work of your Lordships’ House and the committees.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of subsections (1A) and (1B) inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the UK Government have acted in accordance with the devolution settlements and engaged throughout the process with each of the devolved Administrations on the territorial extent and implementation of the Ivory Bill across the UK. I am pleased to say that the Governments of Scotland and Wales have both clearly expressed their support for the Ivory Bill. We have also worked closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.
The UK Government’s engagement with the devolved Administrations concluded that dealing in ivory items either within a devolved country or between a devolved country and another part of the UK is a devolved matter. For instance, a dealing conducted wholly within Scotland or between Scotland and Wales will be devolved. Dealings between any part of the UK and a third country remains a reserved matter. The UK Government have therefore come to an agreement with the devolved Administrations to ensure that these devolved interests are protected through a number of amendments tabled in the name of the Minister.
The government amendments ensure that most regulations under the Bill that apply in relation to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland may be made only by, or with the consent of, Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. If a devolved Administration does not provide consent, it can make its own regulations. The only exceptions are the powers to set fees by regulations and the publication and consultation of enforcement guidance, which remain exercisable by the Secretary of State but will require consultation with Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. These exceptions are made simply because the power to prescribe fees and the publication of enforcement guidance are technical matters.
We have also agreed to a minor amendment to specify Scottish Ministers as the appropriate body to publish a list of accredited museums. This change was requested by the Scottish Government as a reflection of the different status of Museums Galleries Scotland and Arts Council England and does not alter in any way the effect of this provision.
I assure noble Lords that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government have confirmed that they are content that these amendments accurately reflect their devolution settlements and their rights under those settlements. These two devolved Administrations will issue legislative consent Motions ahead of Third Reading and the appropriate official procedure will be followed with respect to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her introduction and explanation of these amendments concerning the devolved Administrations. I listened carefully and I have one or two queries. It would be helpful if she could clarify the source and inspiration behind the amendments, bearing in mind that they were not tabled for Committee and so their impact was not debated. Will she outline the problem that her department seems to have stumbled across and to which these amendments are the solution? They seem to point to inconsistencies in the Bill between devolved competences and Clause 37(1)(b), on regulatory provision, that I need to grasp. Has the Minister’s department run into problems during dialogue on the Bill with one or other of the devolved Administrations? She did not seem to suggest that.
The Minister’s letter dated 19 October concerning the government amendments stated that the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations with the consent of the relevant Administrations, leaving aside for this purpose the requirement merely to consult on the fees or guidance. I remain unconvinced about how the involvement implied under consent will lead to more effective implementation of the Bill. On the contrary, there is concern that these amendments could result in unwarranted duplication of legislation and bureaucracy, at best, and regulatory divergence and differences at worst. It is regrettable that this group of amendments has been tabled so late in the process and that the House has not had more time to consider the matter. Will the Minister explain why she concluded that these provisions are necessary, bearing in mind that this is a reserved matter, as she said, and that there does not seem to be any policy differences between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations? Does she share the concern that the authorities will have to duplicate the canopy of administration when they may not have the required expertise in dealing with ivory or the trade in endangered species? Can she assure the House that these amendments will not lead to a delay in implementing the Bill or in commencing regulations or to it being implemented on different dates in different parts of the UK?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his comments. I reassure him that these amendments came out of lengthy discussions over time. They were laid when they were laid—in good time for consideration by your Lordships on Report, I think—as a result of a timeline issue. It was necessary to establish whether certain issues were devolved or reserved matters. In my opening remarks I made it very clear that we have listened carefully to the devolved Administrations and that we now fully understand how we can practically make sure that the Bill works in every country of the United Kingdom. I agree with the noble Lord that there could be concerns about bureaucracy and duplication but I think that because of the conversations we have had with the devolved Administrations, that will not be the case. Many of the systems will be used by every country. The enforcement regime will be the same, although it will be conducted by different people north of the border. OPSS, the enforcer in the first instance, operates nationally. When we look at these amendments, it is important that we respect the devolution settlement that we have reached with these nations. We thank the other Governments for their support in pushing this forward. Although the noble Lord has concerns, I reassure him that I believe they will not come to pass.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of subsections (1A) and (1B) inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s first amendment at page 2, line 21.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 3(1)(g) currently allows the Secretary of State to use guidance to specify information that a person applying for an exemption certificate must provide. This amendment requires the information to be specified in regulations instead.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of subsections (1A) and (1B) inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 4(8) currently allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance setting out the form or manner in which anything required by clause 3 or 4 may or must be done. This amendment removes this power.
Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of the current definition of “specified information” is to allow the Secretary of State to use guidance to specify information that must be provided to the Secretary of State when a person other than the original holder of the exemption certificate deals in an item. This amendment requires the information to be specified in regulations instead.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of subsections (1A) and (1B) inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an appeal against the refusal or revocation of an exemption certificate is to be made to the First-tier Tribunal.
“( ) An appeal under subsection (1)(b) may be on the ground—(a) that the decision was based on an error of fact,(b) that the decision was wrong in law, or(c) that the decision was unreasonable,or on any other grounds that are prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate national authority.( ) On an appeal under subsection (1)(b), the First-tier Tribunal may—(a) confirm the Secretary of State’s decision to refuse or revoke the exemption certificate,(b) require the Secretary of State to issue an exemption certificate, or to cancel the decision to revoke an existing exemption certificate, or(c) remit the decision to refuse or revoke the exemption certificate to the Secretary of State for reconsideration.”Member’s explanatory statement
The subsections inserted by this amendment set out the grounds for an appeal against the refusal or revocation of an exemption certificate, confer power on the appropriate national authority (see the Minister’s amendment of clause 37 at page 22, line 24) to prescribe further grounds in regulations, and set out the actions that the First-tier Tribunal may take on an appeal.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of subsections (1A) and (1B) inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 4, line 36.
“(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring an appellant to pay a fee of a prescribed amount.”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is to remove paragraphs (a) to (d) of the existing subsection (4) of clause 5. Those paragraphs are no longer necessary because the Minister’s amendment at page 4, line 36 will enable the matters in question to be dealt with by First-tier Tribunal Rules.
Lord Inglewood
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes registration as a precondition of allowed sales of de minimis objects containing ivory.
Lord Inglewood
I am very grateful to the Minister for the way in which he responded to my earlier concerns in our previous debate. I found myself almost seduced by his silver tongue. I found myself wondering whether perhaps he was right, but all along there was a niggling doubt in the back of my mind. As I said in my remarks, the scheme which is being adopted globally to deal with ivory poaching is basically the same right around the globe. The interesting thing about that is that there is nowhere else on earth where there is a registration scheme associated with de minimis exemptions. It is also interesting that in the consultation that was held prior to the Bill, there was no mention of registration. It was a matter that came into the frame—if I may put it that way—right at the last minute. That makes me wonder.
My amendment does not change the substantive law, nor does it change the scheme that this Bill is intended to put into effect. If this amendment were to be passed, two things would follow. The first one is that the very real concern of my noble friend Lord Hague—that somehow we would be outside the scope and general thrust of the international efforts to deal with ivory poaching—could not be the case. We would merely be doing what other people are doing. Equally, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made the important point that we do not want to be out of synch with other people. Indeed, you could make quite a strong case for saying that, on the basis of the facts, by including my amendment, we would actually be more aligned with other countries around the world rather than less so. I find it odd that we are being told that the right way to tackle this is rather different from the way that the rest of the world does so. It should be a matter for your Lordships to decide whether we want to be a bit different from everybody else or whether we follow the international pattern. Against that background, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this important matter.
Baroness Quin
“Report on the impact of this Act on the hire and sale of musical instruments
At the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the impact of this Act on the hire and sale of musical instruments containing ivory in the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Quin
I briefly move Amendment 27, which asks for a report on the impact of the Bill—the Act when it receives Royal Assent—on the hire and sale of musical instruments. The amendment calls for such a report at the end of a period of five years beginning with the day on which the Act is passed. However, since tabling my amendment, I note that my noble friend Lady Jones has tabled Amendment 41, which is in many ways a more satisfactory version of my amendment, because it calls for a more wide-ranging report—including the point that I make in my amendment—on an annual basis. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on Amendment 41 and, because of the existence of that amendment, will say nothing further about Amendment 27.
Lord Grantchester
I shall speak to Amendments 41 and 78 in this group. Amendment 41 would require the Secretary of State to prescribe appropriate categories for the purpose of publication and specifically precludes the release of any information that would be unlawful or might lead to the identification of the owner. At this stage, I ask the Minister to go somewhat further than she did in Committee and clarify more specifically what the Government can do, at what intervals and through what media, to give confidence that the Bill is working effectively.
Amendment 78 requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report covering the implementation and impact of the ivory ban domestically and internationally. This includes the work of the various bodies involved, including the Office for Product Safety and Standards, the Animal and Plant Health Agency and the National Wildlife Crime Unit. We feel that this is very important given the concerns raised in Committee about the resources—or, perhaps more accurately, the lack of resources—available to these organisations, as well as their specific role in the implementation of the Bill.
We also feel that it is important to consider the hire and sale of musical instruments containing ivory, as my noble friend Lady Quin explained. The 20% exemption for musical instruments is designed to allow most instruments to be exempt from the Bill, including pianos and bagpipes. Although we do not support more widely drawn amendments, we must be aware of the impact that the ban will have on this artistic activity.
Importantly, we would also want the report to build on any international reports considering the impact on nations or communities that generate income from ivory. Poachers who kill elephants are usually poor and looking for a way to feed themselves and their family. However, education and development are needed so that communities can be turned to recognise the value of elephant tourism. An elephant is worth 76 times more alive in a savannah than in a market place. The report could augment the view that managed conservation with tourism will offer an alternative sustainable income to elephant communities and wider populations of Africa. Will the Minister go a little further than she was able to go in Committee?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
My Lords, I support Amendments 41 and 78, which were debated in Committee and the Labour Front Bench said they would be bringing them back. While I support them, I am interested in what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the Government fully appreciate the sentiment behind the amendments in this group. Monitoring the implementation and impacts of the ban on the ivory market and other affected sectors is very important.
I turn first to Amendment 41, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the publication of a report on matters relating to the exemptions to the ban. In Committee, there was widespread agreement in your Lordships’ House about the importance of transparency and providing information to the public. I believe that the Government’s commitment to share publicly information on exemptions, in line with the Data Protection Act, was welcomed. We are committed to publish data on appeals, the number of items registered and the number of exemption certificates issued and revoked each year and to include a breakdown of these numbers into categories such as statues, reliefs, furniture and musical instruments. The noble Baroness’s amendment reflects these commitments, for which I am grateful, and I am happy to repeat them today. I cannot, however, agree that an amendment is needed and hope that the commitments that the Government have made will suffice.
I turn to Amendment 78, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, regarding a report on the impact and implementation of the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Baroness has reflected points raised in Committee in this amendment. I reassure your Lordships’ House that, as a matter of course, the Government will assess the impact and implementation of the ban over time, in particular its enforcement. Much of this information will be available in the public domain and subject to public scrutiny.
It might assist noble Lords if I give a number of related examples of where this kind of information is already provided publicly. Perhaps this will assist the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in understanding the types of information that we will be publishing. The regulatory body that we have chosen to help enforce the ivory ban, the Office for Product Safety and Standards, already publishes an annual report which includes its activity over the year for each of the different regulatory areas the body covers. The Animal and Plant Health Authority, which will administer the registration system among other things, submits annual trade data on used permits to the secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—CITES. This data is available publicly on the CITES database. The National Wildlife Crime Unit, where appropriate, issues press releases on closed cases it has been involved in, often including the penalties issued. These publications will continue, and we will consider how we can provide further information that will complement but not duplicate them. An obligation in the Bill to produce reports would risk duplication and be a considerable and unnecessarily expensive undertaking.
With regard to the Department for International Development, a number of announcements were made at the Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference earlier this month about additional funds being made available from DfID and Defra, including £46.6 million to protect endangered species and a £20 million round of UK Aid Match for wildlife and conservation issues. Any programme that is run by DfID must publish an annual review online demonstrating its results.
With regard to nations generating income from ivory, as referred to in Amendment 78, we believe that the decline in elephant populations deprives some of the poorest countries in the world of their natural resources, which impacts economic growth and sustainable development. The illegal ivory trade is conducted almost uniquely by organised criminal groups and the money from this despicable trade rarely reaches local communities and the people who need it.
At the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, I will not respond directly to her amendment, but I hope that she takes comfort from my words about the types of data that we will be drawing out and the categories of items that we will be able to summarise.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Quin
“Northumbrian pipes
An item that has ivory in it is exempt from the prohibition if it is a musical instrument that has been certified by the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society, or a similar approved organisation, as being a set of, or part of a set of, Northumbrian pipes made before the passing of this Act, and covered by a valid Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) certificate.”
Baroness Quin
My Lords, I spoke to this amendment earlier. I felt that I was proposing a tightly drawn amendment which would remove any opportunity to create a loophole of the kind that the Government feared. I was disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity to accept the amendment or say that they would look at it with the view to introducing an amendment later dealing with the points that I raised. Normally, I would be tempted to test the opinion of the House, but I recognise political reality when I see it. Certainly, since the Government, the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench did not express their support, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(a) in the case of a museum in England, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, it is shown as being accredited in a list published by or on behalf of Arts Council England;(aa) in the case of a museum in Wales, it is shown as being accredited in a list published by or on behalf of the Welsh Government;(ab) in the case of a museum in Scotland, it is shown as being accredited in a list published by or on behalf of the Scottish Ministers;(ac) in the case of a museum in Northern Ireland, it is shown as being accredited in a list published by or on behalf of the Northern Ireland Museums Council;”Member’s explanatory statement
This main effect of this amendment, which is about how museums are to be identified as “qualifying museums” for the purposes of clause 9, is to replace the reference to Museums Galleries Scotland with a reference to the Scottish Administration. It is also intended to clarify the drafting.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of subsections (1A) and (1B) inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 6, line 1.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 10(1)(f) currently allows the Secretary of State to use guidance to specify information that the owner of an item must provide when applying for registration of the item. This amendment requires the information to be specified in regulations instead.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of subsections (1A) and (1B) inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.
Lord Cormack
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is designed to reduce the administrative arrangements which will follow the enactment of this Bill.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I will not detain the House very long on this amendment, which is similar to an amendment I moved in Committee. I was disappointed in the response that I received. This amendment does not touch at all on any of the exemptions or provisions of the Bill; it merely makes the point that if somebody has a certificate, it should remain valid if the ownership of the item passes by inheritance to a member of the family of the registered owner. That seems to me to be sensible, fair and equitable and I cannot understand why anybody would be opposed to it. I beg to move.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
My Lords, Amendment 39 is a probing new clause, because I think the issue is already covered in the Explanatory Memorandum. The concern is that if an ivory item or collection of ivory items is not registered, it cannot be sold. If it cannot be sold, it has no value. If somebody dies and a valuable collection of ivories is in their estate and they have left their estate to, say, their children, then the ivories will pass to the children, as I understand it, under the provisions of this Bill—indeed, that is made clear in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Cormack’s amendment aims to enable a person who inherits a registered ivory item from a relative also to inherit the title to that registration. Self-registrations for items meeting the de minimis, musical instruments or portrait miniatures exemptions, or for items to be sold to an accredited museum, are in the name of the owner. If a new owner subsequently wishes to deal in that item, or wants to ensure that it is registered as exempt for any other reason, he or she must register it online in their name. A person inheriting a registered ivory item would assume the responsibilities of ownership of that piece, including the decision whether to register it in their name, in line with their specific circumstances. If a person inheriting or taking possession of an ivory item is unsure whether it is registered, this would not affect their rights or responsibilities as the new owner. Because the registration is associated with the individual, it therefore falls to the person inheriting the piece, as the new owner, to register the item if they wish to undertake dealing in it. I repeat: if they wish to undertake dealing in it.
The Government are working closely with interested parties to develop an online self-registration system for ivory items that will be quick and simple to use and meet the needs of all users. I also reassure noble Lords that an offline system will also be made available to cover the points that have been raised in other amendments. Of course—I emphasise this to my noble friend—for items under the rarest and most important items of their type, the exemption certificate remains with the item when it is passed to a subsequent owner. That is the distinction.
I turn to my noble friend Lord Carrington’s amendment concerning ivory items passing through probate. This is an important issue and I can reassure your Lordships that the Bill will not impact on, or cause additional burden to, those involved in such situations. The ivory ban does not affect one’s right to bequeath or inherit any ivory item, regardless of whether it meets an exemption, is registered or is certified. An ivory item may therefore be bequeathed without requiring registration by either the person inheriting the item or the executors of the estate.
The matter of inheritance tax has been clarified in your Lordships House before and I am happy to do so again for the record. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs confirms that ivory items will be considered to have nil value on the open market for inheritance tax purposes unless that item has been registered or certified as exempt. Items registered or certified as exempt will be assessed against their market value in the normal way and may therefore be subject to inheritance tax. With this explanation, I hope that my noble friend can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cormack
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, I too know when I am beat. I do not think it would serve any purpose to press this amendment. I am mildly comforted by what my noble friend said; maybe we can have conversations on this as the Bill comes into force. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 11(5) currently allows the Secretary of State to issue guidance setting out the form or manner in which anything required by clause 10 or 11 may or must be done. This amendment removes this power.
“Guidance
The Secretary of State may by regulations produce and publish guidance to enable a person dealing in ivory to verify the exempted status of an item.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to lay verification guidance before both Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, Amendment 40 concerns verification regulations. As we debated in Committee, it is imperative that the exemption processes introduced in this Bill are robust and proportionate. In Committee, we introduced a probing amendment that would allow the Secretary of State to create a verification system to enable buyers to ensure that they were complying with the law. We felt that this was particularly important, given that the definition of “dealing” in Clause 1 specifically includes buying as well as selling ivory. Even the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, with whom we on these Benches have found little common ground with regard to this Bill, concurred that it was a most sensible suggestion.
In response, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, agreed that a potential buyer must be able to verify that it is legal to purchase the item before finalising the sale. She outlined how a buyer wishing to check the legality of buying or hiring an item would be able to confirm that it had been registered or certified as exempt and look it up on the online system via the item’s reference number. This would enable them to compare the photos and description on the system with the object they intended to purchase. This was a welcome commitment from the Government. I was disappointed, however, by the noble Baroness’s insistence that we do not need regulations to underpin such a system.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report raised concerns about the scope of regulation-making powers contained in the Bill, concluding that the delegation of powers was inappropriate in many areas. We agreed with this view and feel strongly that it would be inappropriate for the purpose of establishing a verification system too. The verification process described by the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, must be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and should be set out in regulations. We feel that this is very important, given the legal implications for breaking the prohibition on dealing, as well as issues involving privacy and the protection of personal data. Indeed, it was for this reason that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, advised that the Government would be unable to publish photos or descriptions of specific items exempted. We need to be much clearer about the verification processes that would underpin the Bill and the protections that would be afforded to the buyers, particularly when they are making online purchases, when fake sales particulars are all too often a hazard.
Having reflected on the Minister’s earlier response, we also believe that the negative procedure offers an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for the verification of exempt items. Therefore, we hope that noble Lords will support this amendment, which would insert regulations, but to be approved only through the negative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this proposed new clause would provide the Secretary of State with a new delegated power to make regulations and publish guidance to enable a potential buyer of an ivory item to check its exemption status prior to purchase. I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government will ensure that compliance, by both sellers and purchasers of ivory items, is fully facilitated. The Secretary of State will issue non-statutory guidance, which will set out the detail of each exemption and the requirements for self-registration or certification of exempted items. The guidance will also contain clear advice, for both buyers and sellers, on compliance, including the process by which a potential buyer will be able to check a registration or certification before purchasing an item. I also make the point that verification is in the Bill. We will provide administrative guidance to assist both the buyer and the seller.
I note that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would create an additional delegated power for the Secretary of State, by allowing him to specify how many items should be verified. Furthermore, to lay regulations to specify this would be a duplication of the relevant provisions already in the Bill.
Before I set out for your Lordships precisely how the registration system will work, which is important, and thus the measures in place to enable verification, I also note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House has considered the Bill in detail and made a number of recommendations to reduce the number of delegated powers, which, as we heard on earlier amendments, the Government have addressed.
Ultimately, it will always be in the seller’s interest to ensure that the exemption certificate or registration document is available at the point of sale. It would be appropriate for an antique dealer or auction house to display the certificate or registration details alongside the item or show it to customers at the point of sale. For online sales, we would similarly anticipate that a seller would show proof that the item has been registered or an exemption certificate issued.
We are currently working on the design and build of a new online system to enable owners of exempt items to register them prior to sale or hire. A potential buyer wishing to check the registration of an item will be able to look up that item on the online system, using the unique registration number provided on the seller’s registration document. The buyer will be able to view the information concerning that item held on the database to satisfy themselves that it indeed relates to the item in question. This will allow buyers the comfort that the seller has complied with the process and to verify the registration document.
For items with an exemption certificate under Clause 2 of the Bill—that is, the rarest and most important items of their type—we would in practice expect the seller to make the exemption certificate available to the potential buyer. Similarly, the potential buyer will also be able to consult the online database using the unique identification number on that exemption certificate.
That is why we do not need a power in the Bill to provide the means for buyers to verify that they can legally buy a certified or registered ivory item: as I have explained, it is our intention that this will be achieved through the functionality of the online registration system. This provides a clear means for the buyer to verify the legitimacy of their intended purchase. Furthermore, the Government will publish non-statutory guidance, which will set out exactly how sellers should provide buyers with the assurance that they are entitled to sell an item and that the transaction will therefore be lawful.
Before the Bill is commenced, we will run an awareness-raising campaign to ensure that relevant stakeholders and members of the public are fully aware of the new legislation and associated guidance. As such, we believe it would be unnecessary to include additional powers in the Bill to enable a potential buyer of an ivory item to check on the exemption status of an ivory item. As I have explained, this is precisely why perfecting the online registration system is so important and why work is under way on that.
I believe that the Government have covered the points that the noble Baroness seeks to address, given the explanation and a bit more detail. As the online system is developed, I am happy to ensure, for any noble Lords interested in these matters, a continuum of assurance that this work is well in hand. On that basis, I say to the noble Baroness that these points are covered. I sincerely hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment, because the Government have covered this point.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response but I am disappointed by what he had to say. I had hoped that he would have reflected a little more on the debate we had in Committee on these issues. He acknowledged that the Delegated Powers Committee has already been critical of the amount of delegation included in the Bill. He went on to talk about producing administrative guidance or non-statutory guidance, which is a continuation of that non-specific process. He then said that the Government were working on the design of the registration scheme. I understand that it may not currently be fully functioning, but that is all the more reason we need to see the detail and need regulations that spell it out.
I am sorry that the Minister was not able to meet us further on this. There are big issues around implications for privacy and data protection. There is a legal underpinning: if you break this law, sanctions will be taken against you. It is not a frivolous issue; it is important. It is not simply about buying and selling but about complying with the law and not complying with the law. I am therefore sorry to say that, unless the Minister is able to tell us that he is prepared to come back to this at Third Reading, we would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(2) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably be expected to know or suspect, that the item is ivory, is made of ivory or (as the case may be) has ivory in it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment permits a defence of ignorance, with the onus on a person to prove that they did not and could not have been expected to know or suspect that an item contained ivory, to help tackle the problem of deliberately mislabelling ivory items as other substances.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, Amendment 42, which deals with the defence of ignorance in Clause 12, would remove the provision in the Bill stipulating that an offence has been committed only if the person knew or ought to have known or suspected that an item contained ivory. Under our amendment, it would be a defence if a person proved that they did not know or suspect, or could not have known or suspected, that an item contained ivory. That might sound as though there is not much difference, but there is an important difference in the burden of proof, and that is something that we seek to strengthen.
We considered this issue in Committee but failed to have a meeting of minds on the wording of this clause. At the time, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, advised that the provision had been included to help tackle the issue of illegal ivory in items being deliberately mislabelled as another substance, and to protect those who fall victim to such ploys who genuinely did not know that an item they were dealing with contained ivory. Of course, we know that mislabelling is common. Numerous studies have found that new elephant ivory offered for sale is often mislabelled as ivory from other species or another material altogether, such as bovine bone. In some instances, this may well have been due to genuine unawareness, although deliberate mislabelling is a well-known tactic used in the illegal ivory trade to evade detection and facilitate illegal sales. In those circumstances, a seller might provide other information to indicate more discreetly to buyers that the item is indeed ivory, such as close-up photographs that depict cross-hatching, a tell-tale sign of ivory, or code words used in the trade to surreptitiously indicate that an item is made of or contains ivory.
We must have a form of wording that differentiates between those who are playing the system and know perfectly well what they are trading and others who have been genuinely duped. If we stick with the original wording, it would too easy to claim that you were unaware of what you were buying and would make enforcement a real challenge for the agencies, which would have to prove that you knew it was ivory.
Our amendment allows for a defence of ignorance but introduces a higher evidential threshold than in the clause as currently drafted. It also brings it in line with the provision in Clause 12(3), which allows for a defence if an individual can demonstrate that they took all reasonable precautions to comply with the law. I am therefore moving this amendment and I hope noble Lords will see the sense of our arguments. I beg to move.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her amendment to Clause 12(2). The purpose of the current subsection (2) is to outline the criteria required to demonstrate that an offence has been committed. Subsection (3) provides a person accused of an offence with the defence that they took reasonable steps to avoid the commission of that offence. The purpose of subsections (2) and (3) together is to provide a balanced and proportionate framework with regard to prosecutions under the Bill, and to tackle the problem of illegal ivory items being deliberately mislabelled, while also providing a defence that allows a person to prove that they took the reasonable steps needed to ensure that the item was not elephant ivory.
Amendment 42 is explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in the Member’s explanatory statement published alongside the amendment as permitting the “defence of ignorance”. As noble Lords will know, there is no defence of ignorance in UK law. It is not permissible for someone accused of a crime, be it large or small, simply to claim that they did not know that it was illegal to do something. If we were to accept the amendment, we would also be suggesting that an individual would be able to prove a negative—to prove that they did not know something. That would be extremely problematic.
Furthermore, the amendment as drafted does not in fact reflect a “defence of ignorance” as referred to in the Member’s explanatory statement to the amendment. To explain a little, the amendment would remove the criteria in Clause 12(2), which outlines the requirements that must be satisfied for an offence to occur. Subsection (2) provides legal certainty on what constitutes an offence. It states that an offence is committed in relation to an item only, first, if a person knows or suspects or, secondly, if the person should have known or suspected that the item involved in the commission of an offence is elephant ivory or has elephant ivory in it. Subsection (3) essentially achieves the desired effect of the noble Baroness’s amendment. It states:
“It is a defence for a person … to prove that the person took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence”.
In fact, subsection (3) goes further than the amendment, as it explicitly states what a person must prove to rely on that defence. Furthermore, in this case the individual will be seeking to prove a positive action. It is a far easier prospect to prove that due diligence has been undertaken than to prove a negative—that they simply did not know.
Let us have a quick look at how the Bill would operate if the noble Baroness’s amendment were accepted. Mrs Smith goes to a car-boot sale and sees a lovely box, which is very similar to her grandmother’s. She is not a very well-off lady, she owns absolutely no antiques and she pushes the boat out on that day and pays a tenner for this box as a treat. The box has a tiny, almost imperceptible, amount of ivory in it. Is Mrs Smith a criminal? It is not our intention that she should be. Removing subsection (2) makes the law far less clear because in that subsection is the outline of the requirements that must be met for an offence to occur. In the current draft of subsection (2), the elements of an offence are clear. To remove the subsection, as suggested in the amendment, would upset the firm legal foundation of the Bill. Removing the criteria for the offence in subsection (2) would cause significant uncertainty and risks overwhelming the enforcement system with Mrs Smiths, while the real criminals are left free to continue to break the law by dealing in ivory on much larger scale.
The Bill seeks to be balanced and proportionate. Removing subsection (2) would achieve neither aim. The police, enforcement bodies and the courts can use their professional discretion when considering the approach to use, based on a number of factors—for example, whether that person knew about ivory trading, whether it is a repeat offence or whether there is any evidence of deliberate mislabelling. Discretion is very welcome, but it must be based on a firm foundation of effective law. The amendment of the noble Baroness runs the risk of criminalising those who are not criminals at all.
Clause 12(2) and (3) are very carefully phrased. They protect individuals where there is absolutely no intent to breach the ban, and where the person could not be reasonably expected to know that the item was ivory or even contained ivory. It is not our intention to criminalise these people; that would be disproportionate and counterproductive. I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It is the Government’s intention in subsections (2) and (3) to be clear and proportionate, and I believe that is the case. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, the Minister and I agree that it was never our intention to criminalise Mrs Smith at the car-boot sale, and that is part of the argument that I had intended to set out. We were trying to criminalise those people who were playing the game and deliberately trying to mislead people. I am pleased that the Minister said that there was no defence of ignorance in UK law. Our worry was that that was exactly how her wording came across, because the original amendment says that an offence is being committed only if the person knew or ought to have known or suspected than the item contained ivory; that implied a defence of ignorance.
However, I hear what the Minister says: we have to look at subsections (2) and (3) together, and, perhaps because of the late hour, I will not choose to pursue it on this occasion. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Discontinuing Seasonal Changes of Time (EUC Report)
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee on the Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council discontinuing seasonal changes of time and repealing Directive 2000/84/EC (COM(2018)639, Council Document 12118/18) (22nd Report, HL Paper 200).
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to both Motions in my name at the same time. In some ways, this is a slightly esoteric Motion, but the subject matter concerns every single citizen. I thank the members of my sub-committee and the Select Committee for their help in producing this draft reasoned opinion and presenting it to the House tonight.
It is important to recognise that the decision this evening relates to the issue of subsidiarity and whether this House wishes to submit a reasoned opinion. It is not on the subject matter itself. The subject of the report is obviously the Commission’s proposal to replace the obligation to apply seasonal changes of time—to turn the clocks back or forward—with an obligation to discontinue this practice. We have probably all heard over the years different views on whether that would be a sensible thing or not for different groups in different parts of the country. This House has debated the issue several times over the years. But the issue tonight is whether we consider that the Commission’s proposal is in order in terms of subsidiarity and in terms of the persuasiveness of the assessment that the Commission has made on single market grounds.
The timing of this proposal is important. It would see the end of changing the clocks. Member states would retain the discretion to choose which time zone they operated in, but there would be no seasonal clock changes. Effectively, member states would be required to opt for permanent winter time or permanent summer time—presented to the people, there is no choice between those, but in effect that is what it means. The Commission’s intention is that this would come into force in April next year. That means in the proposed transition period, which, if the UK and the EU reach a deal, means that it would clearly apply to the UK. Even without a deal, the proposal could have significant implications, particularly for the island of Ireland.
I come to the proposed reasoned opinion. Since the coming into force of the treaty of Lisbon, national parliaments have a formal role in the scrutiny of EU legislative proposals, notably through examining compliance with the principles of subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is defined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union like this:
“the Union shall act only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, either at central level or at regional and local level, but can rather, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Union level.”
National parliaments then have eight weeks from the transmission of a proposal to issue a reasoned opinion. Each parliamentary chamber has the ability to do so. If the vote is agreed by more than one-third of all the votes allocated to national parliaments, the Commission is obliged to review its proposals. That is the so-called yellow card procedure.
The decision to send a reasoned opinion must be agreed by the whole House. That is a rare proposition. The last time that the House agreed to send a reasoned opinion was in January 2016 on a proposal on reforming EU electoral law. The House of Commons is clearly also considering this proposal. The appropriate committee has not yet reached its conclusion but will do shortly and, if it is agreed, the Motion will be put to the whole House.
I emphasise that the report and hence the decision are on the question only of subsidiarity and not of policy. The policy of summer time arrangements has been the subject of many domestic and parliamentary debates. Noble Lords may well have received even in the last few days representations from safety organisations and representatives of the agricultural and construction sectors. But because of the importance of this, our Select Committee has treated the question of subsidiarity as a preliminary matter. If this proceeds further, there may be a point for the sub-committee to consider the objective benefits or otherwise of the detailed policy, but the yellow card procedure, checking that the Commission has observed the principle of subsidiarity, is a very important first step.
The proposal’s subsidiarity statement, which is the first of the three main points, is that under Protocol 2 annexed to the treaties, draft legislation,
“should contain a detailed statement making it possible to appraise compliance with the principles of subsidiarity”.
The Commission’s proposal, in our opinion, does not meet that obligation. The subsidiarity statement is very limited and cites “increased questioning” of the current arrangements, although there is not much evidence of that, but we note that this mainly seems to arise because of an opinion poll conducted across the EU. The vast majority of responses came from three countries—indeed, 70% of the responses came from Germany, where for some reason it has been a live issue for debate in recent months. The proposal also referred to various studies and reports on the application of summer time arrangements, but none of those cited reports ended up recommending abandoning the current system.
The second issue is that Protocol 2 requires the Commission’s consultations to,
“take into account the regional and local dimension of the action envisaged”.
In the case of this proposal, the impact of losing summer time arrangements varies considerably between and within member states due to the interplay between longitude, latitude and time zones in determining daylight hours. That is particularly important for the UK, where it is well known that the benefits and drawbacks of permanent summer time or permanent winter time would significantly differ between the northern and southern parts of our kingdom.
The potential implications for the UK are exacerbated by the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland under which the setting of the time is a devolved matter, which is not the case for Scotland and Wales. Indeed, we note that in a no-deal scenario, if Great Britain as a whole decided to maintain summer time arrangements, Northern Ireland would separately have to choose between having a one-hour time differential for half the year either with the Republic of Ireland or with Great Britain.
My last point concerns the internal market objective. The Commission’s proposal points to the importance of harmonised summer time arrangements for the functioning of the internal market under Article 114. However, harmonisation is already provided for under the current arrangements. Very sensibly, a few years ago, the Commission proposed and it was adopted that where we switched time, the date of switching had to be co-ordinated for the same day, which is of great benefit to the transport sector and for those of us who, for a few weeks of the year, were completely confused as to what the difference either side of the channel was going to be. That was a sensible calling into question of the previous arrangements under internal market arrangements. But the Commission has not adequately explored in this context an additional option, which is the possibility of allowing member states to choose whether or not to observe seasonal clock changes, but requiring co-ordination for the date for those that do so.
Towards the end of the preparation of this report, we received an Explanatory Memorandum on the proposal from the Government. I understand that the Minister concerned is Sam Gyimah, a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The committee was familiar with Sam Gyimah because we recently received a useful contribution from him in relation to the Galileo project. He is obviously a busy chap, as he is responsible for time as well as space. His Explanatory Memorandum agreed that the harmonisation was already provided for under the current arrangements, and that the Commission had not demonstrated how its proposals would enhance that. Therefore, the Government are broadly on the same side as us on this. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, will explain their position later. They also highlighted that the proposal would require a huge exercise to assess how a permanent switch to summer time or winter time would affect all sectors and regions of the UK’s economy. Given the timescale of this coming into effect, there would be very little time for that to be carried out.
For those reasons, the report concludes that the Commission’s proposal to discontinue seasonal changes of time does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity and does not sufficiently make the case under internal market rules. Considering that geographical and other factors come into play for the UK in particular, that leads us to the conclusion that the member states are best placed to determine whether seasonal changes remain appropriate within their jurisdiction. On this occasion, we conclude that the Commission has failed to observe the principles of subsidiarity and has exceeded its powers. I therefore beg to move.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the staff and clerks of this House for drawing up this reasoned opinion, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for chairing the sub-committee so well and presenting this reasoned opinion to the House.
I do not intend to use this debate to promote the merits of retaining or abolishing daylight saving time. The House of Lords has debated this matter on several occasions and come to its conclusions. It is quite clear that there are different opinions across the United Kingdom. However, the principle of whether abolition should be within the competence of the European Union is at the heart of the matter for debate and decision here today.
As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says, this reasoned opinion debate opportunity presents itself to the UK as we are currently full members of the European Union. If the timetable for the European Union legislation implementation, as outlined in the draft directive, is followed, then the proposed European law would come into effect in March or April of next year, meaning that the UK—should we leave the EU with a deal—would be obliged to implement it during the transition period. If we fail to change this legislation at this point, and if the UK leaves the European Union without a deal, then the potential for time differences between the UK and Ireland, and thereby also across the Northern Ireland border, would vary for six months of the year.
The European Union believes that it has competence to bring forward this proposal to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market. This debate and decision—because this House has one vote in the European Union, as does the House of Commons—if given appropriately, could mean that the European Union would have to change its mind if sufficient numbers of parliaments across the European Union agree. The purpose of this debate is, first, for Parliament, and the House of Lords, to assert that matters regarding major time changes should be left to member states; and secondly, to pass the reasoned opinion, then build agreement with other member state parliaments so that a yellow or red flag can be raised, causing the Commission to think again.
The principle of subsidiarity serves to regulate the exercise of the Union’s non-exclusive powers. It rules out Union intervention when an issue can be dealt with effectively by member states at central, regional or local level, and means that the Union is justified in exercising its powers when member states are unable to achieve the objectives of a proposed action satisfactorily, and added value can be provided if the action is carried out at Union level.
Under Article 5(3) of the European Union treaty, there are three preconditions for intervention by Union institutions in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. First, the area concerned does not fall within the Union’s exclusive competence; that is called non-exclusive competence. Secondly, the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states; that is necessity. Thirdly, the action can therefore, by reason of its scale or effects, be implemented more successfully by the Union; that is added value. It is on the second of these preconditions—necessity—that the case is being made to Parliament today.
First of all, I want to deal with the counterargument that might be put to us by the European Union: that the United Kingdom agreed to synchronise daylight saving changes across the European Union under a European Union directive, and therefore, they would maintain, the competence required by the European Union has already been demonstrated.
Apart from the legal base of this legislation over the 2000 directive, here I must turn to the principle of proportionality: that actions must be limited to what is necessary to achieve the objectives set. Unfortunately, the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum is woefully thin on this matter. It is quite thin gruel, because it places the principle of proportionality under the heading “subsidiarity”, which is of course a separate principle. However, putting the Explanatory Memorandum aside for a moment, the argument from the European Commission is that it is safeguarding the proper functioning of the internal market in respect of time arrangements through harmonisation. But we already have harmonisation of time: our clocks move to and from daylight saving time at the same time as those of other member states. The Commission fails to adequately explain why the abolition of daylight saving time would bring proportionate benefits to the internal market beyond the harmonisation we currently have.
As well as that, a change from daylight saving time harmonisation to abolition altogether is a major change to the arrangements in this country, and indeed in other member states which operate daylight saving time alterations twice a year. Put simply, moving the date at which we altered our clocks to a common date meant we shifted our clocks a week or so differently than we had been used to. Something we already did every year was subsequently done on a uniform date: a relatively minor change with little meaningful negative impact. However, abolition altogether would mean a different time for six months of the year, which I maintain is a major change to our arrangements. I believe that this House can justifiably argue that the change proposed breaches both the subsidiarity principle and the proportionality principle under which the European Union operates.
I turn now to the evidence which the Commission has provided. It cites as evidence of the need for change an assessment paper on the impact of the 2000 directive harmonising the dates for daylight saving time for the European Parliament, and a paper outlining the results of a public consultation. I will take each of these in turn.
The assessment paper helpfully points out that,
“EU legislation did not introduce summer time in the EU, but instead harmonised existing national legislation”.
That is a very important point, because that argument again strengthens the case for subsidiarity. The document further states:
“No EU government has called for a change to the current DST provisions”.
This is another argument which poses no question about the necessity for intervening with member state governments.
The paper makes further conclusions which are relevant to this debate. First, it concludes:
“DST benefits the internal market, leisure activities and generates marginal energy savings”.
Secondly, it says that,
“the impact of DST on various other sectors … remains inconclusive”,
and, in terms of health, the evidence is mixed, with some good and some poorer effects. Obviously, if you change the arrangements, there will still be some good and some poor effects. Taking these factors together, the current system has not given rise to significant complaints, either economic or social.
The public consultation seems to be one of those surveys where the questions asked—and to whom they were asked—give rise for concern. There were 4.5 million respondents, of whom 3.1 million came from Germany. The next biggest responding country was France with 393,000 respondents—about one-eighth the size of the German sample. Given the small numbers from other large member states, including the United Kingdom, it seems obvious to me that two factors were at play. First, clearly an effort was made in Germany to achieve a high response, through whatever methods, which was not emulated elsewhere. My second conclusion is that the relatively low numbers for the majority of member states indicates that those with concerns were more likely to respond than those who were happy with the status quo. I hesitate to mention one of the five questions that was put. I ask myself, what is the obvious answer to the question, “Would you prefer permanent summer time or permanent winter time”? Answers on a piece of paper.
The reasoned opinion drawn up by this House illustrates these matters well and explains the case for powers over time changes remaining with member states. Here and in the European Union, we are well organised on the current daylight saving time arrangement. The clocks go forwards and back at a time we all know; the airlines have their schedules ready and use them accordingly. The status quo is working. My plea to the Government is to assist in getting the support of other Parliaments to provide reasoned opinions as well. I request the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to understand what steps this House will take, having passed this reasoned opinion, to promote it to other Parliaments in the short timescale left. I support both Motions before us.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I support entirely the contents of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord German. I ask myself, where did this all come from? I do not know where the issue was initiated. I did not even know about it until I saw it on the Order Paper; it had not reached the EU sub-committee I serve on and I did not see any reference to it in the media. It looks like the kind of diktat that really puts people off the EU.
I am an avowed remainer; I will vote remain whatever the deal. I do not care; I will not vote differently. When David Cameron went to negotiate, I said, “Whatever he brings back, I will vote remain”. That is it. It gets up my nose that somebody somewhere in Brussels had this little idea and rigged a consultation of sorts, quite clearly. It beggars belief that 70% of the responses came from one country. I find that amazing. It does not make sense. It is a one-size-fits-all argument, typical of Brussels to the core. There was no real consultation. In any case, there is no time for a genuine consultation on this major change because after this weekend, that is effectively it. This is what the EU is after. The change will come into force in April next year. It is also the time of the Euro elections. Where has all this come from? Why the rush? I do not understand.
I have read the select committee report a couple of times. The reasons for the change are entirely spurious. I do not accept either the proportionality argument or the argument for the internal market, given what I know about the EU. Obviously, we are talking about the report. I must make it clear that I support the move to permanent summer time in principle. I have no argument with that. There is overwhelming evidence for it: energy savings, fewer accidents, less crime, more leisure and sports and more tourism. Even the NFU in Scotland supports it, although the NFU for England and Wales is neutral. Techniques and everything else have changed since it was done earlier.
I will not go into the details but there is overwhelming evidence that it would be advantageous. In fact, RoSPA put the case for not just one, but two, extra hours, as well as for trialling it. I know that there was a trial back in the 1960s; I vaguely remember it. However, this diktat comes along with virtually no warning, no general support across the EU for it, no debate about it—certainly not in this country—and all of a sudden, we are expected to go along with it. I simply cannot accept that the EU is dictating for all the wrong reasons. That is what the report is about. I support the committee and the recent amendment. As I say, in any event, we should be allowed to trial this on a time basis. There was a two-year trial, I think, in the 1960s; I would probably trial this for five years.
Above all else, this is a matter for member states, not the EU Commission. I want the UK to remain a member state but supporting the EU when it comes along with issues such as this really gets up my nose. I support the committee.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful that the debate is sufficiently late in the evening for it not to have provoked a long list of people wanting to debate the issue of summer time and winter time changes rather than the specific report.
As a member of the committee, I confess that I had some doubts about the decision to produce this report on a reasoned opinion. I rather felt that, notwithstanding the forceful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the issue of subsidiarity had been effectively established. After all, years ago we accepted the EU’s right to instruct us, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, to synchronise our dates for moving to and from summer time. If we think that the EU can tell us when to do that, what is different about its right to tell us to make a decision about which time zone we want to be in and to stick to it for the whole of the year? Effectively, the EU established its power and influence on this in past years. Maybe the Minister can reflect on that in his response.
However, I share the concerns that this is not the time to do this. In particular, I have very serious concerns that the lead-in period to this change is very short—unrealistically short—because there will be practical issues. There are transport timetables that have already been sorted out for the next year, for example. Then there is the technology of all the systems in our homes that are set and timed to change twice a year. I assume that will all need adjustment in due course if this change were to be introduced. When I was young, when summer time and winter time came in you went and solemnly changed the hour on the clock. Then we went through this nightmare scenario where you had to read an instruction book of about 100 pages first so you could work out how to change the hour on your digital clock or heating system or whatever it was. Now, thank goodness, we have gone through to a phase where these changes happen automatically, but I assume that someone has to tell them to do that automatically, and that they are set to do it in a particular way. If we are going to change the way we do things, there needs to be a substantial lead-in time so that technological solutions can be found.
There is justifiable criticism of the response to the consultation by the EU. It is worth saying that this was the largest ever response to any EU consultation, so I do not think you can criticise the numbers. What you can criticise is the lack of balance in the number of respondees. Germany responded enthusiastically because there was a lively public debate on this, but its interests on this are very different from those in the very north of the EU and particularly different from those in the very south. Therefore, it is important that every country has a number of respondees to represent the interests of that concern from their country.
Although I think synchronisation with the rest of the EU is desirable in many ways, there is, at the very least, an important issue about delaying it for a proper and lively debate, so that this is something Europe looks to in maybe three, four or five years’ time rather than within the next calendar year.
I reflect on the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord German about Ireland. The problems on the Irish border—if this goes ahead and we are not members of the European Union—will be compounded by being in a different time zone from the rest of the EU for part of the year.
The evidence from across the world demonstrates that the impact of time differences on the ability to trade effectively is considerable and that is what the EU was aiming at: to improve trade circumstances. If we could trade as easily with the USA and Australia as we can with the EU, then, clearly, we would have a much higher proportion of our trade with those two countries, but the time zones make a big difference. There is an issue of common sense here. Why have Turkey, Norway and Switzerland—three countries that are not members of the EU—aligned themselves with the EU in changing their time from winter time to summer time on the same dates? They have done it because it suits business and, I dare say, we would continue to do the same thing in future, so it makes sense to simplify our time zones and reduce our differences with our trading neighbours.
However, what we are doing to ourselves over Brexit is equivalent to putting ourselves on the other side of the world in terms of time. Pragmatically, and in reality, we need to concentrate on the issues that are of most concern to us at this time and we do not need to be distracted by this particular concern.
I am prepared to accept that we should not sign up to this initiative, at least not at this time and without better preparation. The words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, ring true with me that this is not the time to do this. The issue of summer time, winter time and those changes is hugely divisive across the country, between the north of Scotland and southern England. At this moment, our country is bitterly divided on Brexit, and the last thing we need to do is add to those divisions by messing around with the clocks.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for his introduction to the EU Committee’s report on discontinuing seasonal changes of time and for introducing this Motion on the same subject. Tonight is my first time at the Dispatch Box.
EU legislation on summer time arrangements was first introduced in 1980 with the objective of unifying existing national summer time practices and schedules, thereby ensuring a harmonised approach to the time switch within the single market. On this side, we recognise that some benefits could be obtained from the removal of member states’ seasonal time changes, although, in reading the European Commission’s directive, I am far from convinced by how great those benefits would be.
More importantly, we believe that member states should always be central to determining whether seasonal time changes remain appropriate in their own territories. As my noble friend Lord Whitty’s committee has demonstrated, ending seasonal changes of time does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, touched on this, citing the earlier change in alignment of when the clocks were changed. I suggest that the changes proposed are fundamentally different and would have a larger effect on more parts of the United Kingdom, so the subsidiarity issue is relevant.
Within the UK, we must always consider the strength of feeling across each of the home nations, despite the issue being reserved to Westminster for Scotland and Wales. Furthermore, we must be conscious that there are no equivalent reservations or expectations for Northern Ireland. Are we really considering, as touched on earlier, the possibility of Northern Ireland being out of alignment with the rest of the United Kingdom and/or the Republic of Ireland for six months of the year? Further consultation is clearly needed across the board on whether discontinuing seasonal changes of time is the right route for the United Kingdom.
One further concern lies in the fact that this proposed EU directive appears not to have considered all the possible scenarios and options. Does the Minister agree that other possible changes should be explored before any final decision is made?
In a similar vein, the report talks about various studies on how the use of summer time arrangements works, yet none of those reports mentioned in the proposal says that we should abandon the current system of seasonal changes of time. In looking at the detail of the proposed changes, in particular considering the interplay between longitude, latitude and time zones on determining daylight hours, we are very concerned to note that a move to a permanent winter time or a permanent summer time would have differing ramifications for different parts of the UK.
Having to choose between a permanent summer time or a permanent winter time has both benefits and drawbacks depending on whether we are talking about the south-west of England or the north-east of Scotland, Orkney or Shetland. If the UK chooses a permanent summer time, it would mean lighter evenings; however, in Scotland, where there are shorter winter days, children and adults would have to travel to school and to work in the dark. Having longer, lighter mornings has been supported by many morning workers, including postal workers, the construction industry and farmers. Can the Minister point me to any recent research about the various options which may be considered? Do the Government agree that any changes under consideration should be preceded by a consultation with each nation and region of the United Kingdom?
The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum highlights that public consultation and an assessment would be required on how a switch of time zones could affect all sectors of the UK economy. Will the Minister give the House an assurance today that the Government will give consideration to the strength of feeling of those workers and industries which would be most impacted by any change?
As my noble friend Lord Rooker touched on earlier, RoSPA has taken the argument a stage further and asked whether we could adopt a “Single/Double British Summertime”, or SDST. SDST would mean that we adopt GMT plus one during the winter months and GMT plus two over the summer period. This, RoSPA argues, would allow lighter evenings all year round, and would result in fewer people being killed and injured in road accidents. Unfortunately, we currently see an increase in the number of pedestrian deaths due to darker evenings in winter months. Do the Government agree that more time is needed for the UK to decide what the best option is?
Finally, do the Government also accept the powerful arguments made by our EU Committee that it would be better if the EU gave more weight to the principle of subsidiarity and ensured that member states were able to decide seasonal time changes within their own territories?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, for a second time to the Dispatch Box, because it will be a rare moment for him to take part in a debate where there is quite such a degree of unanimity—in this House—on EU matters. I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, put it, that we get unanimity in another place in due course, and that that will strengthen the Government’s hand. For the benefit of the Chamber, I will set out the Government’s position in due course.
The final questions from the noble Lord, Lord McNicol, are important and need to be addressed at some point in the future, but they are not a matter for this debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I have my views, he has his views, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has her views—we all have our views, and at some point they will have to be discussed and the benefits argued in relation to accidents, energy and a range of other issues. It is very important that we in this country do it, because, as the noble Lord made clear—I know where he is from—there are different views in the north of England and in Scotland. It affects Northern Ireland in a different way. On top of that, there are the complications that arise because this is a devolved issue in Northern Ireland but a reserved issue in Scotland or Wales.
There is a host of complications. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said, this is not the moment to discuss them. Just as a diversion, however, I remind her of her former noble friend Lord Tanlaw, who, I think, was also my noble friend for a while, and a noble friend of the Cross Benches for a time. He had very strong views on the subject of clocks and timing, and on a very regular basis brought them before this House. That is not a matter for today.
I start by saying a few words about the backdrop to the proposals before setting out the Government’s views and what we wish to do. We have been aware for some time that several member states in the eastern part of the EU have been lobbying for the abolition of daylight saving. It was reported just over a year ago that Poland was planning to scrap daylight saving unilaterally, but in the end that did not happen. In response to lobbying from those member states and the European Parliament, however, the Commission agreed to review the summer time directive. That review included a public consultation, which took place in July and August this year.
The noble Lord, Lord German, spoke about that consultation and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made other comments in more robust and Rooker-esque words—I think he said that he felt it had possibly been rigged. But as the noble Lord, Lord German, made clear, there were some 4 million responses, with some 84% favouring the abolition of daylight saving, but they were disproportionately from Germany and one or two other countries. We felt that the high number of responses was partly due to two citizens’ campaigns, which encouraged people to vote to abolish daylight saving. Following this, President Juncker moved quickly to confirm that the Commission would bring forward proposals regarding the summer time directive. Those were announced on 12 September.
I turn, as the Commission did, to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord German, felt that we had confused or muddled the two together in our Explanatory Memorandum. In areas of shared competence such as that which we are discussing, the European Union can bring forward proposals but must do so within the constraints established in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. These are that the European Union may act,
“only if and insofar as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States”,
and that,
“the content and form of Union action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the Treaties”.
European Union action in this context must be both necessary and add value in such a way that it would not be better achieved by the member states.
The Government do not doubt the European Union’s competence to bring forward proposals on this subject. Indeed, the European Union has been regulating this area via multiple directives since it first introduced legislation on summer time arrangements in 1980. However, the proposal we are discussing differs from its predecessors in a crucial way: while the others sought to advance the harmonisation of time in line with the objectives of the treaties, this new proposal starts from an existing position of harmonisation. In this context, any proposal seeking to change the current arrangements should be supported by evidence that clearly demonstrates the benefits for the Union, member states and their citizens. We believe that the Commission’s proposals fall short on this point.
The Commission states in its own proposals that the current body of evidence is inconclusive on energy saving, overall health impacts and implications for road safety, and that technological advances in agriculture have largely offset the disruptive effect of biannual time changes. Providing a reasonable timeframe for member states to carry out a proper consultation and impact assessment would have gone some way to remedy this lack of evidence. Yet under the current proposal, member states are expected to have concluded this work and all the necessary domestic measures required to implement the directive by 1 April 2019.
On these points, the Government share the concerns of the committee. The European Commission has not presented a compelling case for the need to legislate on this subject matter to further advance the objectives of the treaties. The Commission affirms that the proposal “does not go beyond” what is,
“necessary to achieve the objective of continuing to safeguard the proper functioning of the internal market as regards time arrangements”.
Yet the existing directive already ensures harmonisation of time across the Union and the Commission does not demonstrate how the proposal under discussion would enhance that.
The Government recognise the benefits of harmonised time arrangements with our neighbours, which the evidence supports. But when we take those as our starting point, we should be cautious about initiating change in the absence of scrutiny and analysis proportionate to its potential impact. Again, I make it clear that the Government fully support what the committee has said. I am grateful for its work on this and I hope that the noble Lord will move his second Motion.
My advice is that another place will consider this matter shortly. I hope at that moment my honourable friend—referred to by the noble Lord as the Minister for time and space—will be able to respond in a similar manner.
I give an assurance that we will continue to work with other member states. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made clear, the views of other member states and other member state parliaments are crucial. In fact, I will be travelling to Austria for a meeting of one part of the Council in the next week to make this point as vigorously as I can. Possibly I will not be allowed even as long as eight minutes to speak, knowing the constraints of how Councils tend to operate. But we will be trying to persuade other member states to see the light on this and I hope we will be able to persuade the Commission to see daylight on this.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his support for the committee’s position. We have a high degree of unanimity in this Chamber. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I was very pleased to be present at my noble friend Lord McNicol’s appearance at the Dispatch Box. He seems as if he is going to do a decent job. He once took a job that I once had, and he was quite good at that too.
I hear what my noble friend Lord Rooker said that, effectively, this is the sort of proposition that gets the Commission a bad name. I agree with him that despite what we might individually think about the substance of this, this is not an appropriate way of proceeding.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—who are both members of the committee—for their support on this and, indeed, in the discussion that we had on the committee. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for underlining the proportionality argument, which perhaps in retrospect I did not emphasise enough. That is an important dimension and probably answers some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. While this may potentially be within the remit of the Commission, subsidiarity requires that you adopt a proportionate approach and decide that this cannot best be pursued within the individual member states.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked how we will pursue this with other parliaments. The timescale is short, but I assure him and the House that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, the chair of the main committee, and I will try to ensure that our parliamentary contacts are aware of the importance of this issue to the United Kingdom and the difficulty of proceeding at the kind of pace that the Commission proposes, without trial and without notice. I hope we will get a response from our parliamentary colleagues. The Minister has indicated that he will pursue it with his ministerial colleagues in the other member states. I hope this is an occasion on which unanimity will be broader than within this House and another place and will actually prevail.
It is, of course, an historic occasion in that this could be the last reasoned opinion that this Parliament puts into the legislative process before Brexit. I congratulate all noble Lords present tonight for contributing to what I hope will be a significant intervention by Parliament, indicating that national parliaments do, indeed, have an influence on the way in which Europe operates. Having said that, my thanks again to them and to the staff who have helped produce this report.
Subsidiarity Assessment: Discontinuing Seasonal Changes of Time
Lord Whitty
To resolve that this House considers that the Commission Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council discontinuing seasonal changes of time and repealing Directive 2000/84/EC (COM(2018)639, Council Document 12118/18) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the 22nd Report from the European Union Committee (HL Paper 200); and, in accordance with article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the Parliaments to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European institutions.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion in my earlier remarks. I beg to move.
Ivory Bill
Wednesday 24th October 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Ivory Act 2018 View all Ivory Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-R-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (22 Oct 2018)
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I should say at the outset that the Government and I are sincerely grateful to the Constitution Committee for the clear recommendations outlined in its report, which we have considered thoroughly and addressed through the Government’s amendments to the Bill. I also express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Cormack for raising this matter in Committee. At that stage, I promised that I would consider it fully and return to it on Report. Since then I have met the noble and learned Lord with officials on a number of occasions with a view to bringing forward the amendments tabled today. He asked me to say how much he regrets that he had to leave to fulfil a long-standing commitment outside the Parliamentary Estate. I am also permitted to say that he was prepared to put his name to the Government’s amendments to Clauses 17 to 19, and his name would have been on the Marshalled List had it not been for some timing on the day on which he sought to do so. Through those discussions, the Government have tabled a series of amendments that both address the concerns previously raised by the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend, and ensure that the ivory ban continues to be underpinned by robust and proportionate enforcement.
I must first clarify that, when I refer to accredited civilian officers, I am referring to officers of the regulator, which will be the Office for Product Safety and Standards. OPSS is part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. In Committee, I also acknowledged the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that the Government could more clearly define the enforcement role of accredited civilian officers. We have taken on board these recommendations by removing Clause 17 from the Bill, and proposing two new clauses, which will be inserted after Clause 22. Together, these ensure that the powers conferred on accredited civilian officers are set out separately from those conferred on police and customs officers. This ensures that the role of accredited civilian officers as regulators of compliance is now much clearer in the Bill.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, previously raised concerns about the extent of the powers conferred on accredited civilian officers to enter and search a premises. The Government have tabled a number of amendments that significantly restrict the powers of accredited civilian officers and I would like to explain these restrictions further. These amendments mean that accredited civilian officers no longer have a specific power to enter premises for the purpose of raising awareness of the provisions of the Bill. This amendment further clarifies OPSS’s core responsibility of assessing compliance with the sales ban.
The first of the proposed new clauses, “Accredited civilian officers: powers of entry”, clearly outlines when an accredited officer may enter a premises. “Premises” is defined in the Bill as any place, including,
“(a) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft;
(b) a tent or moveable structure”.
Subject to giving reasonable notice, accredited civilian officers may enter a premises if they reasonably believe it might be used in connection with the dealing of ivory, such as the back office of an antiques shop—that is, an area that is not publicly accessible—for only one of two reasons. The first is for the purpose of assessing compliance; the second is if there are reasonable grounds to suspect there is evidence relevant to an offence on that premises.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for adding his name to some of the amendments that I tabled and for listening clearly and sympathetically to what was said in Committee. I had the privilege of a brief conversation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, yesterday and he told me that he was pretty well satisfied and very sorry that, because of the engagement to which my noble friend referred, he could not be with us this evening. I said that I would mention our conversation and his satisfaction was certainly influential as far as I am concerned.
I have not got the whole loaf that I asked for in Committee, and my noble friend will recognise that, but he has gone a long way to easing our concerns. I shy away from the idea of civilian accredited officers but I accept the logic of what my noble friend said a few moments ago and I am content. I only wish that he could have been as conciliatory and obliging on some of the other amendments that I moved on the Bill, but I realise that his room for manoeuvre was somewhat limited. I thank him very much and give my full support.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the Constitution Committee I subscribed to the amendments which were moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in Committee and I was delighted to be able support the concerns that he articulated so well about these provisions, which the Government have addressed very fairly. They have gone a considerable way to meeting the concerns that were expressed in the Constitution Committee’s report.
I know from conversations that I have had with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that he has been very appreciative of the time and consideration that the Minister has given to these issues. We have here a set of amendments which very much address these concerns, in terms of the restriction of the powers of accredited civilian officers, the role of OPSS and the designation that will be forthcoming under the 2006 legislation. It is a very good model of how this House works where a Committee produces a report and the Government listen and engage and come forward with some substantive changes which acknowledge the concerns that were originally raised. I am happy to support the amendments.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly in appreciation of these amendments, which are designed to address concerns about civilian use of policing powers. I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his interventions in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for his willingness to carefully consider these issues and bring forward these amendments tonight. I also place on record our gratitude to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee for its scrutiny of the Bill and the recommendations that prompted the Government to rethink its approach to civilian enforcement bodies. These amendments deal with the concerns over policing functions, including the power of entry, search and seizure being exercised by civilian officials, and bring a more reassuring approach to their enforcement.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Cormack, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for their support for these government amendments. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that the function of this House is to consider these matters very carefully. We in government were very seized of the points that were made. I absolutely assure your Lordships that we have no intention of overstretching what I think is a better definition of what was the accredited civilian officer responsibilities. We have got there, and I am most grateful. I place on record again not only the Constitution Committee’s work on this but that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who I am sorry cannot be here tonight, because his contribution to getting us over the line and working together was another very strong example of how we get better legislation.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out clause 17, under which accredited civilian officers have power to enter and search premises. Instead, the new clauses inserted by the Minister’s amendments after clause 22 give accredited civilian officers a more limited power of entry, and a power to examine documents and other items, but not a power to conduct a search.
Lord Cormack
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the others which are similarly worded would prevent the appointment by the Minister of accredited civilian officers with powers of entry and seizure.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 18(2)(a) currently allows an accredited civilian officer to apply for a search warrant in England and Wales or Northern Ireland. The effect of this amendment is that this will no longer be possible.
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 18(2)(b) currently allows an accredited civilian officer to apply for a search warrant in Scotland. The effect of this amendment is that this will no longer be possible.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments at page 11, lines 21 and 23.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments at page 11, lines 21 and 23.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 11, line 17.
“(7) In this Act “premises” includes any place and, in particular, includes—(a) a vehicle, vessel or aircraft;(b) a tent or moveable structure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment takes the definition of “premises” from clause 17 (which is left out by one of the Minister’s other amendments) and adds it to clause 18.
Lord Cormack
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment of clause 24 at page 11, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment of clause 24 at page 11, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment of clause 24 at page 11, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment of clause 24 at page 11, line 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
“( ) The officer may carry out any examination or measurement of anything on the premises that the officer thinks is or may be relevant evidence.”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is to remove the power of a police or customs officer to test an item that the officer thinks is or may be relevant evidence, and also the power to take a sample of the item (possibly in a way that might damage it).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“Accredited civilian officers: powers of entry
(1) An accredited civilian officer may on giving reasonable notice—(a) enter premises that the accredited civilian officer reasonably thinks may be used in connection with dealing in ivory (including any item that is made of ivory or has ivory in it) for the purpose of assessing compliance with the provisions of this Act, or(b) enter premises on which the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that there is relevant evidence.(2) In this Act “accredited civilian officer” means an officer of the Secretary of State who is authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Act.(3) A notice under this section must—(a) be in writing,(b) be given to the occupier of the premises,(c) set out the purpose of the proposed entry, and(d) explain the effect of section 27 (offences of obstruction).(4) The requirement in subsection (3)(b) may be complied with by delivering or leaving the notice at the premises or sending it there by post.(5) This section—(a) does not authorise the entry into premises used wholly or mainly as a dwelling;(b) authorises entry only at a reasonable time.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new clause inserted by this amendment confers powers of entry on accredited civilian officers. These powers are more limited than those currently given to accredited civilian officers under clause 17, as the new clause does not confer a power of entry for the purpose of promoting awareness and understanding of the provisions of the Bill once enacted.
“Other powers of accredited civilian officers
(1) This section applies where—(a) an accredited civilian officer enters premises under section (Accredited civilian officers: powers of entry), or (b) an accredited civilian officer who is lawfully on premises has reasonable grounds to suspect that there is relevant evidence on those premises.(2) The officer may carry out any examination or measurement of anything on the premises that the officer thinks is or may be relevant evidence.(3) The officer may require any person on the premises to produce any document or record in the person’s possession or control that the officer thinks is or is likely to be relevant to—(a) the question whether a relevant offence has been committed, or(b) the investigation of a relevant offence.(4) The officer may—(a) seize and detain or remove any item found on the premises;(b) take copies of or extracts from any document or record found on the premises.(5) An officer to whom a document or record has been produced in response to a requirement under subsection (3) may—(a) seize and detain or remove the document or record;(b) take copies of or extracts from the document or record.(6) The powers under subsections (4) and (5) may be exercised only—(a) for the purposes of determining whether a relevant offence has been committed, or(b) in relation to an item that the officer concerned reasonably believes to be relevant evidence.(7) The officer may require any person on the premises to provide any help or facilities, with respect to matters under the persons’s control, that the officer considers would facilitate the exercise of a power conferred on the officer by this section.(8) This section—(a) does not confer power to search a person;(b) does not confer power to seize an item that is an excluded item (see section 23).(9) Subsections (3) and (4) of section 21 apply for the purposes of this section as they apply for the purposes of that one.”Member’s explanatory statement
The new clause inserted by this amendment contains most of the powers of accredited civilian officers that are currently contained in clauses 20, 21 and 22, but not the power to break open containers.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the second of the new clauses inserted by the Minister’s amendments after clause 22.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the second of the new clauses inserted by the Minister’s amendments after clause 22.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the second of the new clauses inserted by the Minister’s amendments after clause 22.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17 and the first of the new clauses inserted by the Minister’s amendments after clause 22.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment of clause 19 at page 12, line 22.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the second of the new clauses inserted by the Minister’s amendments after clause 22.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
“Contracts of insurance etc
(1) A transaction under which a person acquires an item in pursuance of an existing contract of insurance is not a purchase or sale of the item for the purposes of this Act.(2) A transaction under which an item—(a) is acquired by a regulated insurer acting in the course of the insurer’s business as such, or(b) is acquired, in pursuance of a regulated insurance contract, by a person who is or was an insured person in relation to the item under that contract,is not a purchase or sale of the item for the purposes of this Act.(3) In this section—“existing contract of insurance” means a contract of insurance entered into before the day on which section 1 comes into force;“insurance” includes reinsurance;“regulated insurance contract” means a contract of insurance effected or carried out by a regulated insurer;“regulated insurer” means a person who has permission to effect or carry out contracts of insurance under Part 4A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.”Member’s explanatory statement
Under this amendment the prohibition in clause 1 would not apply to a transaction under a pre-commencement insurance contract; or in a case where (for example) a regulated insurer acquires title to an item from an insured person who has been paid out following a theft, or re-sells the item to the insured person if it is later recovered.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this new clause tabled in the name of my noble friend the Minister and to which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has added his name means that existing insurance arrangements concerning ivory items are, for the most part, not affected by the Bill. It also ensures that owners will be able to continue to insure ivory items by exempting regulated insurance activities from the prohibition in Clause 1. Noble Lords will recall that this matter was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in Committee and I am extremely grateful to him for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships’ House and for his ongoing assistance in this matter. I am sorry only that he has had to travel this evening and will therefore not be able to contribute to this debate.
The proposed new clause contains measures that will provide comfort to owners of items containing ivory and to insurers. It ensures that any insurance policy for, or covering, an item containing ivory that is extant at the time of commencement of this Bill is not affected by the Bill.
Secondly, the proposed new clause also exempts from the prohibition at Clause 1 a transfer of ownership from an insured person to an insurance company where the activity is regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as the result of the insurer paying out on a claim made against that item. Further, if that item is subsequently recovered and the original owner chooses to exercise their right to buy it back from the insurer in exchange for return of the consideration paid out, this will also be exempted from the definition of dealing in Clause 1.
However, should the original owner choose not to exercise this right, the insurance company will not be permitted to sell the item on to a third party for its pecuniary salvage value unless that item meets one of the categories of exemption and is registered or certified as such. The proposed new clause also covers transactions between insurers and reinsurers, for example when there is a takeover of an insurance business or when policies are transferred between insurers and reinsurers.
While the objective of the Bill is to prohibit the trade in items containing ivory, there is no desire to have an undue impact on the insurance industry or on consumers who own such items and wish to insure them. There will also be a desire for museums to be able to insure items containing ivory alongside other important pieces within their collections. This proposed new clause allows them to do so.
This proposed new clause will not in any way undermine the main objective of the Bill: to prevent trade in items containing ivory. It does, however, ensure a functioning insurance market for those owners of items containing ivory who wish to access it. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester
I rise merely to thank the Minister for clarifying these issues around insurance, which will be helpful to many people. The noble Baroness has our support.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of subsections (1A) and (1B) inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 21, line 4, read with the Minister’s amendment of clause 37 at page 22, line 24.
“( ) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under subsection (2) are subject to the affirmative procedure.( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under subsection (2) (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before the National Assembly for Wales and approved by a resolution of the Assembly. ( ) Regulations made by the Northern Ireland department under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 21, line 4, read with the Minister’s amendment of clause 37 at page 22, line 24. (For the meaning of “subject to the affirmative procedure” see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010; for the meaning of “the Northern Ireland department” see the Minister’s amendment of clause 36 at page 21, line 36.)
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment leaving out clause 17 and the first of the new clauses inserted by the Minister’s amendments after clause 22.
““the appropriate national authority” has the meaning given by section 37(1A) and (1B);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a signpost to the definition of “the appropriate national authority” inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.
““the Northern Ireland department” means the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “the Northern Ireland department” for the purposes of the Minister’s amendments of clauses 35 and 37 and Schedule 1 that use the expression.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment of clause 18 at page 12, line 9.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
“(1A) In this Act “the appropriate national authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State, for regulations that do not apply in relation to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland;(b) the Welsh Ministers, for regulations that apply only in relation to Wales; (c) the Scottish Ministers, for regulations that apply only in relation to Scotland; (d) the Northern Ireland department, for regulations that apply only in relation to Northern Ireland.(1B) But in the case of regulations that apply in relation to England and any other part of the United Kingdom, or in relation to any other part of the United Kingdom and not England, the appropriate authority is the Secretary of State if each necessary consent is given.The “necessary consent” is—(a) the consent of the Welsh Ministers if the regulations apply in relation to Wales;(b) the consent of the Scottish Ministers if the regulations apply in relation to Scotland;(c) the consent of the Northern Ireland department if the regulations apply in relation to Northern Ireland.(1C) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland department before making regulations prescribing a fee under section 3(1)(h), 4(7)(b), 5(4) or 10(1)(g).”Member’s explanatory statement
The inserted subsections (1A) and (1B), read with the amendments substituting references to “the appropriate national authority”, require most regulations under the Bill applying outside England to be made either by the relevant devolved authorities or with their consent. Under the inserted subsection (1C) the Secretary of State must consult those authorities before setting fees by regulations.
“( ) A power to make regulations under this Act—(a) is exercisable by statutory instrument, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers;(b) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)), in the case of regulations made by the Northern Ireland department.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments replacing references to the Secretary of State with references to the appropriate national authority. (The amendment does not mention regulations made by the Scottish Ministers because the relevant provision is made by section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments replacing references to the Secretary of State with references to the appropriate national authority.
“( ) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under this Act, other than regulations under section 35(2), is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.( ) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under this Act, other than regulations under section 35(2), are subject to the negative procedure.( ) Regulations made by the Northern Ireland department under this Act, other than regulations under section 35(2), are subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments replacing references to the Secretary of State with references to the appropriate national authority.(For the meaning of “subject to the negative procedure” see section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010.)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendments to clause 2 at page 2, line 18 (first amendment); to clause 3 at page 2, line 39; to clause 4 at page 4, lines 21 and 28; to clause 10 at page 6, line 37; and to clause 11 at page 7, line 32.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanation of subsections (1A) and (1B) inserted in clause 37 by the Minister’s amendment at page 22, line 24.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 29, line 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 29, line 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 29, line 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 29, line 6.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 29, line 6.
(a) the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland department, and(b) any other persons”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland department before publishing guidance (or revised guidance) under paragraph 21 of Schedule 1.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment of clause 18 at page 11, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment of clause 18 at page 11, line 17.
Lord Cormack
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s amendment of clause 18 at page 11, line 17.
Lord Cormack
“Whereas in 1989 the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) agreed to ban the international trade in African elephant ivory; and the resolution adopted at the 2016 Conference of Parties to CITES agreed to phase out domestic ivory markets which contributed to poaching or illegal trade in ivory:
And whereas it is expedient to give effect in the United Kingdom to the restrictions on domestic trade:”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would insert a Preamble linking the Bill to the resolution adopted unanimously by governments at the 2016 Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) which called on all governments to close domestic ivory markets which contribute to poaching or illegal trade in ivory.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 104, which deals with the Government’s obligations in the international CITES resolution. We debated this issue in Committee and it remains a concern to a number of the wildlife and elephant charities. This amendment would insert a preamble linking the Bill to the resolution adopted unanimously by Governments at the 2016 conference of parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora—CITES. This calls on all Governments to close domestic ivory markets, which contribute to the poaching of and illegal trade in ivory.
As we explained in Committee, the government amendments introduced on Report in another place, while welcome, had the accidental consequence of removing the explicit link between the Bill and CITES. There is now nothing in the Bill to make it clear that this legislation was drafted partly in response to the resolution adopted unanimously by Governments at the 2016 conference of parties to CITES.
We raised this concern in Committee, where the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, reaffirmed the importance and relevance of CITES. However, he argued that an explicit link in the preamble was unnecessary, given that the aforementioned government amendment made it possible to go further than CITES and broaden the scope of the Bill to all ivory species.
While we welcome this provision, we nevertheless believe that such a preamble would strengthen the Act against possible judicial and European Court of Human Rights challenges by confirming that the legislation enables the UK to comply with international obligations to control domestic ivory markets under a UN-backed treaty. Moreover, as the Minister himself noted:
“No other provision in the Bill could be limited by a reference to CITES”.—[Official Report, 12/9/18; col. 2353.]
We therefore do not accept that the reference to CITES is as limiting as the Minister would have us believe. Indeed, there are precedents for this, notably in the original legislation to implement CITES in the UK under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. This Act also covered thousands of non-CITES species.
We believe that this amendment, contrary to what the Minister has argued, would have the effect of strengthening rather than weakening the Bill. I beg to move this amendment and hope that noble Lords will support it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s amendment would insert a preamble to the Bill to reference the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, and the important resolution agreed at the CITES COP 17 regarding closing elephant ivory markets.
In Committee, I assured the noble Baroness that the removal of a link to CITES in the Bill was not an unintended consequence. It was as a direct result of the amendment made in the other place to enable the Secretary of State to broaden the scope of the Bill in the future to all ivory-bearing species, rather than only those listed under CITES. We are confident that there is no need for a reference to CITES in the Bill, and we do not believe that it would provide additional protection to the Bill, for example against legal challenge.
In Committee, I reassured your Lordships that, as a very active party to CITES, the UK will continue to be bound by and committed to its obligations under this important convention. The UK ivory ban is consistent with our obligations under both CITES and the EU wildlife trade regulations, and therefore neither need to be cited in the Bill. It is also the case that the ban goes much further than both CITES and the EU wildlife trade regulations in restricting the commercial dealing in ivory.
For example, amending Clause 35 to remove reference to CITES species and include reference to all ivory-bearing species means that all ivory-bearing species—not only CITES species—can be added to the scope of the Bill in the future if the outcome of an information-gathering exercise, such as a consultation, supports this. Therefore, the UK has gone further than outlined in the CITES resolution on elephant ivory. While I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention to provide protection to the Bill, again I must say that we do not believe the preamble is required.
I want to make one other practical point following advice I have received. The noble Baroness referred to a preamble from much earlier legislation. It is now the case that primary legislation uses the long title to specify a Bill’s objectives, instead of a preamble.
I well understand all the connections with CITES and the EU trade regulations, but this Bill goes further. Therefore, we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment, for the reasons I have outlined, and I ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. We accept that the Bill has gone further than the original CITES treaty. Our objective in putting the CITES reference in the preamble was to firm up the Government’s justification, if you like, for having the Bill in the first place. We have been debating this for several days now and we are still trying to justify why we have to do it, and this is part of the continuing justification.
Given that there is still some unhappiness out there—if not indeed in your Lordships’ Chamber—our intention with what has been proposed in the Ivory Bill was to give it some legal extra bottom, if you like, in terms of why we are doing it by referring to a UN-backed treaty. Nevertheless, I accept that the Minister is saying that this was not an unintended consequence but was in fact deliberate. Time will tell whether it would have helped to have our reference in the preamble, because only in time will we know whether there are legal challenges to this.
However, given the lateness of the hour, we do not intend to move to a vote. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.