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, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Before I answer these questions, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering our condolences to the family and friends of Sir Jeremy Heywood, who passed away at the weekend. He demonstrated all that is precious in our civil service through the way in which he supported Governments of all colours, and the manner in which he supported four Prime Ministers. He showed leadership, real focus and ingenuity in dealing with challenging issues, as well as calmness and a real sense of humour. I know that he will be missed by everyone on both sides of the House.
Unfair leasehold practices have no place in a modern housing market, and neither do excessive ground rents that exploit consumers. I will be making clear to developers at a roundtable meeting later this week the need for the industry to provide greater support to existing leaseholders.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and I would like to associate myself with his remarks about the sad death of Sir Jeremy Heywood.
Will the Secretary of State explain how the steps he has outlined will help my constituent, Linda Barnes, who owns a flat that is valued at £80,000 and pays an onerous ground rent of £400 a year on it? What help will he give so that such flats can become attractive to buyers again?
James Brokenshire
I am conscious of some of the bad practices in the leasehold market, which is why I will be meeting the industry later this week to underline the need for redress and for solutions to be offered to people who have in some cases been mis-sold. I certainly take this seriously. I have also written to the Competition and Markets Authority and to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority, in the knowledge that there are serious questions about some of the practices involved, in order to ensure that we are taking action on a number of fronts in response to the challenges that the hon. Lady rightly highlights.
Liz Twist
Three weeks ago, members of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee held a roundtable for leaseholders at the start of our inquiry. They told us about the problem of escalating ground rents that trap them in homes that they can no longer sell. They made it clear that they wanted existing leaseholds to be ended; does the Secretary of State agree with them?
James Brokenshire
We are working with the Law Commission around greater enfranchisement in order to bring leaseholds to an end. I am also conscious that at least one provider in the market has offered some means of redress and of dealing with some of the issues, but the point is that we need to go further, and that is what I shall be challenging representatives of the industry on when I meet them later this week.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that he is going to commit to doing all he can for residential leaseholders on existing leases, which are abusive. It is still not too late for the Competition and Markets Authority to declare some of those leases to be so unfair as to be unenforceable.
I hope that, in time, the Secretary of State will meet representatives of the industry, along with the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership and the Leaseholder Association —and perhaps the Chairman of the Select Committee, which is having hearings this afternoon—and that the campaigners and the industry will all meet together so that the Secretary of State is not hearing one thing in one ear and another thing in the other. We have to represent the leaseholders.
James Brokenshire
I hear my hon. Friend’s message very clearly indeed. We have been provided with a number of examples of egregious practice, and I intend to challenge some of the concerns that have been flagged to me. I am sure that we will continue to have this conversation, but I have noted his points.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Law Commission process grinds on, but what advice can be given in the meantime to constituents who present with the most outrageous charges?
James Brokenshire
Advice is being given by LEASE and others, but this is about transparency and providing more support, which is where the industry has a key role to play. That is why we will be making these points to the industry later this week, as well as looking at where the regulatory aspects might sit.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Leaseholders in several private blocks in Leeds are being asked to pay huge bills to deal with unsafe cladding. The cost is between £10,000 and £28,000 for each leaseholder at Skyline Apartments, and the total cost of replacing the cladding in the Saxton development could be as high as £8 million. Given that my constituents are being asked to pay money that they do not have to deal with a problem that they did not create, when will the Government stop urging freeholders not to charge leaseholders and actually prevent them from doing so by law?
James Brokenshire
We have taken several steps and put significant pressure on the industry, and that is starting to have an impact as many freeholders take the necessary steps to make buildings safe without passing on the costs to leaseholders, who should not bear them. I am happy to consider the right hon. Gentleman’s specific examples, because we are in direct contact with several different agencies, and indeed with local government about taking enforcement action, to see that work is done.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answers. I urge the Government to bring in legislation to bar such charges in future, but we would still need to address those who have been unfairly put in this position in the first place. I therefore urge my right hon. Friend to consider not only legislation for the future, but retrospective legislation to address the egregious practices that have taken place.
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend will know, we are consulting on the implementation of a ban on inappropriate leaseholds on homes, which are the core of what we are discussing. Legislation will come forward once we have seen the responses to our technical consultation, and there will obviously be plenty of opportunity for colleagues to debate the matter further.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I start by formally echoing the Secretary of State’s comments about Sir Jeremy Heywood. Many of us were privileged to work with Sir Jeremy, and he was an exceptional civil servant who gave outstanding service to this country. Our deep sympathies are with his wife and family at this time.
As we have heard, many of us have constituents who bought their home but then found that they do not own it and feel ripped off by unfair leasehold contracts. When we hear, repeatedly, that leasehold buyers did not choose their own solicitor, were wrongly told that they could buy their freehold cheaply at any time, or found out later that they had to ask and pay freeholders for permission to own a pet, change their carpets or build a conservatory, the individual cases add up to something bigger. The Government must act, just as with other mis-selling scandals, such as on pensions, mortgages or payment protection insurance. Will the Secretary of State today back an inquiry into this systematic mis-selling to leaseholders?
James Brokenshire
I recognise and appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about Sir Jeremy Heywood. I know that that message will have been heard throughout the House.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee’s investigation into leasehold is live, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman recognises the seriousness with which we take the issues that he and others have flagged, and the troubling matters that pertain to some of the practices within the leasehold market. That is why I am taking action.
John Healey
It is not the Select Committee’s action that counts, but the Government’s action, which has been too weak and too slow and, critically, largely overlooks the plight of existing leaseholders. An industry survey shows that six in 10 leaseholders did not even know what being a leaseholder meant until after they had bought, and that nine in 10 regret having bought a leasehold at all. Those are classic signs of mis-selling—it is a national scandal. I will give the Secretary of State another chance: when will he stand up for leaseholders and launch an inquiry into mis-selling?
James Brokenshire
Nobody is ignoring the issue. That is not only why we are legislating to address the inappropriate use of leasehold for new homes, but why I have underlined today the requests that I have made of the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Competition and Markets Authority. We recognise that there are serious issues, which is why we are taking action. We want to ensure that leaseholders’ concerns are heard and fully understood, and that redress can be provided.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As usual, I ask people to note my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
In December 2017 we updated the homelessness code of guidance for local authorities, chapter 17 of which makes it clear that, when possible, local authorities should place families as close as possible to where they were previously living.
Ms Buck
There has been a 40% rise in London households being moved out of London by their local authority, and my own experience shows that local authorities are also moving families in unprecedented numbers away from their community, their children’s schools, their workplaces and their support. The code of guidance is clearly not working, so can the Minister tell us unambiguously that local authorities should, under no circumstances, expect children to commute to school from temporary accommodation for two, three or even four hours every day?
Mrs Wheeler
I do understand the particular problem that the hon. Lady is having in Westminster, but it is the London boroughs. We have been clear that placing families out of borough should be a last resort, and we have now committed £40 million to a London collaborative project that will ensure that families are placed in temporary accommodation close to home. We also recently launched the £20 million private rented sector access fund to support those who are homeless, or who are at risk of becoming homeless, to access sustainable accommodation. Finally, our specialist homelessness advisers are working closely with London boroughs in particular to provide support to limit the number of out-of-borough moves altogether.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Housing First initiative has clear potential to prevent homelessness. What is the Department doing to monitor the effectiveness of pilots in Manchester and other cities, and what are its plans for taking the evidence forward?
Mrs Wheeler
My hon. Friend is right. The Housing First projects in Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool are backed by the £1.2 billion that we have committed to tackle all forms of homelessness and rough sleeping across the country through to 2020. Housing First and the private rented sector access fund are also providing local authorities with flexible funding to tackle the homelessness pressures they are facing.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The guidance also says that an authority moving a homeless family out to another area should inform the receiving authority within 14 days. I have written to the Minister twice about this issue, and she has replied that Peterborough City Council is systematically dumping homeless families in Travelodges across South Yorkshire without telling the receiving authority. What will she do to ensure that the statutory guidance passed by this House is actually enforced and that authorities do not continue to flout it?
Mrs Wheeler
The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous Member and does such a good job of chairing the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee —[Interruption.] Do you mind? We are trying to get there; let us have a bit of civility, shall we?
I have written again to the hon. Gentleman, and the important thing is that we have now had frank words with the local authority in Peterborough to say that it should have informed the receiving authorities—it has now done that. The team we have put together to help with homelessness is having a special word with Peterborough and other councils that were thinking of placing homeless people out of borough.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Homelessness has risen in each and every one of the past seven years. In the last year alone, 440 homeless people have died. The Budget pledged nearly £10 billion to a poorly targeted help-to-buy scheme, but it failed to mention homelessness once. Now the Secretary of State has scrimped together a measly £15,000 each for councils to tackle winter pressures. Will that guarantee that we will not see any rough sleepers on the streets this winter?
Mrs Wheeler
Sadly I do not have a crystal ball, but what I do have is a team of fantastic advisers who are making sure that councils have put in really good bids to help rough sleepers. Secondly, there is money: £40 million, £30 million, £75 million and, now, another £5 million. This Government take homelessness and rough sleeping extremely seriously, and we are the only Government who have put it in our manifesto that we want to halve homelessness and rough sleeping. We will be looking after the most vulnerable people in 2020, and we will finish this altogether in 2027. The answer is that the Government and the money that taxpayers are providing are doing their best.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
Councils will receive a real-terms increase in financial resources both this year and next. Furthermore, the Department funds the Local Government Association to provide support for local authorities to build leadership capacity, conduct peer reviews and facilitate efficiency initiatives.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the Minister for that. What help is being provided specifically for Somerset County Council to cope with the escalating demands of adult social care and children’s services? Will he bear in mind that Somerset County Council desperately needs £80 million from the housing infrastructure fund in order to cope with providing much-needed future infrastructure?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is tireless in pressing Somerset’s case. We listened carefully to her and others, and the Budget confirmed an additional £650 million for social care next year, and indeed an additional £500 million for the housing infrastructure fund. I am sure that the Minister for Housing will have heard her submission, but given what I have said, and the LGA’s specific support for Somerset with its children’s services, I hope she feels that we are responding to Somerset’s concerns and hers.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not know whether the Minister has ever heard the song “Streets of London” by Ralph McTell, but it is worth listening to just to be reminded of what the streets of every town in this country are like: how run down they are; how many rough sleepers there are; how much deterioration there is; how much graffiti there is; and how many broken pavements there are. That is what my constituents see in my town, and it is happening up and down this country because this Government have starved our country’s local government service.
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman may want to talk this country down, but Conservative Members have enormous faith in towns and communities up and down this country, which was why in the Budget we backed Britain’s high streets with a £675 million fund. We did that because we believe in local communities taking control of their high streets and developing vibrant communities that we will enjoy for years to come.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that local authorities in rural areas can deliver public services effectively?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend has met me and others to discuss the cost of delivering services in rural areas, particularly in Leicestershire. His local county council has been a vocal proponent of a new fair funding formula, and I am pleased to tell him that we are engaged with his council and others to take into account those concerns, and we will shortly be issuing the latest round of consultation on those proposals.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
When one of the councils serving my constituency still faces £43 million of cuts over the next four years—more than the combined total it currently spends on recycling, parks, libraries, children’s centres, roads and pavements, and community safety—does the Secretary of State agree with the Prime Minister that austerity is over, or does he share the incredulity of so many of my constituents who wonder how she could possibly be so out of touch?
Rishi Sunak
This Government believe in backing local authorities to build strong communities. The hon. Lady mentioned parks and roads. Perhaps she heard in the Budget about £420 million for our councils to fix potholes this winter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently announced another round of our hugely successful pocket parks programme, and I encourage her local authority to bid as well.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
In Northampton- shire, the borough councils, the district councils and the county council are all working together to set up two new unitary authorities. Is the excellent Minister able to say when he is going to consult on that? Secondly, is he able to say when he will make a decision on whether next year’s borough and district council elections need to go ahead?
Rishi Sunak
May I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to all the local councillors in Northamptonshire, who are working very constructively together through a difficult situation to ensure that their residents benefit at the end of the process? I can tell him that reasonably shortly we will be issuing details about the next step of that process. As he rightly points out, as part of that the Government may have the ability to delay the elections next year, should that be requested by the authorities and make sense in the context of the new unitisation proposals.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
This Government’s record on local government is clear: since 2010, the Department’s budget has fallen by at least £13 billion; and, by 2020, the revenue support grant will be cut by 80%—£8 billion—putting more pressure on to council tax, which is an unequal levy. Northamptonshire has, in effect, gone bust, with the media reporting that Surrey, East Sussex and Lancashire are next in line. Services are under pressure—cut, slashed or stopped altogether—and councils are at breaking point. The Public Accounts Committee asked Ministers to publish a definition of “financial sustainability” for councils, methodology for assessing authorities at financial risk, and projections for spending and demand in service areas, so why have they refused? This is common sense; what has the Minister got to hide?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman has a job to do, and I appreciate that—it is his job to put pressure on us—but I would have thought that this week, after all the question sessions we have had, he would have joined me in welcoming last week’s Budget, which includes £1 billion extra for local government across two years.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
The publication of the national planning policy framework provides greater clarity and certainty for the development of homes. We are examining the recommendations of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) on the build-out review and will respond in full in February.
Sir Nicholas Soames
The Government would see greater progress in their quest to shorten the time it takes to build new homes if people were able to have greater confidence in the design and layout of large housing developments. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the steps he is taking to get that done, but does he agree that what really worries people is not only the housing but the inability to provide adequate social infrastructure to cope with massive amounts of new housing where there simply is not currently the infrastructure to support it?
James Brokenshire
I recognise the points that my right hon. Friend highlights and welcome his support for the Building Better, Building Beautiful commission, which will look at that sense of place and the identity between our built environment and how we live our lives. He also rightfully highlights the issues relating to infrastructure. I hope that he will welcome the extra £500 million that the Chancellor committed in last week’s Budget to the housing infrastructure fund to deal with the issues that he rightly points out.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Some 140,000 children are waiting in temporary accommodation for new homes. In the meantime, how long does the Secretary of State think it is acceptable for a child to have to travel to school—two hours? Three hours? Some children are getting home at 9 pm because their school is so far away from where they are placed.
James Brokenshire
The point that the hon. Lady makes is about the need to build more homes, which is precisely what we are doing as a Government. We are ensuring that housing associations are building more with the £9 billion fund, and by lifting the borrowing caps we are ensuring that councils can build more, along with what the private sector is doing. That way, people can have strong communities and the services that they need close at hand.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State recognise that one of the best ways to bring forward more new homes quickly is to support my Housing Reform Bill, which has support from Members from all parties, including some of the House’s most distinguished Members? The Bill’s requirement on the Secretary of State to provide serviced plots for sale or for rent to rich people and poor people, social tenants and others, would do a lot to solve our housing crisis.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tireless championing of the issues that he has highlighted. The Minister for Housing will meet him shortly to discuss a number of the elements that he has highlighted. I hope that he recognises some of the steps taken through the national planning policy framework that will support his agenda.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
All tenants deserve a safe and decent place to live. In respect of the private rented sector, Lord Best is chairing a new working group on property agent regulation, and we have extended mandatory licensing. The social housing Green Paper contains proposals to drive up the performance of social landlords in delivering a good service.
Mr Prisk
I welcome the reforms, especially the requirement for all residential managers to be trained and qualified. That is the way to raise standards. However, there are concerns about how the requirement may be introduced. Will the Minister agree to a meeting to discuss how existing qualifications will be accredited by the proposed mandatory qualifications, so that we do not end up worsening the current shortage of competent managers?
Kit Malthouse
With his usual accuracy, my hon. Friend identifies an issue critical to getting this matter right. As he knows, the working group will be looking at the entire property agent sector to ensure that any new regulatory framework is joined up across letting, property management and estate agents. One of the key issues in making that new regulatory framework land will be the transition from the old to new, and I will be more than happy—indeed it would be foolish of me not to agree—to meet a former Housing Minister of such standing.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
According to the Government’s own figures, there are more than 10,000 rogue landlords operating in England. Will the Minister therefore explain to tenants who are suffering from damp and often unsafe conditions why none of these landlords appears on the Government’s new rogue landlord database?
Kit Malthouse
As the hon. Lady knows, the database was introduced earlier this year and it will take time to populate in order for landlords to appear on it. There will obviously have to be investigations, prosecutions, and penalties levied so that they can properly be entered on to the database. She will know that the introduction of banning orders and a rogue landlord database will have an enormous impact in future. We just have to make sure that we get the right names on it.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Having man’s best friend by one’s side can make a massive difference to somebody who is suffering from loneliness, social isolation or mental health issues. I am aware of at least one local authority that has taken the retrograde step of banning its tenants from keeping a pet. Will my hon. Friend please look at the guidance given to local councils, because, to many people, having a pet is their lifeline?
Kit Malthouse
As part of a family who regard their pet cat as an intrinsic and important member of our household—[Interruption.] Well, hon. Members may well be amused by that, but it is true what my hon. Friend says: a number of people, particularly those who live alone or those who have children, rely on their pets for comfort and calm and for companionship. I would hope that all local authorities operated a humane and compassionate letting policy where this is concerned, and I would be more than happy to look at the rules around that.
Mr Speaker
I empathise very strongly with the Minister, and there should be no levity over this important matter. Our own household cat is very fundamental to our way of life and is suitably named Order.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I have no pets to declare to the House.
On behalf of my party, I offer our condolences on the passing of Sir Jeremy Heywood and our thanks for his service in public life.
It was encouraging to hear that the UK Government are to follow the example set in 2015 by the Scottish Government and introduce mandatory five-year electrical safety checks on rental homes. Will the Minister confirm a start date for those checks?
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid that I will have to write to the hon. Lady with that answer as I do not have it to hand at the moment, but she is quite right that we have been reviewing standards generally in the private rented sector and considering what more we can do to make sure that private rented homes are as safe as they can possibly be.
Alison Thewliss
That is a disappointing response, particularly considering how important safety is to people renting accommodation. Citizens Advice found that renters in England who complain about issues with their home are statistically more likely to get evicted. The Scottish Government abolished no-fault evictions recently. Will the Minister consider doing likewise so that tenants in England do not fear reporting faults with their homes?
Kit Malthouse
We certainly want to make sure that the phenomenon of revenge evictions is stamped out and that there is an equality of power between tenants and landlords in both the social and the private rented sectors.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
We are undertaking a fair funding review of local authorities’ relative needs and resources to address concerns about the fairness of the current system. This will determine the new funding allocations for local authorities through a more up-to-date and fairer funding formula.
Robert Courts
Rural areas are historically underfunded and in West Oxfordshire we need more funding for road repairs, upgrades to the A40 and adult social care. How is fairer funding progressing and will this be addressed in the spending review?
Rishi Sunak
I am pleased to say that we are making very good progress and are considering many of the topics raised by hon. Members, including rapidly changing demographics affecting social care and the cost of delivering services in rural areas. I look forward to collaborating closely with the sector and with my hon. Friend’s county as we look to introduce a simple, accurate and transparent new funding formula.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
If funding is so equitable, why is North Lincolnshire Council giving people on the lowest incomes such a low level of support with their council tax, at only 50%? Why is the council sending nearly all its discretionary housing payments back to the Government?
Rishi Sunak
Decisions about local council tax support are rightly for individual local authorities to make themselves; it would not be appropriate for me to dictate to them. The fairer funding formula is designed to determine the equitable nature of funding distributed to all local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will know that the current system dates back to 2013-14, and indeed many elements date back decades before that. We are determined to fix it and bring it up to date.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I thank the Minister for supporting the measures in the Budget exempting public toilets from business rates and providing a commitment to take action regarding second home owners who are avoiding business rates. I very much welcome his words on a fair funding formula, but when the fair funding formula was previously introduced, it was dampened away. Will he make a commitment that rural councils really will see the benefit of a new fairer formula this time?
Rishi Sunak
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and, indeed, to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) for successfully placing in the Budget measures on public toilet relief and second homes. With regard to my hon. Friend’s second point, I am determined to ensure that the new formula is transparent and that all local authorities—not just those in rural areas—have a clearer idea about their allocation under the new formula, and transition to those new allocations in a relatively short timeframe.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
A recent report by the New Policy Institute shows that the majority of local government cuts have fallen on the 10 most deprived councils, despite the fact that they have higher numbers of looked-after children and adults needing social care and other council services. Will the Minister now commit to funding councils properly and according to levels of need, rather than political colour, as the Government appear to be doing at the moment?
Rishi Sunak
It is simply not the case that that is how funding is determined. Although out of date, the current funding formulas do contain deprivation measures and funding is distributed on the basis of need. That is also how the new funding for adult social care, announced just last week, will be distributed—according to the relative needs formula.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
The Government have listened and responded to the pressures faced by local authorities. The autumn Budget helped to support financial sustainability of local authorities and provided more than £1 billion of additional funding across this year and next year for local authorities to deliver local services, support vulnerable residents and build vibrant communities.
Lilian Greenwood
I welcome the short-term support for adult social care promised in last week’s Budget, but it is a sticking plaster at best. In Nottingham, it costs an average of £450 a week to care for someone at home, compared to £2,500 in hospital. Our NHS trusts are already raising concerns about winter pressures. Inadequate social care provision adds to those pressures and will inevitably cost the Government more in the long term. I know that the Minister understands the importance and efficacy of early intervention and prevention, so can he provide any assurances that he understands the need to fund adult social care sustainably and tell us what support will be provided from 2020 onwards?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the importance of prevention, and of the interaction between the NHS and social care. Later this year, we will see the publication of the Government’s Green Paper with a long-term sustainable settlement for social care. That will answer her question as to the settlement for social care beyond next year in the spending review.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) just mentioned Cambridge University research published last month showing that local authority spending cuts have been concentrated on the poorest areas, making disparities with better-off areas much worse. Phasing out central Government grants, as Ministers are proposing, will make that even worse. Are Ministers happy just to let the disparities between different areas rocket?
Rishi Sunak
It may be worth pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman that core spending power per household in the most deprived local authority areas in the country is 23% higher than that in the least deprived. This Government support all communities with the resources that they need.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
Since 2010, we have delivered over 378,000 new affordable homes, including 129,000 for social rent. We are investing over £9 billion in the affordable homes programme to deliver more than 250,000 new affordable homes, including at least 12,500 for social rent.
Ian Austin
There are thousands of households languishing on Dudley’s waiting lists. I meet families every single week who are desperate for a home of their own. Funding for new affordable homes has fallen from over £4 billion in 2009-10 to less than £500 million last year, and the amount of social housing built for rent is actually falling to its lowest level since the war. In that context, what hope do my constituents have of the decent, secure and affordable home that they dream of?
Kit Malthouse
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are throwing literally everything we have got at the housing market at the moment in the hope that we can build the homes that everybody in the country needs. In particular, in the social sector, we have increased the size of the affordable homes programme. We have reintroduced the idea of social rent; removed the housing revenue account borrowing cap for local authorities; and are setting long-term rent deals for councils and housing associations, enabling them to plan. We have also committed funding beyond 2022 for housing deals and partnerships with housing associations, which we think will deliver significant numbers of houses. It must be remembered that the Labour Government the hon. Gentleman supported induced local authorities to get out of house building. I was a councillor at the time. We were offered large amounts of money to get rid of our housing stock. That has to end. We want councils to start building to address exactly the needs he raises.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In Chelmsford, we are building a new garden community of 10,000 homes, more than one in four of which will be affordable, but the council wants to do more. What measures will there be to allow councils that do not have a housing revenue account also to take advantage of the new schemes that will enable them to borrow and build their own properties?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is right. Quite a number of local authorities, having been induced, as I say, to get out of the house building industry and home-owning function, do not have housing revenue accounts. At the moment, if they construct, build or own more than about 200 council homes they have to open a housing revenue account. We hope that the new freedom we have introduced will enable councils to create innovative partnerships with other social housing providers to build the next generation of council houses.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The net number of social homes for rent built in the last financial year was 7,000, so we are losing a large number of these homes. We all agree that we need a lot more social homes for rent. In order to build more, will the Minister consider local authorities being given first right of refusal when public land comes up for sale, with a sale price based on current use rather than a speculative development price?
Kit Malthouse
I am engaged in an intensive amount of activity on the subject of public land with my ministerial colleagues and those elsewhere. Hon. Members will have seen that we have recently changed the rules so that local authorities can dispose of their own public land at less than market value if they deem there is a social need to do so. Whether or not we can give them first refusal on acquiring that land will depend on their ability to deliver the homes that people need. I am very focused on numbers of homes rather than principles of disposal.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Our policies on affordable homes are almost entirely focused on affordable homes to rent. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should also deliver more affordable homes to purchase?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is one of the most innovative thinkers in housing policy generally, certainly on the Conservative Benches—not that there is much innovation on the Labour Benches, but there we are. He points to an area where there is strong demand. Very large numbers of people who would otherwise be tenants have a strong desire to own, and we would love to see them owning on a discounted basis. Hon. Members will have seen in the Budget the announcement of funding for neighbourhood plans to enable an allocation of discounted homes for sale, particularly in rural areas, and I would be keen to explore the idea further with my hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
I have no reason to think that the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is anything other than an innovative thinker on this and other matters, but it might be of interest to people to know that he is also a distinguished estate agent.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
You rather took the wind from my sails there, Mr Speaker.
The Minister refers to housing associations, and it will not have escaped his notice that the chief executives of housing associations earn on average comfortably more than the Prime Minister, with the upper decile trousering salaries in the eye-watering range of £250,000 to £400,000. Is the Minister entirely comfortable with that?
Kit Malthouse
One issue that we are considering as part of our work on the social housing Green Paper is whether the tenant voice is heard strongly enough at the highest levels of housing associations. We must remember that some of these organisations are extremely large. The largest ones are huge and complex, looking after many hundreds of thousands of people, and the individuals who run them shoulder enormous responsibility and, indeed, risk. It is for those boards, suitably informed by the tenant body, to make decisions about remuneration.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
My recent visit to India provided an important opportunity to promote the midlands engine in that significant market. This month, we announced funding to support the creation of a new locally led development body for Toton, as well as £70 million for the Defence and National Rehabilitation Centre, and we will refresh the midlands engine strategy.
Lee Rowley
A great example of the potential economic development in the midlands is the shortlisting of Barrow Hill in my constituency as the next potential site for the Spanish train manufacturer Talgo. Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming that shortlisting and—fingers crossed—hoping that we get it?
James Brokenshire
I note my hon. Friend’s fingers are crossed. I am delighted to hear that Talgo is considering investing in the UK. I hope he will understand that as there are still a number of locations under consideration, it would be wrong for me to comment further—although, having visited the potential site in his constituency this summer, I can say that it is clearly an excellent site for investment.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The midlands engine is working with Stoke-on-Trent City Council as part of the transforming cities fund and making bids for significant investment. It was heartening to hear the Chancellor refer to that in his speech last Monday. Could the Secretary of State put us out of our misery and announce from the Dispatch Box today that Stoke will receive that funding, which would save a further round of hoop-jumping?
James Brokenshire
As my hon. Friend says, that is a good try. I recognise the way in which the hon. Gentleman has championed Stoke, this initiative and the funding. All I can say is that we will look at that carefully, but I hope he gets a sense of the attention and focus we are giving to the midlands engine.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The midlands engine covers approximately two thirds of Lincolnshire—the county council area—but my constituency is served by the two unitary authorities in the north. Co-ordination of economic policies falls to both the Greater Lincolnshire local enterprise partnership and the Humber local enterprise partnership. Both the local authorities and LEPs would like to maintain the status quo. Could the Secretary of State bear that in mind in the upcoming review?
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend will note the conclusions of the review, particularly in relation to governance and overlapping geographies. It is important that we have reform and work with the LEPs to take this forward, and I look forward to having discussions with the LEP chairs in the coming days.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
I thank my hon. Friends for their questions. We are spending more than £1.2 billion through to 2020, and we have implemented the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, published our £100 million rough sleeping strategy and taken immediate action to begin to reduce the number of people on the streets.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for her reply, and it is great to see her back in her place. As she will know, Torbay is very keen to take forward a Housing First pilot for our bay, to end the scourge of rough sleeping. Can she update us on what plans the Government have for that approach to be adopted?
Mrs Wheeler
We are delighted to be piloting Housing First at scale across England for the first time. The impact of that approach will be measured by a rigorous evaluation, which will ensure that we have the robust evidence base needed to demonstrate its effectiveness and inform future spending decisions.
Will Quince
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the more than 20 homelessness and health charities, including St Mungo’s, which today published a joint open letter to Sir Simon Stevens of NHS England, that to tackle homelessness, we need to ensure that the NHS works with others and local authorities to provide better support for those tackling mental health, alcohol and drug addiction and sleeping rough on our streets?
Mrs Wheeler
My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner on this matter. We appreciate that this is a very high priority for all local constituency MPs on both sides of the Chamber. I certainly agree that wraparound support is crucial to help people who have been sleeping rough to access and sustain accommodation. In our recent rough sleeping strategy, we announced a range of measures, including asking NHS England to spend up to £30 million over five years on health services for rough sleepers.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Street homelessness is a growing problem in my city of Leeds, reflecting inadequate social housing and mental health provision, and cuts to benefits. Big Change Leeds, launched last month, is bringing together everyone trying to help those who are street homeless in our city by giving their time or money. Will the Government welcome this initiative, but more importantly, will they commit their support by giving Leeds City Council the money it needs to address this growing problem in our city?
Mrs Wheeler
Again, I reiterate how very important this question is to everybody on both sides of the Chamber. I had the great pleasure of talking last week to the chief executive of the council in Leeds about the strategy and about the money and the help we are giving to the city. It was a really useful conversation to find a chief executive who is so committed to the project.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Will the Minister say how much money to deal with homelessness she has given to the local authority in Coventry and the charities in Coventry, which tell me that their allocations have been cut? That is no way to deal with homelessness.
Mrs Wheeler
I am very sorry that the charities are telling the local Member that, because overall we are putting in place a £1.2 billion fund for homelessness. I would certainly be very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. His area is part of the greater west midlands project, and the greater west midlands Mayor, Andy Street, has many millions of pounds to help with homelessness—going to Coventry as well as the other parts of the greater west midlands.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
It is right that developers who sold leaseholds with onerous terms should support their customers to amend them. Some developers have introduced assistance schemes, which is welcome, but these must go further and faster. We are meeting developers shortly to discuss progress, and we will take further action as necessary.
Chi Onwurah
The St Mary Magdalene and Holy Jesus Trust in my constituency is a charity that is refusing to allow its leaseholders to extend their leases, in a wholly uncharitable way. The Secretary of State talks about roundtables and reviews, but when will my constituents get some sort of justice and the ability to extend their leases?
Mrs Wheeler
The hon. Lady has a particular problem with a particular trust. The good news is that, following last year’s discussions, the trust has now made an offer to some of her constituents to enable them to purchase their freeholds. I am aware that her constituents have found the freehold purchase price of the leasehold properties to be prohibitive. We are also aware that different formulas are in use to establish the cost of enfranchisement. The Government are looking to standardise enfranchisement processes and have asked the Law Commission to review current arrangements, including the valuation methodology. This will support existing leaseholders by making buying the freehold or extending the leasehold easier, faster and cheaper.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
In the interests of providing a good service, Mr Speaker, I hope you will indulge me if I refer to my answer to the hon. Lady from north of the border, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I just want to say that there is no fixed date at the moment for bringing in the affirmative statutory instrument that will make it mandatory to have five-year electrical checks in the private rented centre, but we are searching for a slot as soon as possible in a crowded and exciting legislative timetable.
In answer to Question 14, the Government are working together to help more people on to the housing ladder. Help to Buy equity loans have helped over 169,000 house- holds to March 2018, 81% were to first-time buyers and 121,500 people have benefited from first-time buyers relief from stamp duty since June 2018.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I am grateful for the cuts in stamp duty for those at the lower end and the help for home ownership, but the higher rates of stamp duty may be having an adverse effect on the housing market. It could cost the Treasury £300 million, so a cut leading to more income, leaving more resources for those at the lower end could be in prospect. Has the Housing Minister raised that with the Treasury?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend is a political toxophilite of the highest order and has fired his arrows into a subject that is the cause of constant discussion between us and the Treasury. He knows that we all acknowledge the effect that stamp duty can have on the market; that is why he may have seen changes in the Budget to stamp duty on shared ownership, which we hope will benefit first-time buyers. However, I will keep him apprised of conversations as we have them.
Mr Speaker
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the tribute framed. It would be very disappointing if he did not.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the number of people who have used Help to Buy who are now in negative equity because of leasehold reform? They cannot sell the properties and the price has fallen, so the taxpayer and the individual are hit.
Kit Malthouse
At this stage, there is no indication from the early returns on Help to Buy that the situation that the right hon. Gentleman raises is occurring. Indeed, early numbers show a higher level of successful redemption than we expected and we hope that that will continue.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
This week, I am meeting developers at a leasehold roundtable to press them to tackle onerous ground rents, and I will attend the Locality Convention in Bristol to acknowledge the hard work of our community organisations and set out our ambition for increased localism.
Wednesday’s celebration of Diwali will be a special moment to reflect and celebrate the triumph of light over darkness and good over evil. As we mourn the tragic events in Pittsburgh, especially in the context of this week’s 80th anniversary of Kristallnacht, we are clear that racism and xenophobia in whatever form have no place in our society and will be confronted in the strongest terms.
Peter Aldous
It was great that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Local Government were able to attend last Wednesday’s launch of the county all-party parliamentary group’s report on social mobility in county areas. Will my right hon. Friend work with the APPG to implement the report’s 11 recommendations, which will do so much to ensure that young people across the country have the opportunity to realise their full potential?
James Brokenshire
That sense of social justice to which my hon. Friend alludes and which was in the report profoundly reflects the Government’s aspirations and intent to see a country that works for everyone. I look forward to continuing to work with him and the APPG in considering the fair funding review and other steps to ensure that we realise that aspiration.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
Trading standards are the foot soldiers in keeping the public from falling victim to unsafe goods, yet cuts to local authorities mean that trading standards budgets have fallen by more than 50% between 2009 and 2019, with a 56% reduction in the number of offices. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute is warning that, as we approach Brexit, the role of those dedicated professionals will be even more crucial. How can they keep the public safe from dodgy and dangerous goods without sustainable funding?
James Brokenshire
We are providing a real terms increase in funding for local government this year and next year, recognising some of the pressures that exist. We continue to support local government and, in the context of Brexit, we are working with it to ensure effective preparations for protecting our communities.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I can tell my hon. Friend that £240 million of the £650 million will distributed in the same way as the budget for the current year and he should have received those figures already. We will shortly write to local authorities and colleagues about the distribution of the second tranche of £410 million.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker
Order. I can scarcely hear the hon. Gentleman. I want to hear his question. I do not know what all this baa-ing is about—something may have been said that has escaped my attention—but that does not remotely concern me at this moment. What does concern me at this moment is that the hon. Gentleman must be heard and he will be heard, however long it takes.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Last week, Southern Landlords Association filed for judicial review on selective licensing in Brighton. The Government’s response was to revoke the licence to regulate the private sector. This is not the first judicial review to derail selective licensing. Irrespective of the particular issue I am working on with the Minister, is it now not time to review the way selective licensing works and to stop judicial reviews, particularly vexatious ones like those from Southern Landlords Association, derailing the ability of councils to regulate the private sector and rogue landlords?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman might like to secure an Adjournment debate on the subject.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
What a very good idea, Mr Speaker. I will not talk about the judicial review in detailed terms—obviously, it is ongoing—but I have been proud to sign off selective licensing in other parts of the country where the council has done a good job. I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in Brighton to urge the local council to review its paperwork. If it comes back with detailed arrangements that I can sign off, I certainly will.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
Mr Speaker, if you ever take the opportunity to visit Southport, like Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, you will find out that its famous high street, Lord Street, inspired the wide boulevards of Paris. The £675 million future high street fund, which that historic high street will hope to access, will be subject to a prospectus published by my Department by the end of the year.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
James Brokenshire
We recognise the pressures on social care, which is why this year an extra £240 million has been committed and £650 million is being committed through the Budget to deal with those pressures. We are looking to long-term sustainability and valuing our local government sector, which is what we do.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Kit Malthouse)
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituents, including those who are tenants. He is right. We have had an enthusiastic response to the midlands right-to-buy pilot, with over 9,000 people applying for a code in the ballot. Over 6,000 of them have been given a code, and we hope that a significant number will come forward to seek the ownership they desire, funded by the £200 million being put towards the pilot.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
James Brokenshire
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s positive outlook as we leave the European Union. We will deliver a positive Brexit, looking outwards into the world and at how we have trade deals in the future. We continue to engage with local councils to ensure that we deliver a smooth and effective Brexit.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Kit Malthouse
I have done better than that—I have met them. I did so just two weeks ago to discuss their fascinating ideas, not least on how we can make the principle of neighbourhood planning work in urban areas, an issue that I know is of great importance to my hon. Friend.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
James Brokenshire
I absolutely recognise and commend what the hon. Gentleman said on how collectively we challenge antisemitism and stand up for the values of this country. I pay tribute to him for the personal contribution that he has made on this issue, and equally, I reflect on the statue of Frank Foley, which the hon. Gentleman was instrumental in bringing into effect. It recognises Frank Foley’s contribution in saving the lives of thousands of Jews fleeing from persecution in Germany, and we must never forget the contribution that he and others have made.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Many of my constituents are suffering from severe stress following the purchase of their homes on unfair leasehold terms. Does the Minister agree that tackling leasehold abuse is a matter of urgency, and will she comment on a timetable for action?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The Government are very clear that unjust leasehold practices must come to an end. We have committed to banning new leasehold houses and restricting ground rents on future leases to a peppercorn. We launched our consultation on the details of these proposals on 15 October. I agree that this is an urgent matter, having read many of the stories of leaseholders facing high or doubling ground rents or struggling to sell their homes, especially in my hon. Friend’s part of the north-west. We will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most effective ways to deal with rising housing costs and rising eviction rates is for councils to follow the lead of my council—Sutton Council—and build council homes, over 90 of which are about to come on-stream very soon?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, and I commend his council for doing that. My council is going to build 175 next year.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will the Department work with the Department of Health and Social Care to use the local reorganisation of local government in Northamptonshire as an opportunity to receive local proposals to develop a pilot for a new integrated social care and health system in the county?
James Brokenshire
We are already taking such steps. On 18 October, we convened a meeting between leaders and chief executives of the Northamptonshire councils and representatives of the local health services to start discussions on how, in future, adult social care may be best provided and integrated with health.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The ill-fated regional fire control centre in Cambridgeshire continues to stand empty, costing £2 million a year. We keep being told that it has been let or that it is about to be sold. When is the Minister going to get a grip?
James Brokenshire
Fire control now resides within the responsibilities of the Home Office, but I will certainly look into the hon. Gentleman’s points in relation to ensuring good value for money.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the establishment of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission and the inspired choice of Sir Roger Scruton as the chairman, but, first, does my right hon. Friend not agree that this will only have any teeth if we can get the volume house builders to buy into it? Secondly, I think that the commission should be extended to look at the quality and the variable advice often given by local planning officers and at a full accreditation scheme for those planning officers on an annual basis to refresh them.
James Brokenshire
I certainly want the new commission to drive quality in the built environment, which is at the heart of what my right hon. Friend said. If we do that, we can speed up this process and get greater support and consent from the public in building the homes that our country needs. I therefore think that the house builders should very much embrace this.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that local councils will see real-terms increases in their budgets. If so, why is Derbyshire County Council planning for £70 million of cuts, on top of the £260 million of cuts already made, and cutting the terms and conditions of its lowest-paid workers in school catering as well as services for the most vulnerable?
James Brokenshire
I recognise the challenges that local government has faced over the past few years and how councils have played their part in dealing with the public finance challenges brought about by the Labour party; let us not forget that when discussing the investment we are making to create that sustainable position for local government.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
As the Minister will know, we are taking thousands of new homes in Corby and east Northamptonshire, and it is imperative that the infrastructure keep pace. Last week, the Chancellor very welcomely announced a new generation of enterprise zones. May I make an early pitch for Corby, because I would argue that we qualify given the housing growth we are taking?
James Brokenshire
I have just been told that it is my hon. Friend’s birthday today. I wish him a happy birthday and note his pitch for perhaps a birthday present. We will note it down.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
A constituent of mine has been a faithful council tenant for 30 years. Over this time, she has invested much in her home. Her ex-partner served notice when he moved out, and now City of York Council is moving to evict her next week. This is having a serious impact on her mental health—among other things, it has led to her feeling suicidal—yet the council still plans to move her. Will the Minister urgently meet me to discuss this case and the mental health assessments of tenants that should take place?
Mrs Wheeler
What a very sad case. Of course, I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Following the Office for National Statistics household projection figures being revised downwards by nearly a quarter, will my hon. Friend the Minister ensure that regional housing targets reflect the easing of pressure to build on the green belt, with particular reference to the Greater Manchester spatial framework?
Kit Malthouse
My hon. Friend may know that we have already issued a technical consultation on the latest household projection numbers and the impact on projected housing need in local authority areas. We really do not want local authorities to take their foot of the accelerator, however, not least because we believe that there is pent-up demand for housing in this country. We are working with authorities across the country to get the formula right in the longer term, while we seek a short-term fix to keep numbers up, but I would be more than happy to meet him and his colleagues to discuss the Manchester spatial framework further.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
Tyne and Wear fire service is facing £3 million of cuts, which could mean the closure of my local fire station. Will the Secretary of State look at the special problems with funding fire services that are facing local government in the north-east?
James Brokenshire
I will certainly raise the hon. Gentleman’s point with colleagues who lead on fire within the Home Office.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
The Labour cabinet in Nuneaton and Bedworth is imposing a £40 garden tax on green waste collection, despite pledging not to do so in May’s local election. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a fundamental change to how people’s waste is collected should not be made without full and proper consultation with the public and buy-in from local people?
Rishi Sunak
My predecessor in this job well knows that such decisions are rightly for local areas to make themselves, but I would say that local authorities should look to tighten their own belts and curb any wasteful spending before increasing the bills of hard-working taxpayers.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Further to the Secretary of State’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George) about Derbyshire County Council’s cuts, the cuts in question are worth more than £200 million, and they were made not by the Labour Government, as he stated, but by the Tory Government in alliance with the Liberal Democrats. To refresh his memory further, I should remind him that we also trebled the amount of money going into the hospital. Now a Tory county council at Matlock has decided to close 20 libraries in the county. That’s politics.
James Brokenshire
I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman about the steps the Government have had to take to put the public finances back on an even keel as a consequence of the Labour party’s actions, and he should well know our commitment to investing in the health service in a way the Labour party would not have done.
Petition
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
It has been a particularly difficult summer for many of the residents of West Berkshire, who have been subjected to illegal Traveller encampments close to where they live—mainly on public land, but in every sense in circumstances that have brought great difficulty to them and their neighbours. I therefore submit a petition to the House on behalf of 244 signatories, with a further 366 on my website, as well as on behalf of the many people across neighbouring constituencies who have suffered from the over 50 illegal encampments we have had in West Berkshire this summer.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Berkshire,
Declares that they have suffered an intolerable imposition from an increasing number of unauthorised encampments.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce legislation to make trespass a criminal offence, and strengthen the powers used by the police to deal with illegal encampments, in addition to those already available under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002285]
Leaving the EU: Rights of EU Citizens
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the arrangements for EU citizens in the event of no deal being agreed in the Article 50 negotiations.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
While we are confident about agreeing a good deal for both sides, as a responsible Government we will continue to prepare for all scenarios, including the unlikely outcome that we leave the EU without any deal in March 2019. We have reached an agreement with the EU on citizens’ rights that will protect EU citizens and their family members who are resident in the UK until the end of the planned implementation period on 31 December 2020.
We are introducing the EU settlement scheme under UK immigration law for resident EU citizens and their family members covered by the draft withdrawal agreement. That will enable those who are resident in the UK before the end of the planned implementation period to confirm their status under the settlement scheme. Anyone who already has five years’ continuous residence in the UK when they apply under the scheme will be eligible to apply for settled status. Those who have not yet reached the point of five years’ continuous residence will be eligible to be granted pre-settled status, and will be able to apply for settled status once they have reached that point.
The Prime Minister has already confirmed that, in the unlikely event of no deal, all EU citizens who are resident here by 29 March 2019 will be welcome to stay. They are part of our community and part of our country, and we welcome the contribution that they make. Last week the Prime Minister extended that commitment to citizens of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, and we are close to reaching an agreement with Switzerland. We will set out further details shortly, so that those affected can have the clarity and certainty that they need.
Yvette Cooper
Unfortunately, the Minister did not give us the clarity that we need. Nor did she clear up the confusion from last week, which I had hoped she would do, especially at a time when there is considerable concern for EU citizens, as well as practical concerns for employers about what arrangements will apply in April, May and June next year if no deal takes place.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to respect the rights of those currently living here, who will be able to stay and work as now, but I am still none the wiser about what checks will apply to those EU citizens in the event of no deal. The Minister and the Home Office officials suggested to us that there would be additional employer checks, and also that free movement would be turned off in March. However, the Home Secretary has told the media that in fact there will be a transition period, and that there will be no additional checks for employers if there is no deal.
Will the Minister tell us whether there will be additional employer checks on EU citizens immediately after no deal—yes or no? Will she confirm that EU citizens will not have to provide anything other than a passport or an identity card in order to be able to work? Will she also tell us whether that will then apply until the completion of the roll-out of the EU settlement scheme, which is due to be completed in June 2021? If not, what on earth are EU citizens supposed to provide as proof of their right to work before June 2021 if the settlement scheme has not been completed?
The Minister and the Home Office have now said that there is no way of differentiating between EU citizens arriving here for the first time and those who have been here for many years. Will the Minister confirm that newly arriving EU citizens will also not have to provide anything other than a passport or an ID card, and that they will continue to be able to work under the same arrangements, also until June 2021?
Those are basic questions that the Home Office really should be able to answer. If the facts are not as I have put them to the Minister, she should be able to tell us what the alternative facts are, what alternative information and proof EU citizens are supposed to provide, and what alternative questions employers are supposed to ask. The clock is ticking, and there are only five months left. Surely the Home Office has a grip of those basic questions.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the right hon. Lady for affording me the opportunity to clarify this point. Employers will of course continue to need to check passports or ID cards—as they do now for EU citizens, and indeed for British citizens, when making a new job offer. We will not be asking employers to differentiate even if there is no deal, and the right hon. Lady will of course be conscious that we are working hard to secure a deal. The Prime Minister has been very clear, as indeed has the Brexit Secretary, that we will honour our commitment to EU citizens and their family members, and more information will be set out in due course, with a specific statement on citizens from the Brexit Secretary, who of course wishes to make clear that people are incredibly important and should not simply be reliant on a technical notice.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
My question is twofold. First, can the Minister give us the timelines under which she expects to be setting out further details? Secondly—this is important for London constituencies like mine, which have a high number of EU workers and businesses that rely on EU workers—can she confirm that this step will be taken in a spirit of understanding that recruitment will be made in good faith by employers and should the rules then be set in a different way to what they had anticipated, that will be borne in mind in relation to fines and any other action that can be currently taken against employers employing people illegally?
Caroline Nokes
My right hon. Friend is right to point out the high numbers of EU citizens in her constituency and indeed employers’ reliance upon them. That is why it is important that we have a reasonable and sensible transition period that gives us time to make sure that any new immigration system sets out the requirements very clearly so that there can be certainty for individuals, and indeed for employers.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware of the very real distress that this confusion over policy, which the Home Office had to correct, has caused to over 3.5 million EU citizens resident in this country—and not just to them, but to their families, dependents and employers? On a related matter, does the Minister remember her reply to a written question in June when she said that providing DNA evidence would be entirely voluntary? Yet the Home Secretary recently had to come before the House and correct that and apologise for the immigration and nationality department imposing mandatory DNA testing. So does the Minister accept that as we move towards leaving the EU this type of confusion over policy is simply not acceptable? It is not just the good faith of Government that she is calling into question, but it is people’s lives that we are playing with. Finally, does the Minister accept that it is simply not good enough to come before this House and talk about further information being provided in due course? There are five months to go and the clock is ticking, and we want no further confusions of this nature.
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Lady will of course know that the full Alcock report is in the House of Commons Library and it sets out very clearly the information regarding the parliamentary question to which she has referred. She also referred to the 3.5 million citizens already in this country: the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Brexit Secretary and indeed myself have been very clear that we want those people to stay, and by opening the EU settled status scheme, which we have done now in private beta testing phase 2, we are already putting in place steps that have enabled in the region of 1,000 people to confirm their status.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
It is very important that the Government are generous and treat properly everybody who has come here lawfully up until the day that we leave, but does my right hon. Friend agree that it is also extremely important that, once we have left, we take back control of our borders?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend will have heard the Prime Minister’s very clear statements on this. As part of Brexit we will end free movement, giving us back control of our borders, which is what I believe people voted for in 2016 and which I know my hon. Friend wants.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Citizens need clarity, and many are here in Parliament today precisely because they have not had it—and, I regret to say, still do not have it. Unilateral guarantees are welcome, but do not provide a complete answer. Do the Government support a ring-fencing of the citizens’ rights provisions in the withdrawal agreement, so that they can be enforced under international law even after a no deal? Is that not the most obvious and best solution to pursue? Has that been discussed at all in negotiations so far? If not, would those unilateral rights be totally unprotected from unilateral change via the immigration rules, and how would pension rights be protected, and rights to access healthcare, or mutual recognition of professional qualifications? Finally, if there is a no-deal Brexit, will the scope and the rights set out for the settled status scheme be just as they are now, or would there be changes—for example, will those short of five years still be able to obtain pre-settled status, and how will people be able to challenge Home Office decisions?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman is right. Citizens need clarity, and that is why this Government have set it out, not only in the citizens’ rights agreement but in the settled status scheme, which, as I have said, is now open in one of its private beta testing phases. Phase 1 went very well, and phase 2 is now under way. After a firebreak over Christmas, we will be opening it up in phase 3. To me, it is obvious that the best solution is to ensure that these rights are enshrined in UK immigration law, which is what we are going to do.
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that around one in seven of my constituents are EU nationals. That is possibly the highest proportion in the country. In my experience, most of them are very appreciative of the guarantees given by the Government so far. Nevertheless, most of them had no reasonable expectation that they would ever have to clarify their immigration status. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that we will treat those cases sensitively and individually? I have quite a few cases involving people who have been here for perhaps 20 years and have strong roots in this country, but who have spent some time abroad during the past five years, for example.
Caroline Nokes
UK Visas and Immigration is already on-boarding significantly increased numbers of caseworkers for the European Economic Area casework that will flow through from the settled status scheme. It is important that individuals are given as easy a journey as possible through the process and, to date, 95% of those who have completed the settled status process have found it easy to do so. My right hon. Friend makes an important point, however. We want to be in a position to support individuals through the process, and to have a “computer says yes” attitude rather than a “computer says no” attitude. People will only have to demonstrate that they have been in the UK, which will in many cases be done best by sharing HMRC records with the Home Office.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
If the UK leaves the EU in March with no deal, and if, as the Minister has told the House this afternoon, employers will not be required to make any additional checks other than asking for an EU passport, she has in effect told the House that free movement will continue after we have left the European Union. Will she now address the question that the Chair of the Select Committee asked her: how long will that situation continue? To many of us, it seems that it will have to continue until such time as an application process for settled status is completed, because only at that point will an employer be able to distinguish between someone who has settled status and someone who arrived the previous day carrying an EU passport.
Caroline Nokes
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated, we are seeking a sensible transition period that will enable the Home Office to ensure that these cases can be caseworked. The Prime Minister has been very clear that free movement will end—[Interruption.] We will in due course set out the future immigration system, which will enable there to be further clarity.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Government legislate, before our departure from the EU on 30 March, for a comprehensive system for immigration, migration and citizenship that is fair to all concerned? That is what we voted for. Does the Minister also understand that a lot of us will not be voting for a withdrawal agreement to pay £39 billion that we do not owe when we need to spend that money here at home?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. As I have said, free movement will end, and over the next few weeks we will set out the parliamentary timetable for the immigration Bill.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
How will free movement end at the end of March if EU citizens, including people arriving here after March, do not have to do anything different, other than produce their EU passport as they do now?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is rather unseemly. Members must not harangue the Minister. She is addressing the House with great courtesy; let us hear her answer.
Caroline Nokes
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think “unseemly” is a perfect description.
As I said, we will be bringing forward the parliamentary timetable for the immigration Bill shortly, and further details will be set out in due course, which I am sure will give the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) satisfaction.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What reciprocal announcements have been made by EU states following the Prime Minister’s generous offer in respect of leaving with no deal?
Caroline Nokes
My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour makes an important point. At every opportunity, Ministers raise both with the EU and our counterparts in the EU27 the important factor of UK citizens lawfully residing in other EU member states. There is of course huge concern that we have made a generous offer to EU citizens, and let me be clear that we want them to stay here and that we regard them as part of our community. It is time for the EU to step up to the plate and say what it is doing for British citizens.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
How will the Minister tell an EU citizen wanting to come here in the next few years whether and when free movement of labour has finished?
Caroline Nokes
As I have said, the parliamentary timetable for the immigration Bill will be coming forward in the next few weeks. Our White Paper will set out the future skills-based immigration system, as the Prime Minister indicated at the recent Conservative party conference, which will be based on people’s ability and what they can offer to our country, not on where they come from.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister share my surprise at recent press reports suggesting that EU citizens living in the United Kingdom after Brexit would be offered full voting rights in Westminster parliamentary elections? Will she confirm that that is not going to happen?
Caroline Nokes
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. Deciding who can vote in UK elections is a Cabinet Office competence. EU citizens currently have the right to vote in local elections and that will prevail until there is a change in primary legislation. However, such matters are for future discussion and negotiation, and I cannot set them out today.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Before I ask the Minister a question, Mr Speaker, I want to bring something to your attention. There are many EU citizens in Parliament today who were keen to hear this urgent question, but they are being told that the Gallery is full and that they cannot get in to watch proceedings. The Gallery is obviously not full, so I wanted to make you aware of that to see whether we can get a message to the Doorkeepers.
Mr Speaker
The Gallery is manifestly not full, and it would be much better if it were full. I hope that it will speedily become full in conformity with the wishes expressed by the hon. Gentleman, which I think would be endorsed across the House.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, many of those EU citizens are here today because of the complete chaos and their worry about their futures, many of them having contributed to our society for decades. They are concerned about their immigration status, their right to work and their families here. Will the Minister admit that she gave incorrect evidence to the Home Affairs Committee the other day? Will she tell us how many EU citizens have already left the UK due to uncertainty around their status?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman is clearly a huge box-office draw if there are people outside still wanting to get in. He makes an important point—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, it is important to say, as set out by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and, indeed, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union in his appearance at the House of Lords EU Select Committee on 29 August, that we want EU citizens to stay. We have already started the process of enabling them to go through the settled status scheme, and in the region of 1,000 people have already been granted such status.
Caroline Nokes
I am just coming to the second part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We still know that more EU citizens are coming than leaving—[Interruption.] As the Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), just indicated, more EU citizens are working in the NHS today than at the time of referendum.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for clarifying that EU citizens’ rights will be protected in the event of both a deal and no deal. Some people have made the UK their permanent home but have to come and go either for their job or because they have caring responsibilities. Will those people be cared for?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There will be individuals who come and go. Through the settled status scheme, we are seeking to give people every opportunity to evidence their time in the UK by working with other Departments to cross-reference HMRC or Department for Work and Pensions records, for example. It is important to make a scheme that is easy for people to go through and that encourages those EU citizens who have contributed so much to our country to stay here. We want them to stay.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the commentary about the rights of the parents or elderly relatives on both sides of the equation? Will she give us her enlightened view on the next steps? Lots of people are very worried.
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and the family reunion rights that have been set out in the withdrawal agreement are very important. We know that many EU citizens may have caring responsibilities or, indeed, children in a home country who might yet seek to come over. Those rights are enshrined in the offer we have made, and it is important that we continue to honour that offer and, indeed, work with those individuals so that they find going through the process as easy as possible.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Will the European partners of British citizens have to apply for settled status?
Caroline Nokes
I wonder whether my hon. Friend should declare an interest. Of course, EU nationals who are living here will need to go through the settled status scheme to make sure they have access to pension rights and settled status rights, as I have set out. Of course it is important that anyone who has been here for five years can apply for settled status straightaway, and those who have been here for less than five years will be able to apply for pre-settled status and can then apply for settled status once they have been here for five years.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Telling people that they are welcome just sounds hollow, given the terrible treatment meted out to Commonwealth citizens who were also once told that they were welcome but who did not have documents that they did not know they were supposed to have. What does the Minister think I should say to my EU constituents in Bristol West who, frankly, have no confidence at all in the Government’s proposals?
Caroline Nokes
People who go through the settled status scheme will be given a digital status so they can evidence that they have been through the scheme. I am very conscious—I believe I said this to the Home Affairs Committee last week—that there will be children born between now and 29 March 2019 who may well live to 120 and beyond, so we have to ensure that the settled scheme is enduring so that, potentially, for the next 100-plus years people will still be able to evidence their status.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that EU citizens who have made their lives in the UK continue to make a great contribution to our country? I sincerely hope that she agrees with me, because my father is one of them. He came here as an economic migrant just over 50 years ago, and he is not in any way unduly concerned about his status when we leave the EU.
Caroline Nokes
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing on his family experience. One of the most important things we can do to demonstrate our commitment is to open a settled status scheme, and we have done that. The scheme opened in August for the first private beta testing phase, and we are now in phase 2. There will be a third phase in January after a firebreak so that we can check that the scheme is working as we would want. I am delighted that we have already seen in the region of 1,000 people granted settled status.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My constituent Robin Adams is a British citizen and an EU citizen, as we all are at the moment. He is working as a lecturer in Sweden, and does not know whether he will be able to continue his work in Sweden or, if he returns, whether his wife, a US citizen, would be able to come back with him. He faces losing his home, his job and his family. What reassurance can the Minister offer him?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady will have heard my answer earlier, and there continues to be ongoing work with European counterparts and the EU to make sure that they offer the same clarity and simple status that we have offered for EU citizens who are living here.
The hon. Lady refers to her constituent’s US wife and, of course, under the Surinder Singh rules she will already be eligible to come here with him if they have been living in an EU state for a significant period of time.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
If there is no deal, what will happen on 30 March 2019, when free movement will have ended, if an EU citizen presents himself at our borders?
Caroline Nokes
It is an important principle, as has been set out repeatedly, that we wish to be an outward-looking trading nation post Brexit. It is important, in my view, that we continue to allow EU citizens to use e-passport gates. Many hon. Members will have heard the Chancellor’s commitment in last week’s Budget to open up e-passport gates to further cohorts of nationalities. Of course, on day one of Brexit people will still be able to use their passport at e-passport gates as they travel into the UK.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I wonder whether the Minister can answer for me the question already put by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) about the charges for EU citizens who have been trafficked here. What assessment has the Home Office made of the number of women trafficked for sex from Romania and whether we will now be charging them for the fact that they have been abused?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady raises an important and serious point about victims of trafficking or modern slavery, and the issue has been raised with me. We have already made an offer that children in care should not have to pay the fee, we are looking very closely at this issue and I thank her for raising it.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Will the Minister reassure me that she intends to take control of our borders—that was so important to so many in the referendum—while continuing to attract the brightest, the best and the needed? That is so important to employers in my constituency, especially agriculturalists, the tourism trade and the care industry.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend points out the importance of controlling our own borders and being able to bring forward, for the first time in more than a generation, an immigration policy that will enable us to determine who comes here based on their skills, not on their nationality. It is a really important point that we should continue to be able to attract the brightest and the best, and we will be setting out full details of the future immigration policy in a White Paper, and indeed an immigration Bill, coming very soon.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
At the moment, many, many British people living in EU countries are very apprehensive about their future. They currently have EU citizenship rights, which they will lose if there is a no deal in March next year. What can the Minister say to reassure them? Is it not absurd that EU citizens in this country will have some protection, under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but British people in the EU will have no protection whatsoever in the event of no deal?
Caroline Nokes
I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are working hard to ensure that there is a deal, but he raises an important point, which I think I have addressed a couple of times already. This country has made an offer to EU citizens and we have made it very clear that we want them to stay, but the same cannot be said of some of our European counterparts. This matter is pressed with Ministers at every available opportunity, and indeed with ambassadors and the EU, because it is important that British citizens living in the EU27, the majority of whom are in France and Spain, are afforded the protections to which we believe they are entitled under the withdrawal agreement.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
About a third of my constituents came from eastern Europe over the past 10 to 15 years. They should take heart from the settled status scheme, but they deserve clarity as soon as possible and they often look to their own embassies rather than to the UK state. Will the Minister work with those embassies to get information to these people as quickly as possible from those sources and, crucially, in their own languages?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend raises an important point. I have already met a number of ambassadors, particularly those from central and eastern European countries, impressing upon them the importance of communicating with the diaspora populations—and they do that. As I have travelled the country over the past few months and talked to EU citizens, particularly those employed in agriculture, I have been interested to find that many of them have already received communications on this subject and that they are very confident about how they should go through the settled status process.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her statement so far. She will understand the uncertainty in the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency. The sector depends on and functions greatly because of EU citizens who have been here for years—they have worked, married and bought their homes here, and their children go to school here. Will she give the EU workers and the employers much-needed assurance?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that back in the summer the Home Office issued the employers’ toolkit, which gives them the ability to disseminate information to their employees and explains the process of the settled status scheme to them. As he will have heard, we have already opened the scheme to some small cohorts of EU citizens who are already living here. In the past few days, we have opened it up much more widely, so that EU citizens employed in NHS trusts and within the universities sector will be going through phase 2. It is important to us that we get the settled status scheme right and in putting people through it—those 1,000 people who have already gained status—we can provide evidence of the commitment we have made and demonstrate to others that it was a simple and straightforward process.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Is the Immigration Minister seriously saying that with just five months to go until we leave the European Union, the EU has not made clear what the rights of UK nationals will be in the EU on Brexit day? Given the huge contribution that UK citizens make to European countries, does she share my outrage at this callous disregard for the lives and futures of UK citizens who live in the EU?
Caroline Nokes
I am conscious that in the time I have been the Immigration Minister we have got the settled status scheme up and running, having designed completely from scratch a whole new digital system. I wish that I could see a similar commitment made among the EU27 or in the EU Commission as a whole, because it is important that there should be confidence for those British citizens who live in EU27 countries.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Minister has said several times that free movement will end; will she tell us the month and the year it will end?
Caroline Nokes
The Government will bring forward their plans to end free movement as soon as possible.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Many EU citizens in Torbay will be listening to this debate and wondering what the future is for them. Does the Minister agree that they should be reassured that although the Government’s goal is to get a deal, if they do not, EU citizens’ rights will be protected, so they should dismiss some of the scaremongering that we have heard?
Caroline Nokes
One of the most important parts of that guarantee is to demonstrate that we are already putting EU citizens through the settled status scheme. We have opened it up to a much larger cohort and, between now and the end of the year, in the region of 250,000 to 350,000 people will be eligible to go through the scheme. I should say that I do not anticipate our hitting that level of numbers, but we will be able to test the scheme at an enormous scale. It is important that we have made that commitment and we want EU citizens to stay.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
The Home Secretary said yesterday that even in the event of no deal, employers will not be expected to differentiate between resident EU citizens and those who arrive after Brexit. Will the Minister therefore confirm that free movement will not end on 30 March next year?
Caroline Nokes
As I have said previously, right-to-work checks have to be carried out now for EU citizens and, indeed, for British nationals when they move to a new job. It is important that we set out the timetable for ending free movement, and the Prime Minister has been clear that we are going to do just that.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Many of the EU citizens who live in my constituency live in rural and even remote areas. They may not be aware of the support and advice that is available, or they may have difficulty accessing it. What steps will the Home Office take to make sure that EU residents in rural communities are made aware of the support available?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes an important point about rural communities and remote areas. I referred earlier to the employers’ toolkit, and I am conscious that many EU citizens may get information from their employer. I reassure my hon. Friend that a large-scale communication plan will indeed come into play when the settled status scheme is opened more widely.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
In the event of no deal, will free movement end on 29 March next year? If so, how will employers and others know what checks to make?
Caroline Nokes
As the Home Secretary explained, employers will have to continue to make the same right-to-work checks that they currently make. As I have now said several times, we will bring forward our plans to end free movement shortly.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The lives of hundreds of thousands of EU citizens in the UK have been blighted by this shambolic Brexit. Does the Minister agree that by ring-fencing EU citizens’ rights now and paying for their settled status applications, we might go some way towards healing the hurt that has been inflicted on them as a result of Brexit and by this Government?
Caroline Nokes
I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman of the outcome of the referendum, when the British people voted for Brexit. The Government have a duty to uphold the British people’s wishes. As I have said this afternoon, the settled status scheme is already open in its testing mode and has already conferred on more than 1,000 people their settled status.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The Minister’s answers today have revealed a shambles at the Home Office. Given that and given the state of policy, what reassurance can she really give to the thousands of EU residents in my constituency, to their families, many of whom are UK citizens as well, and to thousands of local employers?
Caroline Nokes
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening earlier when I said that the Home Office has delivered a settled status scheme that is up and running. Telling EU citizens that there is now a process for them to go through where they can confirm their status is exactly the sort of reassurance that we must give to them. Sadly, that is something that we have not seen across the rest of the EU.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
According to UK Music’s recent Measuring Music report, the UK music industry exports rose by 7% to a record £2.6 billion last year. With 29 March fast approaching, it is more important than ever that we know how musicians and performers can continue working in the EU once the UK leaves, and how EU citizens can work in the UK. Will the Minister tell me what steps she has taken to achieve that?
Caroline Nokes
I am delighted to celebrate the increased exports of UK music and the phenomenal work that our artists, their producers, their tour companies and so on have managed to achieve over the past few years. It is important, as I have previously said, that we have a future immigration system. We are setting out the parliamentary timetable in due course and a White Paper will be published very shortly, which will clarify these matters.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
There are 1,500 EU nationals doing essential work for the Imperial College Healthcare Trust. In addition to having to go through the bureaucracy to get what they regard as second-class settled status, they would normally be charged a fee for that. The hospital trust itself will now pay at least £100,000 of that, which they have to do in order to retain these essential staff. Why should a trust, which is having real revenue and capital problems, have to pay that money? Why will the Government not pay that money?
Caroline Nokes
I do hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the fee for settled status was agreed with the EU.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I do not know whether the Minister is aware just how ludicrous it sounds to keep talking about bringing forward clarification “in due course” when we have just 20 weeks to go. She keeps repeating the fact that 1,000 EU citizens have so far gone through the settled status scheme, which I calculate is 0.03%. Will she tell us exactly how many people she expects to have achieved settled status before the end of March 2019?
Caroline Nokes
I hope to be able to explain to the hon. Lady that, of course, the settled status scheme opened in private beta testing. When we introduce a new large-scale scheme of this type, it is really important that we do so in a controlled way, which is why it has been only small numbers to date. As she will have heard me say, we are opening it up currently to in the region of 250,000 to 350,000 individuals employed by NHS trusts or indeed by the university sector. We know that there are 3.5 million people whom we wish to go through this scheme, and it is therefore really important that we get the testing right, and, of course, the scheme will be open until December 2020.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
As well as “in due course”, the Minister has also used the phrases, “as soon as possible”, “shortly”, “very shortly”, and “in the next few weeks”. Does she understand that those phrases are meaningless and just further undermine the confidence of people who are affected by our leaving the EU on 29 March? Will she now please provide to the House and to those 3 million EU citizens a bit more certainty about the timetable that is in her mind to provide some certainty for those people?
Caroline Nokes
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated that the White Paper will be coming forward in the autumn. The hon. Gentleman will be able to work out that we are in the autumn now, so perhaps he can have greater confidence that, when I say soon, I mean soon. However, he raises the 3.5 million EU citizens that we want to go through the settled status scheme to confirm the rights that we have offered to them. Of course, they have those rights, and that is not dependent on the future immigration system. We have opened the settled status scheme now to the testing cohorts and will be opening it more widely in the new year.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
The Immigration Minister has confirmed that there will be transitional arrangements for EU citizens even in the event of no deal. How long will those transitional arrangements last? Last week, I was treated by a nurse from Romania who had been here for many, many years, but she has asked her landlord to reduce her tenancy to a six-month rolling contract because she is terrified—in her words—that she will be “kicked out”.
Caroline Nokes
The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have all made it very clear that there will be no removals of EU citizens; we want them to stay. They are welcome here and they play an important role not just in our communities, but in our health service, as the hon. Lady pointed out. The settled status scheme is open in its testing phase and we will open it fully in the new year, but it is really important that we convey a message to everyone that we want EU citizens to stay. Seeking to sow seeds of uncertainty and division is actually really unhelpful to them.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
If Brexit happens and a British citizen marries an EU citizen in the future, will they be subject to income tests as non-EEA citizens are currently?
Caroline Nokes
The right hon. Gentleman started his question with, “If Brexit happens”. Let me reassure him that Brexit is happening. Of course, the matters to which he refers will be set out in the future immigration system.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
May I push the Minister for a simple yes or no answer? After March, in the event of a no deal, will EU nationals arriving in the UK for the first time be able to live and work without any additional checks in exactly the same way as EU nationals living here are now?
Caroline Nokes
To quote the Prime Minister, their expectations will be different.
Universal Credit
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Ms Esther McVey)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the changes announced to universal credit in the Budget last week and on the draft Universal Credit (Managed Migration) Regulations 2018, which we are laying in the House today.
The Chancellor announced a substantial package at the Budget to ensure that millions of people keep more of what they earn, and vulnerable claimants are supported when they move to universal credit. In total, this package will be worth an extra £4.5 billion across the next five years. I pay special thanks to all the colleagues, charities, third-sector organisations, Jobcentre Plus staff and claimants who fed back to me in order to build this package of support to ensure that universal credit is a fair system, supporting thousands who cannot work as well as thousands who can. I also thank my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for their support to deliver these measures.
Make no mistake: this is a Department that listens and a Department that will continue to listen, adapt, change and deliver. We will put an extra £1.7 billion a year into work allowances, increasing the amount that hard-working families can earn by £1,000 before universal credit is tapered away, providing extra support for 2.4 working families—I mean, 2.4 million working families. [Laughter.] Of course, the Opposition do not like helping 2.4 million working families, and they are laughing because we help and support people into work.
The work allowance increase was welcomed not only in this House, but among charities. The Child Poverty Action Group said:
“The work allowance increase is unequivocally good news for families receiving universal credit”.
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that this extra investment
“will help make universal credit a tool for tackling poverty”.
And we have gone further, recognising the genuine concerns raised about the support we were offering people, especially the most vulnerable, when they moved to universal credit.
We have made a further £1 billion package of changes, providing two additional weeks of Department for Work and Pensions legacy benefits for those moved on to universal credit—a one-off non-repayable sum that will provide claimants with extra money during the period before they receive their first universal credit payment. This is on top of the two additional weeks of housing benefit announced at autumn Budget 2017 and put into place this year.
We will also support the self-employed in moving to universal credit. We will open up a 12-month grace period before the minimum income floor is applied, supporting 130,000 self-employed claimants—because we are the party of business; the party of aspiration. We will support those in debt by reducing the normal maximum rate at which debts are deducted from universal credit awards from 40% to 30% of standard allowances. This will help over 600,000 families to manage their debts at any one point when roll-out is complete, providing them with, on average, £295 extra a year as their debts are repaid over a longer period.
This is targeted support to help work pay and support the vulnerable, which is why today I lay regulations to deliver the next phase of universal credit—managed migration, through which people will be moved on to universal credit. That is a move from a system that trapped people on benefits and created cliff edges at 16, 24 and 30 hours with punitive effective tax rates of over 90% for some. Under Labour, between 1997 and 2010, benefit spend went up by 65%. In 1997, households were paying £5,500 in taxes to fund the benefits system—and by 2010, the figure had risen to £8,350. The Conservative party was voted into office to manage the country’s finances and get them under control, and also to make sure that the benefits bill was affordable and sustainable for the future. While Labour Members may hanker for the dark old days of trapping people on benefits, excluding them from the opportunity of work and getting on in life, and at the same time delivering a big bill to the taxpayer, we do not. Under this Government, 3.4 million more people are in work, and the vast majority of those jobs are full-time permanent roles. This means that we have created more new jobs in the UK since 2010 than France, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria and Norway combined, alongside creating a welfare system that supports those who need it.
Through universal credit, about 1 million disabled households will receive about £100 extra, on average, per month through more generous support. The Universal Credit (Managed Migration) Regulations 2018 will, in addition, protect 500,000 people’s severe disability premium at the point of migration, and deliver transitional protection for those we move to ensure that, at the point of moving, those managed-migrated have their entitlements protected. We will take a measured approach to delivering managed migration, taking our time to get it right and working with claimants to co-design it.
We have taken on board, and will continue to do so, the advice of experts and charities such as the Social Security Advisory Committee, whose report on the regulations we have published, along with our response, today. We have accepted, in full or in part, all but one of its recommendations—and the one we did not accept is because we want to make it more generous. I pay tribute to the hard work of the SSAC in scrutinising our regulations.
We have changed a key part of the regulations, as charities have asked me, MPs and the Department, relating to the minimum statutory notice period for people moving from their legacy award to universal credit. We have extended this period from a minimum of one month to a minimum of three months to allow claimants maximum time to prepare and make their claim before their legacy award expires. Alongside this, we have unlimited flexibility to extend claim periods for people who need it. We will backdate any claimant who has missed the deadline date but has made a claim within a month of the deadline day passing. We will test a variety of communication methods, including advertising campaigns, face-to-face communication, letters, texts, telephone calls and home visits, to provide support for claimants during managed migration. We will constantly review our approaches, engaging fully with charities, experts, claimants and all Members of the House. I commend this statement to the House.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I would like to pay tribute to all the individuals, charities and Members of the House who have been holding the Government to account over their chaotic and damaging universal credit programme, which is pushing families into poverty.
In June, the National Audit Office published a damning report on universal credit. We know that the roll-out of the benefit is leading to people building up debt and rent arrears or being forced to turn to food banks for help. The Budget last week did little to address the very long wait for payments, which is causing significant hardship. Despite that, the Government are now planning to start the next phase of the introduction of universal credit, which they call managed migration, involving the transfer of 2.87 million people on to it.
Under the draft regulations, existing claimants will be sent a letter saying that their benefits will stop and they will need to make a new universal credit claim by a specific deadline. It is wholly unacceptable that the Government are shifting responsibility for ensuring that people get the help they need away from the Government and on to the shoulders of nearly 3 million claimants. It is no wonder that 80 organisations representing disabled people are calling for the Government to change tack. Learning disability charity Mencap has said that the proposals leave disabled people
“vulnerable to having their benefits stopped before they have made a successful claim”.
More than 400 organisations have responded to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s consultation on the managed migration regulations—a record number for the committee, which demonstrates the strength of concern about this issue.
Parliament is being asked to approve regulations that it may have very little chance at all to scrutinise and debate, even though the details of how the process will take place are not yet settled. When asked by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee on 18 October whether the regulations would be debated, the Minister for Employment answered:
“We need to have a debate in the House.”
It was clear from the context that the Chair meant a debate in the main Chamber. However, the shadow Leader of the House raised the issue at business questions on 11, 18 and 25 October without receiving a clear assurance that that would be the case. That is all the more important since Government Members make up a majority of the MPs in Committees, even though they do not have an overall majority in Parliament.
Let us step back and get a broad view of the Government’s supposed flagship social security programme. Universal credit was supposed to lift 350,000 children out of poverty. Instead, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, an extra 1.2 million children may be growing up in poverty by the end of this Parliament. Universal credit was supposed to deliver work incentives and help more people into employment, yet the NAO says that the Department for Work and Pensions will never know whether universal credit leads to more people in work. Universal credit was supposed to simplify the social security system, but instead, around three in 10 claims of universal credit are closed and not paid, within a system that is complex and that people find difficult to navigate. This statement does nothing to address that.
The Government claim that 1 million disabled households will receive an extra £100 a month as a result of universal credit. What the Secretary of State has failed to tell the House is that the same report by the Office for Budget Responsibility reveals that around 1 million sick and disabled households will lose an average of £2,608 a year, or £217 a month.
Universal credit is failing. The Opposition have consistently called on the Government to stop the roll-out, but the Government are pressing ahead, despite the terrible hardship it is causing. We have a right to ask questions on behalf of our constituents, including whether the universal credit managed migration regulations will be debated in full on the Floor of the House so that all MPs get a chance to scrutinise and debate this critical draft legislation.
The Secretary of State says that the Government have accepted all but one of the Social Security Advisory Committee’s recommendations. That is highly questionable. For example, what new action will the Government take to support people who struggle to make and manage a claim online? Will the Department publish the more than 400 responses to the Social Security Advisory Committee’s consultation, to ensure maximum transparency? The Secretary of State must assure the House that there are sufficient safeguards in place to ensure that no existing legacy benefit claimants end up falling into destitution and that none falls out of the social security system altogether.
Given the potential impact of the draft regulations on claimants’ incomes, the large number of people affected and the strength of opposition to the proposals in their current form, it is a matter of real concern that they will receive such little scrutiny by Members. Members are extremely concerned about the impact that universal credit is having on people living in their constituencies. They must be given the opportunity to debate and vote on these regulations on the Floor of the House.
Ms McVey
While the Opposition cannot bring themselves to commend the extra £4.5 billion going into universal credit, let me read out what some independent charities have been saying. The Resolution Foundation has hailed this a “very welcome” £1.7 billion commitment. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that this extra investment is
“a tool for tackling poverty”.
The Trussell Trust has talked about
“significant improvements that will make a real difference to many people supported by universal credit”.
The Child Poverty Action Group called this
“unequivocally good news for families receiving universal credit”.
Other charities have been saying that the Department is now listening to what claimants, charities and MPs are saying. The Trussell Trust has said that. Gingerbread has said that. Mind has said that. Mencap has said that.
I would also point out that an extra 1 million disabled people will be getting an extra £100 a month, and that 700,000 people who did not get all they should under the legacy benefits will get nearly an extra £300 a month. There are now 3.4 million more people in work. That is what we do: we help people into work. Youth unemployment has gone down by 50% since 2010—that gives young people a future, it gives them hope and it gives them a job—and that is happening under this Government.
I came into politics for social mobility. Social mobility is about moving forward and getting a job. There is no social mobility on benefits—there is no mobility on benefits. That is what this party believes in. It is the way to get out of poverty. That is why we welcome the extra £4.5 billion. The Opposition have asked for a debate on the Floor of the House, and, of course, there will be a debate on the Floor of the House. We believe in transparency. We are open and straight talking. We say it as it is.
We will be co-designing what happens with claimants. In the words of the publication that the OBR has put out on the Budget, by 2023-24 we will be spending an extra £2 billion on universal credit than on the system it replaces. I want to say a final word on debt under Labour: between 1997 and 2010, benefit claimants’ debt to local authorities increased by £1.8 billion through overpayments and errors in the legacy system, and £5.86 billion of debt was accrued on tax credits. That is a shameful record for the Opposition of putting claimants into debt on benefits and tax credits.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is much interest in this subject, but I remind the House that there is a further statement to follow and then two important debates. There is therefore a premium on brevity, which will be characteristically and brilliantly exemplified by the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening).
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I very much welcome the additional investment in universal credit in the Budget. Like many Members, I have met the DWP, Jobcentre Plus and citizens advice bureaux locally to talk about the roll-out of universal credit. It is obviously hugely important that people avoid going into debt unnecessarily, and I very much welcome the co-design approach to managed migration that the Secretary of State has set out. Will she say which groups are likely to be migrated first, and on what basis?
Ms McVey
I thank my right hon. Friend. For a year from next July we will be having a trial period or test period, working with 10,000 claimants to see exactly the way in which it should be done—for example, should it be done for the most vulnerable groups or should it be done geographically?—and to make sure that we get it right. That is how we work: we make sure that it works; we do not just go forward with an idea—[Interruption.] There is chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. We will work with claimants to make sure it works for them.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. The work allowance boost that we are being told we should welcome only undoes or reverses half the cut that was made in 2015. It is like taking £100 away from somebody, giving them 50 quid back and saying, “You should be grateful that I’ve given you 50 quid back.” The reality is that people are still worse off. The benefit freeze is still in place.
The sanctions regime is also still in place. I am particularly concerned about the methods of communication for universal credit. I have seen a number of people who come to my surgeries with mental health problems particularly—they cannot open letters or deal with having to jump through the hoops that are put in their way—who are then sanctioned because they are literally unable to jump through those hoops. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at all these issues. She has mentioned communication methods, and I very much hope she will put that at the centre of the decision-making process for communication.
On the exact amount of money that has been allocated for universal credit, it seems to me that nothing has been done on the basis of how much people actually need to live on. If it had, there would not be a huge increase in the number of people going to food banks and there would not be the incredible number of sanctions that we see. Rather than the Treasury deciding how much money should go to universal credit and the Department for Work and Pensions then divvying it up, it would be better to make decisions on the basis of how much people need to live on and what amount of money would encourage people to get into work.
We need to ensure that people are not going to food banks, that families are not in poverty and that young people are not starving as a result of the Government’s policies.
Ms McVey
As I said previously, when we came into office, we had to take an overview of Government spending, full stop. We were voted into office to get this country’s finances under control. One of the decisions that we had to make was on the size of the benefit bill because it had grown by 65% under the previous Labour Government. We took hold of that, and decisions were made across the board—I have never shied away from that. Again, in 2015, further decisions were made after a general election. The Opposition did not vote against the changes and cuts. Their Whips’ advice on that day was to abstain. Some broke ranks, but generally they did not.
Those changes are now coming through, but I said that I would go out, meet people, listen, learn and see what we could do and afford, and that is why an extra £4.5 billion has gone into universal credit. I look at what people are saying and why they have welcomed the increase. I reiterate that there are 3.4 million extra people in work and that we are targeting the money at the most vulnerable.
The hon. Lady is right about communication, which is key. That is why we will work with charities to get it right.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
In easing the passage to universal credit, there is a great role for jobcentre staff. The problem is that I do not have a jobcentre in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend bring forward the idea of mobile jobcentres to help the transition and manage the process?
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend makes a very good point—he has probably been reading my mind. Outreach work is key: how do we get to the most vulnerable, whether people in isolated parts of the country or those with learning difficulties or transport difficulties? We will look at outreach work and perhaps a mobile bus. We should look at new, good ideas for connecting with our claimants.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
I thank the Secretary of State for the money she managed to claw back from the Treasury—I advise her for her own safety not to take routes home in the dark that pass the Treasury. A crucial element of her statement was the one-off, non-repayable sum for claimants who have been transferred to universal credit. Will she give the House an assurance that the sum—non-repayable, therefore incurring no debt—will be equivalent to the sorts of sums people would get if they were already on universal credit?
Ms McVey
We have made sure that that will be people’s benefit going forward. As I said, it is the sum that they need when they adjust from two to four weeks and it is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, non-returnable. That is to ensure that people can balance the money when moving from a two-week to a four-week payment. It is extra money.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I know better than most how hard the Secretary of State worked to get support from the Chancellor in the Budget. I commend her for doing that. Will she assure my constituents that the welfare bill will not once again spiral out of control, as it did under the previous Labour Government, taking money away from hard-working taxpayers?
Ms McVey
The Conservative party is always about balancing fairness for everybody: fairness to the taxpayers paying the bill as well fairness to those getting benefits and those going into work. I thank my hon. Friend because when I met his Trussell Trust team in Shipley, one of their first requests was that the maximum rate at which deductions can be made should reduce from 40% to 30%. I am glad that I can deliver that today.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I strongly disagree with the Secretary of State. Universal credit is not getting residents out of poverty. I say that because a constituent of mine, who has mental health problems, contacted me this morning. He was moved over to universal credit and fell into housing arrears, which is exacerbating his mental health condition. It is very distressing for him. For those people unable to self-identify for managed migration, how will they acquire additional support? I do not think it is good enough that people are being tested out and then this is failing them.
Ms McVey
If the hon. Lady would like to meet to discuss what has happened to her constituent and how we can support him, I am more than happy to do so. Equally, I know that a lot of people are coming to universal credit with debt—it is not due to universal credit, but what they come with. Maybe together we can work to support that person.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on securing additional funding. In the detail for transitional provisions, she said that there would be two additional weeks of legacy benefits for those moved on to universal credit, which is a one-off, non-refundable payment. That may take time to sink in on both sides of the House, but can she confirm that this is additional money? Does she, like me, look forward to hon. Members on both sides of the House welcoming it and supporting it?
Ms McVey
I am glad my hon. Friend understands that this is additional money. My concern was how people, who are used to getting paid not monthly but fortnightly, would manage to cope with the change. That is why we have brought in the measure. Hopefully that money can help them if they have debt, because it is additional money to their household.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
When cuts to universal credit were voted through by the House, MPs were promised that everyone would receive transitional protection, but the delay to managed migration means that less than half the 7 million families affected will receive it and 3.2 million families will still be over £2,000 a year worse off. Will the Secretary of State look again at the very wide criteria for changes of circumstances that are being used to transfer people from legacy benefits on to universal credit at an ever-increasing pace?
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Universal credit rolled out a couple of weeks ago in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State agree that the money she announced today will make a particular difference to people in my constituency who are often paid weekly or fortnightly, rather than monthly? It is often they who are the most vulnerable and who need the most help.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before the Secretary of State responds to her hon. Friend, I am sure that what she said she said in all sincerity, but I am 99.9% recurring certain in my own mind that the hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) was here at the start of—[Interruption.] Order. I am not debating the point with the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). [Interruption.] Order. No facial expressions are required. I am just telling him and the House the situation. The hon. Lady was here—end of.
Ms McVey
It seems a moot point on both sides of the House whether or not the hon. Lady was here, but that being the case she will know that we have put an extra £4.5 billion into the system to support transitional protection. That is exactly what a fair Government would do: provide the correct transitional protection.
Mr Speaker
I would quite like to lighten the tension on this matter. May I just say to hon. Members, for the avoidance of doubt, that perambulation in the Chamber from one row to another is not an entirely novel phenomenon? May I say to the hon. Member for North Dorset, who is an old friend in the House of Commons, that it is not uncommon? The fact that a Member perambulates from one Bench to another does not mean that that Member has exited the Chamber. As far as I am concerned, the hon. Lady did not exit the Chamber.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State quoted the Child Poverty Action Group a couple of times, but she failed to mention that in the same press release, it also said that
“unless there is a further fundamental re-think of how universal credit works—and robust safeguards in place before it is scaled-up—people will continue to be pushed into debt and driven to food banks as part of their claim.”
Why did she omit that bit?
Ms McVey
Having met this charity group, too, I have said that I will work with it so that when we can, we listen, change and adapt what we need to do, which we have done so far since I have been in office, and we have the extra money through the Budget. That is what I am prepared to do.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am not certain what the attitude towards gambling is in the Secretary of State’s household, but would she care to place a bet that if the universal credit system is up and running and if, heaven forbid, the Labour party comes into government, it will be most unlikely to replace it with a mish-mash of different cross-cutting benefits such as existed previously?
Ms McVey
That is a very good question, because it seems that Opposition Members do not really know what they are going to do. It seems that the shadow Chancellor is going to get rid of it and the shadow Secretary of State is not really sure, but I know that in the Lords, they want to keep it. Perhaps when the next person stands up, they will tell us exactly what the Opposition Front Benchers are going to do with universal credit.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Universal credit is due to start in my constituency in just a few weeks’ time. Local families and local advice services and food bank volunteers are all deeply concerned about what this will mean and about their ability to provide support for people in the run-up to Christmas. Given that the Secretary of State has had to admit that there are a whole series of problems with the policy, which is why she had to bring forward a whole series of changes—even though they do not go far enough—will she please recognise the risks to families in my constituency at Christmas and halt this introduction now, so that we can make sure that more families are not pushed into debt and poverty at such an important family time?
Ms McVey
I wonder whether I could invite the right hon. Lady to go to see the work that Jobcentre Plus and the work coaches are doing and how they are helping an extra 1,000 people each and every day into work and, equally, how they are working with the most vulnerable to sort them. If I did what she said and stopped the roll-out, it would mean that 1 million disabled people who would possibly be getting an extra £100 would not be getting it, and that those 700,000 people who have not got the right amount of benefit—nearly £300 a month—would not be getting it.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Can I just get this right? Is it correct that our country gives more family benefits to our people who need them than any other developed country? [Interruption.]
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The full service roll-out of universal credit began in my constituency in July last year. People who are moving from legacy benefits on to universal credit are being made worse off. How on earth can a system incentivise work if it is making people in work poorer?
Ms McVey
What it is doing is supporting more people into work—3.4 million. By bringing in the work allowance—£1.7 billion a year—we are now able to focus extra support on families with children and supporting disabled people. Therefore, it will be even more beneficial to them going forward. That is positive support that we are giving through the Budget changes.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Universal credit came to Willenhall two weeks ago. Of the 157 cases we have had so far, only three are awaiting processing for payment. Can the Secretary of State explain why it seems to be going so smoothly, given that Opposition Members assure us it is a disaster?
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend, who has actually visited his jobcentre plus to find out what is happening on the ground, gives a truer reflection of what is happening on the ground. I have spent most of this year travelling from Brighton up to Angus in Scotland and meeting jobcentre coaches, and most of them are telling me that universal credit is working for the vast majority of people, but I wanted to make sure we got extra money from the Chancellor in the Budget to help the vulnerable people it maybe was not helping.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that her Department has agreed with the Social Security Advisory Committee’s recommendations about telephone claims for universal credit, but we know that DWP contact centre staff are concerned that having to deal with such high call volumes might mean they cannot process claims. How many additional staff will be required in DWP contact centres to deal with telephone claims for universal credit?
Ms McVey
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. That is another thing we will looking at during the managed migration, as we expand the system and more people come on to universal credit—how many more people do we need in call centres; how many more work coaches?—because we will need the right number to give a good service.
Mr Speaker
I appeal to the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) now to republish his brevity textbook in the hope that others will follow.
Sir Desmond Swayne
“The Government has listened to the frontline. These are significant improvements that will make a real difference.” Who said that?
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Everybody claiming universal credit has to wait at least five weeks before being entitled to payments, including those being moved across from previous benefits. The Secretary of State referred to the additional two weeks of previous benefits announced by the Chancellor in the Budget. How can Ministers justify stopping all benefits for a period of at least three weeks for people migrating from previous benefits on to universal credit?
Ms McVey
It will be a continuum. The payment cycle will be going from two weeks to four weeks, and this is actually extra money. They will be getting two weeks’ extra money because they will be getting the full period they are entitled to when it comes along after four weeks. This is not giving them less money, or even part of their money; this is two weeks’ extra benefit.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Some of the most vulnerable in our communities will always look to their citizens advice bureau for help and assistance on these matters. The announcements by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor last week, and confirmed by the Secretary of State today, are incredibly welcome. What plans do she and her Department have to explain to our local CABs the nature of the changes and the benefits that will accrue from them to ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in our communities have a happy experience of universal credit, not one like the Opposition describe?
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend raises a good point, and that is why we worked in partnership with Citizens Advice across the country—so it could help people get on to universal credit. We felt it was the correct thing to do. It works with the most vulnerable people—it knows them—and is a trusted independent group. That is why we chose it to work with.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement on reducing the deduction rate for the repayment of debt, but 30% of someone’s benefit is still quite a lot to be paying back on debt repayment. Will the Secretary of State take seriously the suggestion in the report of the Work and Pensions Committee last week that debt advice becomes a core part of the universal support offer?
Ms McVey
The hon. Lady, who knows a lot about this subject, is correct about the debt advice and the support that is available. We are building in measures to help more people to obtain debt advice. They often do not like asking for it as such, so we are going to change the term to “money advice”. Many people do not like to admit that they are in debt, even if they are.
Let me clear up one point. We are not talking about 30% of the entire benefit; we are talking about 30% of the standard allowance. Obviously, that does not include housing or childcare. It is a significant reduction in the rate, led by calls from the Trussell Trust.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Universal credit has already been fully rolled out in my constituency, and for the majority of people it is working; but, more important, more people are working too. Does my right hon. Friend agree that universal credit can also empower people to work more hours, which has got to be good for their self-esteem?
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend is right. This benefit is about empowering people. It is about helping them to take on work, or extra work. Under the legacy systems, people were locked out of work even if they wanted to do it. We know that there are about 113 million extra hours of work out there. We also know that there is a record number of vacancies in the economy. We can help people, get them a career, get them on the jobs ladder, and get them doing what they want to do in this world.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Analysis of the universal credit measures in the Budget shows that more than 3 million households will still be worse off, especially disabled people and the self-employed. Following the High Court judgment compelling the Secretary of State to provide transitional protections for disabled people migrating on to universal credit, what is her response to the comment on page 76 of the Social Security Advisory Committee’s report that her proposals leave disabled people worse off and need “further consideration”?
Ms McVey
I hope that the hon. Lady will be voting for the changes that may give 1 million more disabled people an extra £100 a month, and the extra protection for the severe disability premium for 500,000 people, which is key. As I have always said, should we need to give any more support for vulnerable groups, we will work—and I will work with the Chancellor—to ensure that that happens. However, I commend to the hon. Lady the managed migration regulations, which, as she will see, provide for significantly more support.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Opposition love to talk about benefit cuts. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, as a result of the measures in the Budget, spending on universal credit, when it is fully rolled out, will be £2 billion a year more than spending on the equivalent legacy benefits, and that this will be worth £300 a year to each universal credit family?
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend is right. That was in the forecast for 2023-24 in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Budget report. We are a party that is fair to the most vulnerable and supports the rest into work. To be honest, I do not know why Opposition Members are voting against helping the most vulnerable and giving them more support than they would be given by the legacy benefits.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is very little chance now that everyone will be able to get in, but there is a flicker of a chance if people ask one-sentence questions.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is a miracle that someone who has had no social mobility and has lived on benefits can be called in the House, but I managed to make it here on those legacy benefits, and managed to get the same fancy job as the Members over there, so I am not sure what they are talking about.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about my constituent who was raped by the man with whom she lived and who therefore had to move. She was forced on to universal credit because of a change in her circumstances. She works—she has always worked—and she is £200 worse off. She is a single mother. What is being offered to her today—and this is why we are not supporting it—will still leave her £160 a month worse off. This is a rape victim, a single mother¸ who is in work. What will the Secretary of State do for her?
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
I welcome the progress that my right hon. Friend has made in securing changes that support people in a better way. There will have to be a number of votes on the measures that she is proposing. What does she think people will not be getting if Members decide not to back the changes that she is advocating?
Ms McVey
That is a crucial question. If people do not vote for these changes, it will mean the most vulnerable not being helped, it will mean 1 million disabled people not getting £100 a month, it will mean disabled people not getting severe disability premium, and it will mean 700,000 people not getting their full benefit and being supported as well, in addition to the other measures I mentioned. I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I commend the Secretary of State for making her statement to the House. I also note with approval the list of organisations that the Secretary of State said had come out and supported the Government putting back in the £1.7 billion for UC from the £3 billion cut in 2015. I note that I and my party were not in that list, but I am sure the Secretary of State will remember that since the election I have been saying again and again that to make work pay we have to bring back the full £3 billion. Will the Secretary of State commit to the further £1.3 billion that will really make work pay?
Ms McVey
We are making work pay. That is why more people are going into work. We are also changing the system significantly so that people are not trapped on benefits. We are making the system as fair as we can for those on benefits and those paying for it, and we are also protecting the most vulnerable; that is what we are doing.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for showing once again that she is listening and is prepared to change and improve things as we go along, because these changes have been hugely welcomed by DWP staff in my constituency and constituents on UC, and indeed by many charities who work with the most vulnerable. Does the Secretary of State share my surprise that the one group of people who seem unable to welcome these changes are the Opposition?
Ms McVey
My hon. Friend makes a great point. They have also been unable to welcome the extra 3.4 million people in work, a reduction of youth unemployment by 50%, and the record numbers of women into work and of BME—black and minority ethnic—people into work. I do not know what they would welcome.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The reason why we have these concerns is because of cases like this: a constituent of mine—a single mother of a terminally ill child aged 2—had her application for income support lost by the DWP, was then forced to claim UC, and while that was being considered all her benefits were stopped and she was forced to live on her son’s DLA and her carer’s allowance for her terminally ill son. Does the Secretary of State think that sort of case is acceptable and why is she pushing ahead given that cases like this have arisen?
Ms McVey
We have always said that we will deal with such cases. When fully rolled out, we will have up to about 8 million people here and we get it right most of the time for most of the people, but should something go wrong—and obviously something has gone wrong there—people come to their MP, which is only right, and then they bring the case to me and the Department and we get it right. But no system in the world is 100% right for 100% of people, and I apologise when it goes wrong, and then we will fight to get it right.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I have been interested to hear the Secretary of State’s responses to a number of questions. How many recommendations from the Social Security Advisory Committee has her Department accepted?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
A constituent of mine recovering from cancer came to see me. She had literally no money for food because at the moment UC is so badly designed that those whose pay date coincides with their claim date get no money at all in two months of the year. Before the roll-out, will the Secretary of State correct this design fault?
Ms McVey
In those instances we are working with the individual and then helping them with a manual workaround to make sure they are back on benefit and we are supporting those people. As I have said, it is never going to be a system that is right 100% of the time for 100% of people, but it is working the vast majority of the time for the vast majority of people. That is why people are saying up and down the country, “This is working; I’m getting into work.” In fact, this is the one single thing that claimants say to me who have been unemployed before—eight years ago—and are now coming back to the job centre. They say that because of the scare stories from the Opposition, they have been frightened to go into—
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The full service was rolled out in Greenwich on 3 October and I am extremely concerned about the number of people locally who appear to be claiming universal credit when it is not necessary for them to do so and who are worse off as a result. What more can the Secretary of State’s Department do, particularly in terms of training and information sharing among organisations on the ground, to ensure that only those who need to claim universal credit are doing so?
Ms McVey
This is the new system, and people will be claiming universal credit as it rolls out to their jobcentre. This is a modern system that helps people into work and helps the most vulnerable. Probably the best thing that the hon. Gentleman could do is to work with them to ensure that they are on the system and that it is working for them.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I wrote to the Secretary of State more than a month ago about an anomaly drawn to my attention by my local citizens advice bureau—namely, the difference for women on maternity allowance as opposed to maternity pay. Has she managed to resolve that issue, because many women are worse off as a result of this policy?
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Chester was an early roll-out area for universal credit, so let me tell the Secretary of State how the migration has been going. A constituent of mine lost her husband; he died suddenly leaving her with a primary school-aged child. She was on a widow’s pension and tax credits, and was just about managing, but she was then told to go on to universal credit. She is now £250 a month worse off and she is going to lose her house. My question to the Secretary of State is this: can she have her money back?
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Child poverty and street homelessness are both going up, so I would like the Secretary of State to put on record her prediction for the future under the new universal credit system. Will child poverty and street homelessness fall or rise?
Ms McVey
At the moment, there are 1 million fewer people in absolute poverty and, under this Government, nearly 1 million fewer children are growing up in workless households. We believe that work is the best way out of poverty, and having a role model in the house who is working is the best way to get out of poverty too.
Mr Speaker
Ah! Two distinguished ornaments of the Opposition Whips Office—what a difficult choice! I call Mr Chris Elmore.
Chris Elmore
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Further to the shadow Secretary of State’s question about the managed migration regulations, will the Secretary of State confirm—yes or no will do—that this will be debated on the Floor of the House and not in Committee?
Nic Dakin
Waiting to get their universal credit is causing people huge problems. Will the Secretary of State do everything she can to address that problem, because it is the main thing that comes up when people come to see me every week—almost every day—with their problems about the universal credit roll-out?
Prevention of Ill Health: Government Vision
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Last week, the Chancellor confirmed that the NHS budget would rise by £20.5 billion over the next five years, because we care about the NHS being there for everyone. As well as money, however, reform is crucial. Before Christmas, we will bring forward a long-term plan for the NHS. We know that so much of what contributes to good health comes not just from what happens when someone is in hospital but from what we do to stay out of hospital. Prevention is better than cure. Today I have laid before the House our vision for the prevention of ill health. It covers what the NHS needs to do, including more funding for community and primary care and the better use of technology. The plan also outlines what we need to see more broadly; everyone has a part to play.
As well as the rights we have as citizens to access NHS services free at the point of use, we all have responsibilities, too. Individuals have responsibilities, and we want to empower people to make the right choices. For instance, smoking costs the NHS £2.5 billion each year and contributes to 4% of hospital admissions. That is despite the massive reduction in smoking over the past 30 years. The next step to a smoke-free society is targeted anti-smoking interventions, especially in hospitals.
As well as stopping smoking, we must tackle excess salt. Salt intake has fallen 11% over just under a decade, but if it fell by a third, that would prevent 8,000 premature deaths and save the NHS over £500 million annually. We are working on new solutions to tackle salt, and we will set out more details by Easter and deliver on chapter 2 of our obesity plan, too.
Next, prevention can save money and eliminate waste. At the moment, it takes too long, with too many invasive tests, to diagnose some illnesses. Doctors often have to try several different treatments before they alight on what is right for a patient. However, two new technologies—artificial intelligence and genomics—have the potential to change that. I want predictive prevention to help prevent people from becoming patients and to deliver more targeted interventions, with better results, when people do fall ill. Instead of simply broadcasting messages to the nation, technology allows us to support much more targeted advice, messages and interventions for those most at risk.
Turning to environmental factors, our health is not determined only by what happens in hospitals. In fact, only a minority of the impact on anyone’s healthy lifespan is delivered by what hospitals do. The other factors include the air we breathe, whether someone has a job and the quality of our housing. That means our GP surgeries, our hospitals and our care homes all working more closely with local authorities, schools, businesses, charities and other parts of our communities. Of course, the record number of people in work is good news on that front, and employers have a big role in helping their staff to stay healthy and to return to health after illness. That is where we can learn from the excellent record of our brave armed services, which have an 85% return-to-work rate after serious injury, while the equivalent rate for civilians in only 35%. Building on all that, the Government will next year publish a Green Paper on prevention, which will set out the plans in greater detail. This is all part of our long-term plan for the future of the NHS.
If I may, Mr Speaker, I will now address two separate issues that I know are of interest across the House today: the treatment of those with learning difficulties and autism, and the medical use of cannabis. Since becoming Health and Social Care Secretary, I have been shocked by some of the care received by those with autism and learning difficulties. Where people deserve compassion and dignity, they have been treated like criminals, and that must stop. Like everyone across the House, I have been moved by the cases of Bethany, Stephen and so many others, whose stories have laid bare what is wrong with our system and what needs to change. I have instituted a serious incident review, but this is not just about individual cases; it is about the system.
Three years ago, the Government committed to reducing the number of people with learning disabilities or autism in secure mental health hospitals by at least a third. Currently, it is down by a fifth, but that still leaves 2,315 people with learning disabilities or autism in mental health hospitals. I want to see that number drastically reduce. I have asked the NHS to address that in the long-term plan, and I know that its leadership shares my determination to get this right. I have also instigated a Care Quality Commission review into the inappropriate use of prolonged seclusion and segregation. The long-term use of seclusion is unacceptable both medically and ethically. It must stop. The review will recommend how to protect vulnerable people better and how to ensure that everyone is cared for with the compassion, respect and dignity they deserve.
On the prescription of medicinal cannabis, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for their campaigning on this issue. We have changed the law to make it possible to prescribe medicinal cannabis where clinically appropriate. Urgent cases have been brought to my attention, including concerns that those who have received treatment on an exceptional basis are now being denied that treatment. There is no reason for that to happen. The treatment of each individual patient is and must be down to the decision of the specialist doctor, working with patients and their family to determine the best course of treatment for them.
I met the head of the NHS on that this morning, and I have immediately instigated a system of second opinions. We have put out a call for research to develop the evidence, and we have also commissioned the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to produce further clinical guidance on this issue. No one who currently gets medicinal cannabis should be denied it, and there is a system in place now for those who need to get it in future.
We want to deliver the best possible care to the most vulnerable, and we want to help build a more sustainable health and care system for all. Today’s announcements will help to do that, and I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We welcome his remarks on the use of medicinal cannabis and on the appalling, barbaric abuses of those with learning disabilities and autism, by which we have all been shocked. I understand his point about the review and about asking NHS England to carry out some work, but is it not time that these institutions were closed down and proper support provided in the community instead?
Of course we welcome the emphasis and focus on prevention, but these promises are not worth a candle if they are not backed up with real, substantive action. They come on the back of £700 million-worth of cuts to public health services, with more cuts to public health services pencilled in for next year, including £17 million-worth of cuts to sexual health services, £34 million-worth of cuts to drug and alcohol services, £3 million-worth of cuts to smoking cessation services and £1 million-worth of cuts to obesity services.
The Secretary of State did not mention childhood obesity in his remarks.
Jonathan Ashworth
I apologise if I missed it. Could the Secretary of State tell us when he plans to outlaw or ban the advertising of junk food on family television and when the consultation will end?
Immunisation rates for children have fallen for the fourth year in a row, so a big part of prevention should surely be a focus on investment in children’s and early years health services, yet Government cuts to those budgets and, indeed, the privatisation of many of those services in our communities have seen health visitor numbers fall by more than 2,000, school nurse numbers go down by 700 and 11% of babies miss out on mandated health checks. What is the Secretary of State’s plan to reverse those cuts to health visitors and school nurses?
All in all, alongside wider Department of Health and Social Care budgets, there will be £1 billion-worth of cuts to health services next year, with public health budgets taking considerable strain. Those £1 billion-worth of cuts should have been abandoned today, and it is a missed opportunity that the Secretary of State has not abandoned them. When he was asked about this in the Budget debate, he said it was a matter for the spending review. Well, today the Association of Directors of Public Health has said that the spending review should allocate an extra £3.2 billion for the public health grant next year. Does he accept that figure?
Of course prevention is about more than just public health; it is also about primary care. But GP numbers are down by 1,000 since 2015, and since 2010 district nurses have been cut by more than 3,000, so can the Secretary of State tell us what his plan is to increase the primary care workforce to support his wider ambitions on prevention? We know he wants a higher proportion of NHS spending to go to general practice, so does he agree with GPs that general practice should again receive around 11% of the overall NHS budget? If not, why not?
Of course, prevention is also about mental health services, but 30% of patients referred to IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—services never receive treatment. What is his plan to ensure that everyone who needs IAPT services next year gets them?
Finally, on the wider social determinants of ill health, the shameful reality is that people in poorer areas die earlier and get sick quicker. Life expectancy has begun to stall, and has actually gone backwards in some of the poorest parts of the country. Rates of premature mortality are twice as high in the most deprived areas of England compared with the most affluent, and mortality rates for the very sickest of babies are increasing. As laudable as many of the aims that the Secretary of State has announced today are, this document does not even mention poverty or deprivation. It does not even recognise that some of the deepest cuts to public health grants have been in the areas of highest need and highest deprivation.
Yes, we welcome a focus on prevention—we have long called for such a focus—but a genuine commitment to prevention would go hand in hand with a genuine commitment to ending austerity. That must start with reversing the public health cuts and blocking the £1 billion of further cuts to health services to come next year. On that test, the Secretary of State has failed today.
Matt Hancock
Great, well I take that as a broadly positive response from the hon. Gentleman, and I will address the points he makes. He asked about money, and we are putting £20.5 billion extra into the NHS—this is the largest and longest financial commitment any Government have made to any public service ever. Of course, as well as the NHS budget, local authorities have budgets for public health; as he said, that will be addressed in the spending review. The increase in funding must ensure that we do more on prevention, which means more going into community services and into primary care, as well as making sure we get the appropriate level of spending into public health.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the consultation on advertising as part of the obesity plan. As he knows, that will be published before Christmas. He also asked about rates of immunisation. I want to see immunisation used right across the country. There is a campaign all of us can take part in to persuade people and ensure that immunisation takes place. We do not have compulsory immunisation in this country. I believe that is right, on civil liberties grounds, but by goodness it means it is incumbent on all of us to persuade everybody of the health benefits of immunisation.
The hon. Gentleman asked about GP numbers. We want 5,000 more GPs, and I am glad to report that we have got record numbers of GPs in training, thanks to action by this Government. Finally, he asked about the economic causes of ill health. The No. 1 economic cause of ill health is not having a job, and there are record numbers of jobs in this country. If he says that inequality has an impact on ill health, he should probably welcome the fall in inequality that we have seen under this Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for what he has just said. A lot of Members wish to take part in this exchange, but I remind the House that there are two debates to follow. The Government have chosen to put on two ministerial statements, which is entirely their prerogative. Naturally, people do then tend to stand to ask questions, as that is what we do here, but I have also to protect the subsequent business. I therefore politely say to colleagues: if you have a long question in mind, cut it or do not bother. That would be really helpful. Let us start with the Chair of the Select Committee, Dr Sarah Wollaston.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
In the Secretary of State’s vision for prevention he rightly points out that £14 of social benefit accrues from every £1 spent in public health. Therefore it is going to be much more challenging for him to deliver on his objectives if there is a further transfer from the public health budgets into NHS England budgets. However, I recognise that this requires action across all Departments, so will he set out what he is going to do to encourage cross-government action on physical activity, because we all know that that is a vital part of public health and prevention?
Matt Hancock
I agree with my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee on that. Of course, the public health budgets for local authorities and Public Health England will be settled as part of the spending review, and there was no change to them in the Budget last week. There are also much wider responsibilities on activity—on cycling and walking—on which I am working with the Department for Transport. The document is all about the cross-government action, and the NHS will come forward with its long-term plan for the NHS-specific action. If there are aspects of cross-departmental working that she suggests we have not yet taken up, I will be looking forward to listening to her on that.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and, in particular, I welcome his determination to reduce the inappropriate and sometimes disgraceful treatment of vulnerable people with autism and learning disabilities. He says that prevention is infinitely better than cure—nobody is going to disagree with that—and that the Government are encouraging people to make better choices, which is fine. However, that will ring hollow if the Government themselves duck difficult decisions that could help citizens to make better choices; we have heard about the example of junk food advertising already, but let me touch on the issue of alcohol. If he is serious about supporting healthy choices, surely he must bring to an end the free-for-all that sees supermarkets encouraging alcohol consumption by selling it at ludicrously discounted prices. Some estimate that in the first five years a 50p minimum unit price in England could save more than 1,000 lives, reduce hospital admissions by 75,000 and cut healthcare costs by £326 million. If the Secretary of State is serious about prevention, will he support minimum pricing?
Finally, I welcome the moves in respect of the prescription of medicinal cannabis, but too few are benefiting. My constituent Caroline was given months to live after being diagnosed with a brain tumour. Those treating her link her ongoing good standard of living with her use of cannabis oil from Canada, which comes at an enormous financial cost to her and her family. However, those treating her will not prescribe cannabis oil because there is no suitable medical research on which to base such a prescription. Why not let Caroline become part of that research by prescribing medicinal cannabis to her? We can then all learn from her experience.
Matt Hancock
On medicinal cannabis, I announced more research today and there is now a route in England. The hon. Gentleman will of course have to talk to the Scottish health service to ensure that a constituent in Scotland gets access, but I am very happy to look into specific English cases.
On the broader point about alcohol, it is important that we tackle alcohol abuse and it is vital that we do it in the right way. I do not want to punish people who drink responsibly at responsible levels, including myself. I occasionally drink at a responsible level, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does—certainly his colleagues enjoy a wee dram. Nevertheless, 5% of people in this country drink 30% of the alcohol. It is the small minority who present significant problems for the NHS and we need significant, targeted action.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
We have cut salt dramatically and the Secretary of State now wants to cut it further; life will certainly seem longer, will it not?
Matt Hancock
There are many ways to make one’s food taste good and make it healthy, too.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
It is astonishing that there was no mention in the statement of poverty as a cause of ill health. Is the Secretary of State really so out of touch with communities in this country that he does not see how austerity is making people ill?
Matt Hancock
The statement talks all about the wider determinants of health. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to talk about poverty specifically, it is absolute poverty, not relative poverty, that has a link to ill health, and that has fallen.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
Is the Secretary of State aware that experts have warned that a million patients are getting useless drugs and injections for back pain, but his Department makes very little use of statutorily regulated osteopaths and chiropractors? Is he also aware that there is a Faculty of Homeopathy here and that the doctors are not employed enough, despite the fact that there are a quarter of a million homeopathic doctors in India?
Matt Hancock
I respect my hon. Friend’s understanding of these issues, not least because I am married to an osteopath, so my back is feeling okay and I hope that other people can access such services, too.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much welcome what the Secretary of State said about people on the autism and special educational needs spectrum. I also welcome his enthusiasm for the use of new technology, big data, data analytics and all that. Across party lines many of us see some real opportunities for delivering real public education in the health sector. When the Secretary of State makes good decisions and puts in the resources, he will have our support.
Matt Hancock
I am grateful for that. We put significant resources into the NHS last Monday. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the use of data. Instead of just targeting the average, it is about making sure that we get the public health messages to the people who really need to hear them. There is an argument that just broadly targeting public health messages actually exacerbates health inequalities, because people who are likely to listen to the messages tend to be people who are more likely to take responsibility for their own health in the first place. We need to be much more targeted and work is under way to make that happen.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement today. It is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do for the NHS, and also a healthy economy needs healthy people. Communities such as my own have very many young people, who are often renting, do not necessarily stay very long and therefore do not register with a GP. Will he take that into account when he is looking at where investment in primary care flows to in the detailed strategy?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The way that money for primary care is allocated is being looked at right now, taking that and other things into account.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
To really make a difference to keep our nation well, prevention has to be the preserve of both local and central Government. I note that the conclusion of the Secretary of State’s report says that he will be considering what a health-in-all-policies approach to policymaking could look like next year. Will he signal his support for the health-in-all-policies principle by supporting the Second Reading of my Health Impacts (Public Sector Duty) Bill on Friday 23 November?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady makes a great plea, which I will look into in some detail.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
We have a duty of care to support all our citizens to maintain good health by empowering employers in the private and the public sectors to motivate staff to invest time and commitment into their diet, fitness, and long-term health. How will the Secretary of State create that new ethos?
Matt Hancock
There is such an important role here for employers. It is not part of the culture of the UK, except in some excellent examples, that employers take a proactive view of the health of their employees. Other countries around Europe do that much, much more systematically. I am attracted to the Dutch model, but there are others, too, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her support in doing that.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Breastfeeding has a significant preventive effect, and babies who are not breastfed are at greater risk of eczema, asthma, obesity, diabetes and sudden infant death syndrome, among other conditions. Scotland has invested in breastfeeding support and seen rates at six to eight weeks rise, whereas in England the rates have fallen for the second year running. Will the Secretary of State invest to bring all maternity and community services up to UNICEF’s baby-friendly standard, and will he act to make sure that women who wish to breastfeed are not being failed by the cuts in England?
Matt Hancock
The earlier that we can start with this sort of strategy of preventing ill health the better, and there is a lot of merit in a lot of what the hon. Lady said.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement today. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to the daily mile in primary schools—I am a particular fan of it because it was invented by a Scottish headteacher in Stirlingshire. Does the Secretary of State agree that young people being fit and active is good for their mental, social and physical wellbeing?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. I strongly support the daily mile and I try to do it myself. The key is that this is about activity. It is not necessarily about competitive sport, but about healthy activity that can help to prevent all manner of ills.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on learning disability and autism. He will have seen the report in The Times today, which highlights the outrageous profiteering of a number of people in providing the wrong model of care—long-term institutional care—which frequently breaches people’s human rights. Will he commit to bringing an end to this profiteering and will he also look at including the endemic use of force—restraint—in these facilities along with seclusion in the Care Quality Commission’s investigation?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will. I pay tribute to the work that the right hon. Gentleman did in the Department and the fact that he continues to champion this issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Chair will be keen to move on to the main business at 6 o’clock, or very close thereto, so if people have questions in mind, will they think about how they can shave them?
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Will he outline what his views are for community pharmacy as part of the strategy of prevention?
Matt Hancock
Community pharmacies have a hugely important role to play in keeping people out of hospital and in supporting GP surgeries by doing more. Here, it is the French model that I look to for inspiration, but we should look all across the world to improve our health service.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Tooth decay is entirely preventable, so will the Secretary of State act now to address the concerns of the British Dental Association and others that the new dental contract will not go far enough in prioritising prevention?
Matt Hancock
We are trialling the new contract to get it right. We want to get it right, and I look forward to listening to the hon. Lady’s concerns in more detail.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend is aware, I am a very part-time dentist and I am also a supporter of the British Fluoridation Society. Probably the very biggest reason for children attending hospital for general anaesthetic is to extract decayed, rotten, abscessing teeth caused by dental caries. Fluoridation of the water supplies is a very effective means of prevention. Does he support fluoridation of the water supplies, and what can he do to actively promote it, because, at the moment, it is in only 10% of our supplies?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is of course a dentist, and I would love to listen to him speak in more detail about what we can do to get this right.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State does not think that poverty and deprivation are key factors in health inequality, can he explain why life expectancy for women in Sheffield has fallen by four years since 2009?
Matt Hancock
I said the opposite actually. There are environmental and economic factors, and they are very important. My point was that having a record level of jobs in this country is a benefit.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
In my constituency of Mid Derbyshire, there is an amazing group of community pharmacies that are saving people going into hospital and getting them out quicker. I invite my right hon. Friend to come and see them. He does not need to go to France; he can come to Mid Derbyshire instead.
Matt Hancock
I will actually be in Derbyshire later this month visiting a neighbouring constituency, but it looks like I have just put another stop on the itinerary.
Mr Speaker
I am quite certain that the Secretary of State will want to visit the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I welcome the focus on prevention. Of course, the next best thing is early diagnosis. Will the Secretary of State look again and remove the arbitrary age limit of 25 for women’s smear tests?
Matt Hancock
We are reviewing questions around that issue, because we want to ensure the best possible prevention and early diagnosis.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I welcome the focus on physical activity in the new prevention strategy. First, how will the Secretary of State work with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on this? Secondly, would not travelling to work provide a great opportunity? Activities such as walking, cycling, tennis before work, Mr Speaker, and my eight minutes of pilates are all cheap or free. What does the Secretary of State have to say about that?
Matt Hancock
Well, I wish I had time for eight minutes of pilates with my hon. Friend. I cannot think of a better way to start the day. I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport was here for the statement. We have been working with his Department on the strategy because it is so important to work across Government.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
There is lots that we can agree on in this strategy but, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS, I am genuinely disappointed to see that there is no mention of sexual health, HIV or crucial preventive measures such as PrEP. We have made huge progress in reducing new HIV infections in this country. Surely, we cannot risk the reversal of that progress now. Local services have been cut and the Health Foundation estimates that sexual health services in England will have been cut by a quarter by 2020. That means huge consequences for the individual and costs for the NHS. What is the Secretary of State going to do?
Matt Hancock
Public Health England is trialling PrEP, and I am willing to work with the hon. Gentleman and others to ensure that we do everything we can in this space. The truth is that outcomes are improving in many areas of sexual health, and we have to ensure that we get the right treatment to the right people at the right time.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s focus on clean air and reducing childhood obesity is massively welcome. In the Netherlands, half of all children cycle to school. In the UK, it is 3%. What more will he do across Government to up that figure?
Matt Hancock
I am working with the Department for Transport. Transport Ministers feel very strongly about this question. The document details some of the things that we are going to do, but I am sure that there are a lot more.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
May I suggest that the Secretary of State has a look at the report, “Fair Society, Health Lives”, by Professor Sir Michael Marmot, particularly at his recommendation about a minimum income for healthy living? With this in mind, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of universal credit and cuts to that scheme on poverty and healthy life expectancy?
Matt Hancock
I have of course looked at that report. It is important, and it is important that we get the answers to it right.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State agree that more education should be spent on understanding the total role of sugars in combating diabetes, to go with the success that he has had with regards to the direct focus on sugars in drinks and food?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I strongly agree. Reformulation is critical. However, it is crucial to look not just at sugar, but at calorie count. Replacing sugars with higher calorie products is not necessarily the right way forward.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Current average waiting times for eating disorders are 27 weeks, during which time the condition can become much worse. Will the prevention strategy look into concrete proposals to reduce waiting times, with, specifically, targets for waiting times for adult sufferers from eating disorders?
Matt Hancock
Yes, we are considering this as part of the long-term plan. We have already announced that more than £2 billion extra will be going into mental health services and services to tackle eating disorders, and there will be more to come on this very shortly.
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Whitestone surgery and its patient participation group, who have brought forward a social prescribing model that has reduced the prevalence of early-onset dementia and reduced the number of anti-depressant drugs being prescribed at that surgery?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I absolutely will. I am a huge fan of social prescribing. I essentially think that because drugs companies have a big budget to try to market their drugs—and of course many drugs do wonders—there is not the equivalent level of organisation to drive up the use of social prescribing. Examples like the one that my hon. Friend mentions are incredibly important.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The half-a-million-pound cut in public health in York has had very serious consequences, while nationally, with regard to the Government’s flagship project of health visiting—the crucial profession in improving outcomes—the number of health visitors has plummeted by 23% from the previous figure of 10,309. Why?
Matt Hancock
We are increasing the budget in future and making sure that we target it more on community services and making sure that we get more prevention rather than cure. I can look at the case of York; I can look right across the country at what we need to do. Making sure that we get better prevention is all part of that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Children’s dental health is shocking and child obesity levels are too high. Will the two words, “parental responsibility”, appear in the Secretary of State’s forthcoming Green Paper?
Matt Hancock
They will now. I believe very strongly in parental responsibility as well as personal responsibility and the responsibilities of employers. We all have a part to play. As parents, we have a very big responsibility to bring up our children in a heathy way, too.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend may be aware, one of the benefits of turning 40 is that we become entitled to an NHS MOT every five years. Has he, as part of his very welcome shift towards prevention, considered extending both the age range and frequency of these very important tests?
Matt Hancock
Well, you learn new things every day, Madam Deputy Speaker—as someone who only just turned 40, I had no idea. I think we should send everybody a 40th birthday card from the NHS saying, “You can now have these MOTs every five years.” [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State would like one, too. We will make sure that that is arranged right away.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
As it is my 40th birthday next month, I will look forward to getting a card. The Croft Hall medical practice in Torquay has taken a bold step to use what was once just a derelict backyard as a community garden as part of its wellbeing hub. What role does my right hon. Friend see that type of work by local GP surgeries playing in this strategy?
Matt Hancock
That sort of work is absolutely brilliant. At one level, it is common sense, but it also needs to be a bigger part of the system. I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this to the House’s attention. Perhaps he should be the first recipient of one of the NHS’s 40th birthday cards.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Are there any other international models inspiring the Secretary of State—in relation to prevention, of course?
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
The Secretary of State is obviously too young for it, but will he endorse the mile walk aimed at the over-50s that leaves the Stan Ball centre in my constituency at half-past 10 every Monday morning?
Matt Hancock
The daily mile—or, in this case, the mile walk once a week—is not just for children but for all of us who can make it. The example that my hon. Friend mentions is valuable to the community, and I am absolutely delighted that it is happening.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I have a couple of years to go until I am 40, but one in four of my constituents is over 65. Lincolnshire has done great work on frailty and assessing the whole person. Does the Secretary of State agree that actually we need to look at the whole person in the round, and that, for older people, technology can also pay a huge role?
Matt Hancock
Perhaps by the time my hon. Friend becomes 40 it will be a birthday text rather than a birthday card, thus saving on postage costs within the NHS and moving on from the fax machines of old. In all seriousness, the point that he raises is incredibly important. The role of technology in this whole agenda is transforming what we can achieve for the over-65s and for the whole population, as in every other area of life. I know that he is a huge champion of technology, and I would like to think that I am, too. We have yet more to learn about what more we can do to improve people’s lives through technology within the prevention agenda.
Points of Order
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The treatment of autistic people and people with learning disabilities in assessment and treatment units is nothing short of a national scandal. Seven years after the Winterbourne View scandal, the Government still have not got rid of these units or substantially cut their use. Now we get, with no notice, the whole issue rolled into another oral statement on public health. The shameful treatment of 2,300 people in Bedlam-like conditions is too important to be dealt with in this way. Can you advise on how to get the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to take this issue more seriously in the way that he communicates to the House?
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have come to the House at the first available opportunity to explain very clearly, and with some force, I hope, how strongly I feel about people with learning difficulties and autism being held in seclusion units. It is unacceptable morally and unacceptable medically. It has to stop, and it is going to stop.
Barbara Keeley
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What I was complaining about was that this was done with no notice—no notice to the shadow Secretary of State, no notice to me or the team, and no notice to Members of this House who were not here to ask questions. We should have had notice that this important issue was being dealt with.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady and the Secretary of State for their points of order. Obviously, the Secretary of State will have heard the point that the hon. Lady has made. I am sure that she will wish to pursue this further. The Secretary of State and the Leader of the House are here on the Treasury Bench, so I am sure that if there is further information forthcoming, that will be the way to proceed.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance as I am a relatively new Member of this House. It came to my attention on Friday that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was visiting my constituency at the weekend. I did not receive advance notice of his visit. I understand that the purpose of the visit was to hold a rally to do a number of things, but particularly to try to get rid of the Scottish Conservatives. Reassuringly, only a handful of people attended the event. I have given the hon. Gentleman notice of this point of order. Am I correct in thinking that it was appropriate for him to give me advance notice of visiting my constituency?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. I am glad that he has confirmed that he also warned the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that he was going to raise the point of order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there is a well-established convention that if Members plan to visit other Members’ constituencies for political—not for personal—reasons, they should give them advance notice. It is important that we maintain this courtesy to one another.
Bill Presented
School Uniforms Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Frank Field, supported by Tim Loughton, presented a Bill to require school governing bodies to implement affordability policies when setting school uniform requirements; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November and to be printed (Bill 283).
Bullying and Harassment: Cox Report
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Dame Laura Cox report on the bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff.
Most people who work here in Parliament fully realise what a privilege it is to do so and that whether we are MPs, peers or senior management of the House, we should all carry out our work to the highest possible standards, both professionally and morally. We should behave in the way set out for us by the Nolan principles, and we should lead by example. Most of us fully accept that when we fall short of the high standards rightfully expected of us, we should be held accountable for our actions and that, as part of playing a role in public life, we should also challenge poor standards and poor behaviour when we see them.
As I said in response to the urgent question on 16 October, I welcome Dame Laura Cox’s report, “The Bullying and Harassment of House of Commons Staff”, and I would like to thank her for her important work. As her hard-hitting report recognises, the House of Commons has fallen woefully short in supporting and protecting its staff. It has failed the people who work here. The fact that some of those in positions of power or authority have bullied, intimidated and harassed those who work alongside them and perpetuated a culture where that behaviour is not only tolerated but comes to be expected by members of staff as “the norm” is outrageous. There is no place for abuse or harassment in Parliament. That applies to everyone, without exception.
Today’s debate is undoubtedly an important one, but it must form part of a bigger picture. We need to continue to hear the views of every person who works in or for Parliament, especially those who have struck up the courage to speak out about the unacceptable behaviour that they know must be challenged. It is to those people that I especially want to speak directly today. Thank you for your courage in speaking out. I know how difficult the decision to do so will have been, and I am absolutely determined to make your working lives and the working lives of everyone in this place as fulfilling and as dignified as they unquestionably should be. I am so sorry to hear of your experiences. You should never have been treated unjustly.
This is an amazing place to work in many different ways—something that the report brings out—but Dame Laura’s report also shows a dark side and makes clear that we must not rest until all people working here are treated with dignity and respect. I give my personal commitment to the House that I will not stop until that is the case. Anything that falls short of that goal is not acceptable.
Today, we are debating this important report, how its recommendations will be taken forward and what more we can do. Before we turn to that in earnest, I want to outline briefly the action that has been taken so far to change Parliament for the better—and make no mistake, we are taking action. As Members are aware, the Prime Minister convened a working group a year ago to establish a new independent complaints and grievance procedure for Parliament. A first-rate programme team made up of senior House staff, for whose work I am very grateful, took forward the implementation of the working group’s recommendations. That was overseen by a cross-party steering group made up of representatives from all parties, trade unions and staff.
A new Parliament-wide independent grievance scheme was launched by a vote of the House in July. The scheme, now known as the ICGS, has a number of key features. First, the House has agreed a shared behaviour code that applies to everyone in the House, with no exceptions, and holds all of us here, unequivocally, to the same high standards of behaviour.
Secondly, there are two new independent helplines and investigative services, with corresponding policies in place—one to deal with bullying and harassment, and a separate one to deal with sexual misconduct. Those policies underpin the behaviour code and ensure that everyone in this House now has access to an independent scheme that will handle their complaint or grievance. The number for those helplines can be found on the parliamentary intranet.
Thirdly, it was very important to ensure that Members’ staff had access to independent human resources support, which has never until this point been available, so a human resources support service has now been established for Members’ staff. Lastly, there is a significant programme of work under way to develop better training, both mandatory and optional, to equip all those who work in this place to manage staff appropriately and promote the culture change we all want to see.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
This is an important report. I have three daughters and four granddaughters, and we want people to be treated the way that members of our family would be treated. It is all very well calling for a change in culture, but we need good management to deliver that. I welcome most of the report, but that was one of the disappointing bits. What management steps are being taken to ensure that this works positively for anyone who is at risk?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point about changing the management of the House and not just the processes. I will come on to that, if he will bear with me, but I want to first finish talking about what is currently available, because it is incredibly important for all those who want to come forward with a complaint.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The point raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is a very salient one. We spend an awful lot of time looking at processes and procedures, writing down codes and adjusting rules, and very little time thinking about how we change the culture. It is not about the management of this place; it is about every single right hon. and hon. Member in this House. We lead this place, and we set the example and the tone. The question is how we want the governance of this place to change the culture, and that falls on us, not on some obscure committee elsewhere to take that responsibility away from us.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I will come on to governance issues, but I would like to finish talking about the processes that we have put in place since July this summer.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Dame Laura Cox refers in her report to the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service helping staff who have been subject to bullying and harassment, and she comments that the service is
“overworked, under resourced, under promoted and undervalued by the senior administration.”
Will my right hon. Friend meet Dr Madan, who heads up the service as the leading occupational physician? She has a unique insight into the culture and sees staff who might not feel confident to come forward.
Andrea Leadsom
I would be delighted to meet the head of the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service. My hon. Friend is right to point out that the service has been overworked. As part of the new complaints and grievance procedure, resources will be made available, but nevertheless I would be very happy to meet the lady she mentions.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
I bring the House’s attention to paragraph 418 of Dame Laura’s report, which says:
“In relation to allegations made against Members of Parliament, it is readily acknowledged and should be emphasised that the overwhelming majority of Members behave entirely appropriately and courteously towards members of House staff. However, their collective reputation is being damaged by the allegations of unacceptable behaviour made against some of their number and by the inadequacy of the procedures in place to deal with complaints. I have no doubt that they will regard this as intolerable.”
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a relatively small number of rotten apples, but the problem with our particular barrel is that those rotten apples are quite near the top?
Andrea Leadsom
Again, my hon. Friend makes a really important point. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, most of us here absolutely accept that we need to behave with the greatest of professionalism and moral authority. It is only a few who let us down, but nevertheless, when they do so, they have to be called out, counted and dealt with appropriately.
I would like to return to discussing the independent complaints and grievance procedure, which is known as the ICGS. I can report to the House that, from the launch of the ICGS in July to the end of September, a total of 51 calls were made with complaints and concerns, and a small number of investigations into complaints are currently under way. Initial indications for October show that the call rate is continuing at the same level. I can tell the House that we intend to publish the reporting data quarterly.
Vitally, the ICGS is confidential, which encourages complainants to come forward without any fear of publicity or retribution. The investigation process is also completely independent. Where the finding against any individual is so severe as to require consideration of terminating their employment, there is a clear route in all circumstances. Specifically in the case of MPs who are accused of wrongdoing, that route is currently to the Committee on Standards, which has taken steps to allow the seven lay members to have a vote in addition to the seven elected members. This is an important step. I am aware that some want to see further independence from Members themselves, and the House of Commons Commission and the Standards Committee will look at how this can be achieved while still upholding the principles of democratic accountability. To be absolutely clear: we are fully committed to ensuring that the accountability of MPs is enforced.
As I have said, ever since taking on the chairmanship of the working group, establishing the complaints procedure has been the first, and not the last, step towards the culture change we all want to see. There are three crucial next steps that we agreed earlier in the year. First, there should be an independent inquiry into allegations of bullying of House staff, and it is this report that we are debating today. Secondly, there should also be an independent review of historical allegations of Members and their staff, which I understand is to be publicly launched tomorrow. I do urge all those who have experienced bullying and harassment in any way to come forward to give evidence to that inquiry. Thirdly, there will be a review of the ICGS after six months of operation, and again after 18 months. I will be meeting with the ICGS steering group shortly to consult further on how we take forward that first review.
Mr Sheerman
On an important factual point, the right hon. Lady may remember that I chaired the anti-bullying group in Parliament, a cross-party group that was very much supported by the Speaker. Some of its members are no longer Members, but will they be eligible to give evidence? Having such a parliamentary group was a very important turning point psychologically. We were accepted as having a contribution to make, and we started to look at the behaviour of Members of Parliament. Some of us knew about their behaviour, but could not actually drag it out into the daylight.
Andrea Leadsom
I would certainly be very happy to discuss how the hon. Gentleman and colleagues can feed into the review. As he will be aware, the ICGS steering group is made up of Members of this House and of the other place, as well as trade union members and members of staff of MPs and peers. Nevertheless, it will be for a wide variety of stakeholders to feed into that process, and I would be delighted to discuss that with him.
Turning now to Dame Laura’s report, its findings are shocking. As I said on 16 October, it was important that the House leadership responded promptly and comprehensively. The House of Commons Commission has met twice since then and has agreed in full Dame Laura’s three key recommendations. The commission has further directed the Commons Executive Board to produce a speedy action plan in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, which will be taken forward with the help and support of the external members of the Commission.
I would now like to turn to each of Dame Laura’s key recommendations. First, she recommends that the Valuing Others and Respect policies, which were available to House staff, are discarded. House staff have been able to access the ICGS since it began in July, so the House of Commons Commission has agreed that the pre-existing policies should be discarded.
Secondly, Dame Laura recommends that the new ICGS is amended to ensure that those House employees with complaints involving historical allegations can access the new scheme. I think it is important to clarify that House staff already do have the same rights of access to the ICGS as everyone else here. The steering group agreed that historical allegations would be accepted by the new scheme. However, legal advice taken advised that allegations referring to events that predate the 2017 Parliament could be considered only under any sanctions available at the time of the offence. Dame Laura’s report suggests that the House of Commons Commission look at this again. It has agreed to do so, and that will be taken forward.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Leader of the House mentions the important fact that if anybody has allegations, those allegations will be judged against what was right at that time. However, surely it was always wrong to harass and bully people in this place. That is the standard against which we should treat everybody.
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. That is a very helpful clarification because there has been some misunderstanding. Anybody with a historical allegation that predates July 2017 can and should come forward under the complaints and grievance procedure. The difference is that the behaviour code itself cannot be applied pre-July 2017. However, as my right hon. Friend points out, exactly correctly, most of the sorts of behaviours that people will expect to come forward to complain about would already have been captured under a pre-existing code of some sort—either the code of conduct for MPs or, indeed, employment contracts. I do encourage anybody with any complaint to come forward under the complaints procedure and not be put off by the fact that the behaviour code itself—this new creation of the House—applies only from July 2017. This is an incredibly important point, because there has been some misunderstanding about it. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for clarifying that point.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
On the scope of the scheme, will my right hon. Friend confirm, as many of us spend a lot of time in our constituencies, that it also includes our constituency staff and offices?
Andrea Leadsom
Yes. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for another point of clarification. The scheme absolutely includes everybody who works for or with Parliament, including members of staff in our constituency offices, pass holders and indeed those who work on a voluntary basis, provided they are actually employed here. There are some limitations, but it also applies to visitors to this place. It is all-encompassing—it covers all those who come here or work for Members of Parliament.
Dame Laura’s third recommendation is that complaints brought by House staff against Members of Parliament should be subject to an entirely independent process in which Members of Parliament play no part whatsoever. I can tell hon. Members that, before establishing the ICGS, there were several productive meetings with the Committee on Standards. The then Chairman, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), recognised the need for lay members to have a majority vote on sanctions against MPs and took steps to ensure that this could be the case. I have recently met the new Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is in her place. I know she has further suggestions on how to ensure greater independence of the process, so I look forward to hearing the hon. Lady’s contribution today.
Dame Laura’s key recommendations are clear and have been agreed by the House of Commons Commission. What is less clear, however—but this is definitely the most important part of today’s debate, as some hon. Members have already said—is how we can change the culture of Parliament that has made these recommendations necessary. The failings are institutional: they are systemic, they have become embedded and, as noted by Dame Laura, they cascade “from the top down”. It is my strong view that we need to look at the governance of the House of Commons, and we need to democratise it to ensure that with authority comes full accountability.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The truth of the matter is that it is down to leadership. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin): we are talking about leadership, and all the rules count for nothing if our style is wrong. We know what is right, and people who do wrong should be called out by the rest of us and dealt with. We do not need commissions or rules for that. What is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. We should know that as MPs.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right: it is about leadership. The complaints procedure is vital to give satisfaction, justice and clarity to those who have suffered at the hands of any Member or, indeed, any member of staff, but my hon. Friend is right that leadership is key.
Andrea Leadsom
I would like to make one point—I think the hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear it—before I give way.
We need to democratise the House of Commons, but governance change cannot and should not happen overnight. The then Public Administration Committee, chaired, as the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is now, by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), said in written evidence to the House of Commons Governance Committee, which held the last review of House of Commons governance in 2014:
“Any structural or organisational change should only be considered as a consequence of a full understanding of the underlying causes of difficulty or failure. If this is not done, structural change, with all the disruption which that involves, will become no more than a distraction. This may be welcomed by those who want to avoid the more difficult, personal causes of problems in the organisation, which are likely to be in the culture. By culture, we mean what is embedded in the attitudes and behaviour of the people in the organisation, and PASC has found this is by far the most important determinant of organisational effectiveness.”
That still rings true—structural change needs to be considered in the context of an organisation’s culture.
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with the point that the right hon. Lady just made.
Leadership comes in many different styles. There are autocratic styles of leadership: when I was on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee many years ago, our Committee was run in that way and it was inappropriate. Now most Select Committees are much more likely to work as a team. I wonder whether the House of Commons Commission would be better if it were constituted more like a Select Committee that worked as a team of people, throughout a Parliament, with each individual in the team able to assume responsibility. That might be a better way of leading change within the House.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and I am keen to hear all Members’ views on how we can improve the democracy in this place.
Dame Laura’s report has made it clear that we need to consider first, changing the power balance in this place; secondly, giving staff a stronger voice; and thirdly, addressing how to stop failures at the top infecting our entire workplace. Therefore, one of the questions I would like the House to consider and give views on today is whether the current structure of the House of Commons leadership is fit for purpose.
The Commission has tasked the Commons Executive Board with bringing forward a speedy action plan, and I support that. My vision for a future democratisation of governance is a leadership structure that is fully and fairly representative of all who work here, and accountable for all actions and decisions. Any changes to governance need to be carefully considered, and they need to be fit for a 21st-century Parliament. My three personal tests for considering future proposals for change in the House’s leadership are, first, will they mean that everyone who works here can expect to be treated with dignity and respect? Secondly, will they rebuild the confidence of those who have suffered in the past? Thirdly, do all those who work here feel they have a proper stake in the decisions that affect them?
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
My perception is that if we are to democratise the House, whatever system we use must be simple, not bureaucratic. We have a tendency in the House when we look at new ideas and introduce new institutions to get very bureaucratic. Any new structure must be a simple one that everybody understands, not top-down and overburdened with people at the top.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree and I will be interested to hear whether the hon. Gentleman has further thoughts on any changes he would like to propose.
In opening today’s debate about Dame Laura’s report, I welcome not only her specific recommendations for urgent change, but her broader conclusions about accountability and leadership in this place. I look forward to hearing views from all colleagues.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for opening the debate. I hope that she will join me in sending good wishes to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is not very well. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) who is taking his place.
Once again, I, too, thank Dame Laura Cox QC OBE for her diligence in carrying out this inquiry. As the Leader of the House said, the report is important. The Opposition accept the recommendations in full, immediately. It is vital that victims of abuse have their voices heard and that we get it right now.
Andrew Bridgen
Does the shadow Leader of the House agree that the crux of the problem is that, until we have a culture in this place whereby a member of staff who makes a complaint about a senior manager or a Member is confident that they are not ending their career, nothing will happen?
Valerie Vaz
The Leader of the House has set out the new process, so people should feel confident.
The Opposition are grateful to all those who contributed to the report. I say to those members of staff: I acknowledge the hurt that you have suffered and the courage of those who have spoken up. Those who work in the canteens and throughout the House, you undertake your work professionally and with integrity. You are helpful, creative, and supportive of Members. There is a very high standard of work here, which is appreciated. This place simply would not function without you.
I hope that the debate will do justice to the responses and the work that was put into the report, and I will highlight just a few areas. The report notes that a cultural change needs to happen. In paragraph 67, Dame Laura Cox says that,
“structural and governance arrangements have changed several times over the years, while the organisational culture has remained firmly in place.”
I know that the Leader of the House agrees that a culture change is needed and has previously said in the House that it will “not happen overnight”. However, will she update the House on how a cultural change will be measured so we know we are making progress?
Dame Laura Cox highlighted the gender and racist dimension to bullying and harassment. Paragraph 123 states that,
“some areas of the House were described as having a particularly bad reputation for sexist or racist attitudes”.
Of the 200 people who came forward to give information to the inquiry, the majority, nearly 70%, were women. The House of Commons and Parliamentary Digital Service diversity and inclusion strategy 2019 to 2022 is evidence of the House service’s commitment to ensuring that this place is a positive and inclusive environment to work in. Jennifer Crook is head of diversity and inclusion, and work is already under way. She has produced a very good report highlighting successes in, for example, talent management, and rolled out unconscious bias training.
According to the recent staff survey, staff with disabilities have the highest rates of experiencing discrimination, bullying and harassment and are less likely to agree that the House service provides an inclusive environment. That is followed by black, Asian and minority ethnic staff, particularly black British staff. The Cox report, taken together with results from the staff survey, which suggested that 18% of staff had experienced bullying or harassment in the past 12 months, most of it at the hands of other staff, and that 3% had experienced sexual harassment, shows we clearly have a long way to go before we can claim we have an inclusive workplace.
Dame Laura Cox raises the need for training. In paragraph 311, she states:
“Even those Members most implacably opposed will gain from it, despite any current intransigence.”
At the urgent question on 16 October, the Leader of the House said:
“available is a wide range of optional, voluntary training in how to carry out appraisals, how to lead an office and so on.”
She went on to say:
“Compulsory training for new Members will be introduced after the next election. It was decided that there was no consensus in favour of compulsory training for those who were already Members”.—[Official Report, 16 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 541-2.]
In my view, if we want cultural change everyone should have training and it should be compulsory. Will the Leader of the House please reconsider, in the light of the Cox report, that compulsory training should be discussed again?
Chris Bryant
My personal suspicion is that if we made training very available so it was easy for Members to attend, the vast majority of Members would sign up to it without us having to get to the compulsory stage. I am up for making it compulsory if we have to do that, but I am sure the vast majority of Members would not be intransigent. Most of us would not even know whether we had been inappropriate because we have not had proper training and we would be delighted to do it, but it needs somebody to get on the phone and persuade us all to turn up.
Valerie Vaz
I think my hon. Friend is saying two slightly different things: that someone has to get on the phone and that Members will do it. We could say to people that training is available and that everyone has to undertake it. For example, people in the civil service have to go through training before they can interview anyone. I think it is perfectly reasonable to say to Members that they should undergo some training.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
This point about training is very contentious. I am afraid that Members of Parliament are not civil servants. It is only recently in the history of the House of Commons that Members of Parliament were considered even to be employed in legal terms. Until the mid ’60s we were self-employed. The idea that we should be treated as civil servants is not right. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is completely right. If training were available and those in leadership positions in this House set the right example, by taking the training themselves and telling junior Members that they are expected to be trained in these matters, training would become part of our culture. It depends on the leadership, not compulsion.
Valerie Vaz
I was not suggesting that this is like the civil service. I was just saying that if you are going through a process you need to be trained in it. I think that some people do not understand what sexism or racism is. They do not understand certain behaviours. If people at the top are expected to do it, everyone should do it. There is not an issue; half a day should be acceptable.
Mrs Miller
May I suggest that the hon. Lady takes a leaf out of the Canadian Government’s book? They put in place training for every Minister within weeks of the #MeToo campaign kicking off. Everybody did it and they actually thought it was a good thing to do.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the right hon. Lady. I will come on to that later. That is a very good point.
The House of Commons Commission met on Wednesday 24 October 2018 to discuss the report’s recommendations and consider a way forward. The meeting was chaired by Jane McCall, the senior external member of the Commission. The task is falling to Jane McCall and Rima Makarem to oversee the work. Quite rightly, there will be no Member involvement. At this point, I want to thank Dame Janet Gaymer for her involvement and for all her work on the Commission. The Opposition welcome the decision by the Commission to accept the recommendations of the Cox report. The Commission is terminating the Valuing Others policy and has suspended operation of the Respect policy, recommending that the House terminate it as soon as possible.
Dame Laura’s report was critical of the independent complaints and grievance policy. The Commission recommends that the House amends the new independent complaints and grievance scheme to ensure that those House employees with complaints involving historical allegations can access the new scheme. The Commission rightly recommends that the House considers the most effective way to ensure that the process for determining complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment brought by House staff against Members of Parliament is an entirely independent process in which Members of Parliament play no part. The Commission agreed not to wait for the six-month review of the independent complaints and grievance scheme, due to start in January 2019, but to identify a way to give those with historical complaints access to the scheme. Could the Leader provide the House with details on what work is already under way? She said that she will report quarterly. When will we get the first report?
Andrea Leadsom
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. I fear she is in danger of perpetuating the mistake that currently people do not have access to the complaints scheme for historical allegations. They absolutely do and I urge anybody with any complaint to come forward to the complaints scheme now—they do have access to it.
Valerie Vaz
I am not perpetuating a myth. I am reporting factually what the Commission decided. That is exactly what the Commission decided: to look at the scheme to ensure that people can do that. The Leader of the House did not answer my question, but maybe she will answer it at the end.
In respect of historical allegations, there should be a fair process. In paragraph 401, Dame Laura Cox suggests that
“Distinguished senior lawyers or retired judges, highly experienced in handling these sensitive cases and in analysing evidence and finding facts, would ensure that the investigations…were treated with respect.”
She also suggests that everyone will have confidence in such a process. Investigators currently in place do not have that experience. Will the Leader of the House ensure that investigators with sufficient experience will handle those cases? In paragraph 379, Dame Laura Cox highlights the general reluctance of Members to judge the misconduct of other Members or even to assist in investigations. She makes reference, as the Leader of the House did, to the Nolan principle of leadership, which
“requires all holders of public office to be willing to challenge misconduct or inappropriate behaviour, wherever it occurs.”
That includes Member on Member, which we should remind ourselves of.
Cox states:
“There is now an institutional responsibility to act to restore public confidence in the central institution of our representative democracy.”
I hope that is respected with the widest consultation on any new process with a broad range of the trade unions that operate in this workplace and other stakeholders, and, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), that the current and new system have sufficient resources. What discussions has the Leader of the House had with the Government to ensure the allocation of proper resources and extra staff to make this work?
There should be time to look at best practice around the world—the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) suggested looking at Canada—and in other public organisations. Democracy is stronger when it is inclusive and reflects all the people it seeks to serve irrespective of age, disability, ethnicity, faith, gender identity, sex, sexuality or socio-economic background. It is vital that everyone working in a modern Parliament knows the boundaries of acceptable behaviour in a safe and secure workplace, and that we all play a vital role in ensuring that our Parliament and our democracy thrive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
We will start off with a seven-minute limit.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I pay tribute to the tenacity and commitment of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I do not think anybody has done more to try to deal with the situation we face. She is absolutely right that being a Member of this place is a privilege. It is like no other job. We represent our community, but we also speak truth to power. Today’s debate cannot fall shy of that.
The people who work here have a right to expect to be treated in accordance with the law, as they would be elsewhere. They want a safe workplace. The people I have worked with as a Member of Parliament, whether Clerks or anybody else, are an extraordinary bunch of people with the most extraordinary commitment to supporting the work of this place in whatever role they have. I very much welcome Dame Laura Cox’s report and I, too, pay tribute to the 200 or so people who gave evidence. Nobody but nobody today should even attempt to dismiss this report because of that enormous commitment from our members of staff.
Many staff have approached us as Members and welcomed the proposed changes, but there is a toxic lack of trust in management about whether the changes will actually come into effect. I will come on to the point about culture in a moment, but it is important to point out that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, culture is something that we all have ownership of and all shape, but we shape it at a very high level. When it comes to shaping that culture for a working environment, staff are much more likely to see that coming from their direct management, and that direct management culture prevails for the vast majority of members of staff in this place. What has been most revealing about the Cox report is that, although there are of course issues about the behaviour of Members of Parliament, there are also significant issues about the behaviour of members of staff as well, and we should not be shy about discussing that.
Dame Laura Cox’s report talked about a culture of complacency, cover-up and denial that has allowed the abuse and harassment of staff to thrive for so long. I believe that that culture still pervades. We have only to look at the way in which the management here reacted to the “Newsnight” allegations in March: they were immediately dismissed as a “grotesque exaggeration”, yet the Cox report categorically exposes the fact that, far from an exaggeration, all those allegations are much more likely to be an accurate depiction of what is going on for too many people in this place. Indeed, the problems run deeper than just the abuse, to the dismissive way in which allegations are handled, and that has created a toxic lack of trust in senior management. Why does this matter? It matters because our staff have a right in law not to suffer discrimination and management have a duty in law to treat people correctly, and make sure that they are treated correctly. However, we also have a duty to make sure that we set the best of examples—indeed, so that we can attract an even more diverse cross-section of MPs to this place.
The current situation risks bringing the House of Commons and, thereby our democracy, into disrepute. The media revelations in the spring were a real wake-up call, but why did it take “Newsnight” to report this and to prompt Dame Laura Cox’s report? According to data given to the Cox inquiry, despite an increasing number of complaints under “Valuing Others”, there had been no findings and external investigations of bullying or harassment for the past four or five years. Why did management systems not pick this up? This is why, while the Leader of the House is right to talk about changes to process, the issue of culture and management is really important, too.
The laws passed in this Chamber are being wilfully ignored by the people tasked with running the House of Commons. The laws that we insist are enforced in the courts are not being enforced in this place. In particular, the House of Commons is subject to the law under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 on the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as the regulator, is now threatening to take action against the House of Commons. That is a disgraceful situation for us to be in. How can we be in a situation where we are in breach of the laws that we have agreed on the Floor of the House? This is serious.
I very much welcome the clarifications from the Leader of the House on the work that she is doing to make sure that the independent complaints and grievance scheme can address historical allegations and that it will be clear to everybody that it does so; that it has built-in independence; and that things will not be delayed unnecessarily. However, Members cannot allow the Commission to cherry-pick from the Cox report. It has to be adopted in full if we are to get away from the disgraceful situation of the EHRC potentially intervening on this place.
The Cox report is absolutely clear that new processes are insufficient in their own right to bring about the culture change that we need. The report says:
“The House strategy…risks being thwarted without a change in the culture necessary to deliver it.”
Bullying and harassment continue to be regarded as a distraction from the real work of the House. Cox is absolutely explicit about the need for top officeholders to change—not in her recommendations, because of course, that was outside her terms of reference, but it is integral to the report—yet the Commission is silent on this. Paragraph 414 states:
“I find it difficult to envisage how the necessary changes can be successfully delivered, and the confidence of the staff restored, under the current senior…administration.”
Andrew Bridgen
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way to give confidence to future complainants is to ensure now that historical complaints are dealt with effectively and efficiently?
Mrs Miller
I think the Leader of the House has already said that that is the case.
Turning to my concluding remarks, although I see that I did not get an extra minute for the question asked by my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] To quote again from the report,
“there are a number of individuals who are regarded as bearing some personal responsibility for the criticisms made, and whose continued presence is viewed as unlikely to facilitate the necessary changes”.
The report could not be clearer. We have to make sure that there is senior management change in this place before we can make sure that the important process changes come into play. We have to make sure that the Commission is democratically accountable in the way that the Leader of the House has talked about. I believe that we also have to insulate the role of Speaker from dealing with these sorts of organisational issues, which are an immense distraction from his main role, which is to be in here presiding over impartial debate.
In summary, we really need to make sure that nobody here today can dismiss this report; that the debate is focused not just on process, but on making sure that we have the right leadership in place to fix the issues as we move forward; that we tackle the culture that has led to devastating criticism of the management of this place; and importantly, that we focus on how we can build back the trust of staff. That has to be the focus of today’s debate. We need to consider how we can make sure that the root cause of the cultural problems that we face are dealt with systematically not only by every Member of this House, but in the management of this place.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House; the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz); and the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for their comments on these very serious issues; they have very much set the tone for the debate. I commend Dame Laura Cox for her report and every single person who has contributed to it and felt that they were brave enough to come forward to speak and share their experiences, as traumatic as they no doubt were. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) cannot be here today—he is in his sick bed—but he very much agrees with what has been recommended in the report, and we in the Scottish National party give our backing to its findings as well.
When my hon. Friend last spoke about this topic in this place, he said:
“Historical patriarchy practically oozes out of the walls”—[Official Report, 16 October 2018; Vol. 647, c. 534]—
of this building, and I absolutely agree. I have no doubt that the ingrained masculine culture in this institution is a key factor in the shocking cases of bullying and harassment that have been brought to the attention of the House. This behaviour has to stop. Those perpetrating such bullying need to be under no doubt that their behaviour is unacceptable.
I question what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said in an intervention about people knowing, of course, that their behaviour is unacceptable; I am not sure that they do. I think that is part of the problem and why I very much agree that training needs to be put in place, as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned, because if we are not aware of the impact of our behaviour, we are not going to change it.
Bob Stewart
I absolutely endorse what the hon. Lady says. She is probably right that the people who are bullies do not even realise that they are bullying. It is tragic, but they do not, and they need that pointed out and to be educated.
Alison Thewliss
Yes, I agree. Some people may be well aware of what they are doing and of the impact of their behaviour, but some may not. It is time that we were brave enough to point that out to them, and I will mention that later.
The report is damning. It has the potential to be very damaging to the public’s trust in the procedures and legitimacy of this place and of us as elected Members—a trust that has already been thoroughly ravaged by the expenses scandal a few years ago. It is vital that we take this report seriously and treat all those who spoke out with the absolute respect that they deserve.
I agree with the Leader of the House that solving this problem is a non-negotiable course of action, and we have to act now before any further damage is done. As well as the horrific personal toll that abuse and harassment take on individuals, there is the wider impact, as this culture has led to the discouragement of women in politics. The gender balance in this Parliament is nowhere near good enough. Although we have a record level of female MPs in 2018, it is still less than a third of the total number elected. Many women I come across say, “Oh, I couldn’t do your job,” and they do so not because it is a fundamentally difficult job—some aspects are—and not always because of the hours or the distance, but because of how they perceive the culture of this place. They see Prime Minister’s questions as men in suits shouting at one another, and they see no place for themselves here as a result.
Dame Laura Cox’s report is particularly enlightening on the broader culture in which this situation has been able to fester. She describes it as
“an excessively hierarchical, ‘command and control’ and deferential culture, which has no place in any organisation in the 21st century.”
This culture is our biggest issue as policy makers. It is no exaggeration to say it has wide-reaching detrimental effects on society. Unfortunately, trickle-down patriarchy has been much more effective than trickle-down economics has ever been.
There is gross over-representation in this place of a certain demographic—namely, upper-class, white men in suits. The report makes reference to certain public schools and Oxbridge universities as having a disproportionate influence. Of course, there are many among this demographic who are dedicated public servants whom I take no issue with and who work tirelessly for their constituents, and it is not my intention to single out any one person or party, but it is irrefutable that over-representation in one area leads to limited understanding of the experience of others.
I have spoken at length in this place about the terrible practice of retro-fitting women into policies. Women are not an afterthought to be tacked on to the decision-making process. That is how we have ended up with welfare reforms that make matters worse for abused women and immigration rules that discriminate, and it is why we have the two-child policy and the despicable rape clause—because these policies were not made to reflect the lived experiences of women.
It is really important to look at ways we can change the misogynistic culture in the House. Many women in my constituency and elsewhere would make fantastic representatives or members of staff, but without serious change they will not put themselves forward in a culture that does not respect their skills and experience. My former colleague Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, when she was elected to this place, was subject to woofing noises in this Chamber. If that is the example being set by Members, it reflects very badly on us all.
The Cox report described the experiences of female staff:
“Some women described always being asked to buy the coffee or make the tea, or take notes of meetings, for example, or being humiliated in front of colleagues by comments about why they needed to work or have a career if they had a husband, or ‘why do we need another woman in here, we already have two.’”
It is clear that the systems in place—the Valuing Others policy and the revised Respect policy—are not fit for purpose and need to be disregarded. We need to move on to something better.
A lot of the focus has been on the behaviour of MPs, but I want to be absolutely clear that this culture has deep roots. A lot of it is built on class hierarchy and misogyny, and bullying would appear to be rife throughout this institution. Those at the bottom of the wage scale in this place are those at most risk. I am deeply concerned about the caterers, the cleaners, the contractors—those people who are not as visible to the public as we are but who as a result are so much easier for the House to ignore. I want to ensure that their voices are heard in all future policies, and I want them to feel they can challenge unacceptable behaviour, regardless of who it comes from.
We need to recognise, too, that our own staff are vulnerable by dint of how they are employed. After all, how does someone challenge their employer directly and deal with something effectively within a very small team of staff? I have heard several times how MPs have treated their staff, and I think we all need to get a good deal braver in calling this out when we see it; not doing so allows it to continue. We need to stop making excuses for people. On page 141 of the report, Dame Laura highlights how unlikely we are to criticise our fellow MPs—the Leader of the House mentioned this, too, in the context of our procedures. We need to think about how we do this, without fear or favour and without risking our own personal relationships—a lot of us in politics grew up together and have those friendships and relationships.
Mrs Miller
The hon. Lady is making an important point. It is also part of our job to hold to account those managing this place. On behalf of the SNP, does she not find it very concerning that the Commission has not commented on the need for a complete management change here? What does she feel we need to do about that?
Alison Thewliss
The report makes it clear that there has to be change and that we need to look at our policies and procedures and make sure that everything is fit for purpose, and yes the report falls short.
Alison Thewliss
Sorry, I mean the response to the report falls short—very short—in a number of aspects.
I do not have permission to name names, but I have heard testimony from a former member of staff in this place who was subjected to offensive sexist remarks by a more senior manager, used quite deliberately to undermine her position and confidence. She did not feel she could complain, and she did not want me to raise it further, but I fear that the person who made those comments will have thought little of them and will make them again to other women in his future career. As I say, if we do nothing, this culture grows and festers, and if people do not see their behaviour challenged, they believe that it is acceptable and that they can get away with anything.
Culture change would help participation in politics in the future, but it is of limited consolation to those who have suffered injustice in the past. Ours is often seen as rough-and-tumble profession with long and unforgiving hours and an immense workload, but that does not for one second excuse the unacceptable behaviour described by this inquiry, which is far reaching and fundamental. Discourse can be robust, but the allegations we are hearing about go far beyond what is acceptable during any normal disagreement.
Huge elements of this can be changed, and the Scottish Parliament, while not perfect, set itself up to avoid this kind of culture. From the outset, the Scottish Parliament made clear its commitment to inclusive and family friendly workplace practices, with key principles of accessibility, participation and equal opportunity. As the Leader of the House mentioned, best practice was drawn upon in its planning phase to ensure that the establishment of the new legislature could learn from the mistakes and successes of other legislatures, including this place. There was a firm understanding that Holyrood would not simply be a Westminster in the north.
Promoting a family friendly culture and work environment has been a key priority of the Scottish Parliament, and that is reflected in its sitting hours finishing at 5 pm, voting being fixed at a set time so that staff and MPs do not have to stay late into the evening, unlike in this place, where sitting hours can vary hugely. We also have in this building a pervasive culture of alcohol—this has been missing somewhat from the debate thus far. We have receptions at lunchtime serving drinks and people encouraged to hang around in bars while we wait for late-night votes, and this breeds a culture where we are not behaving as professionals in this building. We are then forced to spend a ridiculous amount of time in crowded voting lobbies, which is unpleasant and unsafe, particularly when some Members have been drinking for a good part of the day.
A lot of the reporting on this has been done in dramatic tabloid language, and the culture in the past has been to cover it up and pretend that it is all fine, which has led directly to the situation today where we worry too much about the reputation of the House, rather than the people who work within it.
Andrew Bridgen
Is this place not part of the problem? Members of staff have complained to me about the behaviour of other Members. I say, “Make a formal complaint,” and they say, “But I’ll lose my job.” We have to remember that if someone is employed by the House of Commons or the Palace of Westminster and loses their job, it will go on their CV and affect their future employment prospects, and that is why they will not make a complaint.
Alison Thewliss
That is absolutely true, and it is reflected in the report in many ways. For example, people fear that if they were to complain or raise an issue, they would be seen as a troublemaker trying to upset the way things have been done—and from reading the report, it seems to me that the way things have been done absolutely has to be turned around.
Andrea Leadsom
On a point of clarification, the new ICGS is totally confidential. I want people to know that if they proceed with a complaint their name will not be mentioned and they need not fear retribution or publicity.
Alison Thewliss
That is good to hear, although people have to have confidence in that anonymity, and we have to see results.
In moving away from the way things have always been done, we need to be frank with ourselves. There has been some discussion about the culture in higher education, and it has been suggested to me that the institutions with low levels of reporting of harassment are the ones we ought to be watching, rather than those that are prepared to report and to act on those reports. Unless we encourage reporting, the problem will continue and nothing will be done. I agree that staff must feel they have ownership of the system, that there must be accountability, that the implementation must be robust and that people must have confidence that they can report anonymously and that something will be done. During a conversation that I had earlier today, it was suggested that someone might not want an allegation to be made but would like it to be noted, so that in the event of any future allegations that tied up with the same person and similar circumstances, the link could not be overlooked. I think it important for that to be recorded in one way or another. I also want to ensure that if an allegation has been made, the person who has made that allegation is not forced to sit down with the perpetrator, because that would put them in a very vulnerable position.
No one should be too powerful to be beyond the reach of any new reporting system. We must ensure that members of staff who wish to complain about bullying and harassment have the necessary access and support, regardless of when the incident occurred and who it involved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I suggest that we lower the speaking time limit to six minutes, given that there is so much interest and so many Members wish to speak?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). She made what I thought was a rather hard-hitting speech, with much of which I agreed.
One of the themes that have emerged from most of the contributions today is culture. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) was the first to mention the “culture” word, and he was absolutely right to do so. Like others—including, I think, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central—the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), talked about the merits of looking at other systems, not just in the United Kingdom but around the world, to see how they work. I would like to extend that. The focus seemed to be on other legislatures or on public bodies, but I think we should be more ambitious and look at some of the best practice in the organisations in the private sector that have changed their culture.
Let me throw one example into the mix. One of the best culture changes that I saw took place during my time at Asda, when Archie Norman was the chief executive and Allan Leighton was his deputy. They transformed the strongly hierarchical culture in what had been a very “control and command” kind of business when they took over. They revolutionised the way in which managers treated their colleagues, and ensured that everyone was considered to have equal value within the business, whatever their role might be. I think that there would be a great deal of merit in persuading people like Archie Norman and Allan Leighton to come to Parliament and explain how they changed the culture of companies such as Asda. What was done there was a massive feat in itself, and Asda became one of the top businesses in the country in which to work, according to one of the annual polls carried out by The Sunday Times.
Let me stress, in the limited time available to me, that this is a very important issue and we all have a responsibility to try to put things right. Our staff, whoever they are, deserve to be treated properly and with respect. Indeed, why would people who want to get the most out of their staff not treat them properly and with respect? Any sensible manager would want to do that anyway. However, I do not think it helpful to try to use this issue as some kind of witch hunt, or as an attempt to settle scores with the Speaker of the House of Commons. I think that that has featured far too often in some of the contributions to debates on this subject. Whatever problems there are in the culture of the House, they almost certainly predate the Speaker’s time in the Chair. This is a long-standing issue in the House, and it is absolutely wrong to lay the blame for it at the door of the Speaker.
I have no qualms about criticising the Speaker. As it happens, I was one of those who put their names to the motion of no confidence in the previous Speaker, and I did not vote for the current Speaker to be in his position. At the time of his election, I spent an hour explaining to him all the reasons why I was not going to vote for him, although it was, strictly speaking, a secret ballot. So I have no qualms about, if necessary, telling people why I think that they are unsuitable for that particular role. However, I do not think it either fair or appropriate to use what is a long-standing issue in this place as a way of settling old scores with the Speaker. It is largely people who, like me, did not vote for him in the first place who are using this as a way to say that they still do not want him to be here. This is just a convenient stick with which to beat him. Such action trivialises what is a serious issue for everyone in the House, and I hope that we will caution against it. We all have a role to play in ensuring that we get the culture right.
It is clear to all of us that the culture in the House is not always right. Let us get in people who have expertise in changing cultures in organisations where staff are put at the front and centre. Let us do something positive as a result of the challenge that we face, and use the report to deliver that positive change. Please let us not use this simply as a way to do something negative—to settle scores with someone with whose present position some Members were never reconciled in the first place. I did not vote for the Speaker, but I recognise that it is not the Speaker who is responsible for the problems.
Mrs Miller
I did not intend to intervene, but my hon. Friend must recognise that the report contained some criticism. Is he just dismissing that? I hope that he would not characterise my comments as those of “one of the usual suspects”.
Philip Davies
I know that my right hon. Friend has been outspoken on that particular issue, but she is certainly not at the forefront of my mind. [Laughter.] She has very considered opinions, and I appreciate that. I am not oblivious to it. My point is that whoever had happened to be the Speaker at the time when the report was written, the same issues would have been raised in it. I do not think that it constitutes a specific criticism of this individual Speaker. This is a much deeper and more widespread problem than that. Anyone who thinks that these issues have only arisen since the current Speaker took his position knows, deep down, that that really is not the case.
Andrew Bridgen
Given his argument, does my hon. Friend believe that the culture in this place can change if the current Speaker remains in position?
Philip Davies
Yes, I do. I have no reason to think otherwise in my dealings with the Speaker. People take others as they find them. I think that this goes much wider than the current incumbent. As my hon. Friend knows, I agree with him wholeheartedly on virtually every issue, but I am afraid that on this one we must part company. I do not think it helpful to make it into a personal vendetta against one individual in the House. The culture goes much deeper than that.
Let us use the report to do something positive. Let us get people in who can help, but let us not make this into a personal vendetta on the part of people who were never reconciled to the current incumbent of the Chair in the first place. That is not helpful, and, to be fair, in many respects it does not do justice to the people whom we actually need to help: people who work in the House of Commons, either as the staff of Members of Parliament or as other staff members. We can do this without needing to go for what I would consider to be the very nuclear option that my hon. Friend proposes, which I do not think would make a blind bit of difference in itself. The problem goes much deeper than that.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on behalf of the House of Commons Commission. I also thank Dame Laura Cox for her report on the bullying and harassment of Commons staff.
The Commission recognises that it has a statutory responsibility for the employment of House staff, but too often has failed in its duty to provide a workplace free from bullying and harassment. The report described an institutional failure to address a problem that has undermined the legitimacy and authority of the House. As others have said, bullying and harassment have no place in the House or in any other area of public life. The Commission is determined to take immediate steps to rectify past mistakes and offer robust protection and support to all who work here.
As Members will know, the Commission met on Wednesday 24 October to discuss the report’s recommendations and consider a way forward. Members of the Commission, including the Clerk of the House and the director general, were unanimous in recognising that it is time for a change, and agreed to the three fundamental recommendations in Dame Laura’s report. This decision was reinforced at a further meeting on Monday 29 October.
We agreed to terminate the Valuing Others policy and the Respect policy, to expand the new independent complaints and grievance scheme to enable House employees with historic allegations to access it—although we have heard the Leader of the House point out that that is available to them already—and to ensure that the process for determining complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment brought by House staff against Members of Parliament is an entirely independent process in which Members play no part. Work will start on this immediately with the Leader of the House and with input from the Chair of the Standards Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—the widest scheme possible, perhaps in the way the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was asking for earlier.
The Commission is also committed to preventing any further bullying and harassment of, and sexual misconduct towards, staff, and has directed the Commons Executive Board to produce an action plan, in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. This will be taken forward under the auspices of the external members of the Commission, drawing on independent and external advice.
Since the publication of the Dame Laura Cox inquiry report, the Commons Executive Board has been leading events with House of Commons staff to hear their reactions. Judging by their comments at these meetings, the mood of many staff members is a mix of anger at past events, disappointment at the failure of the House to deal with them adequately, and concern about whether lasting change can happen. This is perhaps an example of the toxic lack of trust that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) referred to.
The right hon. Lady also referred to section 149 of the public sector equality duty and said that it applies to the House. There may be an argument about whether that is the case, but clearly the House would always want to observe that even if there was not a statutory requirement for it to do so. The right hon. Lady might be interested to know that the Clerk of the House is due to meet the Equality and Human Rights Commission shortly to discuss this matter.
Mrs Miller
I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the EHRC has put in writing very clearly that the House of Commons is subject to the public sector equality duty. It is the regulator; it made that decision, not the House of Commons.
Tom Brake
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention, and it is on the record.
There is concern, too, that these issues might be used as an opportunity to score political points, perhaps losing sight of the fact that this is about real people who are hurt and let down by their place of work and how their complaints were handled.
What is clear is that fine words are not enough: change must follow, and swiftly. As we move forward, the Commission has confidence that the new independent complaints and grievance scheme will offer far greater protection for staff members than ever before. The behaviour code, for example, is a set of inarguable standards by which we must all abide, regardless of rank, power or allegiance. The code has now been adopted by both Houses, and no one may regard themselves as exempt from these standards. However, as many Members have said, there is a deeper issue beyond policies and processes: this is about the culture of the House, especially in relation to deference, hierarchy and the abuse of power. This theme resurfaces repeatedly. We must collectively strive to change fundamentally a culture which has tolerated such abuses.
The sentiment in the Commission is to see swift action, but action that must be effective at securing lasting and permanent change. An action plan focused on addressing the cultural fault-lines that persist in dividing the Commons community is being developed with external input and individual staff input seen as critical. This plan will be informed by the voices of staff, who have signalled their impatience to see concrete actions—actions that will, once and for all, address the serious issues that undermine the quality of their working environment and make the change lasting and permanent.
But it would be foolish and foolhardy to suggest that an immediate action plan implemented over months will in itself change a culture that has developed over many, many decades. Lasting and sustainable culture change requires a movement. We all have a role to play. The bullying of House staff is perpetrated by both Members and by other House staff; these are equally unacceptable but will require different remedies. Soon, there will be decisions and choices to be made by this House, and I hope that all Members will recognise the responsibility they have and the role they can play in changing the culture of the Commons for the better and for good.
Every member of the parliamentary community has a right to feel safe and respected. The Dame Laura Cox inquiry report clearly shows that this is not the case. This must, and will, change, and that change starts now.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) who sits on the Commission, and I am grateful for his account of the Commission’s discussions and intentions. He threw into his remarks references to culture, and “culture” is a word that drops into this debate quite easily. I will discuss later in my remarks how we should perhaps be exploring what we mean by the word and how we might address the culture. He said that
“deference, hierarchy and the abuse of power”
are in the culture and that we all have a role to play, and he went on to discuss what all Members must do, but I look around this Chamber now and do not see all Members here. In fact, I see a rather small minority of Members here, and part of the problem is that the whole of the House of Commons is not engaged.
I look upon Dame Laura Cox’s report as a very serious piece of work setting out very big challenges, but I do not think it is the first word and I doubt very much that it will be the last word; I gather we are to have another inquiry into a different aspect, concentrating more on the way in which Members treat their staff. It is important that we get above this and think about how we can develop a conversation about what sort of House and institution we want to be, how we are going to develop our personal behaviour—our individual values, our principles—in order to advance that objective, and how we engage all Members in that conversation.
I was very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for quoting words that I well remember drafting as part of the submission that the Committee I chair made to the Straw Committee on the future governance of the House. The point I was making in those words, which referred to governance, leadership, values, attitudes and behaviour, was not that the changes to the governance structure would fix the problems. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that we need to democratise the governance of the House, and I am certain that we do need to make transparency and accountability more evident, but these things in themselves will not solve the problem.
To some extent I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who referred in person to the office of Speaker. I have not been part of any campaign to remove the Speaker as a result of the Cox report, because he is but one figure in the House who is accounting for the culture of this place; there are far more people giving permission for the wrong behaviours and wrong attitudes than just one person, and we must keep that perspective in mind.
The question we perhaps need to ask about the House of Commons Commission if we are not satisfied with its conduct is that old friend Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Maybe there needs to be some kind of informal, or perhaps formal, oversight body that discusses what the Commission does and that gets it to report more formally than it does, but I do not suppose that that will actually deal with the problems we have got.
In the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee submission to the review of the House of Commons code of conduct we point out that governance and compliance are not synonymous, and that structures and procedures can embed change and culture but cannot on their own create the right culture. What we need to think and talk far more about is what we mean by our values. When we sit in the Tea Room with our colleagues we do not talk much about values. What do we mean by values? Values are about the way in which we should seek to live and, incidentally, to lead. Our values should be evident in the way in which we lead and in the principles by which we conduct ourselves in this place and in our lives. The rules, which are enforceable and whose breach will cause punishment, are a relatively ancillary question, yet so much of the debate is about creating new rules and punishments and not about explaining how we live our lives better in this institution.
The big question is: how do we hold this conversation? When the House divided on these matters a little while ago, barely 100 colleagues voted and I should not imagine that 100 colleagues took part in the debate either. How do we hold this conversation about the values and principles that we want to demonstrate in our leadership of public life and that should be evident throughout our entire institution?
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Like everyone else who has read Dame Laura Cox’s report, the other members of the Committee on Standards and I were shocked by its contents. We were horrified to read of the extent of the bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff by some Members and by some senior staff, and dismayed that so many feel that they have been ill served by the House authorities in their attempts to be heard and to have redress. That cannot continue. Every single one of us bears responsibility in this matter, and all hon. Members need to read this report and reflect seriously on our own conduct. Could any of us have been guilty of bullying behaviour or harassment of staff? Have we witnessed or heard reports of such behaviour by others but failed to act? How, collectively and individually, do we change behaviours and, most importantly, the culture in this place?
It is barely three months since the House put in place the independent complaints and grievance scheme, which is aimed at tackling bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. While Dame Laura Cox acknowledges that the new process contains much that is of value—I commend the Leader of the House and her steering group for their efforts and determination in introducing the new scheme three months ago—she makes such fundamental criticisms of it that the House will have to revisit aspects of the scheme. Indeed, the House of Commons Commission has moved quickly to accept her three key recommendations: that the Valuing Others and Respect policies should be scrapped; that complaints relating to historical allegations should be heard; and that complaints by House of Commons staff against Members of the House should be determined through
“an entirely independent process, in which Members of Parliament will play no part”.
This gives rise to detailed questions about implementation, and about ownership and responsibility for driving forward the recommendations for the implementation of the Cox report. There is a danger that we will fall into a vacuum. Mr Speaker and the Members on the House of Commons Commission have, to a degree, and for understandable reasons, stepped back from the process, leaving the task to the two external members, who have asked the executive board to draw up an action plan. However, there are issues that go further than those that a board of officials can deal with. The wider House, the political parties, the Committee on Standards, individual MPs and individual House staff have responsibilities too.
The Cox recommendations must be implemented in a way that inspires the confidence of those who have made complaints of abuse, and of the wider public. The outcome that we seek might be no involvement by Members, but we need to recognise that Members will be involved to some extent in designing the process. The Committee on Standards, which includes elected and non-elected members, is the mechanism that the House has set up to advise it. Final decisions, particularly on a new system of sanctions, will have to be taken by the House. We will have to think carefully about how we can discharge those responsibilities in a way that inspires public confidence. The Committee on Standards has already begun to think about measures that we could take, which we might recommend in our report shortly, to strengthen people’s perception of and trust in the system that we hope will apply in the future, as well as the system that we brought in on 19 July. Existing complaints will have to be dealt with under that system until further changes are made.
I want briefly to mention two or three of the quick wins that I hope the House will consider in the near future when my Committee brings forward our report and its recommendations. We hope to do that very soon. The first proposal is to extend full voting rights not only to the elected members of the Committee on Standards but to the lay members as well. Dame Laura Cox has criticised the Committee as inadequate for purpose in its current form. Offering full voting rights to the lay members would strengthen and embed the independence of the Committee, because those members would form a de facto majority on the Committee. There would be equal numbers of lay and non-lay members, but the Chair has only a casting vote.
Other immediate and much simpler steps include giving the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards the right to go to the police with matters that she believes need criminal investigation without having to consult the Committee first, and abolishing the requirement that complaints to the Commission have to be submitted in hard copy only. I am sure that, in the 21st century, we can switch that so that complaints can be accepted via email. These proposals would be without prejudice to the further and more sweeping action needed to give the Cox recommendations full effect. Procedural changes such as these are essential, but as we have heard again and again tonight, it is painfully evident that Dame Laura’s report rings the alarm for the need for wholesale cultural change. This is not a political issue. It is not a constitutional issue. It is simply an ethical issue—an issue of values and morality—and every single one of us has an obligation to ensure that it is treated as such.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. There will now be a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. I call Gillian Keegan.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and I congratulate her on her new role as Chair of the Committee on Standards. Having served as a member of Parliament for only a year and a half, I did wonder whether it was appropriate for me to speak in this debate. I personally have not witnessed many of the things described in the report. However, I do have prior experience of managing thousands of people from different backgrounds and cultures in large companies for more than 27 years, so I might be able to provide some useful insights into industry best practice. I completely agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that many companies have gone through this culture change, and that we can learn a lot from them.
As a new MP, however, I can safely say that Parliament is very different from any workplace I have ever seen, and it has a very distinct culture. Parliament is effectively a common workplace for what are in reality 650 separate small businesses, each with their own leadership and teams. This is unusual, and it is probably one of the reasons why this issue has not been effectively tackled earlier. There is no real central control, and certainly no central HR support. The reputation of Parliament is vital, because we have the responsibility to pass legislation—not least, employment law itself. Dame Laura Cox’s report shows us beyond all doubt that our present approach is not working. It is letting staff down, and we need to change.
So, what does good look like in the workplace and how can we achieve it? Based on my experience, and on the valuable insights I have received from professional organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, I believe that we need to approach our “get well” strategy under two headings: preventing bullying and harassment from happening in the first place; and dealing with them decisively when they do happen. Our prevention approach needs to start at the top, by which I mean all of us elected representatives as well as senior managers in the House of Commons administration. We need to show that we are serious about tackling this issue, and that means that we as Members of Parliament should lead by example and personally demonstrate the right behaviours and attend training programmes and awareness raising events. Best practice would include monitoring attendance at such events and even publishing a list of those MPs who are and are not attending them or, as happens in the workplace, completing online educational work modules. That is usual practice in other industries. If we conduct ourselves in this way, we can start to shift the culture away from where it is now towards a more inclusive diverse and respectful workplace.
Turning to the subject of what to do when it is alleged that bullying or harassment may have taken place, we should again follow best practice, with a simple, well understood, consistent, confidential, independent and, above all, fast escalation process. There are some existing policies in this area, but the Cox report clearly states that they are overly complex and do not enjoy the confidence of our colleagues working in Parliament. In order to cleanse the system, we need to show that we take the issue seriously, acting when required with full transparency, and we must be seen to do that.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Given my hon. Friend’s extensive experience in business, what does she think the House should do about historical allegations? What lessons can be learned from the private sector?
Gillian Keegan
I had this conversation with someone at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and I asked what they do in business, and he said that there is no time limit for sexual harassment, but that they impose some kind of time limit on bullying and harassment, because cultures and expectations have changed over time. I am not suggesting that for this place, but that is what somebody at the CIPD advised, and we could examine what different industries do, because most people have already faced this issue.
Chris Bryant
The most basic thing that every serious company does is ensure that there is a proper HR function to provide support whenever it is needed. When new Members come into the House, some may have employed hundreds of people, but some may have never employed another person and may be desperate for more support. Should we not put far more energy into that if we are to prevent such problems?
Gillian Keegan
I completely agree. It is unfair to expect a simple, well understood, consistent and fair process if we have not trained people about that expectation. In business, people would be given induction training on the standards and then top-up training every year, and whether the top-up training had been done would be publicised.
Dame Laura Cox’s report runs to 155 pages and I agree with all its points. The answer, however, is perhaps simpler than the length of the report suggests. This is about prevention and cure. It is about being seen to take action. It is about each and every one of us demonstrating the correct behaviours and showing, by example, our commitment to make this great institution a modern, respectful, inclusive workplace fit for the 21st century. It is not about trying to scapegoat individuals or outsource the solution to a Committee or indulging in a trial by media. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if we tried to suggest that others are responsible for our collective failings, we will certainly demonstrate that we have not at all grasped the systemic nature of the problem we face.
Let us remember that we are all collectively responsible for this system, and we must work together to improve it. Even though, as the report is keen to point out, the vast majority of MPs are courteous and entirely respectful of staff, our reputations sink or swim together. If each and every one of us takes steps to implement Dame Laura’s report, and if we report on progress at regular intervals, we will begin the journey to better support our staff and to recover our reputation, which goes to the heart of the credibility of this place.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan)—I will call her my hon. Friend—and I think she made some important points. I want to start by saying that I have absolutely every faith in the Leader of the House’s commitment to make the situation better. I also have every faith in the new Chair of the Committee on Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I do not think that many people could question her unfailing commitment to equality over the years, and people should feel real faith in those institutions and in all the people in the Chamber—there are not enough of us here—who have bothered to come to talk about this.
I say once again that anyone who has any historical complaints should absolutely come forward. In fact, the legal advice given during the creation of the system that we have now does not mince its words, stating:
“Retrospective effect is therefore regarded as desirable.”
It says that it is better that we look back in retrospect. Unlike some Conservative Members, I am not going to lean on business for the best option. Arcadia, for one, is an organisation that I would not currently be taking any advice from, but it is with my interest in Sir Philip Green that I want to ask some questions about how this House uses non-disclosure agreements. I am really interested in the subject, but I still have no idea about how most things actually work in here. It is a mystery to most people. I want to know who signs off a non-disclosure agreement in this building against a member of staff, because I do not have a clue. I know that in business, someone at board level would have to see some of that when big pay-outs are being made, but I do not know who has governance and oversight of that in this building. How will those things be dealt with going forward? Will any new inquiries report on whether we think it is appropriate to use NDAs in repeated cases where the perpetrator is the same person clearly showing a pattern of behaviour?
Andrea Leadsom
To answer the hon. Lady’s question directly, I have also been concerned about this matter. I asked the House authorities about it and was told:
“Like many other organisations, the House of Commons uses settlement agreements to resolve employment disputes under certain circumstances but these are not what are known more widely as ‘non-disclosure agreements’ and that settlement agreements do not in any way seek to prevent whistle-blowing or the disclosure of facts on public interest grounds.”
Jess Phillips
I thank the Leader of the House for that answer. I think some real clarity going forward about what we as parliamentarians in this place will and will not accept should certainly be part of how we improve something that I think we have already improved. As somebody who has been a critic of this place and some of the people in it, I want to say that I think that we have tried to make real strides. Historical cases have been talked about a lot today, but the situation needs to be made much clearer and more robust. I heard the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House sharing a real commitment to that today, which gives me hope.
I agree with the idea of democratising the House of Commons Commission because, once again, I do not know how someone gets to be on it or how to be the spokesperson for it. I will go on the Commission and on the Committee on Standards now that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston has made a gap—I will go on all the Committees. Part of the problem is that there is no real accountability for who is on what and what is being said where, and if I do not know that, it is likely that the vast majority of Members will not know that, because I take an interest, and also that the public will not have a clue about what is going on.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) made an important point about having a log on which things can just be recorded without action necessarily being taken. Third-party reporting is another issue, because I have received some harrowing reports of behaviour by people in this place, but I know that the people will never come forward and say anything. I am then left with my hands tied knowing some of those things, and we need some system so that we do not end up in a Jimmy Savile situation in which everybody says, “Well, we all knew. Everybody knew he was a bit like that. Of course he was.” We need a place where Members of Parliament and members of staff—anybody around this place—can, without prejudice, log something somewhere so that we can see the patterns.
It would be wrong of me to say that this process has been pleasant for all those who had to come forward, and who are still having to keep on pushing. Unless we get this right pretty quickly, trust and faith in this place will be gone—they are already pretty low. Each and every one of us should take on the responsibility of making sure this does happen.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I speak partly as Vicky Ford, but also as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on women in Parliament, which I am very honoured to have recently taken up. Since I have been in this House, a vast majority of Members have been hugely helpful and have shown great respect to me as a newish Member. It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who sits on the Women and Equalities Committee, the Chair of which is here today. There has been a huge amount of work on this debate.
The Dame Laura Cox report makes for harrowing reading. It cannot be swept under the carpet, and it is very clear that culture change is needed. Although the culture has gone on for many, many years, it cannot continue and, as Dame Laura says, the reset button has to be pressed. I am extremely pleased to hear that the Leader of the House has set up a new independent complaints and grievance procedure because, in the past, people who have suffered have not felt confident about coming forward with their complaints. People need a safe space, and the system needs to be confidential. Many people have spoken about that, but it is almost more important to make sure that we reset the culture so that such incidents do not happen again. We must try to make such incidents far less likely.
I have said before in this Chamber that we are living through an incredibly tense time in politics, and a very stressful time in British politics. My experience is that we often say things we regret when we are stressed. There is no excuse for that, but if we can work somehow to try to destress some of our working lives, maybe that will contribute to a change in culture.
Many people have said to me that one thing they find stressful about this place is the lack of predictability. It is not necessarily mothers wanting to have shorter hours—actually, a lot of people who travel from further afield say that they want to work long hours when they come to London—but not knowing what is coming next can be challenging. There are times when an urgent question is an important question but, Mr Deputy Speaker, urgent questions are not always urgent—sometimes they are just important—yet we all run around rescheduling our lives. If we could set time aside for important issues, without needing to have that higher level of stress—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I am sure you are not trying to influence the Chair in making decisions on urgent questions, as that is done in the morning and not at this particular time.
Vicky Ford
I am not suggesting it is you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was just hoping that you would register the point.
It has also been said that, as we often sit late, it would help people with caring responsibilities if more sitting days could start at 9.30 am and if some Select Committees did not always send out their reports for us to review over the weekend but gave us a bit more time to submit comments. There is also stress because of the nature of online abuse that Members receive. We need to be careful about the language we sometimes use—we saw this in the press the other day—because, if we use violent language, it can encourage violence against others.
Lots of people have spoken about the need to improve training and HR, and some of that is in place, but there is not a great deal of awareness of it.
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a report on sexual harassment and violence against women in Parliaments across Europe. The report looks at 45 different Parliaments, and there is great work happening in Switzerland, Sweden, France and Finland, and in the European Parliament. We have taken some of the same initiatives, but it would be worth looking at that report to see whether there are lessons that can be learned from those Parliaments, which all face similar issues to this Parliament. If we do not adopt similar procedures, we should give a jolly good excuse for why we have not, otherwise we could find that we have not taken on good practice.
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to the next urgent question.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank Dame Laura Cox and all those who contributed to this report, particularly those who have been the victim of bullying and harassment. I appreciate that it cannot have been easy for them to come forward, even under the condition of anonymity, to recall experiences that we have heard about only in outline. I was disturbed to read that some people did not even wish to come forward to give evidence for fear of losing their job, which tells us about the mountain we have to climb.
As other Members have said, there are some fairly obvious procedures we could adopt to help improve the situation, but we are deluding ourselves if we think that introducing a few new procedures, or removing some high-profile people, will be enough. From what Members have already said today, it is clear that a few cosmetic changes will not have the desired effect if the same atmosphere that has allowed these problems to exist in the first place remains.
The bigger challenge for us all will be ridding this place of the culture that is described in the report as “widespread, enduring and profound”, and one that is
“as embedded as it is shocking.”
The unhealthy atmosphere of servility and entitlement leaps from the pages of the report. Perhaps when we become caught up in all the drama of this place, we forget that this is far removed from what a modern workplace looks like.
I am sure that most Members remember the whirlwind of the initial few weeks after first being elected to this place. The conventions, the courtesies and just trying to find the way around are huge challenges. In no time at all, a new Member has to get used to this place, start representing their constituents and, of course, recruit a group of staff to help them do so. I understand that new Members’ inductions have improved greatly in recent years, but even three years ago it was obvious to me that one area that is sorely lacking is employment guidance and HR advice. Basically, no advice was available. When a person enters an environment in which their power as an employer is absolute, and where there is a culture of impunity going back decades—for many new Members it will be the first time they have employed someone directly—it is little wonder that, from time to time, things go wrong.
There are two clear actions that we need to take following the Cox report, and I say that in a collective sense. One of the more unhelpful aspects of this has been the way reports have been sensationalised and individualised, with a one-sided trial by media that does no good for the victims, for the accused or for Parliament as a whole. Everybody deserves the right to a fair hearing, no matter who they are. Disputed allegations—as far as I can see, they are all disputed—require due process, and one of the recommendations of the Cox report will enable us to have that.
I am pleased that there appears to be no barrier to pre-2017 complaints, because I am concerned that the further review that we have talked about today will not be enough on its own. The only thing that will be enough is the sort of procedure that Dame Laura Cox refers to when she talks about the need for individual investigations to be conducted
“by someone whose status, independence, expertise and experience are beyond question”.
Dame Laura Cox says that it has to be a rigorous and transparent process that is seen to be fair to both sides. As the report makes clear, the person investigating complaints against Members ought to be
“more than capable of recommending an appropriate sanction.”
This process needs to start happening now, because some victims have already been waiting years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) mentioned non-disclosure agreements, on which I have previously commented. I appreciate that there will be considerations when entering into such agreements, not least the complainant’s wishes. People who work here may be privy to information that is of interest to the outside world, but when it looks like every complaint is subject to an NDA, no matter what the complaint is about, it adds to the impression that this is an institution that does not like scrutiny of its internal workings.
Connected to that, staff have indicated to me that such is the insularity of this place, and such is the culture of fear about speaking out, that they do not want to be seen to be talking to Members about issues in case it gets back to their line manager. The fact that the staff handbook specifically prevents employees of the House from complaining to their own Member about workplace issues says to me that there is far too much defensiveness. If an employer in my constituency told their staff not to speak to me, I would be on to them straightaway. That is one huge reason why we cannot let this issue slip any further down the agenda.
I came to this place to fight for better working conditions for everyone in this country. If we cannot get our own house in order, how can we effectively challenge the worst employment practices out there? We should actually be more than that; we should be a beacon, an exemplar of best practice, and the standard others look up to and try to emulate. Yes, this is not like any other workplace, there are pressures here, and we are all human and sometimes standards can slip, but plenty of other workplaces face huge pressures and people there do not go round routinely bullying and harassing their staff, and then covering it up. So the toxic environment of deference and impunity has to go. We need to get the sense of pride people have in working here set through the whole place, so that everyone has a culture that we respect and so that they actually enjoy working here.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who spoke with great sincerity. I also want to mention the speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), particularly as she is single-handedly doing a huge amount to change the culture of Parliament, just in the way she goes about what she does. I should also mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who is no longer here, but who has fought for years on these kinds of battlefields.
People look to this place to set the highest possible standards, yet we know that people who work here are being victimised, demeaned, bullied, harassed and, in some cases, assaulted—that shames us all; even if this is a case of a minority, it is a significant and important minority. Dame Laura Cox’s report makes for truly difficult reading. I found it particularly worrying that most of the bullying and harassment was targeted at women; that 68% of the contributors to the report were women; that more women than men have had their work undermined and their careers curtailed in this place; and that women were less likely to be taken seriously if they complained. Most disturbing of all, Laura Cox found that sexual harassment, which, to be clear, is an illegal form of discrimination, was pervasive, directed both by MPs at House staff and by House staff at their juniors.
MPs have many responsibilities: representing our constituents’ best interests, protecting their data, being honest and transparent with our expenses, abiding by the Nolan principles and upholding standards of public life. But we should also take seriously our responsibility to staff: those we employ directly ourselves and those whom we do not employ personally but none the less rely on. Progress has been made, and I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and the working group for developing the new independent complaints and grievance scheme and the behaviour code. I welcome the recognition that sexual harassment and sexual violence are different from other forms of intimidation and require different procedures, the introduction of an anonymous helpline, the support for people wishing to pursue complaints and the introduction of sanctions.
However, there is more to do. In particular, for staff to have confidence in the new system there must be a meaningful change to the culture of this place. The very fact that we are here debating this report, when one of its key recommendations is that complaints procedures should be completely independent of Members of Parliament, encapsulates the dilemma; we have a voice, while staff do not. Some of the things that make Parliament a unique place to work also perpetuate its toxic power dynamics. Hierarchy is written into the fabric of this building: there are Members-only bars and canteens; Committee Rooms have Members-only doors; there are Members-only lifts, Members-only corridors and Members-only stairwells; and one of only three showers in Portcullis House is reserved for “Female Members Only”.
All this compounds a sense of “us and them” for the thousands of non-Members who work here. Staff have told me that when walking around this building they feel like “second-class citizens”. When I have mentioned that, some MPs have told me that they think it is okay—I was staggered. Although I can see the case for access to be limited to some places, such as this Chamber, I do not know of any modern workplace that has so many no-go areas for the majority of its staff. It is time for us to face some uncomfortable truths about the culture of deference that has allowed bullying and harassment to thrive. We must make sure everyone can share more equally in the benefits and privileges of working here.
This is a unique institution, but it is also a workplace, like any other. Most modern workplaces of a similar size have a host of structures in place to protect staff and to support them, help them to cope when things get tough and make the most of their skills and potential. They have things like appraisals, performance reviews, regular staff surveys, informal check-ins and 360° feedback, and so how well a member of staff manages people counts in respect of their performance, pay and promotion prospects. All these things should be a formal part of changing the system and the culture fundamentally in this place. Everyone who works here, from caseworkers to clerks to catering staff, contributes to the effective running of our democracy, and they all deserve to be treated fairly and treated better.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am sorry, but I have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The power of the Dame Laura Cox report sits in the fact that the voices of staff across the House had the opportunity to be aired. As she held up a mirror to the institutions of this place, it spoke truth to power, which is why I am heartened by the fact that all in this House are listening carefully to the words she set out. The report cuts to the heart of what is wrong with the culture of this place: the huge inequality in power that sits in the seat of Parliament. Everybody is here to do a job and they should be valued equally, but we see a hierarchy of entitlement. We therefore have to see the structures move and the place move. I suggest to the Leader of the House that one way to do that is to start by looking at how reviews are brought about and to work with the trade unions and recognise them. They are the very voice of the staff in this place and we need to make sure they have got a seat at the table to take things forward. When they are involved, as they have been in this process, they add real value: they reflect exactly what is happening on the ground.
There are several points I wanted to make but time does not allow me. However, I say to the Leader of the House that we have no definition of “bullying” in statute; we have no recourse to legislation. Such a definition would seriously change the context, as we would have legal levers over what happens with bullying. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is the lever that can be used, but it is totally inappropriate because it was set up to deal with stalking.
We do need to deal with processes in this place as well. I urge again that we look at the emphasis that is put on mediation when we are dealing with systems where there is huge inequality in power. There is too much in the report to highlight how mediation can solve problems—I say that simply because inequality of power will drive things forward. We need to heed the report when it talks in paragraph 227 about
“serious questions over the coherence of all the current arrangements in place for dealing with these cases”
and in paragraph 291 about how the processes will
“damage the prospects of success for this new Scheme”
if they are not right.
Of course that takes us on to historical cases, which absolutely must be looked at. The legal representation did not draw out the arbitrary date of June 2017 and nor should these processes, moving forward. Therefore, it is absolutely right that we do not just allow voice and agency over what has gone wrong in this place, but we see action. We need investigation and then to look at what penalties were available at the time the bullying or harassment took place. I have already made representations to the Leader of the House on the vital need to have a tariff of penalty across the House, so that different institutions are not applying different penalties and so that there is real transparency in the way this works.
I also want to raise my concern, as I have before, about the role of the Committee on Standards. We need to pull this process far more into an independent space than by having MPs arbitrating on the behaviour of their colleagues. That is completely inappropriate, and again it speaks of inequality of power in this place. I therefore urge the Leader of the House to look at that as she moves on taking forward the recommendations that Dame Laura Cox has diligently pored over, to start really bringing redress to this culture, because this is about our future and about the future of the staff who work so hard in this place.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who speaks passionately on this topic.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) referred to section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which put a duty on organisations to eliminate unlawful victimisation, discrimination and harassment. The irony of the year of that law was probably not lost on those people who came forward with complaints. What the hell have we been doing? Apologies for that inappropriate language, Madam Deputy Speaker. What the devil have we been doing since 2010, when we imposed on the rest of the country laws that we cannot impose in our organisation?
I feel like I have been going through a degree of penance. I have five brothers, so I grew up in a very male household, and I went to an all-boy secondary school. I studied civil engineering at university, which was almost entirely male, and then worked on a building site. In fact, I did not come across women in the workplace until I was 27, and I have no doubt that I had developed some sexist attitudes. I then went to work for an American company that employed probably 70% women and my eyes were opened. I suddenly realised that women are not just the equal of men; in very many if not most cases, they are definitely our superiors.
We in the Conservative party frequently congratulate ourselves because we have had two female Prime Ministers, but although that is something to celebrate, it is certainly not something to hide behind. Frequently, when I stand in the Chamber at Prayers at the start of the day, as I turn to face the wall, I see only men on our side of the Chamber. That is terrible, because those members of staff who work in the rest of the House must see the Conservative party as one that has not done enough to promote and encourage women. That is why I am keen and proud to support the “Ask Her to Stand” initiative.
I come back to the legislation. Section 149 of the 2010 Act should have eradicated the problems that we are discussing today, but it has not. The problem we have now is that we need to move quickly enough to be seen to be acting promptly, but not to move so quickly that we make inappropriate laws or take inappropriate action, because the other thing of which the Laura Cox report was critical was the fact that we are so reactionary in this House. Something happens and we need to be seen to be doing something about it, so we implement some changes, but they are not embedded, sufficient or sustained.
Many people have said that we perhaps need some sort of HR training, but I think that as a bunch of adults we understand inappropriate behaviour when we see it, and we need to do more to call it out. It is simply not good enough. I speak from a privileged position because, as a male MP, I am perhaps least likely to suffer from bullying, but we certainly need to do more about it. We need to make sure that people are proud to work in this place and that in no circumstances do they ever come to work in fear of their jobs. We need to do more and we can do more. From now on, we will do more.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I agree with nearly every word that the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) just said, apart from one thing: I do not think that everybody does necessarily know what inappropriate behaviour is. He was right in what he said about women, and I completely endorse everything he said in that respect. When I first arrived here in 2001, as a gay man, I certainly faced bullying in this place. We have to be alert to the fact that we can all still learn more about the way we present ourselves and how we behave. There is not a single Member of this House who could not benefit from proper training, because the biggest driver of cultural change in any institution in the world is always education and training. That is what we need to do more of in this House.
I know that in a few moments the Leader of the House is going to mouth at me, “But we are doing it!” We are, and lots of training is available, but sometimes it is not very well advertised; sometimes people are not aware of when it would be available to them; and sometimes it is put on at a time when a Member simply would not be able to go. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) was absolutely right to make the point about predictability. Sometimes, we might want to go and do a training programme and we simply cannot, because suddenly something happens in the parliamentary day that makes it impossible for us to go.
Incidentally, there is something that the Speaker could help us with. When a debate under Standing Order 24 is decided the day before and is it not going to be voted on, why do we not hold that debate at the end of the day, rather than at the beginning, so that Members can have the certainty of being able to go home at the time at which they thought they would go home? That would mean that we could still have important debates such as the one we had on Yemen, but it would not necessarily make life difficult for everybody.
I completely agree with the Leader of the House about democratising the Commission. I have worked in many institutions, including the Church of England and the BBC, and I am now here—it is like a Daily Mail terrible headline, is it not?—and in all those institutions, the problem is that all too often the institution’s first reaction when there is an action or story against it is to defend itself. That has happened here in the House, for the whole House, but it is also intrinsic in the nature of the Commission, because each of the Commission’s members is appointed by their party political leader. It would be better if we elected the Commission and it started to behave more as a team, rather than just one person leading for the whole House.
One thing that I have been asked by a large number of staff, particularly women, who work here is whether we could do something about lighting in the House. When we did work on disabled access to the building for the restoration and renewal report, the thing that came up most was that the building is very dark. People cannot read their papers. There are parts of the building that feel dangerous. If we are to talk about safety, why not light the public access ways and the corridors, so that the corridors of power are not a frightening place?
Finally, many members of staff have seen what has happened in relation to this issue and despaired because they think change is never really going to be possible. Do not despair. Even in the time for which I have been here, there have been changes. Portcullis House is a far more democratic space than many of the eating places and drinking places in this part of the estate—and guess what? That is where everybody gathers. MPs, their staff and people who work for the House all gather there together. Change is definitely possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, we now have an induction programme; we should have a really good induction programme. Would it not be great if every single member of the Cabinet and the shadow Cabinet and all the members of the Commission committed by the end of this week to do full training on bullying and harassment within the next 12 months?
Andrea Leadsom
With the leave of the House, I wish to make a few short closing remarks. First, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who showed some optimism and pointed to some good quick wins. He is right that things have changed. There is a lot more to be done, but things have changed.
Let me highlight some of the things that have changed. First, all staff here can access the independent complaints and grievance procedure, and I urge them to do so. Secondly, I would like people to be aware that all calls and complaints are strictly confidential. Nobody will have their details publicised or have to face retribution for coming forward with a complaint. Thirdly, historical allegations can and should be brought forward to the complaints procedure. They can already be brought forward. Finally, there is much more to be done, and the Cox report, plus the independent inquiry into complaints by Members’ staff that begins tomorrow, will guide much further work to change the culture here. Change is afoot and there is much more change to come.
I conclude today’s informative debate by thanking the House of Commons staff and everyone who works here for making our Parliament such a formidable pillar of democracy on the world stage. To all those staff, I say you are valued, you are vital to this democracy, and we will do better by you in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Dame Laura Cox report on the bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff.
Road Safety
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered road safety.
This debate is, in its own way, of no less importance than the one that preceded it, and to many people around this country it is of still greater importance. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue of road safety. With 500 people killed or seriously injured on our roads every week, there is no Member of this House whose constituency and whose person is not affected by the impact that road collisions have on their constituents. Road safety touches all of us, whether rural or urban, pedestrian, cyclist, horse rider or driver.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On the horse riders, may I bring to my hon. Friend’s attention the B3058 as it travels through Bashley where I have witnessed the most shocking and thoughtless behaviour? The principal victims are horse riders, as they are throughout the New Forest often enough. Was not an opportunity missed in the revision of the Highway Code in not specifically dealing with the problems faced by riders and appropriate measures that motorists should take?
Jesse Norman
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the concern in his own constituency. He may not be aware that, actually, horse riders are mentioned in the Highway Code. Measures are taken in the Highway Code to ensure the protection of horse riders alongside other users of the road.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
On the issue of horse riding, I took up the challenge to get back on a horse this summer after many years of not riding and to experience for myself how dangerous it is on the road. It is very clear that drivers need greater awareness. Will the Minister possibly champion the work of the British Horse Society and its “Dead? Or Dead Slow?” campaign in this area?
Jesse Norman
The British Horse Society has shown itself to be a formidable campaigning engine in the way that it has managed to lobby my colleagues across the House, and I take my hat off to it. The very first debate in which I took part in my present job was a Westminster Hall debate on the safety of horse riders on roads. Ever since then I have had a very careful concern for the matter.
Indeed, road safety comes up regularly in this House. Only two weeks ago, I was debating the matter in Westminster Hall. Many colleagues then wished to speak, and I see that many have put their names down for speeches today. I am very grateful to them for the continued interest that they take in this important topic.
On this night, bonfire night, our thoughts may turn to those who have been involved in one of the most serious traffic incidents in recent times. Thirty-four vehicles were involved in a crash on the M50 motorway in heavy fog, with 51 people injured and seven people killed on 4 November 2011. Thankfully, such events are a rarity. In the UK, we have—and we must remember this—some of the safest roads in the world, but all road deaths are a tragedy for the families involved, not to mention the impact that they have on our health service and on the economy. It is vital that we strive continually to bring the numbers down.
The latest road safety statistics, covering 2017, were published last month. The country can be proud of the record over time. That is to say that there were 39% fewer fatalities in 2017 compared with 10 years earlier in 2007. However, as in many other countries, our road safety figures have generally plateaued since 2012. An ageing population comes with higher injury risks, and there continues to be those groups, such as young drivers, that are disproportionately represented in our casualty statistics. We know that technologies such as smartphones are distracting to drivers and present challenges, but new technology also presents opportunities for the future with a new era of automated vehicles.
The Government are taking a very active and wide-ranging approach to tackling issues of road safety in relation to matters such as infrastructure, training and enforcement. Of course, the roads themselves are a key part of ensuring an adequately safe system.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Over the last 12 to 18 months, there has been a number of accidents in Coventry as a result of criminal behaviour, and they have led to deaths, including among young children.
Jesse Norman
I absolutely recognise what the hon. Gentleman says and the deaths that he describes and it is the constant challenge of the Government to seek to address them. There can be no doubt about that at all. I am regularly approached by colleagues who know of grieving families with children. Whenever I can, I meet those families and talk to them about their experience. I have visited around the country with them to experience the trauma that they have suffered and to talk to them about what can be done to improve things, so I absolutely recognise the point that he makes.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend was coming on to the point about infrastructure improvements. In Basingstoke, we are grateful to the Government for the amount of money that we have had on infrastructure improvement, but my constituents were really keen when the Government announced that all of these improvements should be cycle-proofed. Will he give us an update on how that cycle-proofing programme is going?
Jesse Norman
As my right hon. Friend will know, we are in the middle of a safety review of cycling and walking and of vulnerable road users generally, including horse riders and others. We have not yet reported on that. I expect that we will do so by the end of this year, and we will cover a very wide range of potential interventions that improve cycling safety and that go towards better infrastructure.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I know of my hon. Friend’s commitment to cycling, which is very welcome, but is he aware that New York City has recently introduced, very cost-effectively, cycle tracks on resurfaced carriageway? Does he think that that is something that the United Kingdom could learn from as a cost-effective way of making cycling safer?
Jesse Norman
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I lived in New York City myself for a couple of years and I can tell him that I used to cycle there as well as in London. I am not sure whether it has changed much, but it was a lot less safe then there than it is now in London. We as a Department very much wish to learn from all best practice in this area, and we also encourage local authorities and cities to do so. Part of the function of the money that we have given as a Government to supporting city transformation, which, as he will know, reaches not merely the largest five cities, but now 10 and potentially 12 equally substantial cities across the country is very much designed to enable them to think about the kinds of innovative and imaginative interventions in cycling and walking that might include that approach.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. An area of particular concern in my constituency is road safety in the immediate vicinity of schools and the way in which parents and carers bring their children to school by car, stop pretty well immediately outside the school gate with little regard for the fact that other children are crossing and going in and out of the school premises and then drive off without any concern for the road safety of the children around. What can the Minister say about how we can incentivise and encourage best practice across local authorities to ensure that the highest standards of road safety are in place outside all of our schools?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. Of course it is a matter not just of specific behaviour around schools, but of speed and the effects not merely of congestion, but on air quality. I will be touching on some of that later in the speech.
The roads we use are only one part of the overall picture of road safety. Earlier this year, we granted £100 million to improve 50 of the most dangerous stretches of A road in England through the Safer Roads fund. We have already seen all of the 50 road schemes receive funding, and we expect the work to be completed by 2020. I was very pleased to note that, in the Road Safety Foundation’s latest publication, “Getting Back on Track”, the most improved road is the A161 in the East Riding of Yorkshire. The improvements to this road were joint funded between the Safer Roads fund and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council.
The Budget last week highlighted the importance of our local road network. The local highway network is one of the most valuable national assets and an essential component of our economy. A good, well-maintained and safe local highway network has never been more important. The House will know that I think we need a substantial approach, and I will outline what that approach is.
Local authorities have an existing legal duty to maintain the highway under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980, as amended. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) wishes to make an intervention, he is very welcome to do so. If he does not, perhaps he would care to stop chuntering from a sedentary position. Good transport and roads are essential to this country’s economic growth.
Mr Speaker
Order. I must say to the Minister that on this occasion I myself was inexcusably chuntering from a sedentary position, for which I apologise. I am normally consumed by the Minister’s speeches, but I was chatting to a colleague so I did not witness the offending behaviour. If there was other chuntering beyond my own inexcusable chuntering, it is not excused.
Jesse Norman
Mr Speaker, it is kind of you to acknowledge your own temporary distraction, but I am afraid that the one to which I was referring was rather more intentional.
Having roads in an acceptable and safe condition is vital to us all, whether we are car drivers, lorry drivers, bus passengers, cyclists, pedestrians or horse riders. In fact, most of us are more than one of those.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am very interested in what the Secretary of State has to say about the state of our local roads. If that is such an important issue, why do we have a £9 billion backlog and why did the Budget only address 5% of it?
Jesse Norman
As hon. Members know, there are many widespread and varying estimates of the backlog. The Government are putting in place a comprehensive programme. We have already seen the largest investment in strategic roads for, I think—in real terms, certainly—the last generation or more. I would like to think that the excellent investments that we have made in pothole fixing will continue in the years to come, but the hon. Gentleman will know that these things are ultimately dependent on the spending review to be announced next year.
Ministers and Members of Parliament receive plenty of correspondence on the matter of potholes. The condition of the road also regularly appears among the top concerns in public opinion surveys, and this was a major issue raised by respondents to our recent cycling and walking safety review call for evidence. That is why a further £420 million was made available to highways authorities in England outside London for highway maintenance—to support authorities to keep bridges and other structures safe and open, to help repair potholes or stop them forming, and to undertake further minor highway works where necessary. We will be announcing individual allocations to highways authorities shortly, but I am sure that Members across the House will welcome this funding, which comes in addition to over £6 billion that we are providing to local highway authorities in England outside London between 2015 and 2021, including £296 million for a pothole action fund, which is being allocated to local highway authorities between 2016 and 2021 to help repair potholes.
The Chancellor also announced a further £150 million in the Budget to improve local traffic hotspots such as roundabouts. It is our intention that this funding will help to improve existing local road junctions, to ease congestion bottlenecks and to improve reliability—not only to improve access, but to make sure that these junctions are safer for all road users. Further details will be announced in due course.
Infrastructure is one thing but effective education is another. We are improving training for new drivers to familiarise them with the conditions that they will encounter on the roads. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is developing new materials to improve learners’ awareness of hazards in different weather and lighting conditions. As the House will be aware, new legislation is in force allowing learners on motorways when accompanied by an approved driving instructor. Learner drivers are already gaining experience and we will have a new generation of drivers who are confident in using our motorways.
We are also taking action against the most dangerous kinds of behaviour. Evidence repeatedly shows that the use of mobile phones, and drink and drug driving, give cause for concern. Tackling these dangerous forms of behaviour has long been an element of our road safety strategy.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Minister rightly draws attention to some of the dangerous behaviours that people display when driving. May I return to the issue of horses? Would he consider asking for the Highway Code to be amended to incorporate the British Horse Society’s “Dead Slow” advice?
Jesse Norman
The topic has already been raised. As I have pointed out, there is already guidance relating to horse riders in The Highway Code. I am always delighted to take further suggestions from colleagues and will look further at the question that my hon. Friend raises in the light of this debate.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts). This matter becomes ever more pressing. Across the whole country, rights of way are being salami-sliced, piece by piece; and, piece by piece, horse riders are being forced on to the highway. That is why this matter is important, and its importance will only continue to grow.
Jesse Norman
I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is very interesting that he makes the point about not only the danger to horse riders, but the reason for that danger. It is therefore rather important that all the unregistered roads and byways are properly acknowledged, notified and recognised in order to make sure that spaces are available for people to be able to ride happily and safely without having to go on to the highway.
Jesse Norman
I would be happy to, but there are going to be 18 speeches and I have already spoken for—
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just say that everybody thinks that he or she is an exception? The trouble is that if we keep having interventions, we simply will not get through the list; sorry.
Jesse Norman
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker.
We have already taken a tougher stance on drivers who use a handheld mobile phone at the wheel. The penalty doubled to six points and a £200 fine last year, which means that drivers face having their licence revoked if they are caught using a mobile phone while driving. Since 2015, repeat drink-drivers have to prove they are not alcohol dependent medically before getting their licence back. We have also removed the right to a blood test for drivers who narrowly fail a breathalyser test. That has had the effect of denying people the chance to sober up while waiting to take the test. We are also making progress in providing police forces with the next generation of mobile breathalyser equipment, with bids currently being assessed in the £350,000 innovation competition run by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety.
To help the police with drug recognition and impairment testing, we have granted £1 million to police forces in England and Wales for equipment, enforcement and training of officers. Alongside that, we announced in June this year a refreshed road safety statement and a two-year action plan. Rather than take an entirely generalised approach, we are specifically focusing on four priority groups: motorcyclists; rural road users; older, vulnerable users; and young road users. At least three of these groups—young people, rural road users and motorcyclists—are continually over-represented in our road casualty statistics, and we have data to confirm that the safety of older road users is a growing concern. Of course, this too will be informed by work from the new road collision investigation project that we have launched, and I am delighted that that will be bringing us more in-depth qualitative analysis so that we can better understand the underlying causes of crashes and road safety incidents.
We are very focused on the wellbeing of the most vulnerable road users. Last year, the Government published our cycling and walking investment strategy, setting out an ambition that walking or cycling should become the natural choices for shorter journeys. But people will only walk and cycle more if they feel safe to do so, which is why earlier this year we launched a cycling and walking investment strategy safety review call for evidence, seeking views on how best to achieve that. We received 14,000 or so responses from people from every imaginable road-user walk of life, including children, parents, local authorities, police forces and more.
Last month, we published a summary of those responses. We are still carefully analysing all contributions, but some trends have already emerged. One of those—this bears very much on the concerns of those who have spoken about horse riders—is the fear of being close-passed, which is extremely scary. It should be noted that this is not merely being passed from behind—overtaking—but passed from the front. Working to tackle that dangerous behaviour is one of the themes in our response. I have had the chance to visit and see in action the excellent work of the West Midlands police, and to talk to police constables Mark Hodson and Steve Hudson about the great initiative they have taken with their colleagues there. My colleagues and I are working to enable other police forces to follow the West Midlands lead with some additional support.
We are piloting safety training for driving instructors so that they can pass the important knowledge of cycle safety on to their pupils. As I said, we will be reviewing parts of the Highway Code. That review will not only highlight how to avoid the dangers of close passing but encourage people to adopt the Dutch reach—a method of opening a car door with the hand furthest from the handle to force drivers to look over their shoulder for passing traffic. We recognise, as I mentioned, that these issues are equally applicable, in many ways, to horse riders. We should be clear that the cycling and walking strategy may have that name but is absolutely targeted at vulnerable road users, including horse riders.
Dr Wollaston
I am really glad to hear the Minister talk about close passing, but it is also about the speed of passing, which he has not mentioned. Will he also look closely at 20-mph limits and how they can be enforced?
Jesse Norman
I am happy to let my hon. Friend know—or she may know—that we already have a consultation out on this, and we expect to report on that later this year.
Many factors go into making our roads safer, including the road environment, the vehicles we drive and behaviour, but so does enforcement. Last October, the Ministry of Justice published its response to a consultation on the penalties for the most dangerous drivers, and Ministers announced that they will introduce life sentences for killer drivers—an increase on the current 14 years. The Government have said that they will create a new offence of causing serious injury by careless driving, and that Ministers will introduce new legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
I welcome this debate. As the House will see, the Government remain energetic, focused and determined in their efforts to improve road safety.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
The Opposition welcome this general debate on road safety. It is a chance to discuss the Government’s record. It is also well timed, as last month the Department for Transport published the 2017 road safety statistics. In recent months, there has been a healthy level of debate in Westminster Hall regarding road safety. We have spoken on the fine work of the Bobby Colleran Trust and the effectiveness of “Bobby zones” around schools; about global road safety; and about the launch of influential reports recommending that the Government change tack with regard to road safety. We therefore welcome today’s debate in the Chamber.
This country has a proud record on road safety and some of the safest roads in the world. In fact, we have the fourth lowest number of road deaths per million inhabitants, behind only Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. We should rightly be proud of this record. Although it is proper to say that Britain has one of the strongest road safety records in the world, we must also recognise that in recent years our record has stagnated. Ministers have said that the picture is mixed and generally heading in the right direction. We cannot be clearer: it is not. It has stalled since 2010. The number of deaths on the road has remained at about the same level since 2011. One road death is an unacceptable tragedy, never mind almost 1,800 in 2017.
As I mentioned, the Government recently published their 2017 figures for reported road casualties in Great Britain. While there are some positives in this latest statistical release, there is also cause for concern—and Ministers are, I believe, well aware of this. In 2017, 1,793 people were killed on our roads, an average of five people every day—five people a day—and just under 25,000 people were seriously injured. As the road safety charity, Brake, points out, that equates to 73 people a day either being killed or seriously injured just going about their daily business. Last year’s annual total was the highest since 2011. I am sure we can all agree that that is completely unacceptable. There has been a sharp decline, over decades, in the number of people being killed or seriously injured on our roads. I reiterate, however, that the figures have not really changed since 2010.
The Government talk a good game about road safety being a top priority, but I am very sorry to say that their legacy so far is one of disappointment and, indeed, failure. The latest figures from the Department for Transport only reaffirm this. Since 2010, progress has well and truly stalled. Another year of statistics has been published, and we are no further forward.
The Government scrapped road targets that successfully reduced the number of people killed or seriously injured by a third under the last Labour Government. The Government tell the shadow Transport team that targets do not achieve anything. We disagree. The Opposition believe that targets focus awareness and attention and, ultimately, help hold the Government to account. All the evidence points to targets being a proven facilitator of achieving road safety improvements, and yet there are no targets to assess progress. The Government set themselves targets to meet in pretty much every other area of policy, but not for reducing road deaths and injuries. Why is that the case? Ministers will be well aware that the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety concluded in a recent report that the Government should look into introducing key performance indicators for road safety in order to improve safety—in other words, it would like targets to be reintroduced.
I want to return to the 2017 figures and seek answers from the Minister on a number of points. Worryingly, an estimated 9,040 people were killed or injured in drink-drive incidents in 2016. That represents a rise of 7% from 2015 and is the highest number since 2012. The number of accidents where at least one driver or rider was over the alcohol limit rose by 6% in 2016. I would like to know what plans the Government have to address that.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Would the hon. Gentleman support measures to reduce the allowable drink-drive limit, such as those that the Scottish National party Government have introduced in Scotland?
Matt Rodda
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. That should be looked at and reviewed across the UK as a whole.
I would like to move on to another aspect of this very important area. The 2017 release stated:
“The population of older people (aged 70 and older) has increased relatively rapidly over recent years. This carries implications for higher levels of casualties in this age group in the future.”
What do Ministers propose to do to address that issue? The Minister touched on it, but much more detail is needed. With an ageing population, older road users could become much more vulnerable.
At the other end of the age scale, it is encouraging to hear that the overall number of child casualties of all severities decreased by 2% to 15,721, which is one of the lowest years on record. However, I am sure we can all agree that this figure remains far too high and that the Government must strive to make our roads safer still, especially for vulnerable road users.
Between 2010 and 2016, the number of deaths from road accidents remained broadly consistent, as we have heard. However, the number of pedestrians killed on our roads increased.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that far too many drivers of motor vehicles still seem to assume they always take precedence and that we need a fundamental change in attitude towards pedestrians and cyclists, so that car and lorry drivers start treating non-drivers with respect?
Matt Rodda
I agree with my hon. Friend’s suggestion. He makes an interesting point.
I return to the wider point about vulnerable road users. Although the number of cyclists killed on the roads in 2017 was slightly lower than in 2016, the 101 deaths was very similar to the levels seen since 2010. If we look at where those fatal accidents occurred, of the 1,793 road deaths in 2017, just over 1,000—or 60%—took place on country roads, 626 occurred on urban roads and 99 took place on motorways. That is a 2% increase since 2016. While the number of people injured on motorways has decreased, there was a 6% increase in the number of deaths on motorways. How does the Minister plan to address that important and worrying statistic?
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that car advertisements often make people—and particularly younger drivers—feel as if they are invincible to any form of injury, so safe have cars become, according to the ads, which can encourage them to drive in a less focused way?
Matt Rodda
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about younger drivers. They are vulnerable, and we arguably need a better education programme.
To return to my speech, we welcome the targeted approach of the Safer Roads fund to enable local authorities to improve the most dangerous stretches of A roads in England. The fund initially totalled £175 million, of which £100 million is currently being invested. However, the other £75 million originally allocated has been described by the Minister as no longer required. Will the Minister explain why the Department believes this to be the case?
I found it interesting that the RAC Foundation and the Road Safety Foundation recently published a report on the possible benefits of the Safer Roads fund, which estimates that it could prevent almost 1,400 deaths and serious injuries over the next two decades on these very risky A roads in England. Given the need to save lives and the evidence that this fund makes a difference, surely it is important that we spend all the money in the fund. Hazardous A roads across England were denied funding to improve safety for not being dangerous enough. The Transport Network has also asked the Department for Transport what will happen to this money. Again, I urge the Minister to reply on this point later.
The Minister was asked about regulations for tyre safety by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) during the passage of the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill in May. He replied that the Government had a process in mind. He has acknowledged that this is a serious issue. Tyres of up to 20 years old have been causing great concern in my area of the Thames valley; and there was a horrific accident in Hampshire a few years ago. I ask the Minister also to respond on this point, if he can, and say where the Government have got to on that important issue.
Opposition Members are also concerned about enforcement, particularly as there has been a 24% fall in the number of traffic officers since 2012. Sadly, that has been part of the Government’s austerity programme. There was no mention in the recent Budget of extra money for regular policing, and since the Conservatives came to power, 21,000 police officers have had their posts cut. In 2010, there were 3,500 police officers patrolling UK roads, but by 2017 that had fallen to just 2,600. It seems that Government cuts to our vital services are putting safety at risk. Austerity is not over, despite the repeated claims from the Government and the Prime Minister, and that is affecting all areas, including road safety.
Two years ago, the Transport Committee produced its “Road traffic law enforcement” review. It concluded:
“As the number of traffic police has fallen, so too has the number of road traffic offences detected. However, the number of ‘causing death’ offences…has not fallen. This…suggests that the reduction in overall offences that are recorded does not represent a reduction in offences actually being committed.”
As I have said, the latest road safety figures show there has been an increase in the number of deaths of pedestrians and motorcyclists. The number of cyclists killed has remained broadly constant since 2010. Will the Minister address that issue in his closing remarks?
As the Minister said, the Department for Transport is currently undertaking a cycling and walking investment strategy review. I believe the review is to be welcomed, especially the inclusion of pedestrians. I ask the Minister, who will know that my shadow ministerial brief covers cycling and walking, how he will ensure that this review achieves safer walking and cycling, in line with the cycling and walking strategy’s ambitions.
We welcome the Government’s recent announcement of plans to revise the Highway Code rules relating to pedestrians’ and cyclists’ safety, as campaigned for by many charities and cycling and walking groups. When the Government are carrying out this review, I hope that they will listen to the sector’s concerns, which include speed limits, the use of mobile phones, rules on how much space HGVs and other vehicles should leave when overtaking cyclists—the close passing that the Minister mentioned—and, indeed, how to open car doors safely.
In summary, in our 2017 manifesto Labour pledged to reset the UK’s road safety vision and ambitiously strive for a transport network with zero deaths, reintroducing road-safety targets and setting out bold measures to improve safety standards continuously. A future Labour Government would introduce a “target zero” approach to deaths on the roads—a new approach to road safety that does not accept that road deaths and injuries are inevitable. Beyond the obvious benefits to families and society, this policy brings significant financial benefits from avoiding NHS bills, care bills, the costs of transport delays, and costs of lost earnings and production. May I ask the Minister when the Government will commit to such a “target zero” approach?
Finally, I would like to close by saying that although we have one of the safest road networks in the world, which should be celebrated, we should never ever be complacent. More could be done, and a Labour Government would do more. We will continue to press the Government on this matter, and we welcome today’s debate.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure—
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise to the hon. Lady. The five-minute limit on speeches takes effect now. We will restart the clock for the speech of the hon. Lady, who can perhaps be given a second warm welcome. I call Tracey Crouch.
Tracey Crouch
It is a pleasure to speak first in this important debate, thus cementing my status as a former Minister who has resumed their old place on the Back Benches.
I could speak about many issues, including the protection of horses, which others have mentioned, and the worrying growth in young drivers who use seatbelt alarm disablers, which my local fire and rescue service raised.
However, I want to use the brief time I have to raise two very different issues. One was brought to my attention by a local resident, but is of national importance, and the other is a local issue, but is no doubt occurring nationwide.
A month ago, I met my constituent, Sam Cockerill, in my office and heard how her partner, Steve Goldbold, was killed instantly in September 2017 after an HGV strayed on to the hard shoulder of the M25 and hit him while he recovered the vehicle of someone who had broken down. From talking to others in the industry, Sam heard about other recovery operators who had been killed while performing their duties. She also heard how recovery operators live in constant fear while working on the hard shoulder, but got a sense that their voice was not being heard by lawmakers. So in September, she, along with a number of industry figures, launched the Campaign for Safer Roadside Rescue and Recovery, and I want, through this debate, to add my support to it.
I am a confident driver, but I am petrified of breaking down on a motorway, particularly with the enormous increase in the amount of traffic, especially heavy traffic, on our roads and the continued roll-out of all-lane-running motorways to cope with it. However, if I were to break down, I know I can go and sit up on the bank away from the dangers of travelling vehicles—of course, that is not an option for recovery workers. I therefore think that the campaign’s asks to protect those workers are not unreasonable.
First, there is a request for roadside rescue and recovery operators to be able to use prominent red lights while attending accidents and breakdowns. At present, they are only permitted to be fitted with and use amber warning beacons while attending incidents. There are two reasons why using red lights makes sense. First, there is a scientific phenomenon called the Rayleigh effect, which means the red light can be seen further away. Secondly, the colour red elicits a more serious reaction, whether consciously or subconsciously, in the minds of road users approaching a hazard and drivers adjust accordingly.
The second ask is for the Department for Transport to collect data on the number of casualties specifically among recovery workers, as there is currently not a specific variable that captures the number of deaths and injuries of roadside operatives in accidents.
The third ask is to build on the important work done by the Slow Down, Move Over campaign, which seeks to improve awareness through the highway code of protocol for motorists when approaching the scene of an accident or a broken down vehicle. In the USA, the Slow Down, Move Over laws were implemented, and are now in place across all 50 states. Failure to abide by the law is punishable as a moving traffic offence, the same type of offence as drink-driving or speeding.
Finally, the campaign calls for the Government to halt the roll-out of all-lane-running motorways and to implement so-called smart motorways in a way that takes account of the rights of those who work on the hard shoulder, particularly recovery operators.
The campaign is for all those roadside and recovery workers who have experienced near misses or lost their lives, such as my constituent Sam’s partner, Steve. I would be grateful if the Minister in his response committed to meeting me, Sam and others to discuss the matter further so that we can make progress in protecting those who come to our rescue when we need it on our roads.
My next brief point is very different from the first, and is about safety on local roads, particularly roads affected by major housing developments. I have many local road safety issues, relating to junctions such as that at Bull Lane in Eccles or Walderslade Road, Chestnut Avenue or Luton Arches in Chatham, but I really want to emphasise the problems that the village of Wouldham faces as a consequence of poor traffic modelling relating to the new development of Peter’s Village.
In summary, as part of the planning agreement for the new village, a new bridge was built over the River Medway to provide a direct route on to the A228, which in itself provides a link to the M20, the M2 and the fast train to London from Snodland. The plans for that development were all agreed long before I was even the candidate, let alone the MP for Chatham and Aylesford, but it was clear that the fears of Wouldham village that it would become a victim of rat running to the bridge were dismissed and now the safety of residents is at risk.
Residents were reassured that the road modelling had been done and that it was believed that vehicles would go the long way round both in distance and time to get to the bridge, but the village is under siege. The volume and speed of vehicles travelling along the main road to get to the bridge creates a real fear, which I share, that it is only a matter of time until there is an accident. I have worked hard behind the scenes to try to alleviate the problem, and now are we beginning to make some small steps of progress, but the matter would not have got to this point if we had a better system of predictive modelling. Frankly, I think I could have done better modelling on my two-year-old’s car mat.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Thirteen more Back Benchers wish to speak, of which I know the hon. Gentleman will sensitively take account. I call Alan Brown.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I commend her for her principled stand last week on fixed odds betting terminals. I wish her all the best for the future.
This debate, while quite clearly on a serious subject, is a big indicator of the moribund nature of the Government at present. We are having a general debate in the main Chamber, when it could truthfully have been held in Westminster Hall. Indeed, there was a Westminster Hall debate on this very topic just two weeks ago and there is a forthcoming Backbench Business debate.
The key issues raised two weeks ago are going to resurface tonight, so it would be good if the Minister summing up could actually address these matters properly and say what the Government are doing about them. For example, we still take an eye test by reading a number plate from 20 metres. That test was introduced in 1937. Surely we can modernise that? Drivers should have their eyesight tested more regularly. My eyesight has changed as I have got older. I now have to wear reading glasses, unfortunately. It is clear that that happens to many people, so why are drivers not required to get their eyesight tested more regularly? The Scottish Government still provide free eye tests, so that would not be an enormous burden on people. Perhaps the United Kingdom Government could look at doing that in terms of general health and wellbeing.
If the Tory Government are really serious about road safety, surely they will follow the lead of the Scottish National party Government and reduce the drink-driving limit. In Scotland, it has been reduced from allowable limits of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood to just 50 mg per 100 ml. That measure was initially met with scepticism by Opposition politicians. At the time, Tory MSPs were telling us that it would result in the police hounding wee old women and grannies who were just having a couple of gin and tonics, while real hardcore criminals would be getting off scot-free. But that is not what has happened. Since it was introduced, there has actually been a reduction in the number of drink-driving convictions. It is helping to bring about a change in culture, with people not wanting to risk drink-driving. It is time for the UK Government to have a rethink and to move away from having the joint highest drink-driving limits in Europe.
As the shadow Minister said, if the UK Government were serious about road safety they would have a target for reducing roadside fatalities. The Scottish Government have a target of a 40% reduction in road deaths between 2010 and 2020. The UK Government need to sign up to the UN target to halve the number of road deaths. The UN target came about partly because, according to the World Health Organisation, road accidents are the tenth leading cause of death globally. The number of people killed in road accidents across the world is just under that for deaths from tuberculosis, which is in ninth place, but it is predicted that road deaths will become the seventh highest killer of people across the world. Given that politicians sign up to causes for the eradication of various diseases, it follows that they need to work better and be stronger about this global issue.
In 2017, there were 170,993 accident casualties recorded on Britain’s roads, of which 1,793 were fatal. The long-term trend, especially in the past few decades, is a reduction in the numbers killed and injured from road accidents. The reality, however, is that each fatality is a tragedy for the families involved. Each fatality will also involve the emergency services, who have to deal with road traffic collisions. I pay tribute to their work, which is often overlooked. It can be very emotional and traumatic for them. The long-term decline in fatalities coincided with the introduction of drink-driving laws in 1966. There has been a general downward trend, except for a recent plateau. The obvious impact of the 1966 measure underlines the need to reconsider the current levels, especially as we now have better evidence of the impact of alcohol in the blood system.
Another way to tackle road safety is road upgrades to tackle accident blackspots and/or ways to reduce congestion and keep traffic moving more freely. I remind the House that another Union dividend that we in Scotland suffered for years was the lack of investment in Scotland’s road systems. It has taken the Scottish National party coming to power to really push this agenda. We now have the new M74 link from Glasgow, the M80 motorway, the £500 million M8, M74 and M73 upgrades, and, of course, the new Queensferry Crossing. Imagine—until recently, there was not even a continuous motorway connecting Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is it not the case that before these Scottish Government investments, the last time that significant investment happened in the road infrastructure in Scotland, particularly in the highlands where I grew up, was as a result of European Union funding? Perhaps that is one reason why people have seen the benefits of the European Union in Scotland and why we voted so heavily to remain.
Alan Brown
I completely agree, and I am going to touch on that. Funding for the recent upgrades has been provided from the European Investment Bank, so we want to know what will replace that source because we have heard nothing from the Government about that. My hon. Friend mentioned the highlands, where many roads are still single-track with passing places, and these are sometimes lifeline roads. The trunk road from Fort William to Mallaig, the road to the isles, was only upgraded to a continuous two-lane carriageway in 2009; it was the last remaining single-track trunk road in the UK. Again, that was thanks in part to £3 million of European regional development fund money and European transitional fund assistance, so he is right. It is proof that if Scotland had not been able to access that money from the EU and had been reliant just on the Westminster purse strings, we would not have been getting the money for these vital road upgrades.
Going forward, at the Budget we heard about Barnett consequentials—well, living off Barnett scraps is not the way it should be. It is not how we can do long-term planning. It is a reactive measure to decisions that are made in England, for England, and we should not have to rely on these scraps from the table.
Other measures that can be introduced for road safety include such things as average speed cameras in a bid to change driver behaviour. The introduction of those on the A9 in Scotland was not popular and was cynically hijacked by Opposition politicians, yet since the cameras were introduced, the number of fatalities has been reduced by 40%. They have also been successfully introduced on the A77 and the A90, but the success of those on the A9 demonstrates not only how important these measures can be, but that politicians should act responsibly and not oppose for opposition’s sake.
When analysing accident statistics, it is clear which three groups of road users are most vulnerable: pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Too many short journeys are made by car. Statistically, these should be safer for the occupants of the car, so if we want to get more people walking and cycling, we need to make sure that people feel reassured that that can be done safely. The Scottish Government have announced a community links fund that will make £36 million available over the current financial year to develop walking and cycling paths, and this is certainly a welcome step forward. When we look at motorcyclists, we see that that group has around 6,000 casualties per 1 billion miles travelled and a fatality rate of just under 117 per 1 billion miles travelled. Pedal cyclists have similar statistics, yet car occupants have a casualty rate of 238 per 1 billion miles travelled and a fatality rate of 1.9 per 1 billion miles travelled. There is a huge disparity, which needs to be addressed.
Turning to targets, the Scottish Government have committed through “Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2020” to achieving safer road travel. This maps out intermediate targets, and I am pleased to say that we are well on our way to achieving these. In 2016, the Scottish Government’s road safety framework was awarded a prestigious Prince Michael international road safety award for outstanding achievements and strong collaboration with partners. I suggest that the UK considers the work that has been done.
Clearly, it is illegal to drive while impaired by drugs. Scottish Government plans to introduce new drug-driving limits will allow prosecutions when different drug types are detected above specified limits. This is simply intended to make it easier to hold drug-drivers to account, as there will be no requirement to prove that someone was driving in an impaired manner. The introduction of roadside testing means that this can be done without needing to look at whether somebody was driving in an impaired manner.
As other hon. Members have mentioned in interventions, another vulnerable cohort is horse riders. I live in a rural constituency with lots of minor country roads that are great for walkers, cyclists and horse riders, providing, of course, that vehicle drivers pay attention. I know myself to give respect and plenty of room to horse riders, but unfortunately not all car users do. Several of my constituents, including the chair of north Ayrshire riding club, have contacted me to express their concern that horse riders and carriages have not been included in the Department for Transport’s review of the Highway Code. I share their concern and that of the British Horse Society, which has highlighted the fact that, over a seven-year period, 40 horse riders and 237 horses have been killed as a consequence of road injuries. Why not include them in the review?
I also echo the call for the Minister to consider strengthening section 215 of the Highway Code to include the British Horse Society’s “dead slow” advice to drivers.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making some good points on horses. Mine is an urban constituency, but we often get police horses going about the city, so it is important that different road users—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful, but I think the hon. Gentleman is approaching his peroration.
Alan Brown
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, as I am sure the whole House does—I am sure hon. Members listened carefully.
I finish with one reminder to the Minister about community transport and the proposed changes to section 19 and 22 permits. I have written to him on this subject. I have a local transport group still concerned that measures the Government are introducing will cost a lot of money. It provides a vital service transporting people and keeping them safe, and I urge him to consider that as well.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Road safety deserves the close attention of the House and was the subject of a debate I was pleased to secure only last month in Westminster Hall. My debate made it clear that colleagues from across the House shared my view, and I was pleased to see lots of them turning out. I am delighted that the Government have recognised this point in dedicating time in the Chamber today. I was also very flattered that, following my efforts to raise the profile of road safety, Brake made me its road safety parliamentarian of the month for October.
As I stated in my debate, 1,793 people were killed in road crashes in Great Britain last year, which is 1,793 too many, while the Government estimate that road traffic collisions cost the UK economy in excess of £16.3 billion a year. In Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire alone, all accidents involving speed cost the economy on average £32.5 million annually—costs that could be reduced if we made our roads safer. In September, PACTS released its report, “Developing safe system road safety indicators for the UK”, produced in association with Ageas, one of our largest motor insurance companies, with a number of its people based in my constituency. The report focuses on a more systemic approach to road safety, with better indicators and data to assess the dangers.
Next week, on Wednesday 15 November, Ageas will be releasing a new interactive tool to provide information on the most dangerous roads in any area. It also worked in partnership with the Road Safety Foundation to produce last month’s “Getting Back On Track” report—the Minister has already referred to it—which unfortunately put the societal cost of road traffic crashes at £35 billion in 2017. I am sure that many Members will agree that that is a shocking figure. The report also states that 73 people are killed or seriously injured every day. The key concern of the report is to improve the rate at which the number of road deaths is falling. Sadly, it has plateaued in recent years.
It is also important that we take local action. As the Government’s road safety statement notes, 98% of the road network in England comprises local roads, and local action needs to be encouraged and respected, but there is also an essential duty on the Department to get on with initiatives that spread good practice between local authorities. It is not just about speed either; there are a range of other road safety concerns. Across the country, partnerships like ours in Staffordshire are increasingly delivering a step change in the approach of local service providers. They are focusing on much more holistic and preventive methods, and communities are taking the lead.
Last Friday, The Sentinel—the local and proud newspaper of Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire—ran a front-page headline reporting that the shocking number of 877 drivers had been caught speeding by the police in just four months on the A500, the main arterial route through Stoke-on-Trent. The central motorway police group took over the policing of the road in the summer, following 26 fatal crashes in the preceding 10 years. The group is not picking on motorists who are just a mile or two per hour over the limit, as we might expect. Some motorists are travelling at between 60 mph and, on occasion, up to 90 mph on a road with a 50-mph limit. I am sure many Members agree that that is a shocking amount over the speed limit and that we need to get on top of the problem.
Thanks to the lobbying that we have been doing, Highways England traffic officers are regularly patrolling the busiest parts of the A500 and the A50 through Stoke-on-Trent. They are helping to ensure that, when incidents occur, they are managed as safely as possible and to reduce the number of further collisions and the knock-on disruption. I hope that the Minister will join me in commending the work that the police and highways officers are doing in Stoke-on-Trent and in commending The Sentinel for giving such prominence to this issue.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Many Members on both sides of the House have already commented on the plight of horses and horse riders, which, I think, shows the power of the British horse lobby.
This debate is particularly important in the light of a recent report by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which states that since 2010, there has been no significant reduction in the number of people killed on UK roads. That shows that the Government need to do more to improve the safety of our road network.
I want to speak specifically about the review of the Highway Code. I understand that the review, which was announced by the Minister last month, focuses on
“how road users should behave in relation to cyclists and pedestrians”.
I welcome the review and any steps that are taken to make our roads safer for all, particularly those who are vulnerable on the roads, but I believe that there is an omission in the definition of vulnerable road users in the review, which was commissioned by the Minister. It is extremely important for cyclists and pedestrians to be protected on our roads, but I believe that horse riders should be included and categorised as vulnerable road users.
According to the British Horse Society, there are 2.7 million horse riders in the UK. This year, the society reported that since 2010 there had been more than 2,914 reports of road incidents involving horses, in which, sadly, 237 horses had died and 40 riders had lost their lives. Those statistics speak for themselves, and the safety of horse riders and their vulnerability on the roads should be taken very seriously.
Rule 215 of the Highway Code provides guidance for drivers in relation to horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles. It states:
“Be particularly careful of horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles especially when overtaking. Always pass wide and slowly.
Horse riders are often children, so take extra care and remember riders may ride in double file when escorting a young or inexperienced horse or rider.”
The current rules for riding a horse on the road, rules 49 to 55, state, among other things, that riders should keep to the left, keep both hands on the reins unless they are signalling, and keep both feet in the stirrups. The Department for Transport’s THINK! campaign also provides guidance for horse riders on the roads.
It is the responsibility of local authorities to erect traffic signs to alert drivers to accompanied horses or ponies and to position them where there are stables or where riders cross roads from one bridleway to another. However, since the debate was announced, a number of my constituents, including many equestrians and members of communities with a large population of horse riders, have expressed concern that signs are not being erected or are not being replaced when they fall down. They feel that the Government should do more to tackle the problem.
The many keen horse riders in my constituency have expressed dismay that they have been left out of the review of the Highway Code. Furthermore, many of the roads in my constituency are narrow country roads, which are particularly dangerous when shared by horse riders and vehicles. That is why campaigns such as the British Horse Society’s “Dead Slow” campaign, which aims to educate drivers on driving at a maximum of 15 mph when passing horse riders, to be patient and not sound their horn, to pass widely—at least a car’s width if possible—and to drive away slowly, are so important. Some 85% of incidents between horse riders and vehicles occur because a car driver is driving too close to a horse and its rider.
I therefore have a simple request for the Minister: for these reasons, I am asking that he considers widening the review of the Highway Code and understands that horse riders are vulnerable on our roads as well, not just cyclists and pedestrians. This review should include a strengthening of rule 215 of the Highway Code to include the four messages of the “Dead Slow” campaign, so that our roads can be safer and there can be more awareness and education of how to safely pass horse riders on our roads.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). I also warmly welcome the work the Minister has done to improve safety for all road users, especially cyclists and pedestrians, and will use my time to touch on two local issues that are very important to my constituents in Redditch.
First, I pay tribute to an impressive lady called Lucy Harrison, who is a local representative of a charity called RoadPeace. She has made considerable efforts in fundraising and raising awareness of the impact of speeding after her brother was, tragically, killed in a road accident. He was a pedestrian hit by a reckless driver travelling at double the speed limit and was killed instantly. The accident was investigated, and a post-mortem was performed on Lucy’s brother within 48 hours, but during the trial the defence counsel requested a second post-mortem, and this did not take place for three months. That was over the Christmas period, and we can only imagine the agony and distress of her and her family during this time. The burial process was severely delayed, denying Lucy and her family a chance to say goodbye to her brother until a long time after his death. The admirable charity RoadPeace is doing excellent work on this issue, and many second post-mortems take place as a result of road traffic accidents, so this is ultimately a matter of road safety.
There is widespread confusion regarding a defendant’s right to a second post-mortem. I recently met the excellent Justice Minister my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) to discuss this matter and he assures me that new guidance is currently being drafted by the Chief Coroner. However, through the Minister’s work in improving road safety, the incidence of even first post-mortems can be avoided, so the pain and anguish of many families who have to experience loss as a result of road traffic accident can be reduced.
I believe more can be done by local councils, which leads me on to the second issue I would like to briefly raise, and in doing so I pay tribute to another constituent, Katie Houghton. She runs a mental health awareness project called Midlands Messages of Hope, which simply seeks to reduce suicide. It is a superb local initiative, but I was saddened by Worcestershire County Council’s actions in tearing down more than 150 heartfelt messages of hope attached to the Muskett’s Way footbridge in Redditch. It is a place where people have been known to take their own lives, although the suicide rate is no higher in Redditch than elsewhere. The bridge spans a busy road, the Bromsgrove highway, and those messages are intended to make those who are on the edge think again, and they work alongside Samaritans signs that are also displayed. It is claimed that similar initiatives elsewhere save lives, so I implore the council to rethink its policy. Suicides can of course cause accidents, which makes that bridge and road in my constituency dangerous, and people perceive it as dangerous.
Road safety affects us all, both those who drive and those who do not. I am approached by constituents on a number of issues, but speeding is always at the top of the list, particularly in areas like Feckenham. People are always asking for more ways to tackle speeding. An Opposition Member mentioned speeding around schools and we all want children to be safe.
I must mention horses, because mine is a rural constituency. I support the very effective “Dead Slow” campaign to keep horses and their riders safe.
I should like to mention driving licences for dementia sufferers. I have written to the Minister about this before. I am the daughter of a dementia sufferer, and I had to go through the process of having my mother tested for driving and basically having to get her off the road because she was a danger to herself and others. That process was incredibly difficult and traumatic, especially as she lacked the awareness that she was an unsafe driver, which is itself the result of the disease of dementia. Please will the Minister look again at this policy area? Unfortunately, dementia is increasing, and I am sure that more and more of us will be touched by this sad state of affairs.
I am pleased that more investment has been made by the Minister, and I hope that this will help us to maintain our safe roads. We must keep the focus on that issue. We must decrease the amount of accidents that happen on our roads, reduce risks and protect vulnerable people, and we must always work to prevent the pain and grief that are caused by an unsafe road environment.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). Road safety is an issue that I repeatedly raise in the House, and I welcome the opportunity to debate it in the Chamber this evening. We all know what a vital issue it is, and it affects many of our constituents, often tragically. In West Yorkshire, 815 people were killed or seriously injured in road traffic incidents last year. In my constituency, more children are killed or seriously injured on our roads than almost anywhere else in the country. I know that it is ambitious, but we should aim to eliminate road deaths and serious injuries entirely in the UK. Vision Zero seeks to do exactly that, and I urge the Government to look into that approach.
Clearly we will need a wide variety of tools in order to achieve that, and one crucial part is a tougher criminal justice approach. It was for this reason that I warmly welcomed the Government’s announcement in October 2017 that they would bring in longer sentences for drivers who killed through dangerous or careless driving, as well as the announcement of a new offence of causing serious injury through careless driving. I pay tribute to all those who campaigned for this change, including the road safety charity Brake, but we are now over a year on, and the Government have still not delivered on their commitment. In fact, we are no closer to those changes being made.
Ministers are now claiming that the changes will be incorporated into a review of cycle safety, but I have to say that that is completely unacceptable. It is right, of course, that the Government should look at the laws around cycling in order to make it safer for all road users, but it is not good enough that already-announced changes on sentencing are being rolled into the open-ended process. I really hope the Minister will listen and set out exactly when parliamentary time will be available to bring these changes into effect. The delay is adding to the suffering that families face when they lose loved ones.
Turning to another criminal justice issue, we must ensure that the exceptional hardship rule, which allows drivers to keep their licence even when they have reached 12 points, is not abused. Data from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency show that more than 200 people in Bradford alone successfully used that argument last year and escaped a ban. There are 11,000 drivers across Britain who still have their driving licences despite passing the 12-point limit. We are allowing unsafe drivers to remain on our roads, and ultimately we are putting people at risk. Anyone who reaches 12 points should expect to be banned. Anything less makes a mockery of our road laws.
Of course, our laws are an effective deterrent only if they are properly enforced. For this we need well-resourced police forces that are able to patrol our roads, proactively tackle dangerous driving and bring those who break the law to justice. It is for this reason that the cuts to frontline policing caused by a reduction in funding from this Government are extremely worrying. On top of the 30% cuts in West Yorkshire since 2010, police forces across the country are facing an additional £165 million unexpected pensions bill, which will lead to even fewer officers. Prior to the Budget, I raised the issue of police pensions with the Prime Minister, and I wrote to her about it on 26 October. Unfortunately, I have not yet received a response. We cannot keep people safe on the cheap, and we cannot keep roads our safe without sufficient resources. If the Government are serious about making our roads safer, they must properly fund police budgets.
Finally, I would like to mention graduated driving licences, which allow new drivers to build up their driving skills and experience gradually, in well-defined, structured stages. There is clear evidence that a graduated licence system would make our roads safer, by reducing the number of young people involved in car accidents. Drivers aged 17 to 24 currently make up only 7% of drivers, but they represent nearly 20% of the people killed or seriously injured in car crashes. To conclude, I would like to return to that Vision Zero ambition to eliminate road deaths and serious injuries in the UK entirely. Ambitious, yes, but we owe it to the families who have lost loved ones to do everything we can to reduce deaths and make our roads safer for all.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), and I want to make four points in this important debate on road safety. First, on vehicle safety standards, it is great news that the past decade has seen a 39% drop in road fatalities, but that is not just down to luck. Some of that reduction is due to the fact that our vehicles are better designed for safety, which is partly thanks to decades of work between the UK and other EU countries on EU safety standards. As we leave the EU, we will be encouraged by other parts of the world, such as America, to adopt other standards, but there are reasons why standards sometimes diverge. For example, Europe has narrower roads, with more pedestrians, so we build bigger bumpers on our cars, but cars in America flip over more often due to how the highways are designed. We do not need their standards, and they would not want ours, so let us continue to work with Europe on the car safety standards that have introduced, for example, airbags, ABS systems and other more advanced safety measures.
Secondly, many Chelmsford cyclists have written to me asking me to raise awareness. Chelmsford is a high-growth area, and we need to encourage people to get out of their cars and on to alternative transport. East Anglia is quite flat, so people are happy to use cycles, but they need to feel safe. We are investing more in cycle paths, but Cycling UK also has important proposals to ensure that there is more in the Highway Code to prohibit pavement parking and to encourage more cycle training and the use of the “Dutch reach” whereby drivers have to look over their shoulder when opening the door.
Thirdly, we need to raise awareness of what to do when a police siren goes off when someone is driving. I spent a day and a night on call with the police over the summer, crossing my constituency six times at top speed with the blue lights flashing, which clearly scared many drivers. We need an awareness campaign about how to get off the road safely to allow emergency vehicles to pass.
My last point is about horse riders. I am told that Essex has the highest level of horse ownership in the country, but my constituency is almost entirely urban. If one goes on that amazing source of data that is Facebook, one can see that 960 people in my constituency like tennis—like you, Mr Speaker—1,800 like hockey, but 3,800 like horse riding, and they are mostly women. Women are nine times more likely to ride horses—it is the top outdoor pursuit for women. People on horses have a right to be on the road, and riders often have to use a road, even if only for a short time, to get to a bridleway or another safe place.
I admit to having been an experienced rider in the past, but I got back on a horse this summer and found it absolutely terrifying. It was not just about the amount of traffic, but the lack of driver awareness of what they need to do if they see a horse. Drivers need to pass wide and pass slow, and they must remember that if two horses are riding side by side, that could be because there is an inexperienced rider or a young horse. Finally, please do not beep the horn—that really is spooky for horses. I have been concerned by stories of some drivers finding it fun to be unsafe when a horse is nearby. It is not fun; it is deeply dangerous, and 40 people and over 200 horses have lost their lives.
We need more driver awareness, and one solution could be to use the bit of time between a learner taking their multiple-choice theory test at the test centre and getting the results. All those new learner drivers need to wait for their results, and the British Horse Society has some fantastic virtual reality headsets that will give those new learners a quick experience of what it is like to be on a horse when a car goes past too fast. Maybe we could use that little bit of time to do just a little more driver awareness.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). I am grateful to various organisations for their briefings on this evening’s debate, including PACTS, Brake, Cycling UK, the Road Safety Foundation, Guide Dogs, Ageas and the Towards Zero Foundation. I have two main comments, one about language and one about why road safety is a constituency issue, as well as a national and international one.
First, we as politicians know that language is crucial, which is why we should, and the emergency services do, now speak of “road traffic crashes” and not “road traffic accidents.” We should know now, if we did not know before, that most incidents, and the consequent statistics of people killed or seriously injured, could have been avoided if humans had made positive decisions. They are not accidents; they are avoidable tragedies. If drivers had only observed the rules on speed, drink, drugs, mobile phone usage, seatbelts and the rest, those lives could have been spared.
I am also struck that Brake describes the failure to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries in recent years as figures that have “stagnated”. Many commentators, including me and the Minister, have used the word “plateau” but, on reflection, that suggests high ground and achievement. “Stagnated”, however, suggests something entirely different, negative and certainly not nice.
On the question of targets, as raised by a number of colleagues, in May the Department for Transport published an independent capacity review on road safety by Systra. Among its recommendations were:
“Set interim quantitative targets to 2030 to reduce the numbers of deaths and serious injuries”.
And:
“Set measurable interim targets to 2030 to reduce the numbers of deaths and serious injuries with supporting road safety performance objectives, as proposed for the national framework.”
As well as this independent review, deaths and serious injuries as a result of road traffic crashes have been recognised by the United Nations and the World Health Organisation as an international crisis—1.25 million dead and 20 million seriously injured every year—and they are now subject to two sustainable development goals. SDGs 3.6 and 11.2 recommend a target of halving the number of people killed or seriously injured by 2030. The Government signed up to those goals and published the Systra recommendations, so why will they not formally endorse targets as part of the weaponry to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries?
The UK fire service has a proud record in international aid, including providing second-hand fire engines and other equipment, unused kit from brigades and supply chains, and training and advice. That has been happening for decades, and not just following disasters. The charity Fire Aid, which I chair, especially provides pillar 5 post-crash response. It is hugely frustrating that UK aid from the Department for International Development has billions of taxpayers’ pounds to distribute but cannot support small charities like Fire Aid, which is saving lives in 40 countries around the world and delivering soft diplomacy for UK plc.
I said at the beginning of my contribution that this is as much a local issue as a national or international one. In Poplar and Limehouse 190 people were killed or seriously injured between 2011 and 2016. Twenty-two were under the age of 16, and 78 were between 16 and 29. RTCs are the biggest killer of our young people nationally.
Investment in road safety not only saves lives but makes economic sense. Each year road crashes cost UK plc £35 billion, or 2% of our GDP. For every £1 invested, £4.40 of monetary value is created. This not only makes economic sense; it makes human sense, too.
Road safety should not be a party political issue. The Minister is held in high regard as a man of integrity. There is an opportunity here for him to reset our efforts, to give leadership and provide ambition and to reduce our KSI—killed or seriously injured—statistics. I look forward to him delivering, but I think he needs targets in his campaign.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) in what has been a powerful debate.
Cars can kill, and I start by telling the story of two Sarahs. Sarah Childs, 22 years old, crossed Walsall Road with her 20-year-old sister and was mown down by a driver doing 64 miles per hour. Sarah died instantly. Bizarrely, the driver got four years in prison and a four-year driving ban, and he started serving the ban on his first day in prison. We campaigned together with Avril, the grieving mother, to get the law changed, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who agreed to the law changes so that, in future, the prison sentence and the driving ban are served consecutively.
Sarah Giles, a 20-year-old much loved by her family, was killed by a speeding car fleeing a police chase. A car flew through the air, as her car was rammed at high speed. John and Sharon Giles, her loving parents, are absolutely distraught over what has happened. Avril has come together with John and Sharon to say, “Why is it that the Government 13 months ago agreed that tougher penalties should in future apply for drivers who kill with a car and there has been no action yet taken?” Nothing will ever bring back their daughters, but they want at least to contribute towards ensuring that never again should anyone suffer as they have suffered.
I come then to the story of Poppy-Arabella Clarke, a wonderful little three-year-old girl who was crossing the Chester Road with her mother. She was on a pedestrian crossing when she was hit by a 72-year-old driver and killed instantly. The driver had been told twice in the previous three weeks, by a doctor and an optometrist, never to drive again, but he got behind the wheel of the car and as a consequence Poppy is dead. This raises fundamental issues that have not yet featured in this debate and which relate to drivers who can longer see safely behind the wheel. When people pass their driving test they take a 20-metre test. It is an 80-year-old test that was invented before the second world war, and it is completely out of kilter with the rest of Europe; we are one of only five countries that has this kind of test. We are also one of the very few countries that allows an instructor, as opposed to a doctor or an optometrist, to carry out the test before somebody gets their licence.
What is clear beyond any doubt is that action needs to be taken. There is an argument as to how we should proceed: should we have regular tests throughout people’s driving life, as they do in many continental countries in Europe; or should we have a test for those who renew their licence at 70? At the moment, people self-declare that their eyesight is sound when they renew their licence; there is no obligation for someone to have an independent third party carry out a test that says that they are safe to drive in future. Whether the test is staged throughout the driving life or at the age of 70 or beyond, there is a powerful case for the Government now to embrace changing the law so that we can ensure that people on the road are fit to be on the road and that they can drive safely. That is right in itself in order to avoid terrible accidents, the kind of which befell Poppy-Arabella Clarke, but it is also right because eye tests pick up a range of other problems that an individual may have, such as glaucoma.
In conclusion, for all that progress has been made over the years on a number of fronts, there is a simple, sad reality: too many innocent people still die on our roads. That is why I hope that the Minister says in responding to this debate that the Government will act on tougher penalties for those who kill with a car and that they are prepared seriously to examine in future having such an eyesight test, so that never again is a precious little three-year-old girl taken from her grieving parents.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Tonight I will talk about Bobby Colleran and Livia Galli-Atkinson. Bobby Colleran was a bright, fun-loving boy. As his mum Joanne put it, he was “cheeky but charming”. The middle child, he adored his brothers. On 24 October 2014, while Bobby was walking home from Blackmoor Park Infant School with his mum, he was knocked down and killed. He was six years old. The incident sent shockwaves around my constituency and Liverpool as a whole. The coroner said
“when a six year old dies in these circumstances, it affects the whole city”.
In the aftermath of that tragedy, the Bobby Colleran Trust was created to encourage and promote better road safety awareness for children, parents and schools. One of the ways they have done that is by encouraging schools to introduce “Bobby zones”, which are designed to slow down traffic, prevent the unnecessary build-up of vehicles and ensure a maximum speed of 20 mph. If people drive around Liverpool, they will see a “Slow down for Bobby” banner outside pretty much every primary school. I want to keep that legacy going by making sure that the challenge is taken up not only across Merseyside but throughout the country. I urge the Minister to make that happen.
When I was the MP for Enfield, Southgate, a similar incident happened in my then constituency. Livia Galli-Atkinson was just 16 when she was killed on her way to ballet on 12 January 1998. A driver had mounted the pavement behind her. Last Tuesday would have been her 36th birthday. Out of that tragedy arose the annual Livia awards. The Livia award for professionalism and service to justice is an annual award given to a Metropolitan police officer in the traffic operational command unit who is judged to have provided the most meritorious service. I have had the privilege of chairing the Livia awards since its inception and of seeing some of the exemplary professional commitment shown by police officers in often harrowing circumstances. Next week will be the 20th anniversary of the award and all colleagues are welcome to attend the annual awards ceremony at 7 pm next Monday.
Let us learn the lessons from the families of Bobby and Livia. I pay tribute to my good friends, Bobby’s parents Joanne and David, and Livia’s parents Guilietta and George, who have gone above and beyond to ensure that no other child is hurt or dies on our roads. I pay tribute to them as I pay tribute to the fantastic campaigning organisations such as Brake and RoadPeace, which have made such a big difference. As we have heard, though, in recent years the decline in the numbers of deaths on our roads has stagnated. Indeed, last year the number of deaths on our roads was at its highest since 2011. We must do better. Targets are not a panacea, but they demonstrate a determination. I urge the Minister to look into the reintroduction of national casualty targets as part of the Government’s strategy.
Let me finish by saying something about the global challenge. Road casualties are a major killer, particularly in some of the world’s poorest countries. The death or injury of a family member can further entrench poverty, leaving a family without a breadwinner or without the capacity to work. That is part of the reason why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) said, the sustainable development goals include targets to cut the numbers killed and seriously injured on the roads. The 2015 United Nations global goals include SDG 3.6, which is to halve the number of deaths and serious injuries on the world’s roads by 2020. That is in two years’ time. This has been declared the decade of action for road safety.
As part of our inquiry into the global goals, the International Development Committee found
“a worrying lack of engagement in the SDGs across Government.”
Next year, the United Kingdom will submit itself to the United Nations for a voluntary national review of progress on the goals. Will the Minister tell us how the Department for Transport will take part in that review? I urge the Department to make road safety a priority for its participation in the national voluntary national review, and I urge the Minister to work on road safety with his colleagues in the Department for International Development, because if we are to achieve the goals, Departments working together will have the biggest impact.
Around the world, 3,500 people die on the roads every day. Every single death or injury is one too many. Let us reaffirm our responsibility to do all we can to achieve the vision of zero deaths and serious injuries on our roads.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby. Like him and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), I wish to talk about deaths and serious injuries caused by dangerous drivers.
Last year, 191 people were convicted of causing death by dangerous driving, yet the average prison sentence given to the perpetrators of those crimes was just 29 months, with a similar period of time to be spent released on licence. We are all aware that, in response to pressure and campaigning from bereaved families and the road safety charity Brake and its “Roads to Justice” campaign, the Government finally agreed back in December 2016 to hold a consultation on sentencing for those who cause death by dangerous driving. That consultation ran until February 2017 and received more than 9,000 responses.
Last October, the Government finally announced that, as a result of the consultation, they were introducing tougher sentences, including the possibility of life sentences to replace the current maximum sentence of 14 years. When that was announced more than a year ago, there was much relief among campaigners and bereaved families that, at last, the Government were taking action to ensure that other families would not have to suffer the same injustices. Not only were they sentenced to a lifetime of grief at the loss of a loved one, but they suffered the injustice of seeing their loved one’s killer receive a prison sentence of just a few years.
Ian and Dawn Brown-Lartey in my constituency of Heywood and Middleton had a 25-year-old son, Joseph, who was killed by a 19-year-old driving an uninsured unlicensed hired Audi at 80 miles an hour in a 30-mile an hour zone, running through a red light and smashing into Joseph’s car, killing him outright. The impact was so great that Joseph’s car was split in two. His grieving parents were determined that no other family should have to suffer as they had done and they, supported by award-winning campaigning journalist Michelle Livesey, launched their campaign “Justice for Joseph”, handing in a petition at 10 Downing Street signed by thousands of people.
The day before the horrific crash, Joseph’s killer posted a photo of his dashboard on social media, showing the speedometer at 142 miles an hour on the M62 motorway, and boasted of driving from Leeds to Rochdale in just 11 minutes. That is a distance of 33 miles, which means that he must have been travelling at an average speed of a staggering 180 miles an hour. He was imprisoned for six years in May 2015, but has since been released on licence after serving half his sentence. Joseph’s father said:
“It is absolutely frustrating, especially when you’re driving on the streets every day and you can see what’s going on. There is simply no deterrent. If the Government are not putting in place a deterrent, they are saying to people it’s OK to get behind the wheel and kill somebody.”
Sadly, as we have heard, the Brown-Larteys are not the only family to suffer in this way. Because of my work with the Justice for Joseph campaign I have met so many bereaved families. They include the family of Bryony Hollands, who was killed while walking with her boyfriend by a driver who was three times over the drink-driving limit. Her boyfriend was injured and has been left with permanent deafness in one ear. Both were talented music students.
Bryony’s family lives in the Prime Minister’s constituency of Maidenhead, where the Conservative-controlled Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Council wrote to the Justice Secretary in June this year to urge him to bring forward the promised legislation. Bryony’s father, Mark, is deeply disappointed by the Government’s inaction. He said that the slow progress in implementing changes to the law
“sends out the message that it is not that important.”
Bryony’s killer was sentenced to just eight years in 2015 and is expected to be released on licence next year, while her family serve a life sentence of grief for their daughter, killed at just 19 years old.
After the horrific deaths of two-year-old Caspar and six-year-old Corey Platt-May at the hands of a driver high on cocaine in February of this year, I and more than 70 other MPs wrote to the Justice Secretary asking again when the Government’s decision to introduce life sentences for death by dangerous driving was to be brought into legislation. Again the response we received was, “When parliamentary time allows”. Well, when will that time be? This should be an easy change to implement. Why do this Government continue to drag their feet over this issue, which is so important to safety on our roads?
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
There are two issues that I wish to raise in this debate. The first one relates to an issue that I have previously raised with the Minister, which is that of road poles. This is about how we can minimise the casualties in the collisions on our roads. The second one is about how we can make roads in the far south-west, particularly in Devon, safer. The Road Safety Foundation has declared that half of all Britain’s road deaths take place on just 10% of the road network. One of those roads runs through the constituency that I represent. The stretch of the A38 that goes through Devon is one of the most dangerous roads in our county. Members who have spoken in road safety debates in Westminster Hall will know that this issue is close to my heart, because I have spoken particularly about a constituent of mine called Trevor Gorman, whose son—also called Trevor—was killed in a road collision on the A38 last June, along with his friends Marshall and Zachary. Their van collided with a road traffic signpost and all three men were killed instantly. The post that they collided with was made of steel that was not designed to crumple, collapse on impact or absorb shock. Hard steel posts are common on nearly all major roads, from smaller B roads through to the motorway network. Experts at the inquest stated that the pole met requirements when it was erected in the 1990s, but it has not been replaced or upgraded since.
The accident that took the lives of those three men could have been avoided if the steel signpost in an accident blackspot had been upgraded to a frangible pole. Members will have seen frangible poles on the road network. They are lattice-shaped poles that are designed to absorb impact, so they do not have a hard surface against the impact. Ever since his son’s death, Mr Gorman has been campaigning tirelessly to improve road safety standards, swapping hard steel poles for frangible ones. This may sound like a small technical detail, but it can save lives. Mr Gorman wants to ensure that no family has to suffer the grief that he and his family have been through after the loss of his son and his son’s two friends, and to ensure that they have not died in vain; his strength really is inspiring.
Plymouth City Council, particularly Councillor Mark Coker, has been galvanising support for replacing hard steel poles with frangible poles in the accident blackspots in our city, but this is an initiative that every single local authority could be doing. I would like the Minister to look at whether support can be given to local authorities where accident blackspots exist in order to replace hard steel poles with frangible poles. This will save some lives. We will not be able to affect the stagnation in the number of road deaths with one silver bullet, as we will need lots of different measures, such as those mentioned in this debate, but replacing hard steel poles would be one small effort. The work that Councillor Coker has been doing in Plymouth has the support of Public Health England, and Devon and Somerset fire and rescue service.
As well as poles, we need to look at the other items on the roadsides that are not frangible. I am talking about trees in particular. The London plane tree may have been instrumental in saving air quality in the Victorian era and the silver birch may be a similar saviour for dealing with nanoparticles and microparticles in the 21st century, but the trees along our roadsides are not frangible, and many people die or are seriously injured in collisions with trees. We need a solution to address the hard surfaces that people can collide with, particularly on the roads where such accidents really happen, and the A38 in Devon is one of those roads. Extending the M5 from Exeter to the Tamar bridge will make a substantial difference to safety, because motorways are the safest roads on our network. The Minister has bids from Devon County Council and Plymouth City Council to look at that. I would be grateful if he lent his support not only to the frangible road pole campaign, but to the plans to extend the M5.
Mr Speaker
The Minister will be called to give a two-minute wind-up at no later than 9.58 pm. Members can do the arithmetic for themselves; I encourage them to be considerate of one another.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I am a cyclist myself. In fact, I am probably one of the few Members who cycle to this place on an almost daily basis, so I could talk about cyclists and road safety at length, but tonight I will quickly reiterate the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who is about to leave the Chamber. The beauty of being one of the last speakers is that one can reinforce a particular message.
I ask the Government further to improve road safety for pedestrians, cyclists, bikers and vehicle drivers with one critical measure: proper eye-testing. At the moment, there are no robust regulations to ensure that vehicle drivers can actually see. UK regulations for drivers’ eyesight are among the weakest in Europe, relying on self-regulation and self-reporting. UK drivers can pass their driving test without having a full examination to prove that their eyes are roadworthy, and can then drive for the rest of their lives unpoliced. All we have in the UK is a basic vision test by a non-medically qualified driving test centre. The test is to read a number plate at a distance of 20 metres.
It ignores other essentials such as peripheral vision, which is also essential for safety for cyclists. It means that there is no medical rigour to confirm that most drivers are visually fit to drive. It means that cyclists, pedestrians and motorists who have regular eye tests are sharing the road with people driving a tonne of metal who have never given their eyes an MOT. The campaign for proper eye-testing originated in my constituency. The Government require vehicles to pass an annual MOT test, and it is illegal to drive after drinking or taking drugs, but there is an obvious gap in the law that allows drivers to drive with poor eyesight.
This is not a technical question. The World Health Organisation says that poor eyesight is a key risk factor in road crashes. Approximately 3,000 casualties in the UK can be attributed to drivers having poor vision. Poor vision costs lives. It also costs money—an estimated £33 million a year. While some drivers have their driving licence revoked or refused because of poor vision, there is no structured approach, and lives are being lost as a result. People can lose 40% of their vision before they notice a problem. There is no requirement for good eyesight and acceptable peripheral vision. Good vision should be a requirement to drive: road safety demands it. Current procedures lack medical rigour, increasing the potential for injury or death.
The Driving Blind campaign calls for a change in legislation to require drivers to be tested by an optician before their driving test and at every subsequent licence renewal application. It also calls for new drivers to be vision-tested, including for peripheral vision, and certified by an optician, with follow-up tests every decade up to the age of 70 and then every three years thereafter. If we can reduce the number of people driving blind on our roads, we will improve road safety. I look forward to the Government’s response.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
When I am contacted by my constituents about this subject, the section of road that comes up more than any other is the M56 motorway between junctions 12 and 14. It is an area blighted by collisions, causing serious delays in the whole area as well as significant impacts on those involved. After a concerted campaign for improvements alongside my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), we were pleased to hear that improvements will now be considered.
I appreciate that it is by no means certain that something will happen, and that includes the smart motorway that we want. However, I urge Ministers to look very closely at this, and then, if a decision is made to proceed, to consider very carefully how the improvements are delivered, because I have had a number of complaints about smart motorways, particularly regarding the works on the M6. Virtually the whole of the stretch of road from Cheshire to Birmingham is coned off, with speed limits, yet whenever I go on it, there appear to be few or no workmen there. This seems to be an incredibly inefficient way of improving the network. Is it reasonable to have 20 miles of motorway coned off for years at a time? Why cannot the work be done on a small section and then moved along? I am not harking back to the glory days of the cones hotline, but I do wonder if anyone is monitoring what is going on there. The suspicion is that the contracts—or conetracts—that were agreed are putting their cost above the long delays and economic impact caused. There is also concern about the safety of some of the night-time closures and diversions.
Closer to home, I am also regularly contacted about the A540 in Neston. It is a very busy road. The number of serious incidents each year is in double figures, and there are fatalities on the road in most years. I pay tribute to Pauline Fielding, who has been campaigning for improvements on the road for almost 25 years, after her son Andrew tragically lost his life. Thanks to the efforts of Pauline and other local campaigners, the speed limit was reduced to 40 mph. Some improvements were made to the junction with Raby Park Road, which—I have to declare an interest—I sometimes drive through when I take my children to school. However, it is clear that much more significant improvements are required not just on this part of the road but the whole length of it. Unfortunately, these improvements are beyond the means of the local authority. Mrs Fielding and many others believe that installing traffic lights is the only way to improve safety along there, but that will take up all the local authority’s capital budget, as well as having a knock-on effect on the rest of the road, including at the junction with Hinderton Road, the next one along, where there are also safety concerns.
Schemes like this fall into a category that deserves a far greater level of attention. They are too large for local authorities to act alone but too small to be considered under the remit of Highways England or the road investment strategy. Often, as with the A540, these sections of road can straddle the boundaries between local authorities and local enterprise partnerships, exacerbating the difficulty in bringing forward a viable scheme.
The Safer Roads fund is a welcome start in tackling these sorts of issues. However, I am concerned that only £100 million of the £175 million originally budgeted has so far been allocated. If the Minister still has any of that £75 million left, burning a hole in his pocket, and he wants to spend it on the A540, he will be welcomed with open arms if he comes to Neston.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is a massive issue. With the Christmas season, Christmas parties and the rush of the season approaching, it is imperative that the message is reinforced that the holiday spirit is wonderful, but driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs is never acceptable at any time of the year, and certainly not at Christmas time.
Two hundred people are still killed in drink-drive accidents every year. Even after 30 years of drink-drive education and enforcement, more than 70,000 people are still caught drink-driving annually. Often it is an innocent person who suffers, not the driver who is over the drink-drive limit. In 2016, 100 pedestrians were killed or injured by drink-drivers, as were 330 car passengers and 40 children. In 2016, almost half a million roadside breath tests took place, and some 60,000 drivers or riders failed or refused to take the test. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the maximum blood alcohol limit is 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, but in Scotland that has been lowered to 50 mg.
I remind the Minister that the Government commissioned Sir Peter North to conduct a review of drink and drug driving law in 2010. In that review, evidence was heard that drivers with a blood alcohol level of between 50 mg and 80 mg are two to two and a half times more likely to be involved in an accident than drivers with no alcohol, and up to six times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash. We must be ever mindful of those figures.
In 2000, the Government’s road safety strategy estimated that reducing the limit to 50 mg would save 50 lives and prevent some 250 injuries each year. When that was reviewed, it was estimated that it could save 65 lives and prevent 230 injuries each year. I ask the Minister to give further consideration to the North review, which concluded that a reduction to 50 mg would
“undoubtedly save a significant number of lives.”
It estimated at the time that 168 lives could be saved and 16,000 injuries prevented annually, and after six years, some 303 lives annually could be saved.
Finally, I want to refer to the Highway Code as it pertains to the safety of horse riders. If my understanding of the figures is correct, my constituency has the largest number of people involved in the horse industry and sector in Northern Ireland. A review is to be undertaken into this issue, but could the Minister ensure that there is a mention of horses in that? I underline that case because of the 40 riders killed, 237 horses killed and almost 900 horses injured on our roads in the last seven years. Some 85% of road incidents involving horses are because drivers pass too close or too fast to them. In particular, I ask the Minister to look at strengthening section 215 of the Highway Code on horse riders and horse-drawn vehicles, to include the British Horse Society’s “dead slow” advice to drivers on how to pass horses safely. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Jesse Norman
This has been an interesting and lively debate. Many colleagues from across the House have had a chance to comment, and I want to respond to as many of them as I can.
I have mentioned the dreadful crash that took place on the M5 in 2011, and we have heard many examples this evening of dreadful road incidents. To recap, in response, the Government are taking vigorous action. We are improving roads infrastructure, looking at the training of new and novice drivers, taking action against the most dangerous driving behaviour, investigating collisions and targeting future activity at the highest-risk groups. In doing so, we are reliant on and very grateful for all the constructive and expert support that we get from key partners, from traffic police to local authority road officials.
Let me touch quickly on some of the many questions raised. The issue of targets is constantly raised with the Government, and this evening has been no exception. I repeat that some countries with great safety records have targets, and some do not. There is no necessary correlation, and it would not be right to hide behind targets when there are so many specific measures that we can potentially take. I will touch on some of them.
The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) was right to mention older users, and they are included in our two-year plan. He mentioned the Safer Roads fund and asked why it has not been spread. We received 50 applications, and we funded 50 applications.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) correctly reflected on the importance of thinking of recovery operators. We very much bear them in mind, and I saw them recently at the RAC.
Horse riders are vulnerable road users—there is no doubt about that, and there never has been—and they have been included in the work we are doing. We are interested in the evidence coming from Scotland on lower alcohol limits. I salute my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) for the work done by The Sentinel newspaper in his constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered road safety.
Business without Debate
Illegal Encampments in Berkshire
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
It has been a particularly difficult summer for many of the residents of West Berkshire, who have been subjected to illegal Traveller encampments close to where they live—mainly on public land, but in every sense in circumstances that have brought great difficulty to them and their neighbours. I therefore submit a petition to the House on behalf of 244 signatories, with a further 366 on my website, as well as on behalf of the many people across neighbouring constituencies who have suffered from the over 50 illegal encampments we have had in West Berkshire this summer.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Berkshire,
Declares that they have suffered an intolerable imposition from an increasing number of unauthorised encampments.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce legislation to make trespass a criminal offence, and strengthen the powers used by the police to deal with illegal encampments, in addition to those already available under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002285]
Healthcare in Essex
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for your continued support, as my constituency neighbour, in our campaign for a new healthcare campus in Harlow. You could not have done more to support me, and I am very glad to see you here this evening.
Today, I would like to update the House on the desperate need for a new hospital in Harlow that is fit for the demands of the 21st century. This is now my third debate on the need for a long-term solution to the healthcare crisis in west Essex, and I cannot stress enough the urgency of the situation. The present site, the Princess Alexandra Hospital, serves over 350,000 people and is no longer able to cope under the pressure of an influx of patients. The new healthcare campus, as proposed by the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, would encompass accident and emergency services, general practitioner provision, social care, physiotherapy and a new ambulance hub in state-of-the-art, purpose-built facilities.
I thank those Members, some of whom are in the Chamber this evening, who have been so instrumental in the progress of this campaign. In May, they joined me in signing a letter to the former Health Secretary to urge the Government to support the capital funding bid in place for a new hospital. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dame Eleanor Laing), my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree (James Cleverly) and for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch), my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who is present and a big supporter of our new hospital proposal for Harlow.
From this, I have gone on to secure a visit to the Princess Alexandra Hospital from the new Health Secretary, who has heard the case loud and clear, and I look forward to welcoming him to Harlow to discuss the future of our healthcare provision in Essex.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan)—Telford is also a new town—so accurately put it in my first debate on the subject in October 2017, hospitals
“are the centre of our communities and cement our identity”.—[Official Report, 18 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 347WH.]
The unwavering support that I have received for a new health campus, both in Parliament and locally, is a testament to its importance, not just to Harlow, but to the wider population of Essex and Hertfordshire.
In March, we received the wonderful news from the Care Quality Commission that the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust had been brought out of special measures—news on which the former Health Secretary, echoing the sentiments of the Prime Minister, congratulated the hospital in a special video message on Twitter. The chief inspector at the CQC noted that the driving force behind the 18-month turnaround was “the dedicated staff” and “outstanding leadership” team, headed by chief executive Lance McCarthy. I do not believe that enough credit can be given to the staff at the hospital.
I recently visited the Williams day unit, a specialist cancer treatment centre at Princess Alexandra Hospital, for a Macmillan coffee morning. I was struck by the staff’s compassion for their patients and their determination to ensure that, at possibly the most difficult time in a person’s life, the hospital is a happy, welcoming place to come to, to get better and to leave feeling more positive than when they came in.
From my numerous visits to the hospital, in my capacity as an MP and as a patient and visitor, I defy anyone to find better staff than at Princess Alexandra Hospital. In spite of a working environment that is literally falling down around them, thanks to the efforts of every single staff member, from the porters, cleaners and kitchen staff to the nurses, midwives and consultants, 64% of the services are on their way to a “good” or “outstanding” rating.
Special credit must be paid to the maternity unit, which the CQC deemed “outstanding” overall. The team delivers more than 4,200 babies a year, yet their rate of stillbirths is 10% lower than the national average. For those reasons, the maternity department was recently selected to feature in an ongoing documentary with TV personality and presenter of “The Voice”, Emma Willis. I encourage hon. Members to watch that programme on Monday evenings to see for themselves just how dedicated and caring the staff are.
Jim Shannon
I have always supported the right hon. Gentleman’s contributions in the Chamber since we both came to the House together in 2010. He has clearly outlined the case for healthcare in his constituency. The Government have set aside an ambitious £28.5 billion for healthcare. Does he hope to have some of that money for his constituency? Does he also feel that there needs to be a reduction in red tape so that professionals can use their medical expertise to their full ability? This is about the money, but it is also about reducing the red tape.
Robert Halfon
I hope that my hon. Friend the Health Minister knows that a new hospital in Harlow is supported not just in Essex and Hertfordshire, but in Northern Ireland. This is the second debate on the subject that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has attended, and of course I agree with him.
The maternity department serves as the perfect example of how investment can transform patient care under the successful staffing that is already in place, as the labour ward benefits from nine refurbished delivery rooms and a second maternity theatre. However, it also sheds light on the fact that refurbishment is not a fix-all solution. Therefore, does the Minister agree that, were the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust to receive the capital funding that it so desperately needs to build a state-of-the-art health campus, that would allow every department to flourish, as the maternity ward has already done?
As I have touched upon before, the dilapidation of the estate is hindering any further progress. A 2013 survey rated 56% of the hospital’s estate as unacceptable or below for its quality and physical condition. That was five years ago now and the situation is only deteriorating. With long-term under-investment, we are continuing to put the capability of the hospital to care for those in need at serious risk—just read the reports of raw sewage and rainwater flowing into the operating theatres. Given that time is of the essence, does the Minister recognise the importance of the release of capital funding to the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust this autumn?
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making such a powerful case. I would like to add my support, because all across Essex we need to have world-class hospitals. Does he agree that the new facility in Chelmsford, our first ever Essex medical school, will train the doctors of the future and provide the staff to work in his fantastic new hospital when it arrives?
Robert Halfon
I thank my hon. Friend for coming here this evening. Her presence is another example to the Minister of how the new hospital in Harlow is supported across Essex. She is a brilliant constituency MP, and she is absolutely right about the staff she mentions in her part of our national health service.
To add insult to injury, the layout of the hospital is convoluted and nonsensical. That is evident to any patients seeking urgent care or any visitor looking to find their loved one. As the former Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), noted in my first debate in July 2017, the hospital suffers from “sub-optimal clinical adjacencies” due to the development of temporary structures. To those who suggest that refurbishment would be a more suitable and less costly solution, I cannot emphasise enough that that is not looking to the long term. The tangled layout of the current hospital, comprising add-on structures and sporadic urgent care, is a direct consequence of short-term financial fixes; my case in point that an Elastoplast solution will no longer stick.
Aside from the natural degradation of the estate over time, the hospital is now forced to deal with new pressures stemming from a rising population and the downgrading of other local healthcare facilities, including Chase Farm Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth II. Cracks are already evident in the accident and emergency department. Back in 1966, the A&E unit was designed for approximately 60,000 attendances per year. It is currently seeing 68% more than that, with 200 to 300 attendances per day. That figure is 10% higher than the national average and, against its size, places the hospital as the busiest A&E department in England.
In the latest board meeting of directors in October 2018, it was suggested that July 2018 was
“the busiest ever month…at the Trust”
for the A&E,
“with attendances as high as 9,400”
in that single month. The influx of patients is only set to continue, with the relocation of Public Health England to Harlow hosting as many as 2,750 workers based at the site, as well as the Gilston Garden Town development, providing 8,500 new homes in Harlow, and the near-completion of Junction 7A on the M11. Does the Minister acknowledge that to support the trust in meeting the 95% four-hour access target, the Government must do all they can to alleviate such pressure? Does he further recognise that the new, expanded health campus would alleviate this immediate pressure, but also future-proof the hospital, accounting for further population growth?
I am grateful for the Government’s capital investment to realise Harlow’s strategic economic and housing plans, but I ask for the same treatment for our comprehensive healthcare plan. It is not the infrastructure alone that is a burden on the staff. Staff shortages—the hospital frequently operates at an 11% vacancy rate—stem from widespread difficulties in recruiting and retaining well-qualified employees. That is due in particular to Harlow’s proximity to London. According to the leadership team at the hospital, the opportunity for career development, or lack thereof, is a much more significant sticking point for potential recruits.
State-of-the-art facilities and a quality healthcare campus would at least offer the hospital the chance to enter the same race. The new campus and medical training facilities would allow the hospital both to attract and retain the very best staff. It would become an apprenticeships and skills centre, offering high-class, nursing degree apprenticeships.
The spiralling health crisis makes the urgency of the hospital campus all the more pressing. According to the Essex local authority portrait, Harlow has the highest rate of premature deaths attributed to cardiovascular diseases and the third highest rate of diabetes in the country. Hospital staff also deal with high rates of substance misuse, and 66.1% of adults are classed as overweight, which is higher than the national average. Harlow has the largest proportion of 10 and 11-year-olds classed as overweight or obese in the country, at 36.2%. There are many reasons why west Essex should have a health campus fit for the 21st century, but these figures clearly evidence a need.
At the former Secretary of State’s recommendation, the trust put forward its strategic outline case—SOC—in August 2017. The board, clinical commissioning group and local authority partners, together with KPMG, concluded that the health campus model would be
“the most affordable solution for the local system”
and
“would deliver the most benefit to our population”.
Since my last debate in July 2018, the timescale for the development plans has changed and the plans are currently in the NHS and NHS Improvement assurance process. The trust is working closely with commissioners, patients and the public to develop a pre-consultation business case and refresh its SOC.
In my debate in October 2017, the former Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, so helpfully highlighted:
“The extent to which there is capital available to support very significant projects will depend on how much is made available by the Treasury.”—[Official Report, 18 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 352WH.]
As was also noted in the debate,
“upgrading services on this important site will be a priority for a Conservative Government”.—[Official Report, 18 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 347WH.]
I take this opportunity to thank the Government for the announcement of £20.5 billion additional annual funding for the NHS, and I ask, in the light of this spending and the end of austerity, as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor said, is this not the most apt time to provide the Princess Alexandra Hospital with the bright future that it is determined to have?
My hon. Friend the Minister has gone out of his way to meet me and the chief executive of the hospital trust and to listen to his concerns and mine, and I cannot say how appreciative I am of that. As a key area of contention for my residents, I would be grateful to receive an update on the progress of this funding and a timescale for the economic investment plans. The issues that the hospital faces today are preventable, but all of them are beyond the control of the hard-working staff, patients and visitors. This is on the Government to act. This is on the Treasury and the Department of Health and Social Care to see reason and allocate the necessary funding for a new healthcare campus in west Essex.
The Minister for Health (Stephen Barclay)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing the debate and on securing an early visit from the Secretary of State. As the whole House knows, he is passionate about the future of the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Harlow and he has raised this issue assiduously in a number of debates and interventions in the House. As he referred to, we had a very productive meeting with the hospital chief executive in June, when we discussed a range of issues, including the workforce and services offered at the hospital. That is in addition to an earlier Adjournment debate, as well as an Adjournment debate with my predecessor a year ago and exchanges at Health questions. On behalf of his constituents, he has brought these issues to the attention of the House extremely effectively.
I also place on record that I very much recognise that these issues are extremely important to Epping Forest as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know how assiduously you have campaigned on behalf of your constituents. Indeed, this is an issue that Members across Essex and Hertfordshire have spoken up on. That was reflected in previous debates and was reflected in the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). As we all recall, she was instrumental, as were other Essex MPs, including my right hon. Friend, in securing the new medical school, which, as she said, will help us to deliver the extra doctors to go with the buildings and capital spend, which we are discussing today.
As my right hon. Friend is aware, but for the benefit of the House, we have the sustainability and transformation fund as part of the Government’s commitment to upgrading the NHS estate. This investment will modernise and transform the NHS’s buildings and services, with the money going towards a range of programmes. This is part of the Government’s commitment to spending £3.9 billion on capital investment in buildings and facilities by 2022-23 and alongside the £20.5 billion a year extra that my right hon. Friend referred to. This investment—the biggest ever in the NHS—reflects the fact that the NHS is the public’s No. 1 priority, as indeed it is the Government’s No. 1 priority, and is an indication of the Prime Minister’s personal commitment to funding the NHS and ensuring it is fit for the future.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the application window has now closed. I know that considerable work was done following the earlier application when a bid of between £500 million and £600 million was submitted. I am sure he will recognise that this was a significant sum but that the further work has brought it closer to the £330 million, and officials in NHS England and NHS Improvement are working closely with the Department to evaluate that bid alongside the other bids. As I mentioned in the previous debate, all bids will be assessed against standard criteria, including their value for money and contribution to transforming services and managing demand sustainably, as well as demonstrating their fit within a wider STP level estate strategy.
My right hon. Friend asked about timescales. The timescales are as previously referred to, with the commitment to decisions being made in the autumn. That position has not changed.
It is worth remembering that STP funding is only one element of support available to trusts. In 2017-18, the trust was successful in securing £2 million of emergency department capital funding to support the redesign of the emergency department. This funding was targeted to improve facilities and support improvements, including investment in paediatrics and the emergency department. In this financial year, capital funding to support winter pressures is also available to the trust, and this funding is part of the £145 million given to 80 NHS trusts across the country ahead of winter to improve emergency care. I understand that this money is earmarked for increasing bed capacity.
As we discussed in the summer, the trust recently exited special measures, with two thirds of services moving to a good or outstanding rating. This is a big achievement, and I know that the focus for 2018-19 is to achieve a good rating from the Care Quality Commission. My right hon. Friend has spoken about this in previous debates, and I join him once again in paying tribute to the staff who worked so hard to take the trust out of special measures.
It is clear that the hospital is a vital element of the local economy. I know that the Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust has been working hard to improve recruitment and retention, and I am pleased that this is still a focus for it. The hospital is one of Health Education England’s nursing associate pilot sites through its lead partner, Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, and I am aware of plans for a huge expansion in the numbers of nursing associates through the apprentice route, which will positively impact on the work of the trust.
As I am sure the House is well aware, my right hon. Friend, like me, is a keen supporter of apprenticeships. I know that the hospital has taken on apprentices in the last year but that the number of apprentices is well below the target. It should be noted that any nursing associates in training as part of the scheme I just mentioned will not be included in the apprentice figures. As of April 2018, we know of 18 apprentices starting at the hospital, against a target of 76. I am keen to work with my right hon. Friend to continue the work that he has done in the House to ensure that the hospital meets that apprenticeship target. Both he and I are strongly committed to bringing more apprentices into the workforce.
My right hon. Friend referred to the Harlow science hub campus programme. Partly as a result of his campaigning, there will be a new public health campus in Harlow, at a cost of about £400 million. Not only are the Government making a significant contribution to the NHS, but the fact that the project is still on schedule—and by 2024, following a phased opening from 2021, approximately 2,700 staff will be based there—is a significant tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend has done, along with others, in securing a much-sought-after commitment to Harlow. I know that Public Health England and the Princess Alexandra Hospital have been discussing the opportunities that will arise as a result of the move to Harlow, and I hope to hear more about that soon.
I commend the work that my right hon. Friend is doing to raise support for the STP bid by the Princess Alexandra Hospital Trust. He has raised the estate issues faced by the trust on more than one occasion in the House, and in meetings with the Secretary of State and me, and I know that he raised them with my predecessor as well. We recognise that the hospital estate is in poor condition, which is why I am pleased that the trust has submitted the revised STP bid. I am also pleased that money was made available last year, and will be made available again this year, to make improvements to the hospital in the interim.
I look forward to continuing to work on this issue with my right hon. Friend, and to working on the future of the NHS in Harlow as well as the surrounding region. As has been made clear again this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker—alongside your own work—the patients and staff of the hospital can be confident that they could have no better champion than my right hon. Friend, who has campaigned to secure this much-needed investment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
What an excellent, meaningful, well-targeted debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Building Societies Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 1 month 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 Building Societies Legislation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The draft regulations are another statutory instrument to form part of the Treasury’s work to ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in a scenario in which the UK leaves the European Union without a deal or an implementation period. These regulations fix deficiencies in UK law relating to building societies. They have been drafted using the same approach taken across all the financial services SIs that I have had the pleasure of introducing, laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The Building Societies Act 1986 and related legislation contain various provisions governing how building societies must act. Those include requirements relating to the UK’s membership of the European economic area. For example, one provision ensures that loans secured on UK land and loans secured on EEA land are treated equally. That has important consequences for building societies, as loans secured on land are used when defining who counts as a building society member in the original legislation. Loans secured on land are also used when calculating a building society’s lending limit—a legal requirement that ensures that building societies focus on their core business of mortgage lending. Other parts of the 1986 Act ensure that EEA bodies and UK companies are treated in the same way regarding transfers of business from a building society to a commercial company.
In a no-deal scenario, however, the UK would be outside the EEA, and outside the EU’s legal, supervisory and financial regulatory framework. UK legislation relating to building societies therefore needs to be updated to reflect that, and to ensure that the provisions would work properly in such a scenario. The original legislation treats members of the EEA differently from other third countries in certain respects. Given that that will no longer be appropriate after exit day, the draft regulations will amend the 1986 Act and related legislation to equalise the treatment of EEA countries and other third countries after exit day.
To take the example that I have already set out, this draft SI amends the original legislation to ensure that new mortgages on properties in non-EEA states and in EEA states are treated the same after exit day. Members should note, however, that the instrument maintains pre-exit legal treatment of mortgages on properties in EEA states, providing contractual continuity for those building society members who have an existing mortgage on a property in an EEA state. Building societies will have to take that treatment into account when calculating lending limits and defining building society members. Members of the Committee should also note that no existing building society members will have their mortgages, savings or membership rights affected by the changes in this statutory instrument, and that no building society currently lends on property outside the UK—only a handful have done so in the past.
The original legislation also allows building societies to transfer business to and from companies and mutuals in EEA states, but not in countries outside the EEA. The draft SI will amend the legislation so that such transfers are no longer allowed, equalising treatment of EEA firms with other third countries. Members should note that no building society has yet used the provisions that are being removed; to date, all transfers of engagement have taken place between UK companies and mutuals.
The draft regulations replace several references to EU directives with equivalent references to the Prudential Regulation Authority’s rulebook, and ensure that the existing relationship between the UK and the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar are maintained.
There are some potential costs for business linked to the restriction of the ability of building societies to lend on properties in the EEA. That is because the provisions in the draft SI will prevent building societies from diversifying too far into EEA lending, should they wish to. Members should note, however, that there will be no direct impact on building society balance sheets resulting from this instrument—no building societies are offering mortgages outside the UK, and only a handful have done so in the past. Any potential costs are therefore expected to be minimal.
As I emphasised this afternoon, in an earlier Delegated Legislation Committee sitting, if we enter an implementation period when we leave in March 2019, access to each other’s markets will remain the same, and the legislation will continue to apply as at present for the duration of the implementation period. However, the draft regulations contain practical measures necessary to ensure that the legislation governing building societies functions appropriately if the UK leaves without a deal or an implementation period. I hope that Members will join me in supporting the draft regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair this evening, Mr Hosie. As the Minister has said, this is one of a large number of financial services SIs relating to preparations for a potential no-deal Brexit—about 70 are expected between now and February. The Minister and I broached some of the first of these, relating to the temporary permissions regime, on 24 October, and we look forward to returning to Committee frequently over the coming months.
The Opposition have voiced our concerns on the adequacy of this process already, but I will state them again for the record. The number of Treasury SIs and the speed with which they are set to unfold is deeply concerning with regard to ensuring that the Government are properly held to account. As the Opposition, we commit to make every effort to do so, but this is a constitutionally unprecedented and enormously resource-intensive task that leaves room for error, as much as we appreciate the time that the Minister, his staff and the civil service have taken to brief us.
Turning to the substance of the legislation, I ask the Minister to reiterate the reassurances that his colleague Lord Bates gave when the matter was debated recently in the other place: namely, that there is no intention to change the material situation affecting building societies, other than bringing references to EU member states onshore. In addition, could he further reassure me that these regulations will not apply in the event that a deal on financial services is struck with the EU?
May I also query what engagement has taken place with the building society sector about these arrangements? In the other place, my colleague Lord Tunnicliffe interrogated the Government on the status of mortgage contracts on EEA properties for UK owners after Brexit—I think he gave the example of a British citizen owning a property in Spain using a mortgage that has been provided from a building society. Lord Bates conceded in response:
“The SI will act to prevent building societies diversifying too far into EEA-based mortgage lending in future”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. GC19.]
It may be the case that historically EEA lending for building societies has been limited. That is not something that I am personally aware of, and certainly most UK building societies that I am familiar with are focused predominantly on the UK market. However, if the Minister could just provide a little insight into what exactly Lord Bates was referring to in his response, that would be welcome.
That is all I wish to raise today, other than to thank the Minister and to say that our building society sector is trusted by millions of Britons and, of course, it is vital that its integrity is protected in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
John Glen
I am keen to try to address the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. First, I reiterate that the Government believe that the draft regulations are necessary to ensure that the legislation governing building societies functions appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. There is no intention whatsoever to make any policy change with respect to the governance and law surrounding building societies.
I note the hon. Gentleman’s reference to the issue raised by Lord Tunnicliffe in the other place and the comment on restricting the ability of building societies to lend on properties in the EEA post-exit. I think that issue was also raised in the impact assessment, which led to the question being asked in the Lords.
The change to the definition of loans secured on land means that building societies will be restricted from diversifying too far into EEA lending. This is a function of the lending limit that will apply, which requires building societies to secure at least 75% of their assets on residential property. Clearly, if they were continuing to lend in the EEA, that would not contribute to that 75%, which would really practically impact them, and therefore they would probably find it an undesirable lending decision to make. Also, as I said in my opening remarks, no building societies are currently proactively offering products for properties in the EEA.
As for the consultation, in line with the general approach to onshoring, the building society sector was not consulted on this SI. However, officials consulted extensively with the PRA, which has in-depth knowledge of each individual building society within the sector, when drafting the SI. Furthermore, the SI was shared with the Building Societies Association on its publication over the summer, and the BSA had no comments on it.
In conclusion, this SI does nothing to affect existing building society contracts. On exit day, all contracts between a building society and its customers, such as mortgage contracts, will remain unchanged. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks and answers the points he has raised. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Central Counterparties (amendment, etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 1 month 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 Central Counterparties (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
As part of contingency preparations for a no-deal scenario, the Treasury is laying between 60 and 70 statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, to ensure that, in the unlikely scenario of the UK leaving the EU without a deal or an implementation period, a functioning legislative and regulatory regime will continue to be in place for the UK financial services sector. The SIs will do that by fixing deficiencies in applicable EU law that would be transferred directly on to the UK statute book at the point of exit, and in existing UK law to ensure that it continues to operate effectively after exit day. The SIs do not change policy; instead, they are intended to provide continuity as far as possible at the point of exit by maintaining current legislation.
Where existing EU legislation would not operate properly in a UK context in a no-deal scenario, we need to amend it, to ensure that it works effectively after we leave. The regulations deliver on a commitment made last December, when the Treasury announced that it would give the Bank of England functions and powers in relation to non-UK central counterparties and establish a temporary regime to enable those firms to continue to operate in the UK for a limited period after exit. That is similar to the approach we have taken to the European economic area firms that currently operate in the UK under the financial services passport, creating a temporary permissions regime that will allow them to continue operating in the UK for a limited period after exit, while they apply for authorisation. The debate on the instrument implementing that regime took place on 24 October.
Central counterparties stand between counterparties in financial contracts, becoming the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer, and they guarantee the terms of trade even if one party defaults on the agreement, reducing counterparty risk. As such, they are central to the UK and global financial system, reducing risk and making the system as a whole more resilient.
UK firms currently receive services from non-UK central counterparties under the framework set out within the European market infrastructure regulation. Under EMIR, non-UK central counterparties are permitted to provide services to UK firms if they are either located in the EU and authorised by their home regulatory authority, or located in a third country that has been deemed equivalent by the European Commission and the central counterparty is recognised by the European Securities and Markets Authority.
Should the UK leave the EU without a deal or an implementation period, it would be outside the single market for financial services, meaning that non-UK central counterparties would be unable to provide services to UK firms until they were recognised under the UK’s domestic regime. Given that many UK firms rely on non-UK central counterparties to provide clearing services and for mitigating transaction risks, such a sudden dislocation in the provision of services would introduce risks to those UK firms and financial stability risks to the broader financial system. The draft regulations therefore introduce measures to mitigate the risks and ensure a smooth continuation of services from non-UK central counterparties to UK firms.
First, the draft SI establishes a UK framework for recognising non-UK central counterparties while maintaining the same regulatory criteria for non-UK central counterparties to provide services in the UK. To do that, the European Commission’s responsibility for determining the equivalence of a third country jurisdiction’s regulatory and supervisory framework in respect of EMIR is transferred to the Treasury, and the Bank of England may provide technical advice from the Treasury on such decisions, in the same way as the European Securities and Markets Authority may, and does, provide such advice to the Commission currently.
In addition, functions of the European Securities and Markets Authority that relate to recognising individual central counterparties located in third countries will be transferred to the Bank of England, including the mandate to make technical standards specifying the information to be provided by CCP applicants. The Bank is the appropriate authority to take on that role, as it is already responsible for the authorisation of UK central counterparties.
Secondly, the statutory instrument will provide powers to the Bank to consider recognition applications ahead of exit day, so that the necessary steps to recognise non-UK central counterparties can be taken as soon as possible after exit day. In response to a point raised by Baroness Bowles when the SI was debated in the other place last week, I note that central counterparties are not required to apply for recognition ahead of exit day. Although they are able to do so and are encouraged to engage with the Bank on such matters as soon as possible, they will also be able to apply for full recognition after exit day.
Finally, the draft regulations will establish a temporary recognition regime for central counterparties. The regime will provide temporary recognition for a period of three years to non-UK central counterparties that intend to continue providing clearing services in the UK. The purpose of temporary recognition is to allow additional time for applications to be processed and for equivalence decisions to be made by the Treasury. Although non-UK CCPs are encouraged to engage with the Bank as early as possible, the TRR will ensure continuity of services in the event that a recognition decision cannot be made ahead of exit day. The statutory instrument also gives the Treasury a power to extend the regime for 12 months at a time if it is
“satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to avoid disruption to…financial stability”.
The SI is essential to ensure that we have a functioning financial services regime in a no-deal scenario. It provides reassurance for non-UK central counterparties and the UK businesses and customers they serve that they will continue to be able to operate here, no matter the outcome of negotiations. The importance of the SI’s provisions is reflected in our announcement last December, which made it clear to industry well in advance of exit day that the Treasury would introduce legislation to deliver such a regime. The Bank of England is in the process of engaging with industry to ensure that the regime functions properly when the UK leaves the EU.
It should be noted that if, as expected, we enter an implementation period when we leave in March 2019, non-UK central counterparties that meet the current requirements will continue to be able to provide services to UK firms, because access to each other’s markets will remain the same during the implementation period. However, it remains prudent to continue to prepare for a no-deal scenario to provide certainty to the financial services sector that we are ready for all outcomes. In that context, the measures in the SI are a pragmatic approach to ensuring that UK firms can continue to access non-UK central counterparties if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.
I hope that colleagues from all parties will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey, and to be opposite the Minister once again. I am grateful to him for his explanation of the SI.
As we know, the Government have taken the decision to undertake the bulk of preparation for our EU withdrawal through secondary legislation. The Opposition have voiced our concerns on many occasions about this unprecedented transfer of powers to our Executive. I appreciate the work of the Minister, his staff and the civil service, and their collective efforts to brief us on the process, but it is unquestionable that in a normal environment, a change of this magnitude would and should be treated as primary legislation and given the scrutiny that it demands. The number of Treasury SIs and the speed with which they are set to unfold is deeply concerning. The Opposition are committed to making every effort to ensure that the Government are held fully accountable, but this is a constitutionally unprecedented and enormously resource-intensive task that leaves room for error.
It is also disappointing that we have reached a stage at which such contingency measures, which occupy significant time and resource both for the Government and for the Opposition, must be brought before the Committee against the possibility of no deal. The UK is perilously close to the EU exit date, which is just five months away. Financial services firms lack the certainty they need about the shape of things to come; as a result, many have already adopted contingency plans, some of which are leading to jobs leaving our country.
As the Minister explained, the SI deals with an enormously important issue: the nature of our clearing arrangements if there is a no-deal Brexit. As colleagues will be aware, and as the Minister explained, clearing houses are the buyer to every seller and the seller to every buyer in a financial trade that is cleared. They protect trading parties from the risk of default by the other parties. CCP clearing significantly reduces the cost of having that security to the trading parties, because they can net off the cost of collateral between different trades. CCPs significantly increase the resilience of the financial system by de-risking trades for the parties involved.
More and more trades have come to be cleared in that manner, not least following the landmark EMIR legislation to which the Minister rightly referred. Of course, that forces over-the-counter derivatives to be cleared through CCPs. Lord Sassoon said in the other place when the UK’s resolution framework for CCPs was introduced back in 2012, in tandem with EMIR, that it was
“the previous Labour Government…who identified this general area as one that needed to be dealt with, particularly in the context of deposit takers, where the need was identified to put additional provisions in place for resolution regimes.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 October 2012; Vol. 739, c. 1266.]
That approach was then of course extended to other systemically important parts of the system, not least the trading operations of banks and other financial actors, which we are discussing.
Although introducing extensive requirements to clear through a CCP increased the overall resilience of the system, it concentrated default risk within CCPs, so disruption to their operation may have a significant impact. Indeed, Benoît Cœuré, an executive board member of the European Central Bank, indicated last year his concern that the failure of a CCP may have a destabilising impact, behoving very careful supervision. Ensuring that UK-based firms can continue to clear in a compliant and transparent manner is very important, but it is also important that UK-based CCPs can continue to clear EU27 trades. That point is not covered in the SI, but as I am sure the Minister anticipates, I will return to it.
I note that no fewer than 24 questions were posed during the discussion of the draft regulations in the other place. That is understandable given the significance of this area and the considerable uncertainty that persists as the SI is drafted. I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful explanation and clarification of exactly when CCPs will be expected and required to seek recognition, but there are still six outstanding questions to which I hope he can respond.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, who cites the real dangers to the UK of having no deal. Will she explain why she and her colleagues have made it clear that they intend to vote down any deal the Government bring back?
Anneliese Dodds
The House voted to have a meaningful choice over the deal that was presented to us. Sadly, we have not yet been presented with such a choice. The deal the Government appear to be negotiating does not appear to the Opposition to protect jobs, the environment or workers’ rights, or to meet the other tests we set out, and all that has been set out thus far is a choice between that flawed deal and no deal. For a vote to be meaningful, we would need to be able to amend the deal, which possibility seems to have been removed from us, going against the undertaking that many people on both sides of the House thought we been given.
We are also not being given the additional option whereby the deal is remitted to Parliament to discuss a way forward, which most of us anticipate is what would make the choice meaningful. If a gun is held to one’s head and one is told, “You have to support this deal; otherwise it will be necessary to jump off a cliff,” that is not a meaningful choice. It is enormously disappointing that the Government have chosen to interpret that vote in that manner. Given the hon. Gentleman’s question, I hope he will work hard to persuade his Government colleagues of the need to offer the House a genuinely meaningful choice rather than what currently appears to be in front of us.
The Chair
Order. The question is rather wide of the core issue that we are debating. The hon. Gentleman did very well to slip it in, so I had to let the shadow Minister reply, but I will not allow the debate to continue.
Anneliese Dodds
Thank you, Mr Bailey. Perhaps the conversation can continue after the Committee, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss it further.
My first question to the Minister relates to consultation about the provisions. I was grateful to him for holding what was described as a teach-in with his civil servants and the relevant regulators on the whole statutory instrument process. Obviously, the regulators were invited because potentially an enormous amount of power is being transferred to them through this and other secondary legislation.
Other Opposition Members and I were informed that we would be provided with an indication of the reasons for certain decisions being taken in individual statutory instruments and with details of the consultations that had been undertaken on them, but when my office asked about the consultation in relation to the draft regulations, it was informed that it had not been undertaken. When asked about that in the other place, the Minister answering the debate stated merely:
“The Treasury has continued to engage the financial services sector on issues relating to no-deal legislation and will continue to do so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. GC127.]
As it happens, my contact with interested parties suggests that there are no major concerns about the Government’s approach in this statutory instrument, but there is a general question about the level and type of consultation that should occur in relation to financial services no-deal statutory instruments. Will there be any formal consultation or will it all be informal? Will it be in relation to the whole body of statutory instruments, which could be difficult, given that several have not been formulated? Will it be done case by case, and if so, how will we ensure that that happens appropriately for every statutory instrument? It would be helpful to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
My second question is about the Minister’s interesting remarks about why decisions have been taken to vest different aspects of regulatory responsibility in the Treasury as opposed to in the Bank. It was helpful to hear his explanation, which I had not been able to glean from the accompanying documents. As I understand it, the Bank will focus on individual CCPs for individual decisions about equivalence and the Treasury will look at the overall regulatory framework and attempt to have discussions with the EU27 and presumably ESMA for co-ordination purposes. Have I understood that correctly? That is a big departure from the existing EU system for looking at that and for its equivalence provisions, and from how the system works within the EU.
The Minister probably knows that, in relation to every CCP, there will be a regulatory college that includes representatives from the member states that have the biggest stake in the operation of that CCP, relevant central banks, the European Central Bank—where required—and ESMA. It would be helpful to know more about the rationale behind those regulatory decisions.
My third question is about an issue that came up in the other place, but which I want to press today. It is unclear why the affirmative procedure will not be used to extend the implied recognition provided by the statutory instrument. As was stated in the other place, a small number of CCPs are involved, and surely it would be appropriate for Parliament to be made aware of a situation where the Treasury had been unable to create an agreement for future regulatory co-ordination, despite having had several years to do so.
In my experience in the European Parliament of achieving equivalence decisions when it came to EMIR and in other fields, parliamentarians were informed when there had been problems and there was a debate about the timescale. It is not clear that that will occur in this Parliament. Perhaps we can get more background on that question. Related to that, the Minister will know that the scope of EMIR has been under discussion at EU level, including whether trades by pension funds should become subject to the clearing obligation as well. That would require some additional margin, which is why there has been controversy around it. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts about whether the UK would be likely to wait for EU agreement on this subject and whether it would feel that it was necessary to comply if the situation changed. The current approach appears to be to postpone that decision indefinitely.
I note that regulation 14(1) states
“The Treasury may before exit day by regulations specify that—
(a) the legal and supervisory arrangements of a third country ensure that central counterparties authorised in that country comply with legally binding requirements which are equivalent to the requirements laid down in Title IV of the EMIR Regulation, as it has effect in EU law as amended from time to time”.
That seems quite vague, for example, about whether we would always keep step with EMIR as it is amended. It is unclear to me what the process would be for ensuring that we comply with any amendments, if there is a time lag and so on.
Fifthly, the huge elephant in the room when it comes to this SI is not what happens to UK trades cleared through the EU27 and third-country-based CCPs, important though that issue is, but what happens to EU27 trades cleared through UK-based CCPs. Of course ESMA runs the third-country regime, as the Minister mentioned, and it is unclear—to me, anyway—where exactly that is headed at the moment. As I am sure the Minister is aware, London currently clears about 90% of euro interest rate swaps and about 40% of euro credit default swaps. It is surely essential that LCH.Clearnet and others remain as zero-risk counterparties in the eyes of the EU and are able to continue this type of clearing.
If there were to be a wholesale transfer of trades away from the UK CCPs, we would be talking about hundreds of thousands of trades worth trillions of euros that would have to be cleared elsewhere, which would lead to traders having to ensure sufficient margin for often smaller CCPs, thus reducing liquidity and increasing the overall cost because of the decreased scope for trades to be netted off against each other within smaller CCPs.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, in June 2017 the Commission proposed amendments to the EMIR and ESMA regulations that would have included a different regulatory regime for systemically important CCPs. That approach was reported on in the European Parliament before the summer. As I understand it—it would be interesting to hear whether the Minister shares my understanding—that approach is being reviewed by the Council. Therefore, my penultimate question is this: are our Government doing everything that they can to underline to the rest of the EU, and particularly to the Council, the potential for disruption and additional cost if an over-restrictive approach to clearing within the EU27 is adopted in the short, medium or long term? The Minister referred to financial stability risk; surely that applies in spades if we are talking about trades from the EU no longer being cleared through our very successful and high-quality CCPs here in the UK, just as much as in the opposite direction.
Finally, we are told that the draft regulations will be put into practice if there is a no-deal Brexit, but the provisions are presumably in place pretty much as soon as this Committee has accepted them, and it is not clear to me that the SI includes a mechanism to switch off the extant provisions. If it does contain such a mechanism, can the Minister explain where it is, and if it does not, how will the provisions here be disapplied in the event of a deal covering financial services? I know that the Minister is a very honourable person and I would take his word on many things, but we need to know how a measure that is on the statute book can be switched off, as well as how it can be switched on, and it is not very obvious to me how the former can happen.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a joy to be here with everyone again this afternoon.
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Oxford East about the whole process and about the way in which the measure is being scrutinised. I too have huge concerns about how close we are to the point of Brexit, which is 144 days today—not very much time at all. It is quite worrying to hear that the Bank of England is only now consulting, with 144 days to go; that seems a little late in the day, considering how far we now are from the point of the vote.
There are still many, many more SIs to come before us in this time and I am concerned about the burden that puts upon everybody—on financial firms, on Government, and on the Bank of England and other institutions—when they could be doing far better things with their time. They could be regulating and reforming the financial services sector, trying 10 years after the crash to fix the problems that we have not yet fully repaired. Instead, all we are doing is copying and pasting, and spending a huge amount of time and effort doing these things when we could be doing something far more useful.
I remind Members that Scotland did not vote for this. Scotland voted to remain by a considerable margin, and we would very much like to remain in the EU single market and customs union as the best worst option, as it seems to be the only mechanism by which the financial sector would be able to continue with market access and with the connected jobs investment. That would be the greatest means of reducing the risk of Brexit.
I remain concerned about the lack of certainty, and I am not the only one. Mark Carney has also been clear that there is not a great deal of certainty about the relationship between the EU and the UK over future derivative trading. In June, on the publication of the Bank of England’s financial stability report, Bloomberg reported:
“Firms may find themselves unable to service insurance policies and as much as 96 trillion pounds…of cleared and uncleared derivatives contracts”.
That is deeply worrying, and I would be grateful if the Minister gave us an update on what is being worked on with the EU in that respect. The temporary recognition regime relies on co-operation with the EU, with the EU making good on its side of the bargain. The Government’s own Brexit paper states that
“without EU action, EEA clearing members and trading venues will no longer be able to use UK CCPs to provide their clearing services. In addition, EEA customers could no longer meet the requirement to centrally clear for some products that are in scope of the clearing obligation by clearing through UK CCPs, such as interest rate swaps.”
That is from the UK’s own no-deal Brexit publication, and it remains very worrying that that is the case.
I am also concerned, as I have previously mentioned, that we are burdening the Bank of England with an extra layer of responsibility in addition to the regulatory responsibility in the other SIs—we saw the huge list of responsibilities in a previous SI Committee. I seek further reassurance that the Bank of England has not just the skills but the staff it requires to meet the obligations, to ensure that the resources are in place in good time and that everything runs smoothly. There would be nothing worse than having the regulations and no one to enforce them. That would be a huge concern.
I note that regulation 26 states:
“The Bank of England may require central counterparties to pay fees in connection with the discharge of any of its functions under this Part.”
I would be interested to know what the scale of fees might be and whether they could lead to a lessening of competition or to further barriers to markets as we leave the EU—perhaps we will become a less desirable place to do financial services. Putting an additional financial burden upon firms as a result of the Bank of England fees could create a serious problem. I wonder whether the fees are to meet the cost of the extra staff and legislation, and everything else that is being done, and I seek clarification on that.
Finally, paragraph 17 of the impact assessment states:
“Transitional relief could be granted to particular firms, classes of firms, or to all firms to which a particular onshoring charge applies, including firms that are entered into one of the transitional regimes referred to above. Firms would not need to apply for transitional relief…regulators will issue ‘directions’… It will be within the regulators’ ‘discretion’ as to how to exercise this power.”
I seek clarification on that; it sounds a little woolly.
I am concerned about enforcement. If there are many other things to do, will that aspect of enforcement and regulation go by the wayside and we will let firms get on with it? We need to be robust and to ensure that when things move over, regulation and enforcement move along with them, so we do not end up as we did with the crash, due to light-touch regulation. We cannot use Brexit as a means of moving away from the regulations that the financial services sector needs to have in place.
We need more clarity about the detailed points that the hon. Member for Oxford East and I have raised, and the concerns of Members in the Lords. It is a matter of concern that such measures come along with great regularity, with huge questions being unasked, and with little underlying scrutiny.
John Glen
I shall do my best to answer the questions that have been raised. I think it would also be helpful if I were to set the context with respect to powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. What is being done through the statutory instruments may be disputed by the Opposition, but it is ultimately a matter of the legislation that was passed. I am using the provisions to do everything I can to ensure that we have the right arrangements should there be a no-deal scenario. I recognise the points about the unusual nature of the process—the large number of statutory instruments. That is why I am committed to doing everything I can to facilitate meaningful scrutiny, dialogue and exchange of information in advance of Committee sittings.
The regulations are tightly constrained to fix deficiencies, not to make wider changes; this is not a power grab. The temporary recognition regime and other transitional arrangements are in line with the expectations of the industry, which needs certainty. It needs the contingency arrangements. I propose to go through the six questions and the additional points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and, I hope, answer them meaningfully.
First, as to the consultation, it is right to say that there has been long-standing engagement. It is done case by case, on the basis of the most appropriate mechanism. We announced it in December 2017 and published three letters over the course of this year. Engagement with relevant stakeholders in the industry has to vary according to different statutory instruments. In the case we are considering, I think it is fair to say that the arrangements we have undertaken have been well received by the industry, which welcomes the certainty we have given. Obviously there are a small number of players, and we have done what is necessary.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Oxford East is correct about the alignment of the Commission to the Treasury and the transmission of the ESMA powers to the Bank of England. The Treasury will make the equivalence decision, but the authorisation process will be carried out at a technical level with the appropriate skills in the Bank of England. That is purposefully aligned to the same distribution of roles from the Commission to ESMA.
Thirdly, on the question whether, if there were a need for an extension, it would be appropriate for the Treasury to make that provision using the negative procedure, that is an administrative, managerial decision. It is not based on any extension of the existing powers. It would be on the basis of a clear need to do so. The principle of what we are doing and the criteria for doing it are being discussed now; it is a translation of what already existed. The three years plus one arrangement is designed with industry convenience in mind.
Fourthly, as to the scope of EMIR and any changes, we are retaining most of EMIR as it currently applies in the EU and are unable to make significant policy changes, as I said, under the 2018 Act, so the legislation provides a good basis for discussions on equivalence with the EU. The hon. Lady raised the issue of regulation 14(1)(a) and the equivalence, as compared to EMIR,
“as it has effect in EU law as amended from time to time”.
Regulation 14 applies only before exit day. After exit day our approach to equivalence will be to compare third-country regimes to EMIR as onshored and part of domestic law. We will not necessarily as a matter of policy be following changes to EMIR in EU law; but equally it would not be our aspiration to deviate wilfully. There is obviously a lot of alignment. We start from a common starting point, and obviously we anticipate securing a deal on the basis of the alignment that currently exists.
Fifthly, the hon. Lady rightly pointed out the need for clarity the other way, in how the Commission deals with trades carried out through UK CCPs. It is welcome that, according to Tuesday’s Financial Times, Vice-President Dombrovskis has indicated a willingness to act to mitigate. That outcome is a function of the technical group dialogue that has been going on since April, and it has been welcomed in the City. More details are needed, but we have acted proactively to give as much assurance as we can, and that significant step forward is very welcome.
Sixthly, the hon. Lady asked about the mechanism to switch off the regulations. The SI itself does not include provision for switching itself off in the event of a deal, but the White Paper on the withdrawal agreement Bill confirmed that it would contain provisions to allow SIs like this one to be repealed, delayed or amended should a deal be secured. In the circumstances of a deal, we will do whatever is appropriate, and clearly this SI would not be necessary. The hon. Lady is looking at me quizzically.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Are we to understand that the decision whether to switch off any SI produced in the context of the withdrawal Act is ultimately in the gift of Ministers?
John Glen
To be honest, I will have to write to the hon. Lady to clarify that detail. The essential point is that the statutory instrument is for a no-deal scenario; if we get a deal, we will not need the SI because we will be in a close working partnership and we will have the implementation period. I will need to write to her about the precise mechanism that we would use to get rid of the SI or withdraw its provisions, but that is my attempt to answer her six questions.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central asked about fees and, quite reasonably, echoed a number of other points. There has been dialogue with the industry on the fees, which will be proportionate to the process that the Bank of England will need to go through. In practice, these firms do not exist in massive numbers. I cannot give her the cost in pounds and pence, but it will be aligned to industry expectations and will not impede the choice to register.
Alison Thewliss
Can the Minister give any indication whether the fees will start straight away, or be phased in over a longer period?
John Glen
On the fees that will be necessary to go through the process of authorisation with the Bank of England, it would be best if I wrote to the hon. Lady to give clarity on how they will be applied.
I have had conversations with the relevant people in the Bank of England and am confident that it is making adequate preparations and effectively allocating resources ahead of March 2019. As demonstrated by the letters published in December 2017 and in March and October this year, the Bank will continue to work closely with CCPs to provide guidance on applications with a view to making the process run as smoothly as possible.
The hon. Lady made a wider point about resourcing and skills. I have checked the position, after previous debates in which the right hon. Member for North Durham made similar reasonable points, and there is provision for regulators to extend their resources if required.
I hope that I have adequately responded to points raised, that the Committee has found this afternoon’s sitting informative, and that it will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Central Counterparties (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
Petition
Medical cannabis oil
Written Statements
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Armed Forces: Commonwealth Recruitment
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
Citizens from the Commonwealth have a long tradition of serving with distinction in the Armed Forces. In the light of changes to the size of our armed forces a five-year UK residency criterion for Commonwealth citizens wishing to join the armed forces was re-imposed in 2013. A limited waiver to this requirement was introduced in May 2016 to recruit up to 200 Commonwealth personnel per annum to fill skill shortage posts. We have now decided to remove the five-year UK residency criterion for Commonwealth citizens and increase recruitment to 1,350 across the Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force. Applications will be accepted from all Commonwealth countries, although in order to mitigate the risks associated with unaccompanied minors travelling to the UK without the guarantee of a job, we will not be accepting applications from those under 18. Applicants from Commonwealth countries will need to meet all necessary recruitment criteria for the service and role they wish to join. Security standards will be assessed on a case by case basis, and may differ from the current UK security requirements. In 2009[1] a 15% limit on foreign and Commonwealth nationals in a number of areas of the Army (the Royal Logistic Corps (RLC), the Royal Army Dental Corps (RADC) and the Queen Alexandra’s Royal Army Nursing Corps (QARANC) was established as a necessary and proportionate requirement to sustain operational effectiveness. As we now intend to increase the numbers of Commonwealth citizens joining across the full spread of Army roles, we have concluded that it is appropriate to both limit the overall numbers recruited, and to replicate the 15% limit across all cap badges. The requirement for individuals to have Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) or Indefinite Leave to Enter (ILE) to join the reserves has not been changed. This will not affect personnel from the Republic of Ireland, or those in the Brigade of Gurkhas. This policy will be kept under review.
[1]Written Ministerial Statement “Army Nationality Policy” dated 2 February 2009
[HCWS1062]
Defence Equipment Plan
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House this year’s financial summary of the Defence Equipment Plan. This is the seventh consecutive annual publication of the equipment plan summary, and presents our plans to deliver the equipment needed by our armed forces to defend the country and keep our people safe. The Government are committed to meeting the NATO target to spend 2% of GDP on defence and at least 20% of that spending on equipment. This report sets out our plans to spend £186 billion on equipment in the 10 years from 2018-19.
We have substantially revised the content of this report to make it more transparent and accessible. For the first time, we have set out the strategic context for the equipment plan and presented in detail the Department’s assessment of the affordability of the plan. The NAO has assessed our plans and we are grateful to it for its report which is also published today.
In 2017-18 the Department achieved several notable milestones in procurement and support of equipment and successfully delivered the plan within budget. Looking ahead, there are significant financial pressures we must manage in the equipment plan. Our central estimate for the cost of the equipment plan at April 2018 exceeded the allocated budget by an average of 3.7% over the 10 years from 2018-19. The shortfall is greatest in the four years from 2018-19. This forecast will vary as risks and opportunities materialise and project plans mature or are changed through management action.
The Department secured £1 billion additional funding in the autumn Budget, which will help reduce the risk to affordability until 2020 and allow the Department to continue delivering existing plans for Joint Force 2025 and to modernise some key capability areas.
We are also taking steps to improve management of the plan and enable longer term affordability. The modernising defence programme was launched to further strengthen and modernise UK defence and the armed forces and put UK defence on to an enduringly affordable footing for the future. This work involves rigorously pursuing productivity and efficiency gains as well as prioritising capabilities to meet the changing threat environment. It will reshape the content of the equipment plan and improve the way in which it is managed. We will report on the implications for the equipment plan in subsequent financial summary reports.
[HCWS1064]
HMS Victorious: Refuel
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
On 6 March 2014, the then Secretary of State for Defence announced the decision to refuel HMS Vanguard and, pending an assessment, to keep the option open to refuel for HMS Victorious in 2018. This was a prudent precaution following the discovery in 2012 of a microscopic breach in the cladding around one of the fuel cells in the prototype reactor plant at our shore test facility at Dounreay in Scotland. Having conducted an evidence-based assessment it has been determined that it is not necessary to refuel HMS Victorious.
The safety of the United Kingdom’s submarine force remains our highest priority. We continue to work closely with the independent regulators to ensure the safety of operations both alongside and at sea.
Our submarine-based deterrent has been safely operating for over 50 years and studies have demonstrated that no alternative system is as capable, resilient or cost effective as the current deterrent on continuous patrol.
[HCWS1065]
Great Britain China Centre: Tailored Review
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I am announcing today the start of a tailored review of the Great Britain China Centre (GBCC). The GBCC is a non-departmental public body of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). Its principal activity is to encourage mutual knowledge and understanding through the promotion of closer cultural, professional, economic, educational, legal, judicial and other contacts between Britain and China.
As a non-departmental public body (NDPB) sponsored by the FCO, the GBCC is required to undergo a tailored review at least once in every Parliament. The principle aims of tailored reviews are to ensure public bodies remain fit for purpose, are well governed and are properly accountable for what they do.
The review will provide a robust scrutiny of and assurance on the continuing need for the GBCC—both its function and its form. If the review finds the GBCC should be retained in its current form and status, the review will then consider GBCC’s capacity for delivering on its core mandate more effectively and efficiently. It will also assess the control and governance arrangements that are in place to ensure that GBCC and the FCO are complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.
The review will follow guidance published in 2016 by the Cabinet Office: “Tailored Reviews: guidance on reviews of public bodies”. The terms of reference for the review can be found at: www.gov.uk.
In conducting the tailored review, officials will engage with a broad range of stakeholders across the UK and overseas, including staff, management and the board of the GBCC. These consultations will include participating and sponsor organisations of GBCC projects and events and partners from across UK Government, foreign Governments, academics and civil society.
Both Houses will be informed of the outcome of the review when it is completed and copies of the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1059]
Marshall Aid Commemorative Commission: Tailored Review
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I am announcing today the start of a tailored review of the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission (MACC). Established by an Act of Parliament in 1953, in commemoration of the assistance received by the United Kingdom from the United States under the Marshall Plan, the MACC administers the British Marshall scholarships.
As a non-departmental public body (NDPB) sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the MACC is required to undergo a tailored review at least once in every Parliament. The principal aims of tailored reviews are to ensure public bodies remain fit for purpose, are well governed and properly accountable for what they do.
The review will provide a robust scrutiny of, and assurance on, the continuing need for the MACC—both its function and its form. It will then assess the governance and control arrangements in place to ensure they are compliant with the recognised principles of good corporate governance and delivering good value for money. The review will look both at the current performance of the MACC and at how it is able to respond and adapt to those factors which are most likely to affect its position as a prestigious scholarship provider and effective public diplomacy tool for the UK.
A challenge group, comprising senior FCO and Cabinet Office officials, will have regular oversight of the interim findings, to ensure the review is robust and rigorous.
The review will follow guidance published in 2016 by the Cabinet Office: “Tailored Reviews: guidance on reviews of public bodies”, which can be viewed at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tailored-reviews-of-public-bodies-guidance. The terms of reference for the review can be found at: www.gov.uk.
In conducting this tailored review, officials will engage with a broad range of stakeholders in the UK and US, including across UK Government, devolved Administrations, partner academic institutions, current scholars, alumni, the MACC’s volunteer commissioners and recruitment panels, and the Association of Commonwealth Universities, which provides administration for the programme.
I shall inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed and copies of the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1060]
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
The UK is committed to preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. We believe the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) remains the best way of achieving that goal. It is a critical agreement that makes the world a safer place. The United Kingdom, and our European partners, continue to work with the remaining parties to the deal to maintain it. We expect Iran to meet its nuclear commitments as set out in the agreement in full.
In May of this year, President Trump announced the withdrawal of the United States of America from the JCPoA. In consequence, today US sanctions on Iran will be re-imposed, including on Iran’s oil and gas exporting capability. We have been clear with the US Administration about our determination to preserve the JCPoA, and the fact that this is driven by our national security interests.
As a party to the JCPoA, we remain committed to ensuring that Iran receives the sanctions relief to which it is entitled. This includes taking steps to enable firms wishing to engage in legitimate trade with Iran to do so. We are working with our partners France and Germany, fellow parties to the JCPoA, to develop a special purpose vehicle (SPV) to enable continued sanctions relief to reach Iran, and allow for European exporters and importers to trade in compliance with EU and UN sanctions.
In parallel to our work with partners to maintain the JCPoA, we continue to take steps with our partners against the IRGC’s destabilising behaviour across the region and to hold Iran to account on human rights, including its treatment of British-lranians detained in Iran.
[HCWS1061]
Government Vision on Prevention
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Today I am placing before the House the Government’s prevention vision, “Prevention is Better than Cure”.
This document sets out a cross-Government vision for stopping health problems from arising in the first place and, when they do, supporting people to manage them as effectively as possible. Our mission is to improve healthy life expectancy, so that, by 2035, we are enjoying at least five extra years of healthy, independent life, while closing the gap between the richest and poorest. When it comes to prevention, we all have a role to play: individuals, families, communities, employers, charities, the NHS, social care, and local and national Government. Only by working together can we make this vision a reality.
I am placing a copy of the prevention vision in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1063]
Justice Update
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I have today laid before Parliament new legislation to implement a new, banded structure of fees for a grant of representation, commonly known as a grant of probate.
Fees are an essential element of funding an effective, modern courts and tribunals service, thereby ensuring and protecting access to justice. The Government are investing £1 billion to modernise and upgrade the courts system so that it works even better for everyone, including victims, witnesses, litigants, judges and legal professionals. This includes introducing changes to our probate service, which offers an important service to those who are bereaved. The reform of the service allows people to apply for a grant of probate online and to access assisted digital support for those who many not necessarily have the skills or access to engage digitally, and empowers individuals to make applications themselves instead of needing to instruct and pay for solicitors. This aims to reduce the burden on applicants, by providing a more efficient and simpler application process.
But such a courts system is simply not possible without proper funding. Since the previous Government set out their intentions to introduce a banded fee structure for grants of probate in February 2017, a number of concerns were raised. We have listened to these very carefully, and under today’s proposal we have revised fees so they will never be more than 0.5% of the value of the estate. Moreover, by raising the estate value threshold from £5,000 to £50,000, we will be lifting around 25,000 estates annually out of fees altogether. For those who do pay, around 80% of estates will pay £750 or less, and all income raised will be spent on running the courts and tribunal service.
It has long been the case that the users of our courts make a contribution to its costs, and we believe this remains both relevant and reasonable—minimising the burden on other taxpayers. Crucially, by asking those who use the courts to pay more, where they can afford to do so, we are able to fund areas where we charge no fees to vulnerable victims and users, including for example domestic violence and non-molestation orders, and for cases before the First-tier Tribunal concerning mental health.
This new banded fee model represents a fair and more progressive way to pay for probate services compared to the current flat fee and reflects our commitment to protecting access to justice by ensuring we have a properly funded and resourced courts system. We are also confident these fees will never be unaffordable. The cost of the fee is recoverable from the estate and executors have several options to fund it. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor retains a power to remit a fee if he considers there are exceptional circumstances.
We will also publish a guidance document before the statutory instrument comes into force, entitled “Guidance on Ways to Pay for Probate Fees”. This will benefit from external stakeholder input, and will help applicants to choose the option to pay which most suits their circumstances, providing reassurance at a difficult time.
[HCWS1066]
Grand Committee
Tenant Fees Bill
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, I am always required to announce that should there be a Division in the House, we will immediately adjourn for 10 minutes. It seems highly unlikely this afternoon.
Baroness Grender
“(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make further provision as to the procedure to be followed by a landlord or letting agent when receiving a holding deposit, which shall include a requirement to provide notification to the relevant person in a prescribed form concerning the treatment of the holding deposit.(3) Regulations under paragraph (2) must also make provision as to the procedure to be followed by a landlord or letting agent in relation to a decision not to repay a holding deposit on one of the grounds specified in paragraphs 7 to 11 of Schedule 2, which shall include a requirement to give notice in a prescribed form within a specified period, accompanied by evidence of the relevant ground.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Baroness Grender (LD)
In moving Amendment 1, I shall speak also to Amendment 17. First, I thank the Minister and his officials for the discussions held so far and the time spent in advance of Committee. As noble Lords know, the Bill is very welcome and the sooner it is on the statute book the better, but there are a few wrinkles to iron out first. The most substantive change I want to explore will come when we look at default fees in a later group.
Amendment 1 would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding holding deposits to make the process more transparent. This is an attempt to adopt the welcome changes introduced by the Government on Report in the Commons regarding transparency, or greater transparency, on default fees, although more about that—and how we do not need default fees—later. The model, however, is still useful and applies in this respect to holding deposits. There should be a transparency requirement for landlords and agents to set out in writing to a tenant why they have not returned a holding deposit. There is ongoing confusion and a lack of clarity around the circumstances in which landlords or agents may and may not return a holding deposit. The confusion was highlighted at Third Reading in the House of Commons and Members on the government side called for greater clarity at that point.
We would like to see something that explains how landlords and agents will treat a holding deposit and, if they are not returning it, their reasons for this, including any information they believe to have been false or misleading. This will make it possible for tenants to challenge if their holding deposit is withheld unfairly. Equally, understanding exactly why a holding deposit has been withheld should help to prevent tenants applying for properties and repeatedly losing numerous holding deposits for the same reason.
The Minister is already aware of the excellent work done in this area by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on creditworthiness, but until that change comes into force—or is adopted by the market, as I believe it will be—people with thin files on their financial viability and little evidence to offer of regular payment of rent or council tax are not included and become the most vulnerable to the less scrupulous agents or landlords in terms of holding deposits.
Generation Rent has recently spoken to four privately renting friends who each put down a £180 holding deposit on a property in Bristol with the letting agent Be Streets Ahead. During the week that the holding deposit was down, one of the tenants found that he had a brain tumour that had grown in size and had to move back to his family for hospital treatment. The remaining three tenants were unable to find another sharer to pay the deposit and rent with just a couple of days’ notice and had to withdraw from the tenancy. The letting agent has ignored repeated requests for a refund of the holding deposit on these health grounds. Such health grounds could be included in any secondary legislation, providing grounds for tenants to walk away from the tenancy without losing a holding deposit.
What I have just described is a clear case for regulating the transparency around holding deposits. If anything, this will get worse before the Bill is enacted. Generation Rent believes that letting agencies are worrying about future admin fees and being—shall we say?—more assertive in their use of current rules than previously to make up for any future losses they anticipate. When I met the Minister before the summer, I expressed concerns about the danger of the delay on one of these issues. I wondered if there was any way of offering an incentive—a carrot, perhaps—for the industry to adopt these measures before it came through Parliament. I would still ask him, at this late stage, to consider that, given the scenario I have just described to him. Generation Rent is absolutely convinced, in this case, that the concern about admin fees being lost at a later stage has led to a slightly harsher judgment.
Amendment 17 is of a different nature. It simply poses the question, which I raised with the Minister in advance, as to why tenants are prohibited, or strongly discouraged, from paying multiple deposits by the cap at one week’s rent. I am aware—and have only just managed to read most of it over the weekend, for which many thanks in advance—that there is some guidance about what needs to happen. But we believe it is very unlikely that this guidance will be pursued, unless there is more transparency on what happens with holding deposits. I have read the relevant part of the guidance, but I still think we need something with a little more bite.
I support the other amendments in this group. I would like, in particular, to advance Amendments 1 and 17. While I understand, from meetings with officials, that this is on the issue of tenants from abroad, I am still unable to see why we cannot have more of a level playing field between the tenant putting down the holding deposit and the landlord or agency holding one deposit. I would still like to explore that, and that is why I am proposing these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18. I remind your Lordships that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I want to say at the outset that, like the Government, our aim is to make renting a home fairer and more affordable. I repeat our support for the Bill in its aim of reducing up-front costs for those seeking to rent a home. We should also remember that the Bill is about protecting tenants from bad landlords, but also about protecting good landlords from bad tenants. Our job in Committee is to assess, line by line, whether the Bill will achieve those objectives and whether it can be improved. The amendments in my name and those of colleagues seek to do that.
Amendment 18 is about whether the figure of seven days for a holding deposit is justified. There is a tendency to draft Bills with round numbers based on weeks, but such a decision requires clear justification that the amount to be paid by a tenant, and received by a landlord, be counted in weeks rather than days. There is a strong case for saying that the costs to the landlord are what should be reimbursed. There is evidence to suggest that such costs would be recouped with a three-day rent payment. I have received advice—as, I guess, other noble Lords have—from Citizens Advice, which supports the three-day period. Its justification is that 14% of tenants are currently charged a returnable holding deposit, at an average cost of £250. Some tenants, however, are paying much more than that. A cap of three days’ rent would help to prevent that.
We also need to recognise that a tenant’s circumstances or budget can change unexpectedly, and they might need to withdraw from renting a property that they originally and genuinely intended to take. This could be for reasons that prove beyond a tenant’s control. For example, there may be an unexpected failure of a credit or reference check. This can cause severe financial hardship for tenants and prevent them being able to access the private rented sector at all. Smaller holding deposits would still have the effect of deterring tenants from taking a large number of properties off the market, while avoiding hitting tenants’ finances unnecessarily. I am grateful to Citizens Advice for its briefing, from which I have quoted.
The question for the Minister is: can the Government explain why the figure of one week appears in the Bill, as opposed to a set number of days? As I said, it is very easy to talk in round numbers, but for some tenants trying to take up a tenancy, how much they will have to pay in cash is very relevant. I very much hope that, as we consider the Bill in Committee, the Minister might be able to explain the basis for one week, as opposed to three days.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, as this is my first contribution to today’s proceedings, I draw the attention of the Grand Committee to my registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for the letter and the draft guidance, which we received on Friday afternoon. I very much appreciated that: it was good to get the papers and look at them over the weekend.
Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and I have added our names, raises an important issue for prospective tenants. It seeks to include in the Bill more certainty, and to provide greater fairness and transparency for the person or persons looking for accommodation. They would be provided with more information about how their money is to be treated. I am not against the use of holding deposits in principle, but I want to see real clarity in their operation, and the amendments in this group are a positive step forward.
I am sure the Grand Committee will be repeatedly told today that guidance is sufficient and we do not need to go down the route of regulation. But I am also clear that this is guidance; it is not statutory and, as such, has no legal effect—it is just guidance. Amendment 1 rightly places a requirement on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the procedure to be followed by a landlord or letting agent when they take a holding deposit, and how the deposit is to be treated in a prescribed way so that it is clear what the prospective tenants should be told. The amendment would also ensure that there is a clear procedure to be followed where it is decided to withhold a deposit, and that evidence must be provided to the person who paid the deposit, setting out the ground on which it is being withheld. The regulations are to be approved using the negative procedure, which is the minimum of burdens for the Government and is the right way forward in this case.
Amendment 17, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill, and Amendment 22 in my name, seek to stop the practice of taking multiple deposits from people. I accept that this is referenced in the guidance, and that, as it says, a holding deposit creates a binding conditional contract between tenants and landlord. But if, as a landlord or letting agent, you accept multiple deposits, surely you must be in breach of this binding conditional contract. It can be said in those circumstances that there is no conditional contract whatever.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, as I have not spoken at all on this Bill, perhaps it is right that I declare my interests. I do not in principle have an objection to quite a lot of what is in it. My interest is as a private rented sector landlord, but my involvement with the sector from when I was renting property in London as a student to the present day spans more than 50 years. For part of that, I have been involved professionally with the management and letting of residential property on behalf of others.
I share noble Lords’ views that we should make sure not only that we do not have bad landlords but that we do not encourage bad tenants. My principled objection to this Bill, if I have any, is that it does not provide that balance. It is entirely about the effects on landlords, not on controlling the activities of tenants. As with much legislation, the mechanisms chosen tend to be extremely blunt instruments. We are dealing with high levels of disparity across the country, including some acute hot spots in London. I know that that is the case there—one of my children is just finishing renting a property with others and has been renting for some time—as against, say, in the West Country, where I also have an interest. There, it is quite difficult to find a tenant in some instances. This legislation needs to cover the entire spectrum.
I will limit my comments during the debate on this part of the Bill to areas where I feel that amendments either would not have the intended effect or highlight aspects of the Bill that should be the subject of further consideration. On Amendment 1, I simply say to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that tenants can, and do, take things to the wire as far as landlords are concerned. By then, much of the work to check them out and make the arrangements of the tenancy has already been done, at which point they can walk. There is no contractual bond. As I understand it, the holding fee is to secure the tenancy, rather in the same way, I suppose, as asking a shopkeeper to reserve an item in their shop window. The only difficulty is that the fee given rise to by part of the activity has already been incurred.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned that. It is not so much a question of whether a fee is charged but whether the fee is reasonable. The geometry of the Bill says that the fees are, in principle, unreasonable. That is how it comes across to me and, I think, to many other people. In passing, I have read briefings from Shelter and Citizens Advice but I have not received or read a briefing by ARLA or any other body representing landlords’ interests, so my views at this juncture are entirely my own, based on my experience.
The noble Baroness gave the example of where somebody, for perfectly understandable health reasons, feels that they cannot go ahead so the entire consortium of renters falls apart. I understand that because it has happened to my offspring, but I ask myself whether it is the landlord’s fault, or that of their agent, that circumstances have given rise to that situation and an inability to proceed.
Baroness Grender
In this case, it is not a question of fault. The tenants have offered to pay the cost of the reference checks but they want the remainder of the holding deposit back. I suggest that in previous instances, agencies might have been more flexible; I think they are getting slightly less so. I cannot talk about the specifics of this case, obviously, but there is less flexibility on holding deposits at the moment. There is no opposition from the amendments to the fact that a holding deposit is a good thing; the question is whether there is clarity and transparency when it is not returned. That is the issue.
The Earl of Lytton
I accept entirely what the noble Baroness said; I am glad that we are probably much more ad idem in our approaches than I had thought from her earlier comments.
There must be some process for identifying what is a reasonable cost. I am not close to open-market lettings any more—I used to be—so I do not know precisely what goes into drawing up the agreement, checking references, doing credit checks or establishing from some government department whether somebody is entitled to be in the country or to rent property, but there are probably costs beyond the simple act of picking up the phone and checking a reference.
My fear—here I address my comments to the Minister—goes back my point about legislation being a blunt instrument. Unless things are reasonably black and white, administratively you are dealing with myriad shades of grey and trying to work out which point on the spectrum is the right one. The Bill does not contain an adjudication provision. I have pointed out, in a memo to the Minister, a suggestion that I think came originally from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who is not here today, which had some merit. The only provision is a fine and an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal if the imposition of that fine is disagreed with. There is no other surefire, reasonably cheap and cheerful adjudication provision. Were that to be put in place by a one-liner and means could be found to fund that in the same way as some other things are dealt with, a number of these things would disappear by virtue of there being that fallback. But so long as there is not, it is more like the law of the jungle.
Turning to Amendment 18, I did a little calculation and worked out that a rent of £5,000 per calendar month would produce a holding deposit of £493 and one of £800 per calendar month would produce one of £78 under the three-day provision. That £78 is much nearer the sort of figure you might get outside the larger and more hotly contested metropolitan areas, and seems quite a slight amount of money. As I have said, tenants could take the matter to the wire and walk away knowingly having run up costs. But landlords might be unlikely to offer premises on the same basis as before the Bill came into force and might simply not undertake to retain via a holding deposit at all, in the same way as some landlords have decided that the whole business of holding rental deposits has got too difficult, and do not hold deposits but make exhaustive checks on the nature and attributes of their proposed tenants. This means that the better parts of the market—the better landlords, perhaps with better properties, looking for the better tenants—occupy one part of the space and the rest are in the same difficulties as before. The people who might be in difficulty are those who really need to get into rented accommodation because they stand no chance of getting a mortgage. This is why this sector is so important. I worry that tenants at that end of the spectrum—I will not call it the bottom end: the less well financially appointed end—will suffer more. That would be a mistake.
However, I said I was not here to cause trouble. I have just outlined some of the things associated with this group of amendments that may have long-term consequences contrary to those that the tablers suggest they ought to have. Apart from that, I shall not resist whatever the Minister may feel, in his wisdom, is appropriate here, given what I have said.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular that with my wife I am the owner of rental property managed by letting agents. I thoroughly commended the Bill at Second Reading because it is an excellent piece of work. If we can improve it, that will be all to the good, but even if we leave it as it is I am sure it will be an extremely useful legislative measure.
Three separate issues are at stake in the amendments we have before us. Two directly concern holding deposits and one is about putting material into regulations rather than into guidance. On holding deposits, there is the question of when one would lose one’s holding deposit. I have come across circumstances in which it is quite difficult to determine exactly what is fair and reasonable. When four people are sharing a property, they will all contribute to the rather large holding deposit. If one turns out to have given misinformation about their circumstances, that will enable the agent to say quite properly that all four will be rejected as a group. Will they lose the contribution that each has made to the single large deposit that has been placed, especially if they had no idea that one of the sharers was in that circumstance? Difficult decisions will have to be taken, on which firm guidance will be needed.
The second point concerns the period that can be covered by a holding deposit being three days instead of seven. Again, a blanket figure of one week somewhat needs finessing in the guidance that will follow. A week in the north-east for a single person occupying small premises might be £50, while for four sharers in Fulham a week might be £1,000. Very different sums of money are involved in different parts of the country. The point about finessing elements of the Bill in later guidance is well made by all.
That brings me to whether guidance that ultimately is not in the Bill or in secondary legislation is strong enough. It may be that having regulations that follow through a statutory instrument would be a better way of dealing with the tricky issue of holding deposits, along with other measures that will come before us as we work our way through the Bill. I should like the Minister to explain the down sides to using regulation in the form of a statutory instrument to cover the issue rather than guidance, which, I suspect, could be open to dispute and disagreement. I fully understand that one clear disadvantage of going down the route of using regulations is that if we are to have secondary legislation, it needs to follow the enactment of the Bill before we can get going on the practicalities. That would put back the moment when the very good things in the Bill would begin, so I see that there might be a delay. However, that might be a price worth paying if the Bill is improved in this way. Could the Minister let us know what kind of delay we are talking about and whether there are other down sides to the use of secondary legislation and regulations in place of guidance, which, as I say, may be subject to a good deal of dispute?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a landlord. I think one’s week rent is fairly good and clear as a deposit. For some years I have found that some tenants deliberately withhold their final rent so that you do not have a fair amount money at hand to cover whatever damage they have done to the property. Often, the work that has to be done takes every bit of the deposit and more, although sometimes of course it does not—some tenants keep the place beautifully, pay their rent properly and are the tenants everyone wants. However, until tenants are in occupation, you just do not know whether they are good or bad, and I do not think that this provision in the Bill should cut the period to three days. That will leave landlords in a real quandary when people do not pay their last month’s rent—they usually pay monthly rent. It would be a worry if people did not make the last payment. I agree with everything else that other people have said.
Baroness Grender
I believe that the noble Baroness is talking about the use of deposits at the end of a tenancy, whereas the focus now is on holding deposits at the beginning of the tenancy. Can I just clarify that that is what she is talking about?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I accept what the noble Baroness says but I think she will find that a deposit is usually paid by the tenant as a deposit for their agreement. If the landlord or agent has to make other checks as well, even a deposit of one week’s rent might not be enough to cover them. It depends on how much people charge for checking proof of identity and how much the deposit is. I hope that clarifies the matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for participating in the debate on this part of the Bill. I should like to speak to the range of amendments that deal with the treatment of holding deposits.
As noble Lords are no doubt aware, this is the first time that we are seeking to cap the level of holding deposits—it has not been done before. I am pleased that we all agree that it is important to permit landlords and agents to charge a holding deposit. That seems to be universally accepted and I thank noble Lords for that. However, it seems that we still have some areas of disagreement and I will discuss each of them in turn.
First, Amendments 18 to 20 seek to lower the level of the cap on holding deposits from one week’s rent to three days’ rent. I am afraid I cannot accept these amendments. A cap of three days’ rent could unfairly penalise the landlord because the costs incurred in referencing a potential tenant include not only the cost of the reference check. Payment of a holding deposit means that a property should be taken off the market, and therefore costs might include lost rent for the landlord if the tenancy does not proceed. That lost rent will be higher in Fulham than it will in Newcastle.
Where a tenancy proceeds before the deadline for the agreement, the tenant will receive their holding deposit back in full. However, if the tenancy does not go ahead owing to the tenant’s default, it is not fair that the landlord or agent is penalised. We are seeking fairness here—no more, no less. We believe that tying the maximum holding deposit that can be retained to a week of rent is fair compensation for the landlord’s likely actual loss. However, our consumer guidance will encourage landlords and agents to retain only the costs they have incurred. In relation to the guidance, I will also look at the point about a draft agreement being seen before the agreement is entered into. That is reasonable. In general, I am very happy for noble Lords to engage in the guidance. We can organise a briefing on it and take on board any points that they wish to make.
However, it is important to state that the cap of one week’s rent represents an innovation and an improvement on the status quo. Currently, there is no prescribed limit. The Government’s 2017 consultation on banning letting fees asked tenants for a breakdown of the fees charged at their most recent letting. Similarly, it asked agents for a breakdown of the fees that they charged. The responses to the consultation were not necessarily a representative sample but they gave us a flavour of the level of holding deposits currently charged. Tenants said that they were charged a mean average of £370 as a holding deposit and agents said that they charged a mean average of £214. Currently, a website run by Generation Rent called lettingfees.co.uk has also compared letting fees as displayed on the websites of 1,088 agents across the United Kingdom. It found that, of 23 agents who declare that they currently charge a holding deposit, the average charged is £341. Between 1 April 2017 and 31 March 2018, the average monthly rent in England was £675, working out at £156 per week. That is what would be charged as an average. A cap of one week’s rent will help to improve affordability for tenants, while ensuring that landlords are not unfairly penalised should the tenancy not proceed for reasons within the tenant’s control.
Secondly, I will address Amendments 1 and 21, which seek to encourage greater transparency for tenants in how the holding deposit is treated. I appreciate the valuable points raised and the importance for tenants of understanding how their deposit is handled and why it may not be returned. That is entirely fair. I want to minimise the need for secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Best, quite reasonably pointed out the down side of bringing forward regulations. I should say that it is not usual in this type of situation, despite what the DPRRC says. I have checked this with similar, although admittedly only parallel, legislation; of course, there is no legislation that is identical. If one looks at the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, the Local Government Act 2003, the Planning Act 2008 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015—across a range of legislation, which I am happy to share with noble Lords—it has been usual for this to go in guidance rather than regulations. The noble Lord is absolutely right that not only would that sacrifice a degree of flexibility, it would slow this down materially—by how long it is difficult to say, given all the legislation currently going through, whatever the circumstances of deal versus no deal. Noble Lords will be aware of the considerable pressure on the legislative programme.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
On the point about slowing the legislation down, the Bill will come into force. Most of the provisions will be enacted on a day to be determined by the Secretary of State through a statutory instrument. Even if the Bill goes on to the statute book, we will have to wait for a further period for many of these provisions to become law, and even then only by regulation. The Bill will not all come into force immediately. Some parts will but quite a lot, including the provisions on deposits, will come into force at a later date. It could be weeks or months after the Bill comes into force before anything actually happens. We will have to have a debate in the House on those provisions first.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord is right up to a point. That is the case but, obviously, it would be extended if we are considering other things. It would take it into another realm if we choose to debate at length the considerable guidance, which he will have seen. I accept that, but of course it would take longer because there would be more to debate.
I think I have dealt with the point about guidance over regulations. The other point raised quite rightly by the noble Lord, Lord Best, concerned when the deposit is lost. That is set out in the guidance and we will be happy to engage with noble Lords further if there are further points they wish to make.
I pay tribute to the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, in this area. She fairly outlined the point about multiple holding deposits for landlords. She will know my view, given previously, that this is not fair and I remain very much of the view that what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. We are taking legal advice on this point because I am convinced that it would be a breach of contract for a landlord to take multiple deposits. He would potentially be in breach of multiple contracts except the one. We will look at the issue further and I am happy to come back to this point on Report.
My noble friend Lady Gardner and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke about the danger of the level of the deposit being curtailed excessively. The Government are keen to reach a fair judgment on this. People should be recompensed only for their losses and we should not go beyond that. That is entirely fair. On the other hand, they should not be penalised where a loss has been brought about by the actions of the tenant. It seeks to get that level right.
Some fair points have been made. Additionally, we are seeking to introduce a guideline here, and it may become an accepted guideline in many cases, but this is not an obligatory measure. If people want the holding deposit to be lower, they can make it so. The level of the actual deposit in Scotland is set at eight weeks, but there is evidence that it is not being adopted as the norm. That is the upper limit and so would be the case here. Three days is much too low, and we think a week fairly represents the likely loss in many cases. This is a considerable step forward.
With that, I thank all noble Lords for engaging and for the welcome generally, given the point made from the Front Benches by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy. As I say, I am happy to engage on those specific points—on the content of the guidance and on the multiple deposits—ahead of Report. With that, I ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Could the noble Lord address guidance again? This will come up again and again as we go through the Bill. If guidance is not by regulation, what is its legal status? I suspect that it has very little; it is just guidance, which can be looked at and followed, but also ignored. My worry is that, if things are not down clearly, by regulation, they can be accepted but also ignored, and there is very little that anyone can do about it.
Baroness Grender
May I contribute to that question by saying that it has already been done with regard to default? Can the Minister explain the difference between that and the holding deposit, in terms of being specific about transparency in regulations?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, those are two very separate points. On guidance versus regulations, the noble Lord will be aware—not least because I have just said so—that these parallel matters have been dealt with in guidance on many pieces of legislation, under successive Governments of all colours. It is a judgment, but we feel that guidance is appropriate.
The point on the default fees—although this is still being discussed—is a matter of judgment, and it is the judgment we have made. As the noble Baroness will be aware, there are points in the guidance on the default fees—it is not all in the legislation; some of it is in the legislation, some in the guidance. There is also a substantial amount about the default fees in the guidance; it is not all in the legislation.
Baroness Grender
I thank the Minister, especially for agreeing to take a look at multiple holdings. I look forward to working with him and his team on the guidance. There is some guidance, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will be very relieved to hear that there is a suggestion in it that a tenant might produce a typo, but no suggestion that any landlord would do so. I am using a small example of something I have spotted already in the drafting. I very much appreciate that the guidance is a draft at the moment, and therefore I thank the noble Lord for the opportunity to sit down and work through the guidance to make sure that there is parity between tenants and landlords. There seem to be one or two disparities that I have already picked up from my brief reading of it over the weekend. That, in a way, is why I still want to pursue—and I am very happy to discuss with officials and the Minister—the possibility of getting some regulations to introduce transparency in holding deposits. I look forward to those discussions, but it may be that we will need to pursue this further on Report, depending on those discussions. With that, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
On the guidance, I accept the noble Lord’s point that it is a question of judgment and that he can point to other legislation where guidance is provided for in regulations. But does he accept that if it is guidance rather than regulations, that guidance is weaker because it does not have statutory back-up? That is the point I am making. The Bill addresses tenants’ fees, which we all agree are a problem. If the Government continue with the choice they are making at the moment, what they are offering people is weaker than if it was put in regulations. My other point is that if something does not happen on deposit fees—perhaps in regulations—this will be totally ignored.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am not sure that I do accept that. It is different in nature: some things are better in guidance, because of greater flexibility, and some things are better in regulations. So while I do not accept the general proposition, I accept that some things are better in regulations, but I do not accept that these are those things.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Transferable deposits
The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to make provision which enables a relevant person, at the conclusion of a tenancy, to transfer all or part of a tenancy deposit from the landlord or agent with whom that tenancy was held to a second landlord or agent.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 2 seeks to enable a deposit to be transferred to another landlord or letting agent. This deposit passporting would be of great benefit to tenants and, as far as I can see, would have no detrimental effect on landlords or letting agents. The system would allow for the direct transfer of money between landlords and properties. The consumer group Which? found that 43% of renters have had to use a credit card, loan or overdraft, or borrow from family and friends to fund a deposit—that is terrible. It also found that 31% of renters had to find money for a new deposit before they had been paid back their existing deposit. In effect, this group of renters would, even if only for a short time, have paid two deposits, which is potentially a huge sum of money. That is just not fair, and the Bill does not address this at all. Renting in the private rented sector is stacked against tenants in many respects and this proposal would help tenants with the difficult issue of finding deposits.
I saw an article in the Daily Telegraph—not my usual reading, I must say—which included figures from the Tenancy Deposit Scheme. The article found that the average deposit is £1,180, as much as £3,266 in parts of central London, and around £498 in Lancashire’s Ribble Valley. These are not insignificant sums of money. The system is failing tenants and it could be improved.
Amendments 15 and 16, also in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, seek to put into effect what the Government originally announced: that there would be a four-week tenancy deposit cap. In this case, I stand with the Prime Minister and what she announced last year. It is appalling that the Government have had a change of heart here, and it would be useful if the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, could explain what has happened over the past year and why there has been a change of heart. The evidence shows that opting for this large deposit cap makes it harder for people to rent in the private rented sector, and makes it harder for them to raise money for a deposit, especially when there is no ability to passport deposits.
I am sure we will be told that there is a risk that renters will use their deposit to cover their last month’s rent without the consent or knowledge of the landlord. Citizens Advice—an organisation that we all respect—has done research that found that this happened without prior agreement with the landlord in only 2% of cases. Therefore, in 98% of cases, it did not happen. I am sure we will also be told that this higher figure of a six-week cap is needed to recover landlords’ costs, but again this just does not hold water.
The Deposit Protection Scheme did some analysis and found that over 50% of tenants get their full deposit back and the average deposit return is 75%. That illustrates that the Government were right to set the level at four weeks in the first place, and it is disappointing that they have changed their mind. The majority of renters getting most or all of their deposit back shows me that the four-week limit is the right level, which would still allow for a much higher than average deduction to cover landlords’ legitimate costs while protecting renters from excessive up-front costs. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 15 and 16 in this group. Amendment 2 is a very reasonable suggestion and I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to it.
In the previous group I raised how lengths of time are decided. I understand that they are often a judgment. The same issues around the length of time arise in this group. We need to protect both parties—landlord and tenant—and the question is whether six weeks’ rent is a reasonable sum to pay as a refundable deposit or whether some other length of time is more justifiable. There are two issues here. First, in Scotland, it is two months. Scotland has that figure for a reason. Have the Government looked at Scotland’s experience? Secondly, it was announced in the 2017 Queen’s Speech that in England it would be four weeks; that is, half the length of time that applies in Scotland. Differences of this kind for those on low incomes or who are short of savings can matter profoundly.
The Government have now decided that it should be six weeks. It is almost as if this is about splitting the difference between what they said it was going to be—four weeks—and the Scottish experience, which is eight weeks. It needs more rigour than that, should that be the case. Again, I refer to advice from Citizens Advice, which I think is material. The most common amount tenants pay for a refundable deposit is four weeks or one month. Setting the cap higher than four weeks might push up the cost to tenants. To put it another way, setting the cap at six weeks will help only 8% of tenants, according to Citizens Advice. However, a cap of four weeks would save money for almost half of tenants. I do not know what consideration the Government have given to that but I make the point that when it comes to the decision on whether it is four, six or eight weeks—or perhaps five weeks, which was mooted in the House of Commons—we need to be very much clearer about why six weeks has been decided on.
Citizens Advice’s research shows that only 2% of renters use their security deposit to cover their last month’s rent without the landlord’s knowledge or consent. Has the Minister considered the advice from Citizens Advice? If it is only 2% of renters, there is an issue for us to discover. Of course, the point is—and in defence of landlords’ interests—if tenants withhold the last month’s rent, that can lead to a landlord having no protection against the damage done by a tenant who is leaving if they fail to pay the last month’s rent as well. That would be a concern for me. That is one of the reasons why the House of Commons suggested that it should be five weeks, not six.
What I look for in this probing amendment is the evidence base the Government considered on how many weeks would be justifiable. They clearly changed their mind from the Queen’s Speech in 2017 when they announced that it would be four weeks. They have now come out with a figure of six weeks. I would like to understand better the Government’s reasoning for that figure.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I am very pleased that these amendments have been tabled. They enable me to make one or two comments. On Amendment 2 on transferable deposits, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, what he has set down might make for an awkward arrangement requiring quite a raft of safeguards so that landlord one can transfer a tenant’s deposit out of their account into the account of landlord two, which, as I see it, is what happens.
I am a practising chartered surveyor. Those involved in residential property management have to accord with all sorts of professional regulations, including rules on holding clients’ money. Tenants’ deposits would certainly come in that category. They have to be very punctilious about what they do and very transparent about the process. I know that not every agent or, for that matter, landlord holding a deposit is a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. It might be different if they were, but that will never be likely. I am saying that there are two parallel sets of requirements. It will be interesting to know what discussions or information had been obtained from others such as ARLA on this sort of transfer, how it would be documented and how we would ensure it was seamless.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raises a valid point. For tenants to have to wait for a deposit to come back to them and to pay another deposit at the same time—in other words, a double overhead—is awkward, but other things lurk here. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, mentioned one, but there is the other question of whether any unpaid services and outgoings lurk there. Sometimes these do not come through for some particular period. Noble Lords will know from dealing with utility companies and this sort of thing, including some of the cut-price ones, which seem extremely difficult to deal with at times—no names mentioned here, though—that it can be quite difficult to make sure that you have closure on the amount of money for which a tenant might be responsible. There is an issue relating to the period to which the amount might apply. That might depend on the circumstances, such as whether it was a furnished or unfurnished letting, or fully equipped as well as being furnished. Obviously, the amount of damage that can be done and what might become apparent would not necessarily be known until right at the end of the lease. While I am pleased to confirm from my experience that the majority of tenants have been absolutely excellent people, the odd ones are feckless, overload electrical systems and do other damage that is not immediately apparent.
I wish there was a better way of dealing with this. I can see where the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is coming from. It is a valuable thing to raise because of the rigidity it creates within the tenant cohort. We should be doing things to make sure that there are not those rigidities because that, in effect, is a barrier to them renting property in the first place. However, I see a number of technical difficulties with the amendment. I hope that the Minister will comment on some of them.
Lord Best
I support the amendment on transferable deposits. It is an absolutely commendable concept. How can people possibly find a second fat deposit when they have not had the first one back? This proposal would be a really helpful move, and I hope the Minister will take it very seriously and look at it in some depth.
On the question of a six-week, five-week, four-week or eight-week period, I was impressed by the Citizens Advice survey, which indicated that only a very small percentage of tenants—2%, I think—did not pay their last month’s rent, the deposit being absorbed or used for that purpose. However, I asked Citizens Advice about its survey and discovered that it was exclusively of tenants. I suspect that the percentage might have been different if it had been a survey of landlords or agents. This is bad news for landlords but I am told by agents that, naughty as it is, a lot of students will not pay the last four weeks’ rent because they fear that there will be a big dispute about their deposit at the end. Especially if the student has come from overseas and is returning, they will have no trouble over the deposit because they will instead have withheld their last month’s rent. I suspect that landlords would always be very hostile to the idea of a limit of just four weeks’ rent when students behave like that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, the question of how much deposit you can pay back immediately to a tenant is a difficult one. Very often a lot of people are required to check exactly what damage has been done, particularly in cases of very heavy damage. I have mentioned before the block where we have a right to manage. A person owing a large service charge has recently had herself certified under the Mental Health Act. Someone has now been appointed to take over and the four flats in her name are being handed over. One flat in the basement was being used illegally as a brothel and the people who vacated it smashed the whole place to pieces—the windows, the walls and pretty well everything else, as far as I understand.
The legitimate tenant is perfectly entitled to think that they should have as much of their deposit back as possible, but where someone does what they did in that flat—as yet, we have not seen the other three that have been recovered from illegal lettings—it is quite worrying if you do not have any deposit to go towards repairing the damage. Therefore, the situation is more complicated than people realise.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated in this debate. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for moving Amendment 9 and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for speaking to his Amendment 10.
I have listened carefully to the concerns about the level of the deposit cap and I understand them. However, there is a balance that must be struck between providing tenants with greater affordability and ensuring that landlords have adequate financial security for their assets—points just touched on by my noble friend Lady Gardner. For that reason, I cannot agree that the cap should be lowered to four weeks’ rent. As we have heard, a cap at four weeks’ rent might encourage tenants to forgo their final month’s rent. Even the CAB statistics—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said quite fairly was a survey of tenants—put the number of tenants doing so at 2%. Therefore, there is still an issue there. I remind noble Lords that this is setting an upper limit; it is not setting a norm. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that the eight-week period in Scotland has become very much the norm; it is regarded as an upper limit. I will shortly come to reasons why the upper limit of six weeks might be needed, and I take on board the very fair points that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made about the need for that.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Select Committee also recognised the risk when it looked at this issue. It is worth mentioning that final month’s deposit. Using data from the tenancy deposit protection scheme, our best estimate is that if deposits were capped at six weeks’ rent, approximately 1.4% of landlords taking deposits would see a median loss of £89 per tenancy that they would not have been subjected to otherwise. These costs would be borne by landlords—those who currently require tenants to pay more than six week’s rent in deposit—at the end of the tenancy when the deposit does not fully cover their claim.
In contrast, a cap of four weeks’ or one month’s rent would lead to a loss for 5.2% of landlords of £200 on average. That is based on deposit scheme figures. As a result, landlords may be less willing to absorb increased costs because of the number and size of deposits affected by a four-week cap. Tenants could therefore see greater increases in rent, which would decrease the overall net benefit of the legislation. Also, as I have touched on previously, lowering the deposit cap to four weeks’ rent could hurt pet owners, those who live abroad and those with a poorer financial history. These groups often pay a higher than average deposit to provide landlords with the assurance they need, so they are worth bearing in mind.
I believe that the cap of six weeks’ rent provides the additional financial security and flexibility that landlords need, which is integral to retaining investment and supply in the private rented sector and benefits tenants. Like other noble Lords, I recognise that good landlords and good tenants are in the great majority, but the cap seeks to preserve that balance. I reiterate that the cap of six weeks’ rent is an upper limit. Data from the tenancy deposit protection scheme informs us that most landlords request a deposit of around four to five weeks’ rent. That is in the great bulk of cases but, as I have indicated, in some cases it may be appropriate to go higher and not going higher may make it difficult for people with pets, for example, to get tenancies. I would put it no higher than that. I remind noble Lords that Scotland has capped tenancy deposits at no more than eight weeks’ rent and there is no evidence to suggest that deposits have risen to meet that cap. It is an upper limit, not the norm.
We will also use the guidance to encourage landlords to consider on a case-by-case basis when to take a tenancy deposit and the appropriate level of that deposit. It is also important to remember that unlike letting fees, which are non-refundable, the deposit is retained by the landlord only in instances where the tenant breaches their obligations under, or in connection with, the tenancy. The deposit is the tenant’s money and landlords must provide appropriate evidence where they believe that they are entitled to retain any of that deposit. I therefore suggest that it is the appropriate level.
More broadly, on the fair points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, particularly about passporting, I want to ensure that tenancy deposits work for both landlords and tenants. That is why we established recently a working group to look at the merits of innovative and more affordable approaches to tenancy deposits. This includes deposit passporting, where a deposit can be transferred from one tenancy to another, as proposed by Amendment 2. Members of the working group include landlord and tenant representatives and the three tenancy deposit protection schemes. So far, the group has met three times and is due to report its findings next spring. I will happily provide noble Lords with updates as things progress. That is all the information we have at the moment but if I can provide more information ahead of Report, I will do so.
Many things in relation to passporting still need to be considered. The key concern here is ensuring that landlords can still recover any damages at the end of a tenancy. A great deal of technical complexity would need to be examined, both on the percentage that is passported and on when, and how, liability for providing a tenant with the relevant prescribed information about how their deposit is protected should be passed from one landlord to another. I am sure noble Lords will agree that we need to do this properly. As I said, I am keen to ensure that we do it but the report from the relevant working group is not due until the spring. However, I will write to noble Lords to provide more information about the working group ahead of Report, in so far as we have more information. I will be happy to provide noble Lords with an update once the working group has reported its findings in the spring. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the amendments in this group will not be pressed.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions on points I raised earlier. The first is that it is not clear why the Government used the figure of four weeks in the Queen’s Speech last year and what has caused them to change their own decision. Secondly, can the Minister explain the consideration that has been given to the scrutiny by the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee? Bob Blackman MP drew attention to the committee’s recommendation that the length of deposits should be set at five weeks to avoid the risk that a tenant may refuse to pay the last month’s rent if the limit was set at four weeks. That would avoid some of the financial hardship for tenants that could result from the six-week limit. Have the Government considered in full the pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken in the other place in coming to their decision that it should remain at six weeks despite the clear advice that it should be five weeks?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
On a similar point, we understand that in the Queen’s Speech the Government mentioned a period of four weeks. At one time it seems to have been a manifesto commitment. I am sure that we will be told that it was not, but I would be interested to find out. I understand that the period of four weeks was announced in the Queen’s Speech, but what has happened? The Bill says six weeks. It would help to know the Government’s thinking on that.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank noble Lords for those points. The consideration was around the notion of an upper limit, not a norm. As I say, there are difficult cases where a four-week limit may not be appropriate. I have outlined some of those and we have to think about the consequences for tenants. It was that which motivated the reconsideration.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, about Bob Blackman in the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, it is true that different periods were talked about—of four, five, six and eight weeks, as we have already rehearsed—but it is important to note that this was not pressed to a vote in the other place. We have considered the element of flexibility. We are not mandating that it has to be eight weeks; that is far from the case. The evidence from Scotland is that it has not gone to eight weeks; rather it has not really budged. However, it gives flexibility, and that has influenced us. We cover in the guidance the point that we do not expect it to reflect anything other than the loss on the deposit.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, in connection with what was mentioned earlier about tenants who do not have a particularly good track record or who come from abroad, perhaps I may pick up on one point. One of the bones of contention is that the tenant pays a not insubstantial deposit and it is held by and on behalf of the landlord. Is there not an opportunity to have a third-party deposit holder who, in effect, would hold the money and provide a guarantee of the tenant’s performance so that it does not become a bone of contention for students, those from abroad and people with no track record? Could we break that particular logjam so that it is not seen as the landlord accruing a sum of money and hanging on to it as a sort of financial bludgeon? Could this be defused in some way? Perhaps the working group could look into the possibility of something along these lines.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am happy to pass that on to the working group, but one has to be careful what one wishes for. As we know, there are all sorts of issues around deposit protection and to disturb the existing relationship may well be dangerous. However, I will ensure that the message is passed back to the group so that it can consider it if appropriate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I want to come back to deposits. I accept that it is not easy to sort out, but a tenant in the private sector who is seeking to move will have paid, even on the average figures, £1,200 and will need another deposit of a similar value. As I mentioned, Which? found that 43% of people were using credit cards or loans to get this extra deposit. A lot of people in the private rented sector will be on lower incomes. If they end up borrowing money on their credit card to fund the deposit because they cannot get their previous deposit back, that is not a good place for anyone to be. A credit card is an expensive way of borrowing money for a short period. We need somehow to address that issue and I wonder what the Minister can say about it.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I have a lot of sympathy with that point, not only in this context but for people being forced to use credit cards or loans where that is not appropriate. I could not agree more with him on that, so it is important that we get this right. That is what we are seeking to do. He will be aware, just from the discussion today, that there are different views even in the Committee about the levels. We are seeking to get this right, to reimburse the loan and to provide for passporting on a sensible basis, but we have to ensure that we are being fair to the tenants and the landlords while, at the same time, not killing the tenancy market, which is an important part of the offer to people. However, I take his general point, which is entirely fair.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
In the Queen’s Speech, the cap was announced as four weeks. The Government have looked at this and taken soundings and they say that four to five weeks are needed, so why have they picked six weeks?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it is good to see the noble Lord being so supportive of the Queen’s Speech, on this occasion at least. I suspect a little bit of mischief in his new-found support for the Conservative Government. Nevertheless, on the particular point, as I have tried to address, we have looked at the level and, on consideration, decided that we would establish an upper limit but not a norm. That is the thinking behind the more mature reflection. I absolutely accept that this is a question of getting it right.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord for that. I will leave it there and seek to withdraw the amendment, but it is fair to say that I am likely to bring the issue back on Report, as I think that six weeks is too much—I will be looking at four or five weeks and hoping that we can persuade the Government on this. Until then, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Duty to provide tenants and prospective tenants with information
(1) Within one month of this Act being passed the Secretary of State must—(a) prepare guidance to assist tenants and prospective tenants to understand the effect of this Act, and(b) publish the information on a website maintained on their behalf.(2) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to provide a copy of the information to any bodies appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of—(a) landlords and letting agents in England;(b) tenants in England;(c) local housing authorities;and other bodies the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) The information must, in particular, include the following—(a) the date on which the provisions in this Act come into effect in England;(b) information about prohibited payments under the Act;(c) information about permitted payments under the Act;(d) information about where tenants can access help and advice about the Act;and any other information that the Secretary of State deems would assist tenants and prospective tenants to understand the effect of this Act.(4) Every landlord and letting agent must—(a) provide all tenants and prospective tenants with information about the provisions in the Act relevant to them (which must, in particular, include the information mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (b)),(b) publish such of the information as it considers to be relevant to its tenants and prospective tenants on its website (which must, in particular, include the information mentioned in subsection (3)(a) and (b)).(5) Subsection (4) applies from the day on which this Act comes into force.(6) In making arrangements for the purposes of providing information under subsection (4) a landlord or prospective landlord must—(a) have regard to the likely needs and characteristics, in respect of the provision of information, of persons to whom the information in question is to be provided, and(b) consider whether, having regard to those needs and characteristics, it is appropriate to provide any of the information to any of those persons otherwise than in the way in which it would normally be provided.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 3 seeks to shine some light on the whole process for the benefit of landlords, letting agents and tenants. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the new procedures coming into force are properly communicated to everybody concerned. I am sure that we would all agree that proper communication is vital to make legislation effective and ensure that it works. It is imperative that the introduction of the ban is clearly communicated to ensure that landlords and letting agents, as well as tenants, are fully aware of the changes and that this happens immediately. We would put a requirement on the Secretary of State to advise representative bodies, affected groups, local authorities and other bodies that the Secretary of State decides are appropriate. That would include bodies such as Citizens Advice that provide advice services to people.
In the private rented sector, it can be difficult to reach the people who rent, because of the often transient nature of the sector—people probably move around more than in other sectors. There will be groups of tenants who need support. Some, of course, will be very savvy about their rights and responsibilities, but there are other groups of more vulnerable tenants. We must make sure that smaller agents and smaller landlords—some may have only one or two properties—are fully aware of the changes and how they will affect them. It is particularly important that tenants are made aware since they are the people who will alert local authorities to the identities of landlords or letting agents who are not observing the law, charging prohibitive payments or doing other things that would be banned by this legislation. To ensure compliance—I know the Government want to see compliance with their own legislation particularly—we need a clear communication strategy. The Bill will change the law and introduce new criminal offences, with relevant penalties and consequences, so it is important that people are fully aware of the changes. We do not believe it needs to be onerous, but we need something to ensure that it is properly communicated to everyone concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I will briefly express my support for the amendment. It seems to be extremely helpful. Perhaps there could be a discussion about how it would be implemented. I say this because it is one thing for Parliament to pass legislation, but it is another for it to be actually understood in the wider world. For tenants and landlords to understand their rights and responsibilities, it is very important that the publicity is good. A lot of it can be standard wording. It does not have to be originated by every individual. It may need to be amended by individuals, but generally it can be the same. That leads me to remind the Minister of my view that the £500,000 allocated for enforcement—perhaps we will come to that in the next group—is a welcome sum, but probably not enough. Providing the necessary resource for this to work seems to be very important. Ultimately, this should be self-financing. Ensuring that there is the right level of publicity, particularly for tenants, is particularly important.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, the first part of this amendment is, to put it bluntly, a no-brainer. It is perfectly right and proper that there should be clear and comprehensive information. If I have any reservations, one is a very small item in proposed new subsection (4)(b), which refers to a website. Given that a significant proportion of landlords are individuals with perhaps only one or two properties, they may not have a website. Perhaps a tweak of the wording might be needed there.
On proposed new subsection (6)(a) and (b), there is a duty on the landlord or prospective landlord to,
“have regard to the likely needs and characteristics, in respect of the provision of information, of persons to whom the information in question is to be provided”.
It goes on to refer to the provision of that information,
“otherwise than in the way in which it would normally be provided”.
I scratch my head a bit about this, because I was beginning to try to work out what I, as a landlord in the middle of Sussex, might need to acquaint people with. It seemed to me that one characteristic might be a physical disability and another might be linguistic—those two immediately came to mind. I would be interested if the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, could actually spell out what he intends from those two provisions. It might be a bit of a hostage to fortune in either providing something unnecessary or having to try to second-guess what the particular characteristics and the method of delivery might need to be in any given instance. That said, in an area where people come from an Asian heritage background, I can see no objection to publishing it in languages other than English. That would be perfectly possible. However, to do it as a generality would be difficult. Therefore, putting this in guidance and providing for what the Secretary of State will do with it might be a hazardous operation.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, as the Minister knows, I am very concerned that people are letting their flats for short lets, which is strictly prohibited under the terms of their tenancy. Is there anywhere in the Bill that this matter could be rectified, perhaps by placing an obligation on the tenant to inform people that it is not a legal letting or by the new tenant themselves confirming that what they are taking on is not a legal letting? There is a big loophole in the law here.
Lord Best
I would like to offer a word of support for the intent behind this proposed new clause. Perhaps the best organisations to get the message out to tenants and prospective tenants are the new websites—or not so new anymore—such as Zoopla and Rightmove. So many people looking for somewhere to rent now do so online. Those agencies have the power to reach nearly everybody with the important information contained in this provision.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the discussion on Amendment 3. I will seek to deal with the points made. The first and entirely reasonable point raised was from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and was echoed by other noble Lords. I am committed to ensuring that tenants, landlords and agents understand their rights and responsibilities under the legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly said, it is not just a question of the law being passed; it needs to be the case that people understand the rights and obligations that follow therefrom.
That is why my officials have been working hard with key stakeholder groups to produce comprehensive consumer guidance to support implementation. However, I do not agree that it is necessary to mandate that in the Bill, as we have discussed and as we will look at again. I have shared draft versions of the guidance for tenants, landlords and agents with noble Lords, and I hope they found them informative and detailed. Once again, I state that we are happy to engage on that if it is helpful to noble Lords. I hope noble Lords agree that the guidance provides important information on the points suggested by the amendment, including the date on which the provisions will come into force, information about what is prohibited and permitted, and information about where tenants can access help and advice.
We intend to share this guidance with tenants and tenant groups in advance of the legislation coming into force and as soon as possible after Royal Assent. We will seek to ensure that tenants, landlords and agents are aware of this guidance, including through online publication and promotion through our media channels, and by using smaller groups, as the noble Earl mentioned. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Best, for mentioning Zoopla and Rightmove; Purplebricks is another one. Those and others are groups we can engage with to make sure that we get the relevant message across. We will also encourage landlords and agents to make tenants aware of the guidance, using our existing relationships with stakeholder groups to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, asked about seeking to enforce the provisions of tenancies through this legislation. That is not something we are seeking to do here. It is a contractual matter and short-term tenancy agreements are, I think, beyond the scope of the Bill. However, I do know of the noble Baroness’s concern and, as she is aware, I engage with the short-term tenancy association on a frequent basis to see how we can carry things forward.
I think that deals with the points made by noble Lords and will, I hope, allay concerns ahead of Report. On that basis, I respectfully ask the noble Lord if he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister for that. I hope he can help us with a couple of points. He said earlier that in many cases there are good tenants and good landlords, all acting reasonably and responsibly. In that sense, the Bill is not for them. We are dealing with the rogue landlords or bad tenants, as well as people who are uninformed. If you are a landlord with lots of properties you will probably have systems in place to ensure that you are informed properly. I worry that the landlord of one or two properties will—intentionally or unintentionally—not notice the legislation and will seek to carry on charging their tenants prohibitive payments and generally abuse them. What are we doing to ensure that there can be no doubt that these people know their responsibilities in terms of the law? That is what my amendment was trying to do: to ensure the people are clear on that. What is going to happen when the Act becomes law so that we can be absolutely confident that people know this? We disagree on the guidance. It is not statutory; it is just guidance, and does not have the backing of the law. What are we going to do to ensure that those landlords are in no doubt? Just leaving it to the CAB and other groups to inform people is not good enough —we all know that these groups are under huge pressure, as are local authority departments. That is my worry: the small tenants and small landlords. Can the Minister help us on that?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am very happy to. On the point made by the noble Lord—in relation not just to responsibilities, in fairness, but to the rights of tenants and landlords—this is to get the full message across. We want to get the full impact of the law across to tenants, landlords and agents, as the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said. To pick up the point about small agents and landlords who are in a different position, we have to act through the landlord associations, the portals and the means outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best. As I said, I am happy to engage on the guidance ahead of Report. If noble Lords think they have other ways that we could be getting this message across, which is in everybody’s interests, I am more than happy to look at those.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Obviously, at this stage I will withdraw the amendment. I just want to address the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I take his point about proposed new subsection (4)(b) but we are moving into more of a digital age and it is important to have that. Equally, proposed new subsection (6) may not be worded very well but it was my attempt to ensure that in certain parts of the country people get the information in a way that they are able to digest and can be fully informed of their rights. Perhaps I need to look at that when I look at this issue. I cannot say that I am happy with the Minister’s response but I will leave it there for now. We may return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Enforcement costs
(1) The Secretary of State shall reimburse—(a) a lead enforcement authority, where this is not the Secretary of State, for any additional costs incurred by the authority in the exercise of its duties under section 23 or section 24 of this Act, and(b) an enforcement authority for any additional costs incurred by that authority in the exercise of its duties under section 1 or section 2 of, and Schedule 2 to, this Act.(2) In this section “additional costs incurred” means costs incurred minus funding received by an enforcement authority from—(a) fines; and(b) the Secretary of State.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendments 4 and 5 in my name are concerned with enforcement in respect of the costs involved and how they are covered, and require a report to be laid before Parliament within 12 months of the Bill’s provisions coming into force. The Bill is a bit light—to say the least—on these matters, which are extremely important.
Amendment 4 would require the Secretary of State to reimburse the lead authority for any additional costs incurred in taking on these extra duties. If a local authority is designated as the lead authority and, after taking account of the money received from fines or other work is still out of pocket, what local authority would want its council tax payers to subsidise everybody else? We need a clause that covers that situation.
Amendment 5 would put a new clause in the Bill that would require the Secretary of State to,
“make an assessment of the resources available to … enforcement authorities; and … the lead enforcement authority”.
Proposed new subsection (2) sets out what the report “must consider”. Finally, proposed new subsection (3) says:
“The Secretary of State must lay a report … before each House of Parliament”.
It is essential that the Government provide additional funding to local authorities for enforcing this legislation, otherwise they will be letting down the very people—the private sector tenants—they say they want to help.
Trading standards departments in local authorities will be responsible for enforcing the ban. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, will be well aware of the evidence given to the Bill Committee considering this legislation in the other place. There have been cuts of over 50% to trading standards staff in some areas. Many areas are experiencing increasing levels of demand and legislation that they are expected to enforce. It is getting more and more difficult to do so. Indeed, trading standards departments are struggling to enforce existing regulations designed to protect renters. Analysis by Generation Rent found that, in 2017, 12% of letting agents did not list their fees on websites as required by the Consumer Rights Act 2015. They were clearly in breach of the legislation but they were still doing that.
It is important to keep in mind that local authorities have also gained additional responsibilities to enforce against rogue landlords and agents from the dreaded Housing and Planning Act 2016. While I obviously welcome the Government’s announcement of a fund of £500,000 for year one to cover the up-front costs of implementation and awareness raising, one-off seed funding is unlikely to cover the full costs and burdens placed on local authorities. That is not a new thing; we have discussed this many times in Grand Committee and in the Chamber.
The Government’s approach seems to be that any penalties will support enforcement functions. That would potentially penalise councils that have raised awareness of the ban with agents. They are less likely to benefit from collecting penalties than where people have not kept up with their obligations. That is no way to fund and deliver such an important piece of legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to this. Of the two amendments, Amendment 5 is more important because it would provide an evidence base without which it would be difficult to know whether the £500,000 that the Government are allocating will be sufficient. Amendment 4 would be difficult to implement. How does one understand or agree what a reasonable cost is? You then have to consider things such as overhead recoupment and so on. What is a reasonable sum of money for an enforcement authority to receive? I see a big problem in making a fair assessment of what the additional sums that cannot be recovered through fines or via the Secretary of State might be.
However, the broader issue that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has introduced seems important: is enough money being provided up-front to enable enforcement authorities to get enforcement properly established? We have read some evidence in the press recently that, despite legislation passed in Parliament, local authorities have not always been able to provide the level of enforcement that might be deemed necessary. I am talking in particular about rogue landlords.
I hope the Minister can respond to us on this. I repeat my observation that we need Amendment 5, and I hope the Government will be willing to come back with something on Report that gives some life to it. Amendment 4 might be the consequence of having evidence under Amendment 5. However, for the moment, I hope that the Government will be able to indicate how they respond to funding enforcement overall.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the co-pilot is in charge of this leg of the legislative journey, so there might be some turbulence.
There are two amendments that consider the resources available for the enforcement of the ban and I would like to take them together. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his gentle dismantling of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, put forward for Amendment 4. I recognise the pressure on the resources available to local authorities but we do not think that a provision that essentially provides a blank cheque to local authorities is the right approach. It would be a very unusual arrangement, and essentially one-sided, as the Secretary of State would bear all the losses and the local authority would keep all the gains.
We believe that allowing local authorities to retain money from financial penalties would be a significant funding stream for future enforcement, and the Government are providing some pump-priming funding for the initial period. There might be a role for hypo- thecated grants but I do not believe that this is one of them.
Financial penalties of up to £30,000 that can be retained by local authorities were first introduced in April 2017 under the Housing and Planning Act 2016, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will welcome at least one measure under that Act that has found favour with him. We are aware that local authorities already benefit from the proceeds of financial penalties issued under that legislation. Liverpool, for example, has issued 42 civil penalties and has recovered the majority of them; Torbay Council has used the revenue from civil penalties to fund an extra enforcement officer for its housing team; and Newham and Camden have also issued and recovered a number of civil penalties.
However, we appreciate that this model depends on local circumstances and that it can take time to embed within existing frameworks of enforcement. That is why, as I said, we are committing £500,000 of additional funding in year one of the fee ban policy to support education and implementation of the legislation. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said in the earlier debate—that ideally this measure should be self-funding. If one looks at page 19 of the Explanatory Notes, one finds the following:
“The Government estimate that local authorities will incur a new burden in respect of enforcement costs in year one of the policy only and it estimates this to be no more than £500,000. The enforcement of the provisions contained in this Bill by enforcement authorities is intended to be fiscally neutral from year two since enforcement authorities may retain the proceeds of any financial penalties for the purposes of any of its enforcement functions relating to the private rented sector under this Bill or any other legislation”.
That is basically where the Government are coming from on resources.
Further, we are introducing the lead enforcement authority, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to provide guidance and assistance to local authorities in undertaking proactive enforcement. We have committed funding of up £300,000 per annum to support the lead enforcement authority in its duties, and we have based the funding model on that of the National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, but we will keep it under review.
Statutory guidance issued by the lead enforcement authority or the Secretary of State will cover matters to be taken into account by enforcement authorities in determining the level of the penalty in any given case. We have been engaging with local authorities to get this right, and my noble friend Lord Bourne has shared a draft version with noble Lords and has placed a copy in the Library. More generally, the lead enforcement authority will be primarily responsible for monitoring enforcement of the ban and ensuring that local authorities have the guidance and support that they need.
Turning to the proposed new clause which deals with reporting requirements, Clause 23 already requires the lead enforcement authority to report to the Secretary of State on the ban. This will include updates on any developments that might be relevant to enforcement of the Bill or to relevant letting agency legislation, including those that might seek to undermine the aim and enforcement of the legislation. It could also include resources, mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy. The Government will work closely with the lead enforcement authority and key stakeholders representing tenant, landlord and agent groups to monitor the operation and effectiveness of the ban. Against those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, although an answer was given earlier by the other Minister, why in a Written Answer to me did the Minister say that the Government are unwilling to consider allowing local authorities to license these short lets? Short lets are damaging—badly—every bit of accommodation in the housing market in London, in particular, and in the rest of the country, which can be taken over, illegally, against the contracts. Why are the Government unwilling to allow local authorities to charge a fee to register and check that they are in order? In that case, would that not be a far better answer than losing all the accommodation that we are losing now? Why is it not appropriate to bring it into the Bill under the proposed new clause?
Lord Young of Cookham
As my noble friend the Minister said a few moments ago, the Bill covers assured shortholds and other lettings. It does not cover the sorts of lettings that concern my noble friend Lady Gardner and which are offered by Airbnb and other agencies. My noble friend has raised an issue that has been the subject of many exchanges in Questions. Our answer is that we believe that local authorities have enough powers to take action where a nuisance is caused by these activities. In many cases, it is up to the manging agents to enforce the terms of the lease.
As I have said on many occasions in the Chamber, many leases specifically preclude the letting of a property for periods of less than six months, and it is up to the managing agents of the block to ensure that the provisions of the lease are met. Again, I say to my noble friend that I have quoted from the action taken by one managing agent when they discovered that a flat in the block for which they were the managing agent was being advertised on Airbnb; that immediately stopped the letting of that flat and any other flats in that block. So the short answer—I fear it was a long one—is that we believe that powers are already available without giving local authorities the additional powers that my noble friend has asked for.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before I withdraw my amendment, can the Minister tell me something about the amount of money provided? On the face of it, £500,000 seems a lot of money but how many councils is that actually for? I do not know off the top of my head, but I think it is for at least a few hundred of them. What sum will each council get? Will it be £2,000 or £3,000 each? When it is broken down like that, it could be quite a small sum of money in terms of an overall council budget.
Lord Young of Cookham
About 152 trading standards offices could potentially be eligible for this. It would be wrong to assume that £500,000 would be divided among them so that they each get a small sum. There are other models for providing the initial help. For example, a team from the department could go out to help the trading standards agencies set up the necessary skills and training to take forward the measure after year one. At the moment, we are discussing with the LGA exactly how best to spend the £500,000. Although one option would be to divide it up, that is not the only option; others are being explored. Before the Bill becomes an Act, we hope to find a way forward on how the money should be spent.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister for that answer. I accept that the money may not necessarily be divided up. I am just trying to understand the number of authorities and the amount of money available. Looking at things like that, it is not a huge sum of money at all.
The Government think that this will be funded by fines and other fees, so it will be self-financing in that sense. I am conscious that local government will say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?”. Local government often says that the Government do not provide enough funding for various things. How was this figure arrived at? Where did it come from? Did the Government use some formula or methodology, or was is just a case of, “Oh, we’ve got a spare half a million knocking around and we can make it available”? I do not know. I want to understand how that figure came about. Again, I am sure that local government will say that it is nowhere near enough, as it would say about other things. I am thinking particularly of the Homelessness Reduction Act, where there is the risk of a very good piece of legislation being affected by the amount of money provided by the Government.
Lord Young of Cookham
I hope the noble Lord will accept that, unlike other occasions when new responsibilities have been imposed on local authorities, in this case we are actually offering to help them with some pump-priming finance before the revenue stream comes on board. I hope he will accept that this is a welcome step forward from other initiatives taken by Governments of all complexions, where local authorities have been asked to do things with no resources at all and no opportunity of self-funding downstream. I can only repeat what I read out a few moments ago: the Government estimate that local authorities will incur a new burden in respect of enforcement of £500,000. I will make detailed inquiries to see if we can shed more light on exactly where that sum came from and will write to the noble Lord, with copies to other Members who have shown an interest. I will do that before Report.
Lord Best
Will the proceeds of the financial penalties be hypothecated for more enforcement? Trading standards officers work very hard in very difficult circumstances, after all the cuts they have had to face. The danger is that the fines come in but go into the big pot of local government finance and are used—poor old local authorities have many other calls on their time and money.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks that the money will be reimbursed to the relevant section of the local authority that enforces this legislation and other related legislation dealing with rogue landlords.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the Minister for his response, and all other noble Lords who spoke in the debate. At this stage, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
“(d) the relevant person has made an application to the First-tier Tribunal under section 15 (recovery by relevant person of amount paid) and has recovered all or part of the amount or (as the case may be) the aggregate amount referred to in that section.”
Baroness Grender
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 6 is to allow tenants seeking repayment of illegal fees at the First-tier Tribunal to also be entitled to compensation, thereby encouraging tenants to go to tribunals as the enforcement agencies are so stretched, as we have just been discussing. I also see it as a deterrent to bad practice. It is in response to the Government’s claim that entitling tenants to compensation would create a double penalty on the landlord. However, we are advised by the lawyers at Generation Rent that tenants could still qualify for compensation under contract law. Trading standards will be responsible for enforcing the ban but, as we have discussed, it is not well funded and is already struggling to enforce existing regulations on letting agents.
Research in 2017 by Generation Rent found that 12% of lettings agents did not list their fees on their website, as required by the Consumer Rights Act. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute put it bluntly to the Commons Public Bill Committee in written evidence:
“With a cut of more than 50% of skilled officers in just over 7 years the burden on local trading standards services is unsustainable and this additional duty will simply will not be prioritised universally across the country”.
If that is the case, we need to encourage tenants or consumers to be their own enforcers, to recover illegal fees and be compensated for doing it. I think we are all realistic about how many tenants, with their busy lives, will actually do this. But offering the incentive to tenants and knowing it is there as a threat must be the right balance of carrot and stick to ensure that this excellent Bill is properly enforced despite the cuts to trading standards.
We recognise that the Government argue that the tenant can recover the illegal fees through the First-tier Tribunal and the major stick is the fine imposed by the local authority on the landlord or agent. However, the approach that I am proposing is not uncommon and would reflect the difference between private civil recourse and public regulation enforcement; for example, deposit protection law shows that penalties are not unusual in this context. If a deposit is not protected, the tenant is entitled to compensation at three times the deposit’s value. But ARLA has the Propertymark sanctions policy, which fines members who fail to use proper client money protection in the treatment of client money, including tenancy deposits. The amendment is an attempt to create a similar system.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 6, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, would amend Clause 8, which is concerned with financial penalties. The amendment adds paragraph (d) to subsection (4), which lists those situations where a financial penalty may not be imposed. The amendment, which I am happy to support, stops an enforcement authority imposing a fine where the relevant person has recovered funds through an application to the First-tier Tribunal. It seems to address an omission on the part of the Government and it is a sensible proposal.
Also in this group are Amendments 7 and 8, which I think would strengthen the Bill. Amendment 7 provides for the First-tier Tribunal to order the landlord or lettings agent to pay up to three times the sum of the prohibited payment that they improperly collected. There is no provision in the Bill for any form of compensation when a prohibited fee is charged and that in my opinion is a serious omission on the part of the Government. We believe that compensation will undoubtedly be appropriate in many cases given the likelihood that charging prohibited payments will cause tenants significant financial hardship.
Compensation would also act as an incentive for tenants to recover illegal fees where the enforcement authority is unable to enforce the law and would be appropriate recognition of the time and effort that it takes for an individual to enforce their rights through the courts. Compensation is an established principle in the consumer industry where one party is entrusted with another person’s money, in addition to enforcement penalties where rules or laws have been breached. This includes all sorts of bodies such as train operators, travel agents and lawyers. The idea of being paid compensation where the consumer has not been well served is well understood, and getting the money back is important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said.
My amendment is consistent with other legislation governing the private rented sector. I do not accept that compensation should be sacrificed in support of the Government’s aim that enforcement will be funded exclusively through fines. Amendment 8 seeks to add a further restriction on the termination of the tenancy. I believe this is a very important addition that brings a further element of fairness.
Section 21 notices have undoubtedly been abused in the past, to the considerable detriment of tenants. It would be a complete travesty if, having stood up for yourself and your rights, and having taken action to recover the money that was improperly taken from you, you are then punished, in effect, and served with a Section 21 notice to leave your property. This amendment seeks to ensure that that does not happen and that the victim—here, the tenant—cannot be treated in that way. I do not see why we would allow rogue landlords or letting agents to behave in this way. My amendment seeks to ensure that they cannot, by implementing that six-month cushion.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder whether my noble friend will address the point raised by the noble Baroness when she referred to the number of letting agents that did not obey the law on their websites. I have found that in many areas—including modern slavery, an issue I am particularly interested in—a number of people just do not obey the law. It seems to me that it would be odd if we left it to the local trading standards officers. What is the arrangement? If you find such a case, who in government is supposed to enforce it? This also is a piece that might be dealt with in this legislation. If it is true—I assume that it is—that 17% of letting agents do not even obey the law of having to say what their fees are, that is outrageous.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The Bill proposes a number of enforcement measures that offer a strong deterrent to irresponsible agents and landlords. It also makes provisions to enable tenants and other relevant people to recover unlawfully charged fees, if other attempts have failed, by going to the First-tier Tribunal, which will order reimbursement to the tenant of money that should not have been paid. Of course, tenants should get back any unlawful payments in full, whether that is direct from the landlord or agent, via their enforcement authority or through an order of the First-tier Tribunal. However, in certain instances, we think it is also appropriate for the landlord or agent to be issued with a financial penalty, as well as ensuring that the tenant receives their money back. This is to deter future non-compliance.
Amendment 6 prevents an enforcement authority imposing a financial penalty under Section 12 if the tenant has got their money back. We think that giving a power to impose financial penalties for breaches of the legislation is an important tool for enforcement authorities. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment 6. However, the enforcement guidance will stress that enforcement authorities should take account of the landlord’s and agent’s conduct and past behaviour when considering the level of financial penalty to charge, if any. This includes whether the landlord or agent has reimbursed the tenant quickly when asked to do so.
Turning to Amendments 7 and 8, while we think it is right that agents and landlords should be issued with a financial penalty, we do not think it is appropriate for the tenant to receive further compensation in addition to repayment of the money owed. To add compensation risks penalising agents and landlords multiple times for the same breach, which we do not believe is fair; for example, it would not be right to ask a landlord who has been fined up to £5,000 for an initial breach to also pay three times the amount of a prohibited payment to a tenant. This would in effect be two financial penalties for the same breach. The deterrent effect, mentioned by the noble Baroness in her opening remarks, would of course be secured by the fines under the Act.
It is also worth noting that Clause 17 already provides further protection to tenants by preventing landlords recovering their property via the Section 21 procedure in the Housing Act 1988 until they have repaid any unlawfully charged fees. This approach is in line with legislation that already applies; for example, where the How to Rent guide has not been provided or where a landlord has not secured the required licence for a house in multiple occupation. Further, Clause 4 ensures that any clause in the tenancy seeking to charge a prohibited fee is not binding on the tenant.
We do not consider that further provision is needed along the lines proposed by Amendment 8. For example, it is not fair if a landlord who appeals against the imposition of a financial penalty, and this appeal is upheld, is then restricted from using the no-fault eviction process for six months. Under the noble Lord’s amendment, this would be the case—although that may not be what he intended. We firmly believe that our existing approach restricting a landlord’s ability to serve a Section 21 notice strikes the right balance and offers a serious deterrent to non-compliance. I hope the noble Lord will not move his amendment.
I suspect the short answer to the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Deben is: the trading standards officer. I would like to write to my noble friend setting out in more detail what is being proposed, under both this and existing legislation, to prevent misleading information appearing on websites and tenants being misled.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I was a little surprised at the Minister’s response on the question of compensation. We would have a situation where a tenant is illegally charged a prohibited payment—it is against the law, and they have been wronged. The Minister says that, in those cases, compensation would not be appropriate. I do not understand that. Surely, as we have highlighted in other areas, it is totally reasonable that, if somebody has done someone a wrong—they have committed an offence, overcharged somebody—that person should be able to seek some sort of redress and have compensation paid to them. I do not see how the Minister can say that would not be fair.
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord has a choice. He can have either a situation where the tenant gets the compensation and there are no financial penalties imposed under the Bill, or the situation we suggest where the tenant gets his money back, the fine is imposed and the money goes to the local authority. What the noble Lord wants is for the landlord, in effect, to be penalised twice: first by paying compensation up to three times, and secondly by paying a fine up to £5,000. The Government’s position is that you can have one or the other, but doing both is not fair.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I think the Minister will find that, in other areas, people can be fined and be required to pay compensation as well, so I do not see the logic. Clearly, if it is an issue of amounts, that can be looked at. We are not going to agree on this, clearly. The principle that you can be fined and be required to pay compensation clearly is the case elsewhere. It is very unfair that the tenant—the victim, the person who has been out of pocket, ripped off and treated badly—should be thankful just to get their money back. It does not seem to be a very good place. Clearly, we are not going to agree on that at this stage.
Baroness Grender
I thank the Minister for his response, kind of. I gave four examples where, in industry, the Government do this already. It happens. I believe there is some merit in exploring it a bit further. If it is about the drafting, and one rules out the other, I am happy to look at how it is applied to the four existing examples where people are compensated and organisations are fined that I gave to the Committee. I would be very happy to look at that and work with officials before Report.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
On my Amendment 8, if somebody has gone to a tribunal and the landlord has won then fair enough, they should be protected, but I am trying to get to an example where someone has enforced their rights. This poor tenant cannot get compensation but they get their money back, then the next day a Section 21 notice is served on them. That is the issue I want to deal with. It is really unfair for the tenants in these situations—proved right in a court of law, then given a notice to leave the next day. Without this, that could still happen.
Lord Young of Cookham
The defect in the noble Lord’s amendment is that, if the landlord won the appeal, he would still be banned. As I said, that may not have been the noble Lord’s intention, but it is what the amendment would do.
I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, that I detect in the Committee enthusiasm for the two-track approach to penalties, for both the tenant and the local authorities recouping fines. That message has come through. Without giving any commitment, I will have another look at this, in view of the strength of feeling on the matter. I am happy to accept the noble Baroness’s offer.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Clearly, this must be a result of my poor drafting, as that was not my intention, which I hope I have explained. I am worried about the people who have been proved right in a court of law. I thank the Minister for his comments, but I hope that this can be looked at, as there is an issue. Someone who has enforced their rights should have some protection, even for a limited period—they should not be able to be evicted the next day through a notice being served. I thank the Minister for his offer.
Baroness Grender
I thank the Minister for his olive branch, which I happily and heartily accept. I look forward to at least trying to work in this area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee will recall that, as a result of pressure in this House and following the recommendations of a working group chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and me, the Government announced on 28 March last year that they would make it mandatory for all letting agents who handle client money to have client money protection in place.
Client money protection involves a separate, ring-fenced bank account, which, should a letting agent become insolvent, is not available to other creditors but belongs to the tenant, if it is rent paid in advance, or to the landlord, if it is rent due. Insurance is also part of client money protection. Making client money protection mandatory was widely welcomed—I remember congratulating the Minister at Question Time on the day he announced it. It safeguards both tenants and landlords, either from a business going bust or from an agent making off with the funds.
This was essential because, without this change in the law, only 60% of agents had such cover. Clients of the remaining 40%, perhaps unknown to them, were vulnerable to their money disappearing through poor business behaviour or fraud. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will recall, our working group heard heart-rending stories of tenants left without money and unable to move on to another property and of landlords losing serious money—sometimes their only source of income.
Furthermore, in business terms, there was—and still is—the lack of a level playing field because the good agents, particularly those in the professional organisations such as RICS or ARLA, which require client money protection, are at a competitive disadvantage, given the cost of coverage, in relation to the fly-by-nighters, if I might call them that. These are the letting agents which risk other people’s money by lowering costs because they do not have client money protection. We were therefore delighted with the Government’s announcement that CMP would be made compulsory.
However, the Government are making a mess of it, I am afraid. They have somehow managed to devise a scheme whereby the two major providers of CMP—the world-renowned and respected Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, or RICS, and Propertymark, the rebranded Association of Residential Letting Agents, or ARLA—will soon no longer be able to offer CMP to residential letting agents under their schemes, and will therefore have to withdraw from the market because the Government are insisting that their current £5 million coverage is increased to £200 million, with no cap on liability. So instead of bringing the 40% of letting agents that do not have client money protection up to the standard of the 60% that do—as we planned and hoped for and as the House supported—they are driving the schemes of the 60% out of business. You could not make it up.
The Minister knows all about this as he kindly met RICS, ARLA and me last week, but his department has failed to amend the scheme requirements to prevent this catastrophe which is about to happen. I should add that the requirements that are leading to this catastrophe were added by his department only in the last few weeks. They are not the criteria on which the impact assessment was based, they were not discussed in advance with the major players in the field, and they were not included in anything which went through your Lordships’ House.
I will start with RICS—a standard-setter for 150 years, with a proud record of driving up standards and protecting clients, and with a charter which reflects its role in promoting the public interest. Because of the ludicrous demands for recognition of a CMP scheme, it will close to residential agents a scheme which has run problem-free for over three decades and which, together with Propertymark, covers all the big residential letting agents.
RICS’s independent UK and Ireland regulatory board, chaired by Antony Townsend—who used to run the Solicitors Regulation Authority; he knows a thing or two about this—discussed this on Thursday following the meeting with the Minister, and concluded that RICS could not accept a situation in which the public interest functions of the institution, which upholds standards of almost 130,000 professionals and 11,000 regulated firms, were put at risk because it was exposed to unlimited liability. It would be inconsistent with its charter obligations. By opening itself up to potentially unlimited liabilities, no matter how rare, RICS would put its public interest duty at risk—a risk it is, understandably, not willing to take and which, I suggest, the Government should not be asking it to take.
The current RICS CMP scheme limits are £50,000 per claim and £5.3 million annual aggregate. Over the past five years, RICS has paid out residential client money loss claims totalling £49,000—less than £50,000 over a five-year period. That includes some tenant deposits because occasionally these are included. It is £50,000 in total over five years and it is now being asked to insure for £200 million. In fact, the highest single claim was under £13,000.
This is evidence that RICS more than adequately safeguards the public while ensuring that businesses are not adversely burdened by unnecessary CMP insurance costs, which of course are always finally passed on to consumers. Its scheme works for landlords and tenants because all client money held by RICS firms must be held in a separate, ring-fenced client account. Furthermore, deposits are already protected under the Housing Act 2004. Rents are covered under client money protection and deposits are protected quite separately under the 2004 Act.
However, the department is currently demanding that these deposits should be double insured by requiring them, in addition to the Housing Act requirement, to be covered by the CMP scheme. That makes absolutely no sense and I do not know whether it is actually legitimate. Certainly concerns have been raised by insurers as regards whether any such money should be double insured. Insurers have also indicated that there is not the capacity in the market to provide suitable cover for the largest agents that include tenancy deposits.
The figures I have quoted do not come just from RICS. The other professional body for letting agents, ARLA, has its own scheme which has been running since January 2008. Over the past 10 years it has paid out just over £2 million to landlords and tenants, and that includes one year with 10 agents going bust where those claims involved pay-outs of just over £1.3 million. The other nine years saw pay-outs of under £1 million in total. Under that scheme, the average number of claims a year is four. The average loss from claims over the last 10 years was less than £70,000. The last large claim of over £100,000 was in 2013, some five years ago. No major corporate agency has ever claimed on the scheme, yet we were told when we had a meeting with the Minister that the new requirements were being added to protect the really big agents. Because of the big schemes, which have never claimed, all the schemes will have to increase their cover from £5 million to £200 million. That is completely disproportionate, it is not based on evidence, and it is unrealistic. Why should ARLA’s cover, if its anticipated annual scheme loss, based on nearly two decades of experience, is around a quarter of a million pounds, be almost 100 times that? Also, why is this very last-minute change being made in the department’s approach?
Until 16 October, ARLA had been given the impression that CMP schemes would not have to cover tenants’ deposits already protected in insurance-backed tenancy deposit protection schemes, which of course are themselves authorised by the Government under the Housing Act 2004. It quite accepts that unprotected deposits are to be covered by CMP, meaning that no tenant should be left at risk. That is what was agreed with officials on 14 August and it was the basis on which ARLA submitted its application for approval on 12 September, as had been discussed ever since this was agreed last year. On 16 October the department suddenly said that it now expected CMP schemes to cover deposits that are already protected. This represents double insurance of the deposits because they are covered by both TDP and CMP, something that has certainly been questioned by ARLA’s insurer, Gallagher. I am happy to share that letter with the Minister if that would help.
In addition to the 3,000 member firms with less than £1 million in their client accounts, Propertymark has a little over 200 firms with more than that amount—the bigger ones that we were told we had to cover. Most have less than £1 million in their client accounts, so insuring for £200 million sounds a little unnecessary. The 200 firms that have more than £1 million have a combined total of £889 million in client funds, with £500 million of that coming from the top 16 businesses.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her imaginative use of Clause 21 in the Bill. She explained the story behind the amendment; I know that the Minister, who was so involved and helpful in getting client money protection on to the statute book, will understand it.
I will not repeat the wonderful arguments made by the noble Baroness but the principle behind this has always been that client money protection was operated voluntarily by 60% of the market. It was the 40% who did not cover themselves voluntarily that we had to deal with. Against the background of what has happened in the department in putting this situation into practice, it seems that we are covering the 40% but are in grave danger of losing the 60%, who will not want the situation outlined by the noble Baroness.
There is a problem because large firms and organisations deal with large sums of money going through their books, in their bank accounts and in their clients’ accounts. Therefore, such firms are exposed. That is how the department has come to the figure of £200 million for cover; it feels that the firms need to be insured to cover that exposure. With respect, the department has not looked at the real world, where the large firms and organisations described by the noble Baroness reduce their exposure by placing funds in custodial TDP schemes, thus reducing the amount that they hold. So, you do not need insurance to such levels because, to use an analogy, the firms will do what the betting industry does in laying off bets and what the reinsurance industry does in laying off their insurance risks on others in the industry.
Therefore, in very simple terms, without repeating anything she said, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I hope the department will look into not having a vast £200 million cover because it is not needed. It will frighten off the 60% who already cover themselves voluntarily under client money protection. There is no need for this large sum. Everything else in the Bill is right; we have made great strides in client money protection. The noble Baroness mentioned the status quo; we should let sleeping dogs lie so that we can get CMP operating properly and not frighten off large firms. They may be unduly frightened but they can take action by putting money in custodial funds. I support the amendment.
Lord Deben
I wonder if I can help the noble Lord. I know he always worries when I get up and say that I am going to be helpful, but on this occasion I might be. I remind the Committee that I am chairman of the organisation that represents independent financial advisers and those who deal with wealth management. Therefore, I understand a lot about the parallel circumstances referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, when she pointed out the protection accorded to bank accounts and the different sorts of protection in the financial services industry. What I really want to say is that I hope my noble friend will think very carefully about this because we have seen the huge difficulty that people now have—even the most excellent of firms—in getting proper protection from the insurance industry.
The noble Baroness made an important point about being proportionate as to what the real risks are. I want to make a point about the dangers of not being proportionate. This is an industry of great importance and I am absolutely excited by the Bill because it does a whole lot of things that need to be done. However, we have to be very careful about importing into it those things that will result in unexpected and unwanted additional results.
I am not sure that civil servants are always as expert in these detailed aspects of insurance as those who deal with them daily. All the advice is that there really is no need to protect any more than the kind of protection that ARLA and RICS already provide. You do not really need that advice: the fact is that they have run the system very effectively up to now. I remind my noble friend that the party he represents is always very much in favour of free enterprise and people getting together to organise things on their own. Would it therefore not be a good idea for us to be very careful about not taking that advice?
We know that the 40% that do not belong to these organisations are, by nature, either not very careful or painfully close to the edge of the law. There is a real range. But I remind the Committee of the last speaker, who rightly said that we do not want to enfranchise the 40% by disfranchising the 60%. That does not seem a sensible answer. I hope my noble friend will take the advice of those who have had to deal with these things in other areas: that it is extremely dangerous if you get yourself into a position in which you lay too heavy a weight of insurance when it is not necessary. I have a long history of defending the consumer, but I do not see how consumers are better protected by excluding from the market the two organisations that have so far dominated it—if that is the right word.
The last thing I want to say is this: I have often spent time trying to encourage ARLA to become a more professional body. One of the successes of recent years has been precisely that, and we ought to be encouraged by what ARLA has done. It would therefore be a great pity if, on this occasion, we ignored its experience, which has come about through its own change from its history to today, or indeed the 150 years’ experience of RICS.
Lord Best
I want to offer my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who has done so well in getting us to this point with CMP. It is so disappointing for those of us who have supported her efforts to hear of this last-minute significant hitch. The reason that a number of us were very supportive of CMP being introduced was not because of the 60% but because of the 40%. It was not just to make sure that the 40% had some insurance so that landlords’ and tenants’ money was properly protected. It was rather more sinister than that: it was to drive out that part of the 40% that just would not be able to get insurance, because when their accounts were viewed by those providing insurance, they would be told, “I’m sorry, we’re not insuring you”. This was, and I hope still will be, a way of weeding out the fly-by-night agents who set up shop and who we do not need in this business.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for all the work they have done and continue to do in this area. As they will be aware—indeed, the noble Baroness was fair and set it out—I became aware of this problem only in the middle of last week. Since then we have met and, I think, moved things forward. I repeat that we will go away and look at this and carry on our engagement with the noble Baroness, ARLA and RICS. That remains the position. I want to reassure myself that we are being fair to all tenants over the protection of deposits. If that is the case, I will be reassured, but I want to go away and make sure that it is.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, in so far as money is held in custodial deposits, these will fall outside this cap and will not need insurance. I think I made this point when we met. We are taking this forward. In particular, we will not require the double deposits. That is entirely wrong. I can give that reassurance: we will not need cover for that.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
The Minister is emphasising the point that if the money held by these large organisations is in custodial deposits, there is no need for insurance. Therefore, this large sum is not necessary. I thank him.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am absolutely clear on that. The cap that we are talking about will not be appropriate in that regard. As I say, I have only just become aware of this. It is a significant issue. I am very happy to engage with the noble Baroness, who probably understands these things better than anyone else in your Lordships’ House, and to carry on the discussion with RICS. I hope on that basis she will withdraw her opposition to Clause 21 standing part.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister. I think he has said more than in our meeting. In our meeting, he said that he would look at the double insurance. Today he has gone a little further and stated that this CMP scheme will not have to cover already protected deposits. That is a large part of it, for which the organisations will be grateful. The other part—the level of coverage—is still important. I know that the Government are well aware of this. I know this is very different from the space industry but a similar discussion happened on the Space Industry Bill, recognising that unlimited issues simply cannot be insured, and the Government agreed to move on that.
For the moment, I will not divide the Committee on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. However, a tiny word of warning: client money protection is mentioned in the Bill, which means that amendments will be in scope when it comes to Report. On that basis, I shall not oppose Clause 21 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Shipley
“(2A) If the lead enforcement authority is the Secretary of State, it is the duty of the lead enforcement authority to issue guidance, in the form of regulations made by statutory instrument, to enforcement authorities about the exercise of their functions under this Act.(2B) If subsection (2A) does not apply, it is the duty of the lead enforcement authority to draft guidance to enforcement authorities about the exercise of their functions under this Act, which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament in the form of regulations made by statutory instrument.(2C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Lord Shipley
My Lords, this grouping is extremely important. The intentions behind my Amendment 9 and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, are broadly similar. The Bill says, in the subsection that I seek to delete:
“It is the duty of the lead enforcement authority to issue guidance to enforcement authorities about the exercise of their functions under this Act”.
This is not sufficient. The problem is that if we have only guidance, the likely result will be that too many people will decide not to implement it. In Amendment 9, I seek to change “guidance” to,
“guidance, in the form of regulations made by statutory instrument”.
Proposed new subsection (2C) makes clear that there should be:
“A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section … subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament”.
In other words, it gives power to Parliament to ensure that the regulations are strong enough. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said a while ago that there are people who do not obey the law. He is right, but I would add that there are even more people who do not obey guidance. In this situation, we need to stiffen up our legislation. I fear that, if we end up passing the Bill, the Act will be difficult to implement because too many people will decide that this is enforced only by guidance that is not strong enough. I am very keen to hear from the Minister what the problem is in converting what is currently proposed guidance into formal regulation giving Parliament the power to agree, or not, with what is proposed. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to that question, which to me is very important. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
If Amendment 9 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 10 because of pre-emption.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 9, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, as we have heard from him, seeks to put the guidance issued by the enforcement authority on a statutory footing. That is a very good idea. It gives clarity and certainty, which is missing from what is proposed by the Government at present: guidance not backed up by anything at all. It is proposed to make this guidance statutory via the negative resolution procedure, which I think is right in these circumstances.
Amendment 10 in my name proposes to do exactly the same thing in slightly different wording. As I said on a previous group, I was pleased to receive the guidance on Friday, before Committee stage. I am aware that the Government have consulted various stakeholders over the past few months. It would be good to understand, when the Minister responds to this debate, what the status of the guidance we already have is. Does he expect it to change much more when it is finally agreed, or does he think it is just about there? Is further consultation expected? I very much share the view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Making draft guidance available is good, but that is insufficient to remove the need for guidance to be made subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the negative procedure. It is important that both Houses look at this stuff in detail and are able to discuss it and say what they believe is right and wrong. We have come back to the guidance a number of times—we will keep coming back to this—and I just do not accept that guidance not backed up by regulation is sufficient. There is always this risk that it has no legal status. It can just be ignored, as well as adhered to. I look forward to the Minister’s comments on this.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have participated in the consideration of enforcement authorities and the guidance, which we have supported so far. I am very grateful for their engagement on this part of the Bill. I am also grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its general scrutiny of the Bill.
I acknowledge the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Shipley, on the enforcement guidance, but I maintain that it is not necessary, and indeed somewhat unusual, for such guidance to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I have already outlined some parallel examples where guidance has been given just as guidance on legislation under successive Governments in this century—the Local Government Act 2003, the Planning Act 2008 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, to cite just three. There are many instances in statute and I argue that this is commonplace.
However, to give the reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in particular asked about, we are still engaging with key stakeholders and enforcement authorities, as we have been doing throughout. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, he very fairly talked about my having shared drafts of the guidance ahead of Committee, and indeed I have offered—and offer again—to engage with noble Lords ahead of Report on the content of the guidance. We are working on it with key stakeholders, representative organisations and enforcement authorities, and, as I said, I am very willing to engage with noble Lords on it too.
I have indicated that there would be a delay if we were to seek to put this in regulations, and I think it would also sacrifice a degree of flexibility. However, on the basis of what I hope noble Lords will agree is my openness in offering not just to share the guidance, which we have done, but to share in engagement on the guidance, I hope that at this stage the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Does the noble Lord accept that such guidance, compared with regulations, has less force behind it?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord has made that point before. I think it is a case of what is appropriate. I absolutely agree that some things are appropriately put in regulations, but others are appropriately put in guidance. We have both: we have some things in the legislation and others in guidance. I would argue that what we have in the guidance is appropriate for the way that we are proceeding.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I accept that the noble Lord believes that this is appropriate. However, my point is that you can have both but what the Government have chosen is of less value compared with having it in regulations.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I suspect that we disagree on this point. There are many occasions when I agree with the noble Lord but on this point I do not.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, I have found what the Minister has said helpful but I do not feel that it is satisfactory. I am concerned by the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It has raised concerns about legislation which is to be supported only through guidance. Paragraph 55 of the report makes it very clear that the committee thinks that the guidance should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny—in this case with the negative procedure.
I hope that there might be an opportunity for us to talk in a little more detail on this issue. My fear is that this Parliament will pass legislation which is not implemented fully because it is not strong enough to be enforced on the ground. I do not think that guidance on its own is sufficient and I would like there to be much firmer regulation. However, I will read Hansard very carefully tomorrow and will possibly hope to meet the Minister before Report to see whether there is any way in which we can build a framework that is stronger than simply guidance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Report on operation of Tenant Fees Act
(1) The Secretary of State shall within a period of 12 months from the date of commencement of this Act and annually for the four years thereafter lay before Parliament a report on the operation of this Act, setting out—(a) the number of breaches of sections 1 and 2;(b) the number and amounts of financial penalties levied by enforcement authorities; and(c) the number of criminal prosecutions commenced and concluded in each 12-month period.(2) The report must also consider the impact of the provisions of this Act on the private rental sector including—(a) market competitiveness,(b) market transparency, and(c) vulnerable tenants, in particular in relation to how local authorities are able to discharge their duties to prevent homelessness.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 11 seeks to put a new clause into the Bill. If agreed, it would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament within 12 months, then every four years after that. The report would provide valuable information on the number of breaches, financial penalties levied and criminal prosecutions in each 12-month period. It must also consider the points as listed in proposed new subsection (2), which are important when looking at the impact of the Act on the sector. I suspect that the amendment will not be greeted with great enthusiasm from the Minister, but can he tell the Committee whether any of the information referred to in the amendment would be collected by the department anyway? I may have a few more questions for the Minister after listening to his response. I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment. I assure him that we plan to monitor the implementation of the Bill through continual engagement with key stakeholder groups, represented landlords, agents, tenants and those in housing need, as well as through wider intelligence from agencies such as the lead enforcement authority and trading standards, which will enforce the requirements of the Bill.
I have no difficulty with the objectives of the noble Lord’s proposed new clause. However, bits of it are impractical. We will not be able to identify all the breaches of Clauses 1 and 2 as set out in proposed new paragraph (a) because we will be encouraging tenants to challenge their landlords and agency with a view to rectifying breaches if they have been charged prohibited fees. The enforcement authorities would not be involved if the breach were resolved between the tenant and the landlord, so it would not be possible to record every time that this happens.
However, owing to the reporting requirements set out in the Bill under Clause 14, information on the number of financial penalties and criminal convictions under the ban will be captured by the lead enforcement authority. In the light of what the noble Lord suggested, we will consider how best to share this information with Parliament. Both agents and landlords that are banned from operating will be captured on the rogue landlord database; the Prime Minister made it clear that we plan to make this information public. Local housing authorities also have powers to include persons convicted of a breach of the fees ban on that database, as well as including persons who received two or more financial penalties in a year for any banning order offence committed at a time when the person was a residential landlord or a property agent.
Further, Clause 23 places a duty on the lead enforcement authority to keep under review social and commercial development relating to the letting sector and the operation of relevant letting agency legislation, as well as to advise the Secretary of State about it from time to time. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that we will track and review the effectiveness and enforcement of the ban and its impact on the private rented sector. I hope that will we achieve what his amendment wants but we do not think it necessary to prescribe further reporting requirements in the Bill. As I said, we will consider how best to make this information available in the light of the debate.
We will also, as the noble Lord may know, review the legislation within five years in line with normal practice and submit that review to the appropriate Select Committee in the other place. We do not intend to review the Bill in isolation. Recently a number of legislative changes have been made to the lettings industry with more planned related to the regulation of letting agents. These changes, along with the Bill, support and deliver on our commitment to rebalance the relationship between tenants and landlords and to make renting fairer. We will keep all of these issues under review. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord for that response and I am pleased with some of the commitments that he has made. At this point I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(3A) A person is not a letting agent for the purposes of this Act if—(a) that person only accepts instructions from a landlord who occupies the housing as their only or principal home; and(b) the tenant pays no rent or occupation charge to the landlord save that the tenant pays a contribution to the utility costs of the housing; and(c) the landlord receives no rent or payment related to the letting from the letting agent or any other party; and(d) the purpose of the letting is to promote the landlord’s well-being.(3B) In subsection (3A)—(a) “only or principal home” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Housing Act 1988;(b) “utility costs” includes the residential costs of gas, electricity, water, telecommunications and internet;(c) “well-being” has the same meaning as in section 1(2) of the Care Act 2014.”
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, this amendment builds on the points raised by my noble friend Lady Jenkin in her speech at Second Reading relating to home share schemes. I am aware that in his summing up of that debate, my noble friend the Minister noted that this is an issue he is keen to resolve. I hope that this amendment will go some way to achieving that.
Clause 25 sets out the meaning of the term “letting agent”. However, as currently drafted the Bill is likely to define home share organisations as letting agencies and to ban them from charging young people who currently pay a contribution towards those organisations’ costs. Although home share is relatively small in this country it helps several hundred older and younger people. It is an approach that I believe has great potential. Indeed, before I joined your Lordships’ House, as the chief executive of SafeLives we developed a partnership with Homeshare, looking to use the scheme to support the victims and the perpetrators of domestic abuse.
My amendment seeks to ensure that home share schemes are explicitly excluded from the definition as it stands. As drafted, it seeks to capture the essence of home share arrangements and to distinguish them from those of commercial letting agents. I have tried to put in the technical aspects of the arrangement; namely, the nature of the instructions from the landlord, the absence of any rent or occupation charge from either the tenant or the home share organisation and the potential contribution by the tenant towards utility costs, as well as, crucially, the purpose of the scheme. The purpose must be quite clear: it is to promote the landlord’s well-being. The amendment also clarifies the meaning of the term “principal home” in line with Section 1 of the Housing Act 1988; “utility costs” which could also potentially include additional council tax; and “well-being” in line with Section 1(2) of the Care Act 2014.
The amendment is needed to ensure that home share can continue to grow in the UK. It helps hundreds of isolated and lonely older people. I have spoken to a number of family members whose parents are supported through home share schemes and they could not praise them enough for the support their parents receive. It also has the potential to help thousands in the future. This is clearly timely given the epidemic of loneliness that we hear so much about facing not only older people. There is increasing evidence that it is an issue for younger people as well. Indeed, without addressing the definition of a letting agent to explicitly exclude home share schemes, their sustainability will be put at risk.
In her speech, my noble friend Lady Jenkin articulated powerfully the scheme’s strengths, highlighting the human benefits to both the landlord and the home sharer, the contribution to the duties of the local authority under the Care Act 2014 and, importantly, the potential for these schemes to be financially sustainable. The quality of the relationship between the two individuals in the home share scheme is crucial to its success. It is specifically for people whose primary motivation is not commercial but who each want to contribute to the other’s life. It is vital to frame an exemption for genuine home share agencies from the prohibition on charging tenants, without creating a loophole for commercial letting agents.
To reiterate, the amendment seeks to exempt from the fees prohibition house-sharing arrangements that meet four tests. The first test is that they have been arranged by an organisation that recruits, vets, supports and, where appropriate, trains people for the purposes of providing support in a shared home environment. The second test is that the individual with the licence to occupy pays no rent. The third test is that they contribute to an agreed level of companionship, care or support. The fourth test is that it happens in the home of an individual who requires that support. To be absolutely clear, in this arrangement the homeowner receives no rent or any payment from the agency.
As I mentioned at the beginning, home share helps hundreds of young and old people in the UK, but if we look at home share as it works in Europe, we see that it has the potential to help thousands more. I hope that this amendment is a step towards making sure that that becomes reality. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Shipley
My Lords, very briefly, I spoke at Second Reading on the importance of exempting home-share schemes from the impact of the Bill. It seems to me that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, addresses the problem. I hope very much that the Minister is in a receptive mood.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I am happy to have added my name to Amendment 12, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. As we have heard, these issues were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, at Second Reading.
In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness explained in detail that it would exempt people from being letting agents and being caught by the Bill’s provisions if they meet a number of conditions, as set out. She makes a very fair point. One thing we do not want to do, as is always a risk when passing legislation, is for it to have unintended consequences. This amendment seeks to stop that, so that the good work being done through this scheme—where no rent changes hands, and people give each other mutual support and contribute to utility bills—will not be caught by the legislation. I am happy to support the noble Baroness in finding a way forward to protect the scheme. If the Minister will not accept this amendment, I hope he will give a commitment to the Grand Committee that the Government understand this is an issue and will table their own amendment on Report.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this amendment, in particular my noble friend Lady Barran. I worked with her when she was involved in SafeLives and I know about the excellent work of that organisation with Homeshare on some issues. I also pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Jenkin, who is currently in Myanmar or Bangladesh dealing with refugee issues.
The House came together on this issue at Second Reading—quite rightly. It is clear that we all support the valuable work done by home-share organisations in matching an older person with low-level support needs with a younger person in housing need. It is an admirable arrangement and I quite understand that the organisation does not want this to be characterised as rent. That is not the nature of the relationship. Again, the House was clear about that.
In a normal situation, the younger person will provide help with tasks, typically cleaning, shopping and gardening, and of course friendship and companionship in return for low-cost accommodation. It is a key policy challenge, which Homeshare supports for the country as a whole, helping an ageing population live in their own homes for longer and addressing issues of loneliness. In short, it is a good. At the same time, it helps a younger person in housing need find an affordable and safe home—something that is a key priority for my department and for the Government as a whole.
I am sure that the matching of two sets of needs through a single project is laudable and something that should be encouraged to grow. Home-share schemes provide ongoing support and reassurance to both householders and home sharers to ensure that the arrangement is beneficial to both. Unless we act, this would fall foul of the legislation, as has been pointed out; it is an unintended consequence. We will continue to work on that and I will undertake to come back to it on Report. I am more than happy to do that, although there is still work to be done. However, I am sure that we can take this forward.
I have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by noble Lords. As I indicated at Second Reading, I am extremely sympathetic to them and we will do something on this. We will return to the matter on Report. With those reassurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, can I be absolutely clear on what the Minister is saying? He will bring back on Report or perhaps at Third Reading an amendment that will deal with this issue.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I hope to engage with noble Lords ahead of that to discuss the way forward, but I am keen that we should deal with this. I have indicated that it is not appropriate to deal with it by private arrangements with the organisation because I do not think that that would satisfy its legitimate desire to ensure that this is not a tenancy-type agreement.
Baroness Barran
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reassuring comments and warm reflections on the work of Homeshare. I believe that he said that it is a good thing, in the spirit of 1066 And All That. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
In moving Amendment 13 I shall speak also to Amendment 14, which is tabled in my name. Both amendments seek to highlight what is often, unfortunately, a recurring theme: the time it can take to make progress on important issues.
Under Clause 28, it will be a whole year after the Act comes into force before landlords will be subject to the consequences of the law if they make a tenant pay a prohibited payment. To be clear, that is not a year after the Act becomes law because Section 1 will not come into force until the Secretary of State decides by regulation when it should do so. We actually have no idea when it will come into force, if ever. It will certainly be some time after the Bill is enacted, and that is totally unacceptable. That is why I tabled Amendment 14, as it would bring the Act into force on the day it becomes law. Can the Minister please tell the Grand Committee when he thinks this legislation will come into force if he is not minded to agree to my amendment?
I remind the Minister and the Committee that it will be nearly two and a half years since the Government announced their intention to ban fees. Shelter has highlighted that that means spring next year at the earliest, and perhaps later. It will have taken longer to design and implement the ban on letting agent fees than the Government have taken to negotiate the Brexit deal. We will still have to wait with bated breath to see whether we end up with the final 5%, but that puts in context how long we have been waiting for this, and we still will not get there.
The delay in implementing the ban does not come without a price. We have already seen examples of some agents hiking fees in anticipation of the ban and, as a result, many tenants are currently facing even higher up-front costs than before the ban was announced. This waiting period is causing people real problems. The average letting fee among those who have paid fees appears to have risen significantly over the past two years. A survey of private renters shows that the average letting fee is £246, which is a significant rise compared with the average of £182 just a couple of years ago. The Government must recognise the price that people who rent are paying while waiting for these policies to be put into practice, and they must ensure that the Act comes into force on the day it is passed, as my amendment seeks.
The letting industry has known for many years that this ban would be coming and it has had sufficient time to adapt its business models. This delay is very disappointing and I hope that the Minister and his department will be able to respond positively. We need a fixed date and to get this legislation implemented as soon as is reasonably possible. We have waited far too long. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender
My Lords, I support these amendments. I have already raised my considerable concern about the timings. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, the Government announced this measure in the autumn of 2016, at the same time as my Private Member’s Bill was progressing through the House, and I was absolutely delighted at their announcement. However, it feels as though it is taking a very long time. I know that the Ministers concerned are not responsible for that—they have worked very hard to push this through.
When the Government first started consulting on this issue, they rightly changed their mind and agreed to take a look at it. The consultation showed that the poorest tenants are being ripped off time and again, and that will not stop. If anything, it will get worse in the intervening period before this legislation is introduced. I am hugely in support of the legislation being introduced as quickly as possible. Generation Rent was talking to me about this only this morning. It is receiving evidence that letting agents are becoming more assertive over their administration fees to make up for what they believe to be a shortfall.
As I said at Second Reading, other organisations are playing a significant role in this matter. OpenRent, which I will mention in later arguments, started in 2012 and is now the largest letting agent in England and Wales. It has made a profitable model on the basis of never charging fees to tenants. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for an industry to be ahead of the legislation. However, with the exceptions that I have described, this particular industry is not ahead of the legislation, although it has been warned again and again. There has been working group after working group on this issue.
I was absolutely delighted that the Government decided, very wisely, in the Autumn Budget Statement of 2016 to flex their muscles and get on with this, but we need to do it. I would find any further delay, or suggestion of it, in the Bill extremely worrying, which is why I support the amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to noble Lords for taking part in the debate. They have made their impatience over the date of commencement absolutely clear. We agree that we want this legislation to come into force as soon as possible, not least to protect the tenants referred to by noble Lords.
However, we need to strike a fair balance between protecting tenants and allowing landlords and letting agents time to become compliant with the legislation. The ban is not about unfairly penalising landlords and letting agents or driving them out of business. We have said that implementation will not be before April 2019; we intend it to be as soon as possible after that. Of course, at the moment we do not know when it might get Royal Assent. I understand that but we believe that there needs to be a reasonable gap between it reaching the statute book and it being implemented.
Turning to Amendment 13, the transitional provisions in Clause 28 provide that for the period of a year, the ban will not apply to tenancies whose terms were agreed prior to commencement. Similar transitional provisions are made for agents’ agreements with tenants. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks to reduce the period in which a landlord or agent could accept a payment prohibited by Clause 1 from one year to six months. We have already sought to give tenants greater clarity and protection with respect to the commencement date. Crucially, we have revised our position from that in the draft Bill, where there was no end date by which fees could be charged in pre-commencement tenancies. There has been a considerable shift towards protecting those who have already signed their contracts.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, recognised that a transition period is necessary—his amendment proposes a slightly shorter one—because although most fees are charged at the outset of a tenancy, some landlords and agents will have agreed that tenants should pay other fees, such as a check-out inventory fee, at a later stage. Tenants will have signed contracts accordingly; we need to allow time for landlords and agents to renegotiate them to ensure that the legislation does not have a significant retrospective effect.
Our view is that 12 months is fair for the transition period. Data from the English Housing Survey shows that 45% of tenants had an initial tenancy of 12 months and 36% had one of six months. Reducing the period in which a landlord or agent could accept a payment prohibited by Clause 1 would mean that more landlords and agents with pre-commencement tenancies would be at risk of not being able to renegotiate their contracts and would not receive fees that the tenant had previously agreed to pay. Again, we do not believe that this would be fair.
We recognise the importance of having a clear point where the fees ban applies to all tenancies. As drafted, the transitional provisions mean that all tenants will receive the benefits of the fees ban one year after it comes into force; as I said earlier, initially there was no such arrangement. Unlike the proposed amendment, the provisions ensure that agents and landlords will not be significantly impacted on financially and will have the opportunity to review their contracts during the transitional year. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment against the background of that explanation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I thank the noble Lord for responding to the debate. I suppose that we will not agree, which is disappointing. It is a shame that although there is a lot of good stuff in this legislation that we can support, things take such a long time, as I said in my introduction. That is a recurring theme with the noble Lord’s department, which I have raised many times in other consultations and discussions on this. It often seems like we are pulling teeth to get things moving along. So we are frustrated at the length of time these things take, and that is why we have taken a stand on this.
I also tabled Amendment 14, which seeks to bring the Act into force on the day on which it is passed. My frustration here is the fact that, even when it is passed, we then have to wait for an SI to be tabled to bring it into force. I have no certainty as to whether it will ever come into force; potentially, it could be left there and might never happen. I am sure that will not be the case, but the Committee will see that there is no certainty as to an agreed date. That is very frustrating, and I may come back to this point on Report. At this stage, however, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
Baroness Grender
Amendment 23 takes us to the default payments issue, which, as the Minister is aware, we have discussed in considerable detail. And I am sure we are about to discuss it in considerable detail again. In summary, Amendment 23 removes the provision that would allow default payments, and in Amendment 24 we explore the option that prohibited default payments should be included in the Bill.
We welcome the greater transparency as a result of proceedings in the Commons, but still argue that this is unnecessary and that current legislation will cover all worst-case scenarios. We have had quite a debate about whether or not there could be anything other than a lost key or security device, or the late payment of interest. I have gone to great lengths to consider as many scenarios as possible to get us beyond a lost key or security device or the late payment of interest.
Imagine the following scenario: a decent landlord or a decent, fully accredited lettings agency running a block of 10 flats. Nine of the households are good, law-abiding tenants but one tenant is a problem. They park their car in front of the fire escape, and the lettings agency has to move it, and they leave rubbish and old food to mould on the carpets in common parts, incurring a cost to the lettings agency. Here, I am trying to imagine as much as possible beyond what seems to me to be a very small cost—such as a lost key—which could be borne by the landlord, but I will come on to that.
If we remove default fees from the Bill then the following will happen. First, if an agent incurs costs for these actions, they would be able to recharge these to the landlord immediately. The landlord could then recover the costs via the deposit, provided they could show evidence that the tenant had caused the damage, and evidence of the additional cost and the reasonable costs incurred. Secondly, if a landlord incurs these costs, the landlord would incur the cost initially and then recover this via the deposit at the end of the tenancy. Again, they would need to be able to provide evidence to the Deposit Protection Scheme that the tenant had caused the damage and of the reasonable costs incurred as a result. If this results in the landlord or agent incurring vast costs as a result of the tenant’s actions—although we have very little evidence to that effect so far, and the Minister would agree that we do not yet know about this—the landlord could use a Section 8 notice to evict the tenant for breaching the terms of their tenancy agreement for damage to the property or even potentially for being involved in antisocial behaviour. I fully recognise that landlords have concerns about the court system and that there are frustrations over the current Section 8 process, but that is not something that this Bill is expected to fix. We welcome the fact that the housing call for evidence announced by James Brokenshire is taking place.
It is important to remember that in the current draft of the Bill, default fees must be written into the tenancy agreement in advance if they are to be permitted. It is quite unlikely that the potential breaches I have described—or have tried to imagine on behalf of noble Lords—would be written into the tenancy agreement with an associated fee for breaching them. Therefore there is no guarantee that a landlord or an agent would be able to charge a default fee for these offences anyway. This scenario is about compensation, damages and losses caused to the landlord or the agency by the tenant’s misbehaviour. A no fees clause could fairly cover that situation as the amount of the loss has to be assessed according to the facts of each case.
There might be a way for these defaults to be written into a tenancy agreement, but that is likely to be part of a broad catch-all term such as, “You will be charged the reasonable cost to the landlord or letting agent for failing to act in a tenant-like manner in relation to common parts of the building”. But including default fees in this way is unfair because it is difficult for a tenant to assess what is expected of them. It would be better for these sorts of charges to come from the deposit where there is independent arbitration. Such a catch-all clause would also be an unfair contract term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 because it purports to give the landlord a power to charge costs for damages without any control or adjudication by a court or an alternative dispute resolution scheme.
Overall, even if default fees were allowed, they would never be a remedy for these scenarios anyway. These examples are about damages claims and, if serious enough, they will become the basis for possession claims as well as money claims. If we remove default fees and rely on deposits, does that become an unbearable cost to the agency or landlord with too long a gap because a deposit can be recouped only when there is a change of tenancy? It could be argued that there is some tension between putting all defaults through the deposit system on the one hand while on the other hand encouraging longer tenancies than the usual six or 12-month assured shorthold tenancies. We think that there are a couple of strong arguments against this.
First, the aim of the Bill is not to encourage longer tenancies, but about ensuring fairness in the lettings market and making sure that tenants are protected from unfair charges. Ensuring that landlords can charge tenants for additional costs they incur during the tenancy, as opposed to waiting until the end of the tenancy to recover such costs from the deposit, is not an effective way of giving renters more security. If the Government genuinely want to ensure that renters are given more security, they need to change the law to give them longer tenancies. I am delighted that they are looking into that.
Secondly, most of these costs, such as replacing a key or the interest due on late rent, are small ones that a landlord should be able to cover for the duration of the time the tenant lives in the property. If the costs are so high that a landlord feels the need to end the tenancy so that they can recover them from the deposit, it is likely that this will stray into the territory where the landlord will have a ground for possession of the property. In those circumstances, the landlord is likely to want the tenancy to end as soon as possible. I go back to my scenario of the 10 flats. Even if landlords charge for these defaults during the tenancy, they will probably be keen for the tenancy to end as soon as possible if the tenant is causing them to incur such high costs. It seems unlikely that they would renew the tenancy when the initial fixed term comes to an end or continue with the statutory periodic tenancy.
With smaller costs, we see it as appropriate that a landlord should absorb them or a letting agent should charge them to the landlord as a business cost. This is particularly relevant to my example of 10 flats as the landlord will have nine other reliable streams of income which should allow for some short-term absorption of costs before recovering them from the deposit. This brings me back to the point already raised: why is this section necessary when Section 213 of the Housing Act 2004 and possession under Section 8 of the Housing Act 1988 already exist? In Scotland there is no default fee. On Shelter Scotland’s website it says:
“Legislation explicitly prohibits charging a tenant for drawing up a lease or requiring a ‘premium’ for the granting or renewal of an assured or short assured tenancy. See section 82 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1984—applied to assured tenancies by section 27 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. Section 90 of the 1984 Act defines a ‘premium’ as ‘any fine, sum or pecuniary consideration, other than the rent, and includes any service or administration fee or charge’”.
The more I look at this, the more I am tempted to believe that this is merely a compensation device for an industry that has had fair warning for years and has simply failed to be ahead of the legislation—with significant exceptions. I have already mentioned OpenRent, which started in 2012 and is now the largest lettings agency in England and Wales. It says:
“We’re against any back-door tactics or loopholes that agents/landlord could use to continue charging tenants huge fees when letting properties. Tying any payable default fees to specific costs that the agent/landlord incurs, and also requiring evidence (e.g. receipts) was a crucial move and we are glad the Government made this provision last month. We’d like this to be as strong as possible, i.e. to be statutory instead of merely being guidance. Charging more than the true cost of a default is clearly a fee and against the spirit of ‘banning tenant fees’. Our Assured Shorthold Tenancy is used in thousands of tenancies in England and Wales and it doesn’t include any default fees, including late payment fees”.
So it is possible to provide a good, responsible service, make a profit, and not charge any default fees at all.
I applaud the Government for changing their mind and banning letting fees but this Bill is here and now. This is the moment to end the loopholes that have always been exploited—to the cost of the family on a low income, the young person saving to one day own their own home or the older person who rents. Default clauses will end up being something like, “Maintain the garden”, with no clear indication of who judges that, or, “Take your shoes off in the property”, violating a tenant’s right to peaceful enjoyment and to wear whatever they like on their feet. In a worst-case scenario, it might be requiring a tenant in a poorly insulated, damp building to prevent mould through heating and keeping the windows open or to pay £100 per room to repaint mouldy rooms. It then becomes a moral question, not to mention a paternalistic one, about letting agents presuming that tenants are unable to keep a home in good condition without the threat of penalties.
All these issues can be judged fairly through the current tenancy deposit route, which has independent arbitration outside the courts. Tenants are much more able to challenge and get a fair ruling on deposit deductions than they would be on contractual default fees, which they may not understand or know how to challenge. Default is too much of a loophole. It will become a judgment call, and those who can be exploited the most will be protected the least. I thank noble Lords for bearing with me on all these arguments. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for raising this. I wondered slightly about the procedure of deletion and adding in, but I will leave that to others. I will touch on one or two things.
We must start from the standpoint that under the terms of a lease, a tenant is provided with exclusive possession of and control over the property of their landlord within the terms of the lease. It is perfectly possible for tenants to do a lot of damage in a short period of time. Mercifully, very few of them do, but the occasional one does, because they are ignorant, because they have strange lifestyles, or for whatever reason. I thought, when I looked at this part of Schedule 1, that the default, defined as performing an obligation or discharge of a liability, was probably too wide. It did not surprise me that the noble Baroness has picked up on that. To that extent, she has a point. First, the landlord absolutely must substantiate the amount in question. The noble Baroness would introduce the concept of fair condition, then limit fair condition to two items. She has explained that, but I can think of eight or 10 others that I could add to the mix, all of which could objectively be seen as fair conditions of properly occupying and generally looking after the premises by a tenant.
Lord Best
I think we are all aware that if there is the possibility of a loophole being discovered, somebody out there will discover it. The absolute, 100% intention must be to block it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, suggested two alternative routes. One is for the costs that legitimately fall to the tenant, not the landlord or the agent, to be picked up in the tenancy deposit scheme so that you do not get so much back at the end. I wonder whether the tenancy deposit scheme is tightly defined enough and whether it is possible to take from the deposit sums relating to, for example, the cleaning of the common areas where No. 9 of the 10 flats has been up to no good or where someone has parked the car in the wrong place and so on. I am not sure whether such things can be taken out of the deposit; that is a technical question.
The other alternative suggested by the noble Baroness is that the landlord will be so fed up that they will not renew the tenancy or will evict the tenant. That is a bit harsh. It would be better to find a way to come to an accommodation with the tenant rather than take extreme measures. I will need to hear from the Minister the series of ways in which all the possible loopholes and abuses can be blocked because that must be the Bill’s intention.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 23, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, has my full support. It would remove default fees from the Bill. I share the concerns expressed here today that this provision could be used as a vehicle for unscrupulous landlords and letting agents to recoup lost income resulting from the ban. We cannot allow this loophole to go unchallenged. I also agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Best; if something can be got around, someone will usually be smart enough to work it out and get around it. We should always be aware of that; it is very important to stop that.
In the Bill, the Government seek to limit default charges and fees to costs that are “reasonably incurred”, which must be evidenced in writing. However, this will prevent landlords and agents including unfair terms in tenancy agreements and trying to charge unreasonable amounts. Of course, we will come back to this issue of what is reasonable; we have come back to the issue of guidance many times. In responding to the debate, can the noble Lord explain how he believes that tenants will be protected from this unfair practice? How does the legislation, as it is framed now, protect people from ingenious people looking to get round almost anything? How can we be confident that the Bill is watertight?
Amendment 24, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Thornhill, and my Amendment 25 seek to make provision for default fees to be more transparent if they remain in the Bill and, as drafted in my amendment, to be detailed in regulations setting out what is a permitted payment in this regard. This would provide a clearer, legal definition of default fees. That would prevent abuse, protect tenants, ensure that tenants understand what they could be charged for and increase confidence in challenging illegal, prohibited fees. In contrast to guidance, regulations would act as a deterrent and give tenants a statutory basis from which to challenge prohibited fees. The late payment of rent and lost keys are the most commonly cited examples; in each scenario, the purpose of the fee would be clear to the tenant, which would limit the opportunity for exploitation.
I take on board the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. If we were all reasonable people, we would not need legislation at all; unfortunately, there are good and bad tenants and there are good and bad landlords. Often, we have to legislate for the worst excesses in all cases, and that is partly what we are trying to do here. However, I accept that the noble Earl has made some fair points—I am not suggesting that that is not the case. I look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has to say on these matters.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate on this important section of the Bill. To echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, this is about dealing with the small minority of tenants and landlords. I accept that the vast majority will not need the encouragement we are giving. That said, there is a difficult issue involved, as outlined quite fairly by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender. However, I take a slightly different view on it, so let me outline where I am. I am of course happy to carry on discussing this ahead of Report, so that we can get to a sensible position on it.
There are situations where it is quite reasonable that a landlord should be able to claim from the tenant for doing something that is perhaps the tenant’s obligation but which the landlord has taken up. We have heard some examples and there will be others that we have not thought of—I do not suppose anybody except the noble Earl had thought about condensation until today, but we are now aware that that situation perhaps needs to be covered. We are not necessarily going to be able to think of an exhaustive list, but the list we are looking at does not relate to damage.
It is not appropriate that a replacement key should come out of the deposit; the deposit is there to counteract damage that is done. That would be true of a locksmith coming in as well. How will that be shown to be a reasonable cost? It has to be evidenced in writing: for example, with the receipt from Timpson. I do not think anybody could reasonably object to that. It is entirely right. There is a whole jurisprudence on reasonableness, and I can happily supply it all to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—it runs to volumes and volumes in the law of negligence and elsewhere, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will certainly be aware. This is an area in which there is substantial jurisprudence. We can give some examples but giving an exhaustive definition will take some time.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Best, that it would not be appropriate to evict a tenant or to say that that has to happen in this type of situation. I think that a landlord would be very happy to renew a tenancy if he was able to claim in relation to lost keys and a locksmith being called out, and there is no reason why he should not be able to do that.
I am very keen to look at this issue ahead of Report to see how we can perhaps tighten it up, as I accept that there might be a need to do that. However, there are legitimate situations where it is not unreasonable for the landlord, during the currency of the lease—not at the end of the lease, when the deposit will kick in—to be able to claim for the cost of work that has been done. It is no more and no less than that. I recognise that we want to stop any potential abuse by the small minority of landlords whom we all have in our sights, but I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that there are legitimate situations that we can look at ahead of Report while trying to isolate the cases where there is abuse. With that assurance, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Grender
I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I would of course welcome the opportunity to work with him and officials to try to tighten up this provision. This area goes to the very heart of where we all started out, so I see getting this right as absolutely fundamental. I am more than happy to work with the Minister on this and, with that prospect in mind, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, the Committee has been sitting for nearly four hours, so I think that this might be a convenient point at which to adjourn.
House of Lords
Deaths of Members
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on 2 November. On behalf of the House, I extend our sincere condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
I also regret to inform the House of the death on 4 November of Lord Heywood of Whitehall, who had not yet had the opportunity to take his seat. On behalf of the House, I pay tribute to his outstanding record of public service, and I extend our condolences to Lord Heywood’s family and friends.
Devolution: Sheffield City Region
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that the Sheffield City Region Devolution Deal comes to fruition.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s priority remains completing the Sheffield City Region devolution deal, which would bring £900 million of investment to that region. To achieve this, the next step is for the Sheffield City Region to undertake the statutory consultation on the powers to be devolved and we will continue to support the city region mayor in his commitment to implement this deal.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer and I bring to the House’s attention my interest declared in the register as a member of Sheffield City Council. It is clear that there is stalemate: the four local authority leaders in South Yorkshire cannot agree a way forward. Despite the fact that the order for the election has been through this House, the order for the powers and the money have not. In the light of that, when will the Secretary of State meet the four leaders and the elected mayor of the Sheffield City Region, as he has not done so since he became the Secretary of State six months ago? If the leaders cannot find a way forward in this stalemate, will a timescale be put on before the deal is withdrawn?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord’s service to Sheffield City Council—indeed, as leader at one stage. Regarding the deal, the best legal advice given both to the mayor and to us is that consultation is necessary, so that is the next statutory step and it is what we are pressing for. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has indicated to the Select Committee that he will be making a Statement on devolution in general during the autumn. I do not think that he has any specific plans to meet the four city leaders as the way forward is quite clear regarding the statutory requirements.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my relevant interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, we are at an impasse. When is the Minister going to do something about it?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the very brief question. As I have indicated, and in fairness to the city mayor, he is trying to ensure that the consultation takes place, because that is the necessary next statutory step according to the legal advice that he and we have received. The legislation has gone through both Houses. The way forward is for that to happen. More widely, it is worth remembering that a third of England is now covered by devolution deals, including London. As I have indicated, the Secretary of State will be making a statement shortly, during the autumn.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, surely it is important to note that the local authorities concerned in South Yorkshire were very keen on having devolution. They were the ones who pressed for it, and the Government responded, as the Government will always do. Is it not now for those authorities and the elected mayor to work with the Government to get that devolution concluded?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. It is true to say that the four local authorities came forward with proposals—we progress these deals only if there is consent among local authorities. As I said, the mayor is seeking to progress the deal, as, in fairness, are two of the local authorities, Sheffield and Rotherham. The other two, Doncaster and Barnsley, are not doing so at the moment, but they need to do so for us to progress it. It has been through both Houses of Parliament; considerable time and energy have been invested on it.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us the timetable for the consultation to be undertaken and concluded?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as I said, we have not yet progressed the consultation because two of the local authorities are unwilling to do so. Once they have agreed to it, I think the consultation will be straightforward; it is about the precise shape of the deal. I do not have the precise time limits, but I will write to the noble Lord and copy the letter to the Library.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said in a previous reply that a third of the population of England has a devolution deal, yet Yorkshire, with a 5 million population, has no deal at all, although there is a desire from both South Yorkshire and the whole of Yorkshire for a deal. When will the Government open the dam to allow a deal to occur, because there is real desire in Yorkshire to take on the responsibilities that the Government could devolve to it?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, Sheffield is certainly in Yorkshire, and there is a deal there that we seek to take forward; it has been through both Houses. As for the rest of Yorkshire, as I said, the Secretary of State will be making a Statement on devolution in general. I have also said that nothing can happen in relation to broader Yorkshire until the Sheffield deal moves forward.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, given the failure of vocational training, would it not make sense to transfer all vocational training to mayors and to local areas that do not have a mayor?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the former is largely already happening. For example, with Sheffield, training is moving forward; it is part of the essence of devolution deals. I do not think that it would really rest with smaller authorities, but with devolution deals, the noble Lord has a very good point.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, perhaps my noble friend can enlighten me. Am I right in thinking that all the authorities concerned and the elected mayor are Labour? In my area, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, we have Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative authorities working together successfully to support the Greater Cambridge Partnership and our city deal. Should not the same, at the least, be expected of Labour authorities working together rather than pointing their fingers at the Government?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that I do not seek to be partisan on these things, but my noble friend has a point in that regard. It is best when local authorities come together, across parties, to move things forward. As he has indicated, that is happening in relation to Cambridge and Peterborough. It is also happening in relation to Teesside but—alas—not at the moment in Sheffield or broader Tyneside, although I am pleased that last week we took the decision to move forward with north Tyneside.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, if, instead of devolution, we had delegation, it would get these things through much more quickly. It would be much more effective without any of the constitutional problems that are posed by devolution.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, there is a line to be drawn between delegation and democracy, although certainly, looking at Sheffield, democracy does not seem to have taken us as far forward as many of us would have liked.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, are there any other examples of deadlock elsewhere in the country blocking progress towards city deals?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the only other example until recently was in relation to Tyneside, where south Tyneside, Gateshead and the Durham authorities, including Sunderland, could not agree with north Tyneside; but we moved forward with north Tyneside on its own and with special arrangements in relation to the transport authority.
Ex-Offenders: Training and Employment
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to provide greater training and employment opportunities for ex-offenders.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, our Education and Employment Strategy was published in May this year. Governors are being empowered to commission education provision that leads to work, and we are building better links between prisons and businesses to ensure that those who leave prison are ready for work. We have launched the New Futures Network to engage and persuade employers to take on ex-prisoners.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I welcome these initiatives and acknowledge freely that David Gauke and Rory Stewart are much more enlightened and progressive than some of their predecessors. However, it is very depressing that, in a recent survey, only half of employers said that they would consider employing ex-offenders. I suggest that a senior and respected figure from the private sector—perhaps someone who has just retired—could be appointed to encourage more employers to take on ex-offenders, to work with them and chivvy them along. Surely this would make sense. Given that ex-offenders cost the country about £15 billion a year, would it not make sense to consider some kind of financial inducement to encourage employers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the good news is that half of employers might be interested in employing ex-offenders. Certainly, the noble Lord is completely right: we need to encourage people from the wider business community to encourage their colleagues to look to ex-offenders as potential employees. That is why the New Futures Network is appointing business ambassadors, who will do that for key sectors. For example, we have Timpson Group covering the retail sector—10% of Timpson’s employees are ex-offenders—and we have Landsec doing the same for construction and Mitie for agriculture and horticulture.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister comment on any particular training or employment opportunities available to ex-offenders with learning disabilities? I understand that they have a very high rate of reoffending of around 40%.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness is completely right. Of course, that is one of the challenges that we face in our prison communities. We know that one-third of prisoners have learning difficulties or a disability. That is why it all comes back to education: we need to make sure that the education provision is right for all ex-offenders, whether they have learning difficulties or a disability. We do this by empowering our governors to commission the services that work for their prison community.
Lord Tomlinson (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister join with me in congratulating Arsenal Football Club and its players on the work that they have committed themselves to doing, which involves going into prisons and helping current offenders to become motivated and receive training that will equip them better for when they leave prison?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I completely agree with the noble Lord. Arsenal is leading the way in this. I would like all Premier League football clubs to do the same in their local communities.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister think that an extension of the temporary release scheme would help in this context?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend makes a very good point. If we can get prisoners out of prison and into the community to undertake some work experience, that will be hugely beneficial. At the moment, 7,500 prisoners have had at least one release—an increase of 7%—and we are looking at more ways to improve this. We have allowed governors to tailor their ROTL regime by prisoner, and we are developing a new framework for ROTL to ensure that more of the more appropriate prisoners can get out to get the valuable work experience that they need.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, given that the lack of joined-up local partnership was a central criticism made by Dame Glenys Stacey’s annual report on probation for last year, what are the Government doing to build into their new contracts with the community rehabilitation companies firm obligations to work with the voluntary sector and local private businesses to provide training and employment for offenders, both those serving community sentences and offenders on their release from custody?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the community rehabilitation companies are an important part of our probation service. Noble Lords will know that we are ending the current CRC contracts early; some things have worked well, and some things, frankly, have not. We have sought feedback from a number of proposals to improve the structure and content, and we are talking to third sector organisations. The public consultation ended on 21 September. I also acknowledge the recommendations which were brought forward in the Justice Select Committee’s report. The Government will look at all these items—of course, any contributions from the noble Lord will be very welcome—and we will respond early next year.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that local authorities have potentially an important role to play in this matter, and will she undertake to approach the Local Government Association to see whether that can be translated into practice?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I believe that local authorities have an important part to play so, yes, I am happy to do that.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, mental health issues are finally being acknowledged as a matter of national concern. What are the Government doing to ensure that the mental health and well-being of women in prisons is being supported, as well as the need for training and skills?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness is quite right and, indeed, we have covered this at Questions and in debates recently. The needs of women in prisons are slightly different from the needs of men; mental health is an important part of that, and we know that self-harming rates are higher among women than they are among men. We recognise all these things, which is why our Female Offender Strategy, which was announced earlier this year, focuses particularly on mental health, to make sure that the environment in which female offenders are kept is appropriate for them and that they have the support that they need.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has no doubt heard of the organisation Prosper, which was founded by an ex-offender. It has currently 3,000 jobs on offer to ex-prisoners online, but the Prison Service can produce only 200 names to fill those places. Can the Minister please assure the House that there is co-ordination between all organisations offering jobs to ex-offenders?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I certainly commend the work of Prosper, and I am surprised to hear the figures that the noble Lord mentioned. I will do some more digging in this area to find out why this disparity exists, and will then write to the noble Lord and put a copy in the Library.
Pornographic Websites: Age Verification
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what will be the commencement date for their plans to ensure that age-verification to prevent children accessing pornographic websites is implemented by the British Board of Film Classification.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, we are now in the final stages of the process, and we have laid the BBFC’s draft guidance and the Online Pornography (Commercial Basis) Regulations before Parliament for approval. We will ensure that there is a sufficient period following parliamentary approval for the public and the industry to prepare for age verification. Once parliamentary proceedings have concluded, we will set a date by which commercial pornography websites will need to be compliant, following an implementation window. We expect that this date will be early in the new year.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. I cannot wait for that date to happen, but does he share my disgust and horror that social media companies such as Twitter state that their minimum age for membership is 13 yet make no attempt to restrict some of the most gross forms of pornography being exchanged via their platforms? Unfortunately, the Digital Economy Act does not affect these companies because they are not predominantly commercial porn publishers. Does he agree that the BBFC needs to develop mechanisms to evaluate the effectiveness of the legislation for restricting children’s access to pornography via social media sites and put a stop to this unacceptable behaviour?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I agree that there are areas of concern on social media sites. As the noble Baroness rightly says, they are not covered by the Digital Economy Act. We had many hours of discussion about that in this House. However, she will be aware that we are producing an online harms White Paper in the winter in which some of these issues will be considered. If necessary, legislation will be brought forward to address these, and not only these but other harms too. I agree that the BBFC should find out about the effectiveness of the limited amount that age verification can do; it will commission research on that. Also, the Digital Economy Act itself made sure that the Secretary of State must review its effectiveness within 12 to 18 months.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, once again I find this issue raising a dynamic that we became familiar with in the only too recent past. The Government are to be congratulated on getting the Act on to the statute book and, indeed, on taking measures to identify a regulator as well as to indicate that secondary legislation will be brought forward to implement a number of the provisions of the Act. My worry is that, under one section of the Digital Economy Act, financial penalties can be imposed on those who infringe this need; the Government seem to have decided not to bring that provision into force at this time. I believe I can anticipate the Minister’s answer but—in view of the little drama we had last week over fixed-odds betting machines—we would not want the Government, having won our applause in this way, to slip back into putting things off or modifying things away from the position that we had all agreed we wanted.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I completely understand where the noble Lord is coming from but what he said is not quite right. The Digital Economy Act included a power that the Government could bring enforcement with financial penalties through a regulator. However, they decided—and this House decided—not to use that for the time being. For the moment, the regulator will act in a different way. But later on, if necessary, the Secretary of State could exercise that power. On timing and FOBTs, we thought carefully—as noble Lords can imagine—before we said that we expect the date will be early in the new year,
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that good health and sex education might be a way to counter some of the damaging effects? Can the Government make sure that is in place as soon as possible, so that this strange fantasy world is made slightly more real?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The noble Lord is of course right that age verification itself is not the only answer. It does not cover every possibility of getting on to a pornography site. However, it is the first attempt of its kind in the world, which is why not only we but many other countries are looking at it. I agree that sex education in schools is very important and I believe it is being brought into the national curriculum already.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
Why is there so much wriggle room in section 6 of the guidance from the DCMS to the AV regulator? The ISP blocking probably will not work, because everyone will just get out of it. If we bring this into disrepute then the good guys who would like to comply probably will not; they will not be able to do so economically. All that was covered in British Standard PAS 1296, which was developed over three years. It seems to have been totally ignored by the DCMS. You have spent an awful lot of time getting there, but you have not got there.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
One of the reasons this has taken so long is that it is complicated. We in the DCMS, and many others, not least in this House, have spent a long time discussing the best way of achieving this. I am not immediately familiar with exactly what section 6 says, but when the statutory instrument comes before this House—it is an affirmative one to be discussed—I will have the answer ready for the noble Earl.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the possession of a biometric card by the population would make the implementation of things such as this very much easier?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
In some ways it would, but there are problems with people who either do not want to or cannot have biometric cards.
Design Engineer Construct Programme
Lord Redesdale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Department for Education will reconsider allowing Design Engineer Construct levels 2 and 3 as project-based qualifications.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Department for Education recently published the list of technical qualifications approved for inclusion in the 2020 performance tables for schools and colleges. To ensure the quality and robustness of qualifications included in performance tables, they must demonstrate a number of characteristics, including an appropriate assessment methodology. The Design Engineer Construct qualifications were reviewed as part of that process, but did not demonstrate all the necessary characteristics for inclusion in the 2020 performance tables.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister would agree that there is actually a shortage of young people who are entering into design and construction, especially young girls. If we take away project-based skills such as set out by DEC, that reduces the number of people who will make that as a life choice. That means that most young people would be forced into an exam-based system whereas this subject lends itself to a project-based approach. Will the Minister agree to meet with those behind the DEC project to look for a way forward?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I can certainly agree to arrange a meeting for the noble Lord. I would like to give a little more information on the back of the decision that has been made. The qualifications for Design Engineer Construct were reviewed a total of three times during the approval process by the department. After each of the first two reviews, feedback was given to the awarding organisation so that they could improve. Unfortunately, after an appeal, it was still unsuccessful. It is standards that we are talking about here, which are very important.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, it is entirely illogical for such a valuable learning programme to be removed from the league table points, given its value to the built environment. This programme is respected by academia, business and the profession. Can the Minister say what impact assessment was made of the loss of young people developing the skills and knowledge for professional progression in the construction industry, which as we know is desperately short of skilled people? I would also echo my noble friend’s concern that only 2% of the construction workforce is female.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
In answering the noble Baroness’s question I would say that it is not the end of the road, because schools and colleges can offer any qualification that has been accredited by Ofqual and approved for teaching to the appropriate age group, under Section 96 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. It is up to schools, therefore, to decide whether they want to continue with this particular qualification—although it is unlikely that they will do so, because they are not going to be listed on the performance tables. Again, what we are talking about is the greatest shake-up that we are undertaking of post-16 education since A-levels were introduced 70 years ago.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, there is little understanding of the built environment professions. As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, says, few young people aspire to a career in what is a significant sector of the economy. That is why Design Engineer Construct was developed as a learning programme for school students, to help to inspire and create the next generation of those professionals. Surely they should be given every encouragement to flourish in that endeavour? From what the Minister says, that is not the case so far. When will the Government end their obsession with the English baccalaureate and accept that a place at a Russell Group university is not the appropriate destination for every young person, and instead encourage young people to get the sorts of employability skills that Design Engineer Construct will provide?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We are on the same page. I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are undertaking a number of very important reviews, looking particularly at the 16 to 18 year group. The T-level rollout is one of the most important schemes, and we are on track to roll out the first three from September 2020 and a further 12 from then on. This is joined up with other reviews: we want to provide a seamless approach from a younger age with better career progression and management for young people; and to make sure that we push people up the vocational route into the right positions to produce the skills that we need for the economy in the future.
Lord Redesdale
My Lords, I believe I am allowed to ask a second question—I have read the book. The Minister put forward the idea that 16 to 18 year-olds should be pushed into this area. I have children who have just been through this process. They have to make exam choices which will affect their academic career far earlier than that. Unless they have decided on a career before they take their GCSEs, they are unlikely to move into this sector afterwards. Does the Minister agree that it is important to look at the 11 and 12 year-old age gap?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes; I think it is fair to say that we are looking at all the age gaps. Career management is often raised from the noble Lord’s Benches. He will know that the National Careers Service provides independent professional advice. The Careers & Enterprise Company is ensuring that every young person has access to inspiring encounters with the world of work. The important point here is that we are engaging work in schools to be sure that young people are given the inspiration and advice they need to take the right career path.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that there is a strategic implication to this lack of engineering skills, particularly in the military. We have a huge shortage of engineer officers, particularly within the Navy and Air Force. It was our engineers and scientists who helped us to win the First World War—100 years ago—and the Second World War. Surely more can be done to help ensure that youngsters see engineering as an exciting prospect, with opportunities for all sorts of jobs, which they should try to do.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is absolutely right. We are investing nearly £7 billion in this academic year to ensure that there is a place in education or training—particularly for engineering— for every 16 to 18 year-old. I see that my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking is in his seat. At least a couple of university technical colleges are being used to roll out the new T-levels, which is very good news.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
I thank the Minister for referring to UTCs. The decision to remove these two exams is a mistake. It reduces further the amount of technical education in our secondary schools. Design and technology has already fallen by 57% in the lifetime of this Government. T-levels in engineering will not come in until 2023 and 2025. University technical colleges are the only colleges in the country that every year provide employable technicians and engineers at 16 and 18. We should have many more of them.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank my noble friend for his less than helpful reply; I was trying to be helpful to him. I hope he will understand that much effort and focus have gone into these particular Design Engineer Construct qualifications. At the end of the day, it was deemed that they were not up to the standard required.
Knife Crime
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of four fatal stabbings in London in the last week, what action is being taken to address the dramatic rise in knife crime in that city and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, knife crime has a devastating impact on individuals, families and communities. To combat serious violence, our strategy addresses the root causes of crime with a focus on early intervention alongside tough law enforcement. The Government are very concerned about increases in knife crime and its impact on victims, families and communities. The action we are taking is set out in our serious violence strategy and includes new legislation in the Offensive Weapons Bill, the community fund to support local initiatives, the #knifefree media campaign, and continuing police action under Operation Sceptre.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Behind these terrible, tragic stabbings, and the general rise in knife crime across our country—not just in London—lie countless human tragedies. Many families will never recover from the loss of a loved one through such a murder, and our sympathy goes out to them. Does the Minister agree with the call from the London mayor for a long-term public health approach to this problem, and will Her Majesty’s Government ensure that it is properly funded?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I join the right reverend Prelate in his sympathy for the families—it must be devastating for every family that has lost someone to such a dreadful crime. The right reverend Prelate may remember that in October the Home Secretary announced further measures, including a commitment to consult on a new legal duty to underpin a public health approach to tackling serious violence, bringing all relevant partners together and making this a top priority. It will be supported by a youth endowment fund— £200 million over 10 years from 2020—to divert young people from crime and violence. He is absolutely right to suggest a multiagency approach.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, we all deplore the level of knife crime and its impact on the many people who are affected. We all support the London mayor’s call for a long-term approach. Nevertheless, since 2010 the Government have maintained that the level of crime is not influenced by reductions in the number of police officers and in neighbourhood policing. The Met Police Commissioner said last week that forces were stretched. In the light of the increase in violent crime, the increase in reported crime, falling clear-up rates and the increase in the number of crimes that do not even get properly investigated, will the Government confirm that it is still their view that the number of police officers, which has fallen considerably since 2010, has no impact on the incidence and level of crime?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think that the noble Lord would agree that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the policing Minister have acknowledged the increasing calls on police time and resources, particularly over the past two years, but our analysis points to a range of factors driving serious violence, most notably in the drugs market. The Government, therefore, understand that police demand is changing and becoming much more complex. Noble Lords will know—I have said it before—that the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service has visited police forces across England and Wales and that was why the funding settlement of more than £460 million in 2018-19 was arrived at. Early intervention is, however, crucial in this area, particularly for young people.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, these deaths are a tragedy, and our thoughts are with all those affected. Clearly there are long-term issues, which the noble Baroness has referred to, but if we are to get knives off the street we need the police and communities to work together so that stop and search can be accurately targeted at those actually carrying the knives. How can this be done when community policing has been devastated by the Government’s cuts to police budgets? There is nothing in the Government’s anti-violence strategy about increasing police resources.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord points to something important about stop and search—it has to be intelligence-led and there have to be sufficient police officers to deal with it. In terms of the community, the noble Lord points to something very important. Community projects to tackle knife crime may be one of the most effective ways of dealing with this scourge that has blighted communities for the past few years.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are probably three major causes of the rise in violence, particularly murders, that we have seen more of in London than perhaps in the rest of the country? The first is the supply of cocaine. Street-level dealing is now online dealing—apparently it can be delivered quicker than pizza—and something has to happen to intervene in that supply. The National Crime Agency might do more because 90% of cocaine comes from South America. Street-level dealing has to be attacked by local police who must do something about that. The Government could invest more in that.
Secondly, more technology could help officers on the streets to identify the people who carry knives. There are clearly too many people carrying knives and we have to intervene where that is happening to stop the almost accidental use of knives.
Finally, there is a correlation between more young people, particularly young men, gathering and a rise in violence. We need to see more police resources invested in those areas. Does the Minister agree that the investment of resources in those areas in particular, where we have lost 24,000 police officers over the last few years, is vital now—not in the long term—for a public health attempt to improve the situation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I agree with all the points made by the noble Lord; he will have heard the Home Secretary’s words about future funding. The noble Lord is right about the scourge of drugs, and the fact that cocaine can be delivered quicker than pizza is really concerning. The police should make the most of technology on the streets and of intelligence as well. But make no mistake: the issue of drugs is something that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has committed to tackle in the most vigorous of ways because the two are linked.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, back in 1999, at the end of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, when the spate of knife crime started, resources were put into Trident. This problem of people being killed on the street did not seem to warrant the same importance then. Now we hear when a young person has been killed that it is a fatal incident. What has changed from back in 1999 when so many young black men were losing their lives? Nobody took much notice then, but now it is seen as a fatal crime. Will the Minister explain the difference between then and now?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The difference between then and now—and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for all the work that she has done in this area following the terrible death of her son—is that the increase in knife crime has become quite unprecedented over the last few years. Therefore, the Government, through legislation, through non-legislative measures and through their work with the police and local communities, are determined to tackle it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the Minister will know that knife crime is only part of the problem. There have been 100 murders in London this year—45 happened in houses and flats and 21 of those were as a result of domestic violence. Is it time for the Government to make misogyny a hate crime?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in terms of the types of hate crime that police forces choose to prioritise and the resources that they use to prioritise them, I do not disagree with the noble Baroness that reports of domestic abuse are on the increase. In some ways, that is good because people are actually reporting incidents. But what the police home in on has to be a matter for local police forces and what they think are the trends and needs in their areas.
Further Education Bodies (Insolvency) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 September be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 30 October.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Agnew, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Armistice Day: Centenary
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That this House takes note of the centenary of the Armistice at the end of the First World War.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this debate, as it has been a privilege to be the Minister responsible for the First World War commemorations. The last four years of First World War centenary commemorations have both reflected and galvanised the nation’s desire to honour those who sacrificed so much for our freedom, while also helping people to understand and connect with the experiences of our forebears.
In six days’ time, on the centenary of the Armistice, the Government will conclude these important commemorations, while inspiring, we hope, individuals and communities to continue to learn about the impact and legacy of the war. On Sunday, the nation will, as usual, pause to remember all those who died during the First World War and in every conflict since. But we will also give thanks for the end of that war, and to all those who returned to their families. We will reflect on the price which was paid and continued to be paid generations after the first shots were fired in 1914—shots which were followed by a war so bloody, and on such an unprecedented, industrial scale, that even today it is difficult to comprehend.
There can be no doubt that the First World War is inescapably linked in the nation’s collective mind to death and suffering. Over the centenary, we have reflected on the sacrifice, bloodshed and horror of war. But it is also right that on this historic date we recognise the importance of a hard-won victory. That victory was due in no small part to the significant contribution of our allies from the Commonwealth and beyond. We have worked with them throughout the centenary period to mark some of the key battles and campaigns. On 4 August 2014, events were held in Glasgow, Westminster Abbey and Saint-Symphorien, Belgium, to commemorate the outbreak of the war. Later, my department led the delivery of emotionally charged international events to mark the centenaries of the Gallipoli campaign and the battles of Jutland, the Somme and Passchendaele. Tens of thousands of people with familial or emotional connections to these events joined members of the Royal Family, diplomats and senior military figures, along with representatives of our allies and our former enemies. Millions more watched on television.
In August of this year, I attended a service in Amiens Cathedral to commemorate the Battle of Amiens. This battle was one of the turning points of the war, and heralded the start of the Hundred Days Offensive which lasted from Amiens to the Armistice. Our international partners, the Governments of France, Canada, Australia and—for the first time—the United States, helped us to deliver this event. In an echo of the successful coalition of 100 years earlier, it was a moving and memorable experience. We were pleased to welcome His Excellency Joachim Gauck, former President of the Federal Republic of Germany. The German Government have been hugely supportive of our commemorations, and I am delighted that the current German President, His Excellency Frank-Walter Steinmeier, has accepted Her Majesty’s Government’s invitation in this special year to lay a wreath at the Cenotaph next Sunday and to attend the event at Westminster Abbey that evening. That spirit of friendship and reconciliation was also reflected in our commemorations of the Gallipoli campaign, where we welcomed the participation of the Turkish Government and armed forces.
These high-profile ceremonial events have, importantly, been complemented by an extensive programme of cultural and educational activities. Our stated themes, as set out by the then Prime Minister David Cameron in 2012, were remembrance, youth and education. Indeed, youth has been a key theme of the centenary programme since it was announced in 2012. All the Government’s First World War programmes have been designed to engage children and young people, including, for example, school battlefield tours, the Great War school debate series, and the 14-18 NOW cultural programme. Schools and organisations working with young people can also join the Imperial War Museum’s centenary partnership and get involved in events taking place near them. Young people from the National Citizen Service, the National Youth Choir of Scotland and the National Youth Choir of Great Britain had prominent roles in our commemorative events in 2017 and 2018.
The Government established the 14-18 NOW cultural programme in 2012 to work with artists in order to tell new stories through the mediums of culture and art. We have since seen the emergence of a new model for learning about heritage and the complexities of conflict through the arts with, we hope, an important legacy, especially in connecting young people with the centenary. 14-18 NOW has engaged more than 35 million people in the centenary, including 7.5 million young people under the age of 25. In doing so, it created new memories and helped explain the nature and impact of the war to people from all walks of life and of all ages. Works by an extraordinarily diverse range of artists from the UK and abroad have helped to highlight the contributions to the First World War of people from many different countries and backgrounds. Poets from the Caribbean and the Caribbean diaspora, visual artists from India and Bangladesh, performers from South Africa and musicians from Syria, among others, have all highlighted in their different ways the global reach and impact of war.
In addition to large-scale national events, we have sought to highlight the enormous contribution made by those Commonwealth nations who came to Britain’s aid. Some 2.5 million men and women from the Commonwealth and Empire answered the call to fight, with 200,000 laying down their lives. They left their homes in the Indian subcontinent, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Newfoundland, Africa and the Caribbean to serve the Allied cause. Commonwealth nations will rightly be represented at the Cenotaph and in Westminster Abbey on Sunday. I said “men and women”, and we do not forget the role of women in the First World War. All government commemorative events have recognised the role that women played in the war effort, be it as factory workers, nurses on the Western Front and at home, or as loved ones sending letters to the battlefield. Of course, last year marked the historic landmark of the first women getting the vote in this country.
Nor have we forgotten the role of Ireland. When the then Prime Minister and the then Taoiseach met in 2016, they reaffirmed that the UK and Irish Governments would continue to mark key First World War events in a spirit of mutual respect, inclusiveness and friendship. This was demonstrated in the shared approach to the Battle of Messines Ridge, commemorated on 7 June 2017, which was attended by the Duke of Cambridge and the then Taoiseach, Enda Kenny.
On 11 November 1918 the news of the signing of the Armistice was celebrated on these shores with music, street parties and parades, and with the ringing of church bells. On Remembrance Sunday at the Cenotaph this year, when we salute all those who died in conflicts since the First World War, we will share our usual sombre moment of remembrance. We will, of course, have the two-minute silence. We will reflect on what we have learned since 1918 and on the damaged lives of those who are affected by war.
The 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918 was an iconic moment in our history. In writings and recordings, soldiers often struggled to articulate how they felt at the moment the guns stopped firing. They reported a mixture of joy, relief, grief and often a sort of exhausted numbness—but there was also, for many, a sense of achievement and justice at what they understandably regarded as a significant and, despite everything, popular victory. Accordingly, after the service of remembrance we will move toward a spirit of thanksgiving for victory and toward the care and celebration of, and concern for, those who returned. And let us not forget the perhaps underreported fact that 88% of those who fought for the Allied cause returned home alive, if not always whole in body or mind.
So this year, the traditional Royal British Legion parade of veterans will be followed by an additional procession of 10,000 members of the public who wish to pay personal tribute and give thanks to the generation who served. The procession will be complemented by the nationwide ringing of bells from 12.30 pm, and at various times throughout the rest of the world—often the very same bells which rang out after four years of silence 100 years ago. In the evening, there will be a national service of thanksgiving in Westminster Abbey. Her Majesty the Queen and the President of Germany will be joined by guests who have contributed so much to commemorative projects of all types in communities across the country since 2014. Similar services will take place in Llandaff Cathedral, Cardiff, Glasgow Cathedral and St Anne’s Cathedral, Belfast.
I will take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the devolved Administrations to ensure that the particular contributions of Scottish, Welsh and Irish soldiers have been properly recognised. They have worked closely with us throughout the centenary period to complement our national commemorations and ensure that every part of the United Kingdom has had opportunities to engage with the stories and experiences of the war. In recent months, there has been an unprecedented amount of locally organised commemorative activity up and down the country, as the nations come together as never before to remember the events of a century ago.
The Government have been expertly supported throughout the centenary programme by its advisory group, consisting of highly regarded historians, former senior members of the Armed Forces, parliamentarians, writers, academics, journalists and others, some of whom are participating in today’s debate. I thank them all for devoting their time to advise us. I also extend my thanks to the Prime Minister’s special representative for First World War commemorations, Dr Andrew Murrison MP, whose work since 2013 in guiding these commemorations has been exceptional. Finally, the commemoration team at DCMS has organised events both here and abroad, and showed diplomacy, energy, sensitivity and enthusiasm that were a credit to this country. I thank them all.
I hope that it is not disrespectful to say that, although there have been moments of worry and emotion, I have enjoyed taking part in the last half of the four-year commemoration. In that vein, I greatly look forward to listening to your Lordships’ speeches today. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the Minister and to have the opportunity to thank him and his department for their extraordinary leadership over the past four extraordinary years. Imagination and inclusion seem to have been exactly the characteristics needed, and were indeed what his department provided.
We have had four extraordinary years, and it is now time to reflect on the Armistice. We have to admit that it was an armistice that ended one war but opened the path to another. Commemorating it requires us to look beyond the Armistice to the world we inherited, and what we have done with it. Commemorating a war which was, in so many ways, unbelievably cruel and futile, but which we remember and honour for the courage, sacrifice and dignity shown, has been a conflicting experience. The Great War lives in our memories and imaginations like nothing else. However, of necessity, most of the personal memories are long buried.
The past four years have enabled people across the community to reach into the past and their own histories, bringing to life the countless names, diaries, poems, photographs, letters, songs and stories in a way that simply could not have been imagined. It has revived old griefs but it has also, as the Minister said, provoked magnificent new art, new understanding and new heritage. It has enabled us to look beyond the statistics and into the eyes of those who were there.
In his book on the Armistice, Joseph Persico wrote that if all the men who had died in the war were to march four abreast, the column would stretch 386 miles from Paris, half way through Switzerland, and it would have taken from 9 am on Monday to 4 pm on Saturday to pass. There would have been scientists marching past in that ghostly column; men such as Henry Moseley, who reinvented the periodic table, and who was probably the most brilliant scientist of his generation. This was indeed a scientists’ war. There were poets of every nation: Alfred Lichtenstein, the German poet; Hedd Wyn, the Welsh poet; Apollinaire, the French poet; Edward Thomas and Wilfred Owen, our own poets, who we grew up with. There were composers such as George Butterworth. We can only imagine the sort of world that they would have created if they had lived.
The far greater number were those who, in Kipling’s words, were known only to God. Among them were the 360 ordinary men from Lewes in Sussex—foundry workers, farm labourers, clerks and teachers—who also died and who stand for the ordinary. Whereas we know the legacy of the writers, artists, philosophers and scientists, because we live with that every day, we have not known much about those men and what they might have done—until now. The 360 men of Lewes were brought back to life in a truly remarkable event last Armistice Day by Lewes Remembers, a small group of local people, including our historic bonfire societies, who meticulously researched each of the men and their families. They knew where they lived and what they did; in some cases, they knew what they were like. On the evening of Armistice Day last year 360 men, matched in age with those who had died and leaving wherever possible from the homes that they had left, marched silently with blazing torches through the streets to converge on our war memorial. As each name was read out, one man stepped forward and extinguished his torch. It was done with immense dignity and it was unforgettable.
All over the country during the past four years, over 2,000 such projects have been funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund—I declare an interest as deputy secretary of its board—with £97 million contributed by lottery players who made this national conversation possible. We know now for the first time about the sports clubs, the church groups and scout groups that lost their young men; about the men who were simply fading names on a war memorial; about the lives of children in care, the contributions of women and the role of ethnic and faith communities, such as the Sikhs. We know that history has been expressed in every form of art and music, in brilliant new work commissioned as 14-18 NOW projects, as the Minister said, and in the way that old and new have joined hands across history to rediscover what they have in common.
The past four years have made possible no less than a new way of doing history: a way of uncovering the human spirit and the personal truths about that awful war and its aftermath that would have lain buried for ever. That is one form of legacy for which we are richer in every way but I am hopeful, as I think the Minister is, that this will not be the end. The Armistice commemorations this week give us the chance to take the next step: to build on what we know we can find out to understand and uncover more of what was involved after the war in the making and keeping—and the losing—of peace, and apply those lessons.
The aspirations for a peace which, as the treaty of Versailles put it, would be “firm, just and durable” were not realised. In its first article it created a League of Nations built on international co-operation, peace and security but it failed to outlaw war. It took another war before it could be rebuilt on firmer foundations.
Wales has a particular story to tell. I hope that your Lordships will indulge me because it is not well known. In many ways, it is the story of one man: Lord Davies of Llandinam, soldier, philanthropist and politician, whose experience in the trenches made him determined to pursue in all the ways he could the idea of a stable international order and, in particular, a League of Nations. He founded the Temple of Peace in Cardiff to house the Welsh council of the League of Nations. He founded the first ever department of international politics, in Aberystwyth in 1919,
“for the study of those related problems of law and politics, of ethics and economics, which are raised by the prospect of a League of Nations and for the truer understanding of civilisation other than our own”.
I declare another interest as a graduate of that department, which has been at the cutting edge of thought leadership over a century and continues, in its centenary year, to ask the difficult questions.
One of our HLF flagship projects in Wales has been about peace. Wales for Peace is uncovering the stories of how, in 100 years, people from Wales have contributed themselves to the search for peace—not just by digitising the names in memory of all those who died but by looking for the peacebuilders and writing about them as well. They are great stories, not least of the teachers of Wales who invented the first peace and global education curriculum, the principles of which were integrated into the founding of UNESCO. These stories need to be better known, because they have in their own legacy the instinctive desire that young people have to grow up in a just and peaceful world. Understanding what prevents and makes an end to conflict should be a far more explicit part of our national curriculum. That indeed could be a great legacy.
In that context, I am bound to say that it is hardly credible that we in the UK now stand on the brink of detaching ourselves from the one European institution formed deliberately to maintain peace, based on shared laws and values. In the current state of our post-truth, post-law, post-rational world, we must listen to what the past tells us. We are knee-deep in explanations for what caused the Great War among which, as Margaret MacMillan has said, is the lack of conviction that there were better alternatives. To that I would add rampant nationalism.
It is almost commonplace to say that in 1914 the nations did indeed sleepwalk into that living nightmare, and that perhaps is the greatest lesson we can learn. Thanks to President Macron there will be a new opportunity this week to restate our faith and invest in international law and institutions, through his concept of the Paris Peace Forum, which will offer the opportunity to reflect on world governance while we commemorate the end of World War I and recognise our collective responsibility:
“Let us never be sleepwalkers in our world”.
Can the Minister give me an assurance today that our Government will be a full and enthusiastic participant in this initiative, as part of the legacy of the Armistice itself?
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
On 1 March 1918, a 50 year-old master mariner named John Jones died at sea while serving as first mate on HMS “Penvearn”. A member of the Royal Naval Reserve, he had sailed the Atlantic convoy right through the First World War. I know about John Jones because he was my great-grandfather, but what little I knew as I was growing I learned from my grandmother. He had gone to sea as boy, progressed quickly through the ranks and ultimately went down with his ship. I know a lot more about him now. He did indeed go to sea as a boy; his first voyage was on a ship named the “Quarryman”. He became a second mate at age 24 and married the following year. He achieved his master’s certificate at the age of 35 and a lot more besides. And I know that, on 1 March 1918, his ship was torpedoed by U-boat “105”, 15 miles north-west of South Stack head, Holyhead.
At the same time, a few hundred miles away in Bradford, William Thomas Riley had been demobbed after being injured in the trenches. What I knew about this great-grandfather I learned from my father because, unlike John Jones, William Riley lived to a ripe old age—long enough to send a card noting and congratulating the birth of his first great-grandchild Rosalind, which I still have. I knew only that he had gone to war, came back and then never spoke of what had happened to him. I also knew that, for the rest of his life, his behaviour could be erratic. My father said, in characteristic understated Yorkshire style, “He was a rum lad, my grandad”.
I found out many years after my father’s death that Private William Thomas Riley was a labourer. He was five feet five, had hazel eyes and brown hair, and weighed 130 pounds, so small and probably under- nourished, like so many working-class men of that generation. He enlisted on 2 September 1914, no doubt inspired by Kitchener’s call five days earlier for a battalion of pals to fight shoulder to shoulder for the honour of Britain.
I learned that on 30 December 1914 he was buried in a trench collapse, when he was somewhere near Armentières. After being rescued, his physical injuries were treated, but he was never again whole. Of course, we would now recognise that this rum lad had in fact spent the rest of his life suffering from post-traumatic stress, as did so many of that generation. The men who left Bradford, accompanied by marching bands and cheered on by tens of thousands of people, came quietly home to families grieving for the men who they once knew.
I wanted to use today’s debate to celebrate and honour brave men such as John Jones and William Thomas Riley, but also to recognise and celebrate the individuals and organisations, many of them voluntary, which since then have painstakingly preserved, interpreted and made accessible so much of the public record. They have enabled many thousands of people like me to learn more than they could ever have believed possible about their ancestors. Their contribution is immense because in the facts they reveal and the stories they tell they make sure that collective and individual histories are preserved and remain to be celebrated and learned from by generations to come.
From Commonwealth War Graves Commission records I learned the names of John Jones’s parents, taking my research back a generation. I learned that his name, along with the 21 other crew members who lost their lives that day, is inscribed on the Tower Hill Memorial, which commemorates more than 50,000 merchant seamen who died in two world wars.
Much of the Navy and Army history upon which I drew came from the National Archives, for which I am a non-executive board member. Its professionalism and skill in keeping a public record of more than 1,000 years safe and accessible is world-leading. Nowadays, access to records is no longer limited to those who can get to Kew. It is open to all online through a system called Discovery, on which 32 million records—9 million of them downloadable—are available. Many millions more are available through the National Archives partnership with commercial organisations such as Ancestry and Find My Past. To commemorate this anniversary, the National Archives will be displaying the treaty of Versailles and the Armistice agreement in the Keeper’s Gallery.
The UK National Maritime Museum, the British Newspaper Archive and the Imperial War Museum all provide wonderfully rich seams of information, as do the archives of companies such as Tate & Lyle and charities such as Barnardo’s. Local authority archives are a wonderful source of information which should be treasured. I am very nervous that the poor state of local authority finances will endanger their integrity and the access that local public record offices offer. Those of us with roots in west Yorkshire are fortunate that the archive service there is excellent and was at the forefront of digitisation. This must be preserved.
There are many small voluntary groups which work in highly specialist areas, such as the Welsh Mariners Index and the Maritime Archaeology Trust, both of which helped my research. There are also many local organisations, researchers and writers who celebrate the rich history of their neighbourhoods. We heard that so powerfully from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, when she described what happened in Lewes. David Raw’s immaculately researched book Bradford Pals is such a powerful evocation of my great-grandfather’s experience. David Raw reminds us that of the first 100 pals to enlist, 39 were killed and 19, like my great-grandfather, were sufficiently seriously wounded to be permanently discharged. There is also the work of local war memorial trusts, which care for the monuments themselves but also transcribe them and research the people on them.
This is a powerful coming together of government, private sector and civil society activity which is transforming the discipline of local and family history. They have all contributed so much to this four-year celebration. They have helped us to understand and know these brave forebears of ours, these ordinary people who did extraordinary things, and in knowing them better, we can honour them more.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Government’s First World War centenary advisory committee. Let me start by recording that, as a member of that committee, I have been privileged to see at first hand the outstanding work that has been done by so many people and organisations over the past few years to ensure that this nation has commemorated appropriately the enormous sacrifices that were made on such a horrific scale between 1914 and 1918.
If the British military of today were to endure casualties equivalent to the same percentage of the UK population that was lost in the First World War, the dead would number more than 1 million. That, of course, is more than five times the present total size of our Armed Forces. These are numbers which are very difficult for people to comprehend now.
The various centenary commemorations, however, have been very successful in bringing home to those growing up in the 21st century the nature of the conflict and the impact that it had on a whole generation in this country. That was of course one of the main aims of the commemorative process and in this, in my view, it has succeeded admirably. The major battles have been acknowledged and analysed, the impact on the country and its population have been examined closely and the effects of the war on local communities and organisations have been highlighted in all sorts of revealing ways. This is very much to be welcomed, and I congratulate all those in schools, museums and veterans’ organisations who have worked so hard to bring these things out of the shadows of history and into the light of contemporary thinking.
However, I have a reservation. Some six years ago, during our first discussions about the centenary, I made the point that while we had to mark the key milestones of the war, and while of course we had to remember and reflect on the sacrifices made by so many, there was a larger and, in some ways, even more important perspective. If the centenary was to be more than a passing acknowledgment of a dreadful period in our history, if it was to be of lasting benefit to coming generations, then it would be crucial to focus not just on the courses of the war but on its causes and its consequences.
Happily, in the months leading up to August 2014, there was a great deal of debate in the written and broadcast media and within our schools over the events, misadventures and miscalculations that plunged the world into such a catastrophe. We have now, though, been through over four years of commemorative events. They have been superbly arranged and movingly executed, and even in the most difficult of circumstances they have struck the appropriate tone. But four years is a long time, and there is a sense that the centenary of the Armistice is a good point at which to bring the process to a close. That would be a serious mistake.
After a great many missteps, years of stalemate on a number of fronts and bloodletting on an unimaginable scale, in November 1918 the allies finally achieved a decisive operational victory. Over the following few years, however, their diplomatic and political failures turned this into a strategic defeat of the first order, a defeat that would set us on the path to the Second World War and to even greater carnage. The hubris of victory, the increasing alienation of Germany, the creation of the “stab in the back” myth, the failure of the United States to engage properly in the global commons, the San Remo agreements on the division of the remnants of the Ottoman Empire, which we see unravelling before our eyes today—all these things, and others, led us eventually to a much darker abyss than the one from which we emerged in November 1918.
There is, of course, disagreement about the relative importance of these factors: about whether Germany was really left in such a parlous position, about the extent to which irresponsible governance of the international financial scene played a part, and about the debilitating political impact of the war on western democracies. Good. These are just the sort of debates and discussions that we should be having, because it is an inescapable fact that little more than 20 years after the “war to end all wars” we endured an unprecedented global cataclysm. We should be taking this opportunity to ask why. We should be discussing as a society the rise of selfish nationalism, the failure of international mechanisms and the unwillingness to confront challenges to international law and order. Most importantly, we should be asking our schools to explore these issues with their students and to set them in the context of our world today.
This week, as part of the Armistice centenary events, torches have been lit at the Tower of London. These torches represent the rekindling of hope following the devastation of the war, but after 1918 the flames of hope flickered only fitfully before finally guttering to extinction in the 1930s. They failed in their promise because people forgot that peace is a fragile thing and that it can be sustained only through constant effort. This lesson was learned in 1945, when the victorious allies put in place, and committed to, institutions and processes to nurture the global commons. When the peace of Europe was again threatened, by the division that split former comrades in arms between East and West, the response was one of unified and determined purpose exemplified by NATO, not one of fragmentation and rancour.
Today the institutions that have served us so well for more than 70 years are under threat. They are, of course, imperfect and in some cases, no doubt, they are in need of renewal, but they should not therefore be cast aside as so much obsolete bureaucracy. If the years immediately following the Armistice teach us anything, it is that the rejection of collective security in the pursuit of an illusory idea of self-interest puts us all at risk, and that a failure to unite, with all the messy compromises that this entails, leaves us exposed and vulnerable to the dangers of an uncertain world.
The world of 2018 is not the same as the one of 1918. We cannot draw direct parallels between the two eras. However, as Mark Twain reminded us, while history never repeats itself, it does sometimes rhyme. I have an uncomfortable sense that we are hearing such a rhyme now. Those who sacrificed so much in the First World War were let down by those who sought to make the peace. If we can use their example to help us to do better, then that sacrifice will not have been wholly in vain. That is why the centenary of the Armistice should not be an end, but a new beginning of reflection, debate, and learning.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con)
My Lords, it is hard to imagine the mood of the country 100 years ago, when the hellish cacophony of gunfire gradually ceased on the 11th hour on the 11th day of the 11th month, to be replaced by an almost equally deafening silence—not a peaceful silence, but the suffocating, overwhelming sense of emptiness that comes with grief. Over 6 million men in Britain served during the war and around 725,000 never returned. Over the course of the conflict, 1.75 million men suffered an injury of some kind; half this number would be left permanently disabled, and all would be psychologically scarred for life. Men of all ages had signed up believing that it was their duty and that there was a job to be done. They trusted that they would have a job to come home to. When this did not happen, the most vulnerable just slipped into poverty and destitution. The rank and file who had fought with their backs to the wall believing in the justice of their cause had, in many cases, lost everything including their dignity and self-respect. The Government of the day were totally unprepared for the situation, resulting in delays of pension payments to widows and the disabled. Compared with other countries, including Germany, we were behind the curve, and there were lessons to be learned in treating visible and invisible wounds.
My grandfather, Douglas Haig, felt an enormous burden of responsibility towards the men who had served under him as Commander-in-Chief. Accordingly, he addressed the needs of the veterans and their families with the same dogged determination he had demonstrated in helping defeat the enemy. He recognised that men needed employment more than charity and, though naturally modest and reserved, he became very vocal on their behalf, using his influence, where he could, to advance their welfare and interests. The British Legion, of which he became the first president, came into being in 1921 because of his insistence on having a single organisation uniting the four national organisations of ex-servicemen that had established themselves immediately after the end of the war.
My grandmother set up the Lady Haig Poppy Factory in Edinburgh in 1926, along similar lines to the Poppy Factory in Richmond, which had been established four years before. She started it with just three helpers, red paper and scissors. Within 10 years, the factory was employing nearly 100 severely disabled people. At the same time, she was behind a housing project in Richmond which by 1930 had provided 330 veterans with homes. She regularly accompanied widows and orphans on battlefield visits.
The red poppy, which had carpeted Picardy in the summer months of 1919, carried such significance for the families of those whose blood had been spilled on those foreign fields that a facsimile of it soon became a uniting emblem of remembrance and hope in the midst of the encircling, autumnal gloom. The idea of a Poppy Appeal, which raised over £100,000 in its first year, 1921, was formulated around the dining room table at my grandmother’s family home in Cornwall, following an approach to her by Madame Guérin, who had introduced a commemorative flower in the United States and Canada.
There is no doubt that the First World War was a catalyst for enormous change—social, political and moral, and in the areas of science and medicine, warfare and technology. One could even say that the 20th century truly began in 1914. With the birth of total war came the realisation that conflicts could be global and devastating in scope. For this reason, many believed, somewhat optimistically, that the Great War was the “war to end all wars”. But humankind has an extraordinary capacity to undermine such hopes. The fissures and tensions created by the hostilities—political, military and cultural—were to cast a long shadow and blight following generations.
A memorable day for me in this Armistice centenary year was when I had the honour of meeting Colonel Eric Bécourt-Foch, great-grandson of Marshal Foch, at the laying of wreaths to commemorate the Marshal’s appointment as Supreme Allied Commander in March 1918. I congratulate the Minister’s department on the efficient way that it organised this historic event. It was hugely appreciated by the French present for the ceremony. In a private conversation after the service, a senior representative of the French armed forces stressed to me the importance of continued co-operation in the military field between our two countries, and, in fact, throughout Europe. I agreed with him 100%: we are leaving the EU, not Europe, irrespective of Brexit.
Let us not forget how fragile the situation was in 1945, when a shattered Europe once again faced an uncertain future, this time with a very threatening neighbour on its doorstep. Seventy years’ worth of careful rebuilding of alliances and trust should not be dismissed lightly. In the spring of 1918, in the wake of Operation Michael, when our depleted and exhausted Army faced the fiercest onslaught by fresh German troops, the outcome of the war was balanced on a knife edge. It was the co-operation between the British Commander-in-Chief and the Supreme Allied Commander that reversed our fortunes. Their unity of purpose, founded on mutual respect and underpinned by strong leadership, resulted in a highly successful campaign, involving Britain and its dominions, other European countries and America, which delivered victory in 1918.
When we stand to observe the two-minute silence on Sunday, we will remember the families of the men and women who never came back, whose sacrifice in the Great War secured peace and justice, freedom and democracy, as well as those who finally laid down their arms, after four years of relentless struggle.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, 100 years after the Armistice was signed, it is an interesting commentary on the diversity of this Chamber as well as on the unanimity in what I am sure we will say in the coming few hours that I, the grandson of a south Wales miner, should be following the grandson of Earl Haig.
I want to reflect on the impact of the sacrifice in the First World War on the eastern valley of Gwent, which used to be Monmouthshire. It is a valley that includes Cwmbran, Pontypool and Blaenavon and which was, 100 years ago, made up almost wholly of men who worked in the collieries and in the steelworks. Over the last four years, a very good friend of mine who had been a local councillor—Stuart Cameron—has been compiling month by month a register of those who perished in the war. That has come to an end, and we now know that, over those four years of the war, in a valley whose population was much less than it is now, 1,300 men perished. A whole generation of young men in that valley was decimated. It is ironic that 1918 was the highest year for casualties: some 317 men died in that last year of the war.
Almost every single family was affected by that war, more than by any other conflict before that. That was, of course, because of conscription. Many men had to go to war because of national service, and others went because they volunteered. From those 1,300 men to whom I referred, 37 families lost two sons and five families lost three sons. The family of Henry and Elizabeth Williams of Pontnewydd had seven sons who fought in that war and three were killed. Of those seven sons, one was a steelworker and six worked underground.
Most of them joined up with the 2nd Battalion The Monmouthshire Regiment and the South Wales Borderers, but many others as well. Some 65 of those who died were in the Royal Navy, despite the fact that the south Wales valleys were not naval areas. That included a relative of mine who was killed in the Battle of Jutland. Six served in the very young Royal Air Force. This coming week, the Royal Welsh Regimental Association of Torfaen, of which I am president, will play a significant role locally and beyond that. The Cwmbran and District Ex-Servicemen’s Association has been chosen to represent south Wales, among others, at Ypres, in the coming celebration and commemoration there.
Four women from my valley died in the First World War. One was in the RAF and the other three were nurses. The Minister touched on what happened afterwards: the life of women changed dramatically. In 1918, they received the vote, although my grandmother—because of her class—had to wait another 10 years before she was able to vote. It has often struck me that I actually knew my grandmother; she did not really have the opportunity to cast that vote until she was in her 50s. More than 100 senior and significant medals were won by the men of Torfaen and I pay tribute to them.
It is quite interesting that the war began with enormous enthusiasm and euphoria. The Reverend Williams was the rector of the parish of Panteg in the eastern valley. Through his sermons and his speeches, he encouraged the men of the valley to sign up. It is said that by 1918, he was a broken man because of the shock of the fates of so many young people whom he had urged to sign up to fight in that war.
The men of the eastern valley were commemorated 100 years ago this weekend. The church bells rang in our valley churches, as they will in this great city, but the hooters of the factories and the steelworks, and the whistles of the locomotive collieries, also celebrated the end of that war. It is significant that during this debate we will hear many stories of ordinary men, and sometimes women, who lost their lives in the conflict.
The services held 100 years ago this week, and those to be held this week, are not just for those who died but for those who came back as well: those who were injured, psychologically and physically, and indeed for all the men, women and children who remained at home. Tragically, of course, two decades later it all happened again. The significance of this week should be that when we look back at history, as we must, we learn those lessons. We did not learn them in 1938-39 in quite the same way as perhaps we can today, but we can still remember those men, and sometimes women, whose courage inspires us and whose sacrifice is still undoubted.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, this debate is quite rightly focused on the 11 November Armistice, which silenced the guns on the Western Front of the “Great War for Civilisation”, as it is called on the reverse of the war medal. But we should not forget that that was not the only front. Three other armistices were signed in the preceding weeks of 1918, with Bulgaria on 30 September, Austria-Hungary on 3 November, and the Ottoman Empire on 30 October, ending hostilities on the Turkish front the following day.
My father was a wartime soldier in the Royal Artillery in the First World War, first in France and Belgium, until he was wounded at Passchendaele, and after a hospital in France and convalescence in England he was sent to join the so-called Egyptian Expeditionary Force in Palestine under General Allenby. He therefore served on both the Western and Turkish fronts.
In 1914, we British had underestimated the Turkish forces, but we had learned our lesson the hard way. Our naval attempt to force the Dardanelles was thwarted, with great loss. The increasingly desperate attempt over months to advance at Gallipoli was defeated, also with terrible loss of life. The first advance in Mesopotamia led to a humiliating surrender at Kut. Later we recovered the ground, but we did not get all that much further in Mesopotamia.
In trying to advance up the coast of Palestine from Egypt we lost the first two battles of Gaza, right at the start. By then, 1917, we certainly did not underestimate the quality or fighting spirit of the Turkish army, nor the skill and leadership of its commanders, including Mustafa Kemal, later known as Atatürk—the founder of secular Turkey—and German generals such as von Sanders.
General Allenby’s army was skilfully led and, in a war of manoeuvre and surprise, it won the Third Battle of Gaza, and then went on to capture Jerusalem in December 1917. Once his army had been reinforced with Indian and Empire troops to replace those withdrawn for the Western Front, he pressed on again and won the Battle of Megiddo in the following year.
The Plain of Jezreel had seen two great battles before in history. In 609 BC, the Bible tells us that the Egyptians won a major battle at Megiddo in their war with the Babylonians. Almost a millennium before that, the hieroglyphs at Luxor tell us that in the first Battle of Megiddo, in around 1457 BC, the Egyptians crushed the Canaanite forces on much the same ground in an epic battle. It is through these great ancient battles that Har Megiddo is known to us as Armageddon. In 1918, Allenby’s crushing victory at Megiddo enabled him to capture Damascus, then Beirut and Aleppo; so, with our armies on the edge of Turkey itself, it led to the Armistice of 31 October. It also led to the ennoblement of Viscount Allenby of Megiddo. Many of us remember Michael, the third Viscount, who made such a valuable contribution to the Cross Benches.
The slaughter on the Turkish front was not perhaps on the same industrial scale as that on the Western Front, but it was huge. Many of the troops involved came from Britain’s loyal Empire, in particular from the wider India—as it was then defined—and from Australia and New Zealand. We should not forget this theatre of the Great War. It led to the long-predicted end of the Ottoman Empire. My father’s letters home at the time reflect his relief at having survived the war—and of course I share that sentiment.
The armistices, including that on the Western Front, were phrased as temporary truces, which fortunately were extended. The final tragedy of the Great War was the peace conference; the powerful speech just now of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, explains why. The emotions and political pressures involved were inevitably huge. Wavell, then an officer on Allenby’s staff but later field marshal, commented at the time:
“After the war to end all wars they seem to have”,
made a,
“‘Peace to end Peace’”.
That is how things turned out, both in Europe and in the Middle East. It is a message to us, as the noble and gallant Lord said, that we must not forget.
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I would like to focus my remarks today on the crucial contribution made by over 3 million Commonwealth soldiers during World War I, almost half of whom came from undivided India, encompassing present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh. My noble friend Lord Lexden led an excellent debate on this topic on 4 June this year, during which he highlighted comments by David Lloyd George, who said of the Commonwealth that,
“had they stayed at home ... the history of the world would have taken a different course”.
The swift arrival of Indian troops on the Western Front in September 1914 was absolutely critical to preventing a German breakthrough. A sepoy named Khudadad Khan was awarded the first of 11 Indian Victoria Crosses after valiantly staying at his machine gun when all his colleagues were killed around him. Without men like him, the war might quickly have been lost. In all, 74,000 Indians serving in multiple continents, from the Somme to the Sahara, never returned home.
Given this remarkable courage and sacrifice, it has been a personal privilege for me to collaborate with the Royal British Legion and with my honourable friend Tom Tugendhat—who I am pleased to see has joined us at the Bar—on a series of activities to highlight this often-forgotten history. As parliamentarians, strongly committed to making “Global Britain” a reality and not just a slogan, our challenge is harnessing this shared history and making it relevant for future generations in both countries.
In doing so, we have sought to build on the pioneering work of other Members of your Lordships’ House, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who led the commissioning of the Memorial Gates on Constitution Hill and my noble friend Lord Bilimoria, who has consistently championed this cause, given his family’s own distinguished background in the Armed Forces. I would also like to acknowledge my noble friend Lord Sheikh, who led another excellent debate in this Chamber as far back as December 2013, and my noble friend Lord Rana, whose native state of Punjab provided so many heroic Sikh soldiers.
One of the initiatives which I refer to is the specially commissioned poppy made out of khadi, the homespun cotton made famous by Mahatma Gandhi. I am delighted to see so many Members of your Lordships’ House wearing this poppy, and I would like to explain its background and poignant symbolism. During India’s freedom struggle, Gandhi promoted the use of a spinning wheel to make India more self-sufficient and to support rural employment. The resulting hand-woven fabric, or khadi, became synonymous with India’s independence movement.
Although many associate Gandhi with non-violence and vigorously opposing the British Raj, his behaviour during World War I was highly revealing. At the outbreak of war, Gandhi was on a ship from South Africa homeward bound to India, with a scheduled stop in England. On 6 August 1914, he landed in Southampton and almost immediately declared his unconditional support for the war effort, losing no time in calling a meeting of his Indian friends to raise an ambulance unit. Instead of exploiting Britain’s vulnerability, he said,
“it was our duty to win their help by standing by them in their hour of need”.
What was meant to be a brief sojourn in London turned into a four-month stop-over, during which Gandhi personally chaired a committee recruiting members for the Indian field ambulance corps and even took nursing classes himself. When Gandhi eventually returned to India, he was active in enlisting volunteers to the Indian army, including from difficult-to-reach areas, such as his home state of Gujarat. Openly proclaiming himself as the “recruiting agent-in-chief’, he defied criticism from his own friends and colleagues. Although he was always careful to make clear that:
“I personally will not kill or injure anybody, friend or foe”,
Gandhi’s principled and loyal support was crucial at a difficult time in India’s relationship with Britain.
That is the profound significance of the khadi poppy. It is a highly appropriate gesture, not just to recognise the outsized contribution of Indian soldiers, but by invoking the courageous solidarity of Mahatma Gandhi. In keeping with that spirit, the design is identical in almost every respect, including its colour, to the traditional poppy, apart from the hugely symbolic twist of using khadi. It does not seek to single out just one group but remembers everyone: it is a unifying symbol for us all.
I hope that it also sends a powerful signal to Asians growing up in Britain and inspires the next generation to understand their own identity. They should know that their parents and grandparents did not just come here as immigrants. Our ancestors fought for this country and for freedom and democracy, even though they lived in a colony at the time. We therefore have as great a stake here as anyone else. Indeed, everyone from the Commonwealth should be proud of the role which their forebears played in shaping the destiny of the world a century ago.
The scandalous treatment of the Windrush generation shows what can happen when history is forgotten. It demonstrates the value of having an honest conversation about Britain’s colonial legacy and how this can be a cathartic process. This is particularly important given that our country is now home to an estimated 6 million people from Commonwealth countries—around one in 10 of our population. The centenary of the war has provided a welcome opportunity for having this conversation. Next year’s centenary of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, on 13 April 2019, will provide another such opportunity.
Just as the poppy symbolises remembrance in Britain, in India it is the marigold, which is worn on Armed Force Flag Day, held on 7 December every year. The flower’s saffron yellow colour is associated by many with self-sacrifice. The Indian armed forces have undertaken an ambitious project to raise their own awareness about India’s role during the First World War. Crucially, they have unearthed contemporary accounts by Indian soldiers, which will change how future histories are written. These accounts confirm what might seem surprising: that Indians who volunteered, just like their British counterparts, believed profoundly that their cause was just. It confirms that upholding a sense of duty is a trait which runs deep in both countries, typified by the festival of Diwali which, by coincidence, falls this year in the same week as remembrance.
This reminder of the values which bind Britain and India together is timely, since it comes at a moment when threats to freedom and the world order confront both countries. So, on Remembrance Sunday, when the Member for Tonbridge and Malling lays a wreath in Delhi and a British Indian Peer pays his respects in Westminster Abbey, the wheel of history will have come full circle. On Saturday, at the Royal Albert Hall, Her Majesty the Queen will hear a reading of the famous poem “The Gift of India” written by Sarojini Naidu, Mahatma Gandhi’s friend, in which she demanded that we:
“Remember the blood of my martyred sons”.
On this important anniversary, we will. But we will go a step further, by committing to build a better world for the next generation.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, Armistice Day and Remembrance Sunday are about remembering all those—both men and women—who fought and died during the wars. It is often a very private remembrance for us to remember those in our own families who fought in the wars, some of whom died. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, talked about research into our family histories. I have recently completed our family tree and I got the Cathcarts back, father and son, to the Normans. The first few were knights before they were created Barons in about 1400. In 1513, all the Cathcart brothers were annihilated—killed at the Battle of Flodden, along with their King, James IV of Scotland. Luckily, the eldest brother already had a baby son, otherwise I would not be standing here today. Thank goodness they had no family planning in those days.
My father was the seventh general in the direct line of Cathcarts, with three other generals in branches of the tree, making a total of 10 generals in all. There were also four ambassadors in the direct line, and one or two governors-general. After I completed the family tree, I thought to myself: “Beat that if you can”. Buoyed up by my success in completing that family tree, I am now in the process of doing my mother’s. It is a work in progress, but I have so far identified 11 generals, one ambassador and two admirals, one of whom was awarded the VC. So, in my mind, her family definitely did beat that. I was in the Army for a few years, but I never reached their dizzy heights. With hindsight, I must have been a bitter disappointment to both families; I broke the mould.
Seven of my grandparents’ generation fought in the First World War; three of my great-uncles were killed. This is not a dissimilar experience from that of millions of other families. During the Second World War, my father and uncle both joined up and happily survived. Strangely, I never heard either of them talk about their experiences during the war; I learned more about their war after they died. One can understand why many of that generation wanted to draw a line under their painful experiences and just move on.
That is not quite true. My father mentioned just two incidents. The first was when we were talking about a friend of mine. My father said:
“Of course, he was my godson. It was such a pity that his father, Nigel, never knew that he had a son”.
When I pressed him to explain, he said that his tank battalion was advancing on the enemy in Normandy and when he looked to his right, he saw Nigel’s tank being blown up and on fire. He then saw Nigel, his great friend, escaping through the turret with his clothes on fire. He died before he hit the ground. Millions of servicemen must have had similar experiences.
The second occasion was when I was a young officer. My father insisted on taking me to Belsen concentration camp. While there, he said that he and other officers and men were made to visit the camp the day after it was liberated, in order to witness first-hand the horrendous things that had taken place there. He said that the horrors of what they saw that day stuck with him as if it were yesterday.
War is a horrific business, and all of us living today have much for which to thank those who fought and died, men and women, so that we can live with the freedoms, peace and democracy that we so cherish—and perhaps, to some extent, take for granted. Long may we remember them.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Andrews has said that the poets got it right, and didn’t they just:
“In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row
That mark our place”.
Later in John McCrae’s poem he writes:
“If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields”.
I hope that we have not broken faith as we acknowledge the centenary of the Armistice in 1918. We have a particular responsibility, because the century passes on our watch and we need to tell the story forward, louder than ever, to keep faith with those who gave their lives 100 years ago.
Nine young men went from Balscote, my village in Oxfordshire: John L Compton, Sydney Cox, Henry Coles, Thomas Cook, Arthur WM Gardner, Eric Hitchcox, Herbert Hitchcox, Cyril Kempson and Christopher Skuse. So many young men, from cities, towns and villages all over this country, volunteered, were later conscripted, and were often devoured by the war. As Wilfred Owen said:
“What candles may be held to speed them all?”
My own great-uncles from the west of Ireland were just some of the 200,000 Irish who fought alongside allied forces—it was indeed a long way to Tipperary. As the noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, said, young men in their millions came from the Empire, including Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs from pre-partition India who fought at Neuve Chapelle, breaking through the German defence for the first time, and at Ypres, Givenchy, Loos, Festubert, and of course the Somme.
They came from Africa—95,000 of the East African Carrier Corps gave their lives—South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Newfoundland and the Caribbean. The Jewish Zion Mule Corps and the Chinese Labour Corps, which numbered 100,000, served alongside the British Expeditionary Force. With none of them do we break faith.
Nearer to home, they came from across Europe —a Europe that we are moving away from, I fear. In a recent visit to Plymouth, the city in which I grew up, I realised on rereading the names of the fallen on the magnificent naval war memorial there that on one of our ships, the entire ship’s band, all 26 of them, had Italian names—names such as Baldacchino, Carmando, Cavallazzi and Consiglio. Two had the same name, Portoghese. Perhaps they were brothers or cousins or even father and son. Everyone who served and died in this war has a right to be remembered and their story told.
But the story, as many noble Lords have said, is incomplete if we do not honour the part played by women; the redoubtable women who against all odds gave service at the front in the field hospitals and who joined the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps as mechanics, cooks, drivers and clerks. In total, more than 100,000 women joined Britain’s Armed Forces during the war, and Louise Jordan’s current one-woman show, “No Petticoats Here”, which is amazing, tells us about these unsung heroines.
While women had worked outside the home before 1914, they now really took up the heavy lifting in what had been men-only work in the ammunition factories where conditions were often harsh, such as the Birmingham Small Arms Company factory in my former European Parliament constituency. They worked in transport and in the police. In 1916, Evelyn Miles became the first woman to join the police in Birmingham. As Evelyn Underhill wrote in her poem “Non-combatants”:
“Never of us be said,
We had no war to wage”.
The Government’s programme of centenary commemorations has been fitting, creative and respectful in its offer and its delivery and especially in its work directly with young people, and I heartily congratulate the Government. The London-based youth orchestra, Musiko Musika, of which I am proud to be a patron, has benefited from the Government’s guidance in its work with young people from Chile. Why Chile? The British and Chilean youngsters are remembering the 1914 naval battle of Coronel off that coast.
The Commonwealth War Graves Commission continues its outstanding work in keeping faith with those who died and in constantly reworking and reimagining the story for future generations. Let us determine that, 100 years from now, our grandchildren’s grandchildren will still keep faith with those who sleep in Flanders fields.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I remember discussing Brexit at Harvard Business School with one of the great professors there, an authority on negotiation in the world today. He said that he had been reading a book about the build-up to the First World War, and that it was like watching a train crash in slow motion.
The poppy that we wear is a bond between the living and the dead. As the noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, said in his excellent speech, he worked with the Royal British Legion to specially commission the khadi poppy that I am wearing with pride. It is made of handwoven cotton made famous by Mahatma Gandhi. The poppy emphasises our gratitude for the 1.5 million volunteers—the British Legion says that it is to say thank you to them—who served from every corner of the then undivided India; they were not conscripts. It was the largest British Empire armed force besides the British Army itself. There were 13,000 medals for gallantry, including 11 awards of the Victoria Cross. The British Legion says that together we can ensure that:
“Remembrance is understood and available to all, and handed to the next generation”.
Yet although the noble Lord said that a poem is going to be read out on 10 November, I do not know if, at this huge event at the Royal Albert Hall which will be watched by millions around the world, the British legion will specifically acknowledge the contribution of the 1.5 million Indians. If it does not, it will be a missed opportunity. The Minister said that a great deal of the commemoration of World War I has been about youth. Well, there is no better time for us to reach out across the country, and especially to our youth and our schoolchildren, to tell them about the amazing service and sacrifice, not just from the Commonwealth, but in particular from India.
Today British Asians make up the largest ethnic-minority community in the UK. This is an opportunity for the whole nation to recognise, appreciate and thank these individuals. That would strengthen the wonderful multicultural, pluralist, tolerant nation which Britain has become—a Britain that celebrates its diversity. This ethnic-minority contribution is the greatest strength of this tiny country, no longer with the empire it had during the First World War but still the fifth-largest economy in the world.
One of my earliest childhood memories was walking into our Zoroastrian Parsi fire temple in Hyderabad and seeing a portrait of an army officer. I have since realised that officer was Captain Firoz Bapuji Chinoy, who served in the British Army Medical Corps during World War I and died in Iran in 1918. I was sent the details of another Parsi medical officer, Captain Hiraji Cursetji, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Order for his bravery during the final stages of the campaign in Mesopotamia, now Iraq. This was a theatre of war in which the Indian Army played a vital role. His citation states:
“For conspicuous gallantry and devotion to duty at Mushaq, 26th-27th October and at Sharquat, 29th October. Throughout the operations he displayed the greatest zeal and disregard for danger while tending the wounded under heavy fire, working unceasingly for forty-eight hours. He has previously rendered excellent service, and once was severely wounded”.
This captain retired as Major-General Sir Hiraji Cursetji of the Indian Medical Service. Yet do we realise that, except for the medical officers, the 1.5 million Indians who served in the First World War were not allowed to become officers; and that it was only after the First World War that the British allowed, from 1922 to 1932, eight Indians per course at Sandhurst to become officers? They were called King’s commissioned officers and my grandfather, Brigadier Noshire Bilimoria, was one of them. My father, the late Lieutenant-General Bilimoria, was commissioned into the Indian Military Academy and into the 2/5 Gorkha Rifles (Frontier Force). He ended up becoming colonel of his regiment, president of the Gorkha Brigade and commander-in-chief of the central army in India.
The regiments of the Gurkhas in India today have six battalions each, yet sadly we have only 3,000 Gurkhas today. Today, the British Army cannot even fill Wembley Stadium. The Indian Army numbers 1.2 million people and another 1 million reserves. Today it was announced that we need to recruit, from the Commonwealth, citizens who have not even lived in the UK because of a shortage of 3,000 per year into the British Army. Look at just one battalion, the 1/5 Royal Gorkha Rifles, which served in the Suez Canal zone and at Gallipoli. In that campaign, of 410,000 British Empire troops, 213,980 were casualties. That was the scale of this war. The 1/5 also fought in Mesopotamia, where my father’s battalion, the 2/5, also fought. The casualties from this one battalion, the 1/5, in the First World War numbered: killed or died of wounds, 221; wounded, 748; missing, four; died of disease, 40. More Indians fought for the British between 1914 and 1918 than the combined total for Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. Some 74,000 Indian soldiers were killed on the battlefields of Europe, Africa and the Middle East, but the part they played in the war has largely been whitewashed from history. On top of this, there were 16,000 West Indians and 18,000 troops from Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, mentioned the Memorial Gates, which Her Majesty the Queen officially inaugurated on 6 November 2002. The driving force behind them, my noble friend Lady Flather, is to this day the life president. It is a living memorial to honour the,
“five million men and women from the Indian sub-continent, Africa and the Caribbean who volunteered to serve with the Armed Forces of the Crown during the First and Second World Wars”.
They also celebrate:
“The contribution that these men and women and their descendants, members of the Commonwealth family, continue to make to the rich diversity of British society”.
That message needs to go out. This is the opportunity. As the noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, said, even Mahatma Gandhi, who was totally for non-violence, took part in the First World War by founding an ambulance unit, the Indian Ambulance Corps.
We are celebrating the centenary of the RAF: it started during the First World War.
We must not forget that we now have the Armed Forces covenant, introduced in 2011. A moral obligation exists between the nation, the Government and the Armed Forces in return for the sacrifices they make. This is now enshrined in law. In particular, our veterans should suffer no disadvantage and should be given special consideration. For six years I was proud to be a commissioner of the Chelsea Pensioners at the Royal Hospital Chelsea. Two decades after World War I we had World War II—two decades later we had nuclear war. Peace in Europe has existed thanks to the European Union, not just NATO. It has existed because we are still a strong defence power, not just a soft power. It has existed because of NATO and because we need to maintain the strength of our defence—not spending just 2% of GDP but 3%, I believe. Our youth needs to learn about the 1.5 million troops from India, and to remember.
In a statement to the House of Commons on 11 November 1918 the British Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, set out the terms of Armistice and said:
“Thus at 11 o’clock this morning came to the end the cruellest and most terrible war that has ever scourged mankind. I hope we may say that thus, this fateful morning, came to an end all wars”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/1918; col. 2463.]
Sadly not, but as Ben Okri, the Booker prize-winning author says on the Memorial Gates:
“Our future is greater than our past”.
Baroness Seccombe (Con)
My Lords, at this time of year my mind begins to focus on the fast-approaching commemoration of the Armistice at the end of the First World War, a war which, as we have heard several times this afternoon, was supposed to end all wars. Sadly, that was never going to happen.
There is so much that could be said on this subject, but today I want to address the treatment of mental health issues. On 11 November 1918, there must have been much celebration in the knowledge that the daily carnage would cease. There was very little reporting of the shocking numbers who returned home broken physically, while others had mental health issues. These problems were not even recognised. It must have been very difficult for families welcoming their men back home, after four long years fighting for their King and country, and then returning as changed people to a very different world.
My own father went to war with the Somerset Light Infantry as a strong, robust young man, but after three bouts of rheumatic fever he was sent to a different regiment when he was considered well enough to return to the front line. Five years later, he left with a heart condition, from which he died when I was 10 years old.
The contribution from the Empire was both extraordinary and humbling, and we should never forget that their catastrophic loss of men must have been as shattering to them as it was to us. What all these brave men witnessed must have been so agonising, it is no wonder that few could bear to speak of it.
Over the last two or three weeks, I have watched some of the Invictus Games, led so brilliantly by His Royal Highness Prince Harry. It was impossible not to be moved by the effect the games had on the participants and their families and, of course, on the millions who watched as I did. I cast my mind back to the dark days of 1918 when mental health issues were not even recognised, never mind treated. These problems were something to be ashamed of, and so were hidden from the outside world.
These were issues that affected the whole family. It was tragic that no help was on hand to support men who had been through so much. If violence became too much for the family to bear, medical help was sought, and I am sure that after many consultations, sectioning could be ordered. This was the ultimate sanction, with the patient being not only deprived of his liberty but taken away from his family.
In 1918, life was harsh. It was easier for society to accept physical problems, as they could be seen and understood, but many men led appallingly painful lives from the hidden injuries they received. Antibiotics were not available at that time to treat the ghastly wounds many men bore, often resulting in sepsis and countless horrors.
In 2018, I was spellbound by the stories of the competitors in the Invictus Games and the transformation of their lives. Today, we marvel at the skill of the doctors, surgeons and nurses, and are grateful for the brilliant and generous contribution made by all the voluntary bodies dedicated to restoring shattered military men and women.
I salute all those who, over the generations, have fought to defend our liberty and democracy. Indeed, we must never forget their sacrifice. But I thank God I am alive today, and not 100 years ago.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as Member of this House elected to the Joint Committee on commemorating World War 1.
On 3 March five years ago, I had the privilege of leading a debate on how we in this House felt that the commemoration should go. I must say at the outset that I am full of admiration for the way in which the Government have handled the issue. It could have been tricky; there could have been jingoism or celebration. We do not think of those things now, but five years ago it was a concern for all of us—so I gladly congratulate the Government on the way they have handled this. To follow these sentiments, we must work out a way of continuing to pursue some of the problems that have been outlined in the last five years.
I will also single out and pay particular tribute to Dr Andrew Murrison MP, the Prime Minister’s special representative on the centenary of World War I. He has worked amazingly hard. He has been inclusive, brought people in and achieved a consensus. We all owe him a great deal for his efforts. He is in the House today and I thank him for all the work he has done.
Over the past few years, I have certainly learned a great deal about World War I. I thought I knew a bit —but, clearly, I missed many of the critical things. I am very proud to wear the khadi poppy today, because I had not fully appreciated that lesson in 2013. I appreciate it now and we owe a deep debt of gratitude to those brave souls from India who came in those days and fought.
One thing I have learned is that it/this is quite amazing when we look at history—even crudely and not in a sophisticated way. We see the recruits and volunteers from Australia, New Zealand and Canada who flocked to come and fight for the old country—the mother country. Then you stop and think: most of these people—these Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians—had not been born in Australia, New Zealand or Canada. They had been born in Britain and left this country because they were fed up with the social class system, which they felt held them back. In 1914, the federal Government and every single state government in Australia was run by the Labour Party. I make that not as a party point but to substantiate my point that these were the rebels. But when the call came to fight for the mother country, they flocked to come—and if it had not been mishandled by the federal Labour Government, they might even have got conscription through. But they were not able to do so. I thought it was a very significant point: why the heck should they come back and fight for us when they felt as they did? But they did.
We can see the success of the past four years and all the work by the various bodies that have assisted the Government. We think of the Heritage Lottery Fund, which invested almost £100 million in over 2,000 initiatives, most of them at local level, to ensure that we discovered more history—more facts about how World War I affected people at local level. We look at the British Legion and the wonderful work it has done over the century since it was formed, and especially over the past four years. I look at how supportive the National Archives at Kew have been; I also look at local archives, which are under great financial pressure, as was alluded to from the Liberal Benches earlier today. It has been a great strain on those archivists to try to satisfy the demands of people trying to find out about what happened to their ancestors in World War I. I pay tribute to the teachers who have done so much work, not only in taking pupils across to see the battlefields under the Government’s adventurous scheme, which I fully support. They have done a wonderful job, but it has taken a lot of time, as it has with local archives.
There are historical lessons that perhaps we ought to think about. A number of people, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, have quite rightly made the point that in a sense this is unfinished business. Looking at the global picture, that is absolutely right—but we could act now on more immediate issues, which would perhaps help us in learning about the past and preparing for the future. We are beginning to appreciate how important freedom of information is; it is an intrinsic part of our democracy. I fully understand that you cannot be completely open when you are waging war, but I wonder whether the obsessive secrecy that still pervades a lot of activity in World War I, and even more so in World War II, stops us from learning what went on.
I mentioned schoolchildren, and much of the disappointment of schoolchildren has come when they have tried to look back at the records of their ancestors. Bearing in mind that the overwhelming majority of their ancestors were ordinary squaddies, ordinary fighting non-commissioned men, almost all the records affecting those individuals were destroyed during World War II. They were bombed because they had not been put in a safe place. The records of all the officers are safe, but not of the ordinary squaddies. So there are a lot of questions we have to look at, which makes things very difficult.
I am not a pacifist, but I have done a lot of work with people who were conscientious objectors. I have seen a plus and a minus in that. I have to give credit to the establishment in Britain, especially the parliamentary establishment, which recognised that there were good conscientious reasons why certain people were not prepared to fight. We made arrangements so those people could be excused—whereas in many other countries there was no such finesse. If they disagreed, they were sent to the front and shot. We were much more civilised—but only barely, because anybody who was judged to be objecting but not conscientiously suffered greatly.
I interviewed people like Willie Brooke, in the Huddersfield area at the time. He was a conscientious objector. He was an active member of the Independent Labour Party and a practising and active member of the Baptist Church—and he was not prepared to fight. He went all the way. Eventually he was sentenced to two years’ hard labour, much of it in solitary confinement, in Wormwood Scrubs. It was better than being shot—but, at times, I bet he had his doubts.
We must give credit where credit is due. As Dr Murrison said the other day, we are the envy of many other countries. But it is not only that people are full of envy for us: as I said to him, they are full of admiration for us. But we must not forget the lessons and must try to move forward with much more openness and information available.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I start by echoing what has been said in praise of the Government’s efforts to bring the Armistice and Great War to the notice of the nation. Commemoration has changed very much. In 1938, I was being driven by my father in his car down Broad Street in Oxford. When we got to the join between Trinity College and Balliol, going towards the station, there was the most enormous bang that surprised me greatly. What surprised me more was that, at that moment, all the traffic stopped, all the engines were turned off, all the pedestrians stopped walking and all the men took off their hats and bowed their head. It remained like that, a tableau suspended in time, for two minutes until life resumed.
What happens now is entirely different, but in a way it penetrates more deeply into the consciousness of society—of the people who make up this country and its character and are responsible for its future. One purpose of commemoration, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, put it in an admirable speech, is to learn. The question is: have we learned? We will come to that later.
I want to follow the footsteps of my father a little further. He volunteered in 1914, abandoning his degree course in classics. He had got a first in mods. He went into a territorial regiment from Hampshire and was shipped out with it to India. He trained at Quetta and was put with his unit into four ships which were part of a large convoy heading to the Western Front. The troops were principally Indians, so I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on their importance, because throughout the campaign my father was among a principally Indian force fielded by the Indian Government. The delays at the beginning were due to a disagreement between Delhi and Westminster about what the objective was. It finished up being Baghdad.
This is a good time to look at the Turkish campaign, not only because, as my noble friend Lord Cope said, it is somewhat overlooked, but because today is the 104th anniversary of the declaration of war on the Turks by the British—so this is a very apposite moment at which to look back at that extraordinary campaign. It started at Basra, which we got to know again during the unfortunate Iraqi escapade. The British force fought its way for getting on for 100 miles to Ctesiphon, where the advance party, which was the major part of the force, such was the generalship of the day, met a Turkish force. The advance party had met only outposts before as they fought their way on foot. The Turkish force defending Ctesiphon was almost exactly twice the size of the British force and was fresh out of Baghdad. The British force lost two-thirds of its men and then had to make a fighting retreat to a fortified bend in the River Tigris, which it defended against the Turks.
The conditions were appalling. The well-known Arab phrase about the Mesopotamian valley is that when Allah made hell, it was not bad enough, so he invented Mesopotamia and then added the flies. The flies were monstrous in their number. You could not see your horse’s head for flies in bad weather. The ground was alternately baked solid, so you could hardly get a trenching tool into it, or powdery dust which turned to a sort of sloppy treacle when it rained and through which you had to advance.
In Kut al-Amara, where they were besieged for five months, the British force dug three lines of trenches across the two bends in the river that made the loop so they were fortified in the loop. There was a small town there. They had more supplies than they might have expected because the town was an advanced supply dump for the expected advance on Baghdad. By the end of the siege, the troops had undergone various horrors. Apart from constant bombardment, the Tigris flooded the trenches on both sides. They had to retreat to the third lines, and they were waist-deep in water. In the winter months it got so cold that the blankets which were all the troops had to put over their heads against the rain froze to the parapet. In his book, Colonel Spackman records that those who came out from France said that until they had seen Mesopotamia they had no idea what real suffering was. I have seen photographs of the troops at the end of the siege and they exactly resemble the photographs of prisoners in Belsen, to which a noble Lord referred—toast-racks.
Then the horror began. They had surrendered and the officers were separated from the men. I am somewhat confused in my delivery because only this morning I found a long document that my father wrote to his father from the prison camp that he eventually finished up in. I shall give noble Lords an idea of what it was like immediately after the surrender—after they had said goodbye to their scarecrow troops:
“But officers coming later over the same roads north of Baghdad have brought uglier tales than these: of British soldiers found dying naked & alone on dungheaps on the fringe of some Arab town; or straggling from the march & not seen again; of men whose faces were livid dust-masks unrecognisable to close friends; men knocked on the head or buried scarcely dead; a poor death for an Englishman indeed … By October reports said that not more than six hundred of the two thousand three hundred British were alive & they were dying still, incapable of the work given them, diseased & without doctors, unburied often, sometimes buried scarcely dead. Such were facts you may one day know at home as well as we; but the horror of these men’s deaths you will never quite imagine, forgotten, they must have thought themselves, by God & men. I have seen the country, great, lonely, inscrutable; I knew the men & I have a fair imagination for horrors, but I can imagine nothing more horrible than this. Did any soldiers who fell in these wars suffer more or longer for their country, or with less earthly reward?”
That is focused on the British contingent. The same horrors or worse were being undergone by the Indians.
The point I will make very briefly is this: what did it do to my father? He went through part of that horrible march himself and got into officers’ confinement, which was better than the men’s. When he came back to England, he was convinced of something that he later wrote in a book: “I have only two prejudices: one is for democracy and the other is that I am a Christian”. His reaction, noble Lords opposite will be pleased to hear, was to stand as a Labour candidate for a Bristol constituency. He became a right-hand man to Ramsay MacDonald and, after losing one election and very nearly winning the second, was put into your Lordships’ House.
Fast forward to, I suppose, 1947. He took me for a walk in the fields, obviously with some intention. He said, “I know you’ll be interested in what I’ve been doing in Westminster. I thought you’d like to know that now the National Health Act is on the statute book, every objective for which I joined the Labour Party has been achieved. I see no purpose in belonging to any political party and I am going to sit on the Cross Benches”, which he did thereafter. He played a notable part in the interwar years. On the eve of the war, he was foremost among those who said we simply had to stand up to Nazism. All that suffering did not deter him from the necessity of standing up to what he saw as sheer evil.
He went on to say in his book—I will finish in a minute—that we stood at the beginning of another era, and that the decision had to be whether that era would be formed by Hitler and those who thought like him or by us and the Americans and those who thought like us. The question is—and again I go back to the speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup—whether or not we stand on the lip of another era. I very much think that we do. We need to look at what is needed to survive, in terms of courage, honesty and self-sacrifice, for any country to succeed. Society must be just, and your Lordships will recognise that there are open questions about how we settle our society so it is at peace with itself and regards itself as being just.
I have gone on for too long, but I was very excited by the document that I found and I feel passionately that we are on the edge of great events that we have to forestall.
Brexit: Arrangements for EU Citizens
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend Caroline Nokes to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, while we are confident in agreeing a good deal for both sides, as a responsible Government we will continue to prepare for all scenarios, including the unlikely outcome that we leave the EU without any deal in March 2019. We have reached an agreement with the EU on citizens’ rights that will protect those EU citizens and their family members who are resident in the UK until the end of the planned implementation period on 31 December 2020.
We are introducing the EU settlement scheme under UK immigration law for resident EU citizens and their family members covered by the draft withdrawal agreement. This will enable those who are resident in the UK before the end of the planned implementation period on 31 December 2020 to confirm their status under the EU settlement scheme. Anyone who already has five years’ continuous residence in the UK when they apply under the scheme will be eligible to apply for settled status. Those who have not yet reached five years’ continuous residence will be eligible to be granted pre-settled status and will be able to apply for settled status once they reach the five-year point.
In the unlikely event of a no deal, the Prime Minister has already confirmed that all EU citizens resident here by 29 March 2019 will be welcome to stay. They are part of our community, and part of our country, and we welcome the contribution that they make. Last week, the Prime Minister extended that commitment to citizens of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, and we are close to reaching an agreement with Switzerland. We will set out further details shortly so that those affected can have the clarity and certainty they need”.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question in the other place. Last week the Immigration Minister told the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee that in the event of a no-deal Brexit:
“If somebody has not been here prior to the end of March next year, then employers will have to make sure that they go through adequately rigorous checks to evidence somebody’s right to work”.
First, was that statement correct in all respects: that employers after 29 March 2019 will have to differentiate between resident EU citizens already here and those arriving after our departure from the EU? Secondly, if the Immigration Minister’s statement was correct, what form will these “rigorous checks” after 29 March take that employers will have to make sure that EU citizens not already here prior to that date will have to go through to evidence their right to work? How will these rigorous checks differ from what employers have to do at present when EU citizens seek work here under the existing EU free movement of labour provisions? Finally, when will sadly lacking publicly available written guidance on this specific issue be provided?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for that question. Regarding employer checks, he will know that employers already need to carry out right-to-work checks on EU citizens, and that will not change. It is clear that employers will carry out right-to-work checks on EU citizens as they already do, and they will not be expected to differentiate between a resident EU citizen and those arriving after March 2019. However, in addition, I understand that employers have been given toolkits to enable them to carry out their duties in the right way.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify that? The Prime Minister promised EU citizens that they could stay come what may—that is, in the event of a no deal—and that is repeated in the reply today. First, how can we have confidence in a Prime Ministerial assurance which is then contradicted by a junior Minister? Are the Government planning to introduce legislation in the event of no deal that could impose work restrictions on EU nationals and sanctions on employers in relation to those restrictions? I do not think that that any current legislative requirement would cover that situation. The Minister said that EU nationals are subject to employer checks at the moment. Can she clarify what those checks are, because I think that EU nationals are in a different position to non-EU nationals, who are subject to immigration control? Lastly, will there be other hostile environment checks on rights to healthcare, benefits and so on?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness will know, because my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already said it, that there will not be a hostile environment. There will continue to be a compliant environment now and when we leave the European Union. On the Prime Minister’s statement that EU citizens can stay, I do not think that she has been contradicted by a junior Minister. I add that my right honourable friend Caroline Nokes—if that is who the noble Baroness was referring to—is not a junior minister; she is in fact a member of the Cabinet. Is that who the noble Baroness was referring to?
Baroness Ludford
Indeed I was, but it is even more serious if a member of the Cabinet has contradicted the Prime Minister.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
She has not contradicted the Prime Minister, as far as I am aware. Employers will carry out those right-to-work checks, as they have to date. The beta testing scheme over the past couple of months has already started the ball rolling for citizens regularising their status to be able to stay in this country. That will be rolled out more fully in the new year.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I understood from the Minister in the other place that the Government are minded to bring forward an immigration Bill shortly that will set out the criteria for skilled workers post Brexit. Will my noble friend give the House an assurance that those currently filling positions in care places and hospitals who are not deemed to be skilled workers will still be admitted after Brexit to continue to fill those roles if they are not filled otherwise?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is absolutely right that an immigration Bill will be arriving in the Commons shortly. If those people currently filling places are EU citizens—I am guessing she was referring to EU citizens—have been here for five years, they can automatically get their settled status. If they have not been here for five years, they can get temporary status, which will become full status when they have been here for five years.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm reports that victims of modern slavery and women who have been trafficked who are EU citizens will be required to pay a fee to the Home Office before they are allowed to stay? Can she explain the reasons behind that, given how difficult it can be to enable victims of modern slavery to come forward to be rescued?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord raises a very valid point about victims of modern slavery, who will be supported and helped when they come here no matter what country they are from. Depending on their situation, they will be helped either to move on within this country or to move back to the country of their origin.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that post-Brexit, we will be able to allow anyone whom we want to have in the UK to live and work here? Is it not also the case that we will not need to put visa controls on EU citizens if we do not want to and we want to have them here?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is right and the Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear. That is why we are making those arrangements for EU citizens to have their settled status here, either pre-settled if they have been here less than five years or settled if they have been here for five years or more. We want them to stay here and continue to work here. The Prime Minister has made that crystal clear; it would be good if the EU could also do that.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Can the Minister clarify the reports last week about people who achieve settled status but subsequently leave the United Kingdom for a prolonged period of years? Would their settled status allow them to come back into the United Kingdom after, say, five years and achieve the rights they had prior to their departure?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that some people might come here and then leave and then come back again. Five years’ continuous residence in this country will entitle people to settled status, but they can apply for pre-settled status if they have been here for less than five years. On the point about getting settled status, leaving and then coming back again, I will have to get back to him because I do not know the answer.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the original Answer refers to applications that will be needed, and those will not be entirely straightforward for everyone. I appreciate that pilots are going on at the moment, but people such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, might well not find it easy—indeed, find it a deterrence—facing the bureaucracy and dealing with the authority that this involves. Can the Minister confirm that the Home Office will consider sympathetically a different way of dealing with people in this group and the possibility of waiving the fee for them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is very important to outline that anybody who is vulnerable in any way—including victims of modern slavery, sex-trafficking or whatever it might be—will get the support that they need from the appropriate authorities when they arrive here. I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say that fees will be waived because, as far as I know, they will not be. However, I can say that people who need our support will get it when they arrive here in very vulnerable situations.
Universal Credit
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the changes announced to universal credit in the Budget last week and on the managed migration regulations, which we are laying in the House today. The Chancellor announced a substantial package at the Budget to ensure that millions keep more of what they earn, and vulnerable claimants are supported when they move to universal credit. In total, this package will be worth an extra £4.5 billion across the next five years.
I want to say a special thank you to all the colleagues, charities, third sector organisations, Jobcentre Plus staff and claimants who fed back to me to build this package of support to ensure universal credit is a fair system, supporting thousands who cannot work, as well as thousands who can. I would also like to thank my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for their support to deliver these measures.
Make no mistake: this is a department that listens and a department that will continue to listen, adapt, change and deliver. We will put an extra £1.7 billion a year into work allowances, increasing the amount that hard-working families can earn by £1,000 before universal credit is tapered away—providing extra support for 2.4 million working families. Of course, the Opposition do not like helping 2.4 million families, which is why they are laughing, because we help and support people into work. That is why it was welcomed not only in this House but among charities like the Child Poverty Action Group, which said:
‘The work allowance increase is unequivocally good news for families receiving universal credit’;
and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which said that this extra investment,
‘will help make Universal Credit a tool for tackling poverty’.
We have gone further, recognising the genuine concerns raised about the support we were offering people, especially the most vulnerable, when they move to universal credit. So we have made a further £1 billion package of changes, providing two additional weeks of DWP legacy benefits for those who move on to universal credit—a one-off, non-repayable sum that will provide claimants with extra money during the period before they receive their first universal credit payment. This is on top of the two additional weeks of housing benefit announced at Autumn Budget 2017, and put into place this year. We will also support the self-employed moving to universal credit. We will open up a 12-month grace period before the minimum income floor is applied, supporting 130,000 self-employed claimants, because we are the party of business—we are the party of aspiration.
We will support those in debt by reducing the normal maximum rate at which debts are deducted from universal credit awards, from 40% to 30% of standard allowances. This will help over 600,000 families to manage their debts at any one point when rollout is complete, providing them with, on average, £295 extra a year as their debts are repaid over a longer period. This is targeted support to help work pay and support the vulnerable.
That is why today I lay regulations to deliver the next phase of universal credit: managed migration, through which people will be moved on to universal credit. It is a move from a system that trapped people on benefits and created cliff edges at 16, 24 and 30 hours, with punitive effective tax rates of over 90% for some. Under Labour, between 1997 and 2010, benefit spend went up by 65%. In 1997, households were paying £5,500 in taxes to fund the benefits system, and by 2010 it had risen to £8,350. This party was voted into office to manage the country’s finances and get them under control, and to make sure that the benefits bill was affordable and sustainable for the future. So while the party opposite may hanker for the dark old days—trapping people on benefits, excluding them from the opportunity of work and getting on in life, while at the same time delivering a big bill to the taxpayer—we do not.
Under this Government 3.4 million more people are in work, the vast majority of which are full-time and permanent roles. That means that we have created more new jobs in the UK since 2010 than France, Spain, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria and Norway combined, alongside creating a welfare system that supports those who need it.
Through universal credit, around 1 million disabled households will receive around an extra £100 on average per month through more generous support. The managed migration regulations will, in addition, protect 500,000 people’s severe disability premium at the point of migration, and will deliver transitional protection for those we move, to ensure that at the point of moving, those manage-migrated have their entitlements protected.
We will take a measured approach to delivering managed migration, taking our time to get it right and working with claimants to co-design it. We will continue to take on board the advice of experts and charities such as the Social Security Advisory Committee, whose report on the regulations we have published, along with our response, today. We have accepted in full or part all but one of its recommendations, and the one we did not accept is because we want to make it more generous.
I pay tribute to the hard work of the Social Security Advisory Committee in scrutinising our regulations. We have changed a key part of the regulations, which charities, MPs and the department have asked me about, which relates to the minimum statutory notice period for people moving from their legacy award to universal credit. We have extended this period from a minimum of one month to a minimum of three months, to allow claimants maximum time to prepare and make their claim before their legacy award expires. Alongside this, we have unlimited flexibility to extend claim periods for people who need it. We will also back-date any claimant who has missed the deadline date but who has made a claim within a month of the deadline day passing. We will also test a variety of communications methods, including advertising campaigns, face-to-face communication, letters, texts, telephone calls and home visits. This will provide support for claimants during managed migration. We will constantly review our approaches, engaging fully with charities, experts, claimants and all Members of this House. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.
This is a very large pile of sticking plaster. I am glad that some of it is there—it is better than not having it—but in fact it highlights just what a problem lies underneath that which the Government are addressing. For years, Ministers have told the House that all is well with universal credit, and whenever concerns were raised on these or other Benches, they said that we were scaremongering. Whenever charities or churches raised it, they were scaremongering. Even the NAO joined in last June, publishing a damning report about the impact of universal credit. But I am glad that Ministers are beginning to acknowledge that some issues need tackling, and some steps have been taken today which are welcome.
I welcome the increase in work allowances in universal credit. Noble Lords will recall, I am sure, the time in 2015 when my late and sorely missed friend Lady Hollis of Heigham led your Lordships in demanding that the Government think again about those cuts in work allowances. Ministers agreed to do it in tax credits, but they did not for universal credit. But today they have restored £1,000 of that cut, which feels like a good tribute to my noble friend. However, a bit of me feels that it is still only half of what was taken off in that Budget. I am aware that that sounds a bit grudging. I do not like looking a gift horse in the mouth, but if someone gives me two horses then takes them away, then comes back a long time afterwards and gives me one horse, I will still hanker slightly after the two horses that I had in the first place. Your Lordships will forgive me if I am being a bit disgruntled but two horses are better than one. None the less, one horse is better than none. I will stop the metaphor now.
Other things in the Statement are welcome. The decision to roll on other means-tested benefits for two weeks for those moving across to universal credit is good, but the Red Book seems to suggest that that will kick in only from July 2020. Can the Minister clarify whether, if people move across from other benefits any time between now and 2020—for example, because they move into a universal credit area or they have a change of circumstance—they will get no help at all? Will they still be stuck, having to wait five weeks for all this money? What will happen there? I also welcome the minor change to the self-employed rules, but I still think that UC for low-income self-employed people is an absolute mess that will unravel before very long.
The real new announcements today are about managed migration. This really matters because, as the IFS said in its Budget commentary, this is,
“a huge change quite deliberately creating millions of winners and millions of losers. Something like a third … will be at least £1,000 a year worse off under UC than under the legacy system while about a quarter will be at least £1,000 a year better off”.
Ministers keep saying that no one will lose money as a result of moving on to UC. That is not because of generosity; it is because people have transitional protection which says they will not lose out at the point where they move across. However, Ministers do not often tell us that this applies only to some people. There are two ways you can get on to universal credit: through natural migration, where you move to a new area and have a change in circumstances—with this you get no transitional protection; or, at some point between now and three or four years down the road, the Government will move across anyone who is left, in a process that is called managed migration.
As this process is called managed migration, everyone assumed people would be managed. It now turns out they will not be managed at all. They will get a letter saying, “Your benefits are going to be cut off on this date”—I am glad it could be three months rather than one—“and if you don’t make a fresh claim, you will get no money”. If you make a claim after that deadline but within a month, you will get transitional protection; if it is after a month plus a week you will get no transitional protection even if you got your claim in.
Let us bear in mind that this is a complicated process. Around 30% of people who start an online claim give up before it is finished and put into payment. This could be really serious, especially for vulnerable people. The process essentially shifts the burden of responsibility from the state on to the individual, to deal with the consequences of the state moving almost 3 million people from their current benefits; of these, over one-third are either too sick or disabled to work. This is potentially very serious indeed.
The Social Security Advisory Committee had a number of concerns, most of which have been accepted, often in principle. Anyone who has read one of these reports knows that there can be a big difference between accepting something in principle and doing what the committee recommended. One classic example is that the committee suggested that the DWP—rather than making everybody make a fresh claim—could carefully analyse, segment by segment, and look for ways in which certain groups could be carved out and moved across automatically. The DWP simply said no. It said it needed clean data for everybody or that some people such as tax credit recipients may not be eligible. That is not trying. Why will the Government not take up that recommendation and try very hard to see whether some people might not need to make an application?
The Budget announced a further delay to the rollout, which was scored, by my reading, as a net saving to the Government amounting to around £1.2 billion over five years. Can the Minister explain that? I might be completely wrong, but it seems to me that one of the effects of delaying managed migration is that more people will end up moving across to UC on their own—because they move house, have a baby, or their kid leaves home, or whatever. That leaves fewer people at the end. It also means that all those people will not get transitional protection because they were not there at the end, which costs them money but saves the Government money. Does this change make any difference to the number of people who will eventually be in managed migration? The SSAC also raised some real concerns about deliverability. I do not have time today to go through all my outstanding concerns about universal credit. The Minister is shaking her head. Perhaps I can refer her to the questions the committee was asking about operational deliverability; I certainly had a different take from her on that.
I am deeply concerned that this is a sticking plaster while the underlying body is in serious trouble. I believe this could go badly wrong. There is a reason why the Opposition finally ended up calling for the rollout to stop. I am deeply worried that this is not going to work in the way the Government imagine. For 3 million people, as well as all those on the legacy system who will move across sooner, the benefits system is the only thing that stands between many of them and destitution. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on her analysis of the changes that have been made. Some are very welcome, but we are still facing a major, dramatic piece of administrative change. It will severely affect vulnerable families who are on low legacy benefits at the moment. I do not think it is safe to do this without somehow making an attempt to get an impact assessment of what the long-term effects will be. This legislation was originally put in place in the Welfare Reform Act 2012. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then. We now have some very detailed and complicated regulations. Before we start the process, it would be good to know what the department expects the outcome to be. If we cannot get that, we will to a large extent be flying in the dark.
I welcome the three-month grace period for the minimum statutory notice period for the benefit, but we still have a hard stop at the end of that. Three months is better than one month, but can the Minister explain the sentence in the Secretary of State’s Statement which deals with the one-month period becoming three months? It says that,
“we have unlimited flexibility to extend claim periods for people who need it”.
Can she say what the circumstances are in which someone could claim to need that? Unlimited flexibility could mean that people were not facing a hard stop for legacy benefits, so it would be very useful to understand better what that sentence actually means.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and with the Social Security Advisory Committee, that it would be much safer to try to segment some of the clients we are approaching in managed migration to identify vulnerable people. I do not mean vulnerable only in terms of disability and so on, but also in terms of heavy indebtedness, which means that they are unlikely to be able to withstand a long—or indeed any—gap in benefit provision during transition. We know that data is available, because organisations such as Policy in Practice are already stitching together local authority housing benefit data with Treasury, HMRC and DWP data. There is enough material there to anticipate the households that will have real difficulty facing this. I understand the department is saying that the systems do not talk to one another. During the managed migration period, which admittedly does not start for some time yet, we will not, as I understand it, have the advantage of an ability to mash that data and identify vulnerable groups. It can be done by think tanks and research groups; I think it should be done by the department. Proposals to differentiate the impact on different groups of people is, I believe, very important.
Another thing, from a logistics point of view, is that I understand we have to get these regulations done and dusted by the end of the calendar year. The Minister is very good at offering briefing sessions before these regulations hit the Floor; they are affirmative regulations and will need to come to the Floor of the House. I understand the urgency of getting the legality put in place to cover the department for the trial period—the test and learn period—early next year. I plead with the Minister to give us enough time collectively in this House to understand the full significance of all these changes. Some are beneficial, but we are still facing an enormous difficulty that could have a dramatic impact on low-income families in future.
Baroness Buscombe
I begin by welcoming the comments of both noble Lords opposite, who have welcomed at least in part what we have achieved, both through the Budget announcements and the laying of the regulations today.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, I say straightaway, up front, that unlike honourable Members in another place who did not seem to realise that we would be debating these regulations, we have—and want—to debate them. They are affirmative measures and we will debate them before the end of the year. Otherwise, if we do not get these regulations through, the transitional protection support for people will be lost; we have to make that very clear. I have pretty much put a date in the diary for my first session. I was going to alert noble Lords after our upcoming recess but, in fact, I will make sure that is sent out to all Peers tomorrow. I want to make sure that any Peer who would like a conversation has one with myself and the Minister of State for Employment—he wants to join me in engaging with all noble Lords. It is really important. We want the opportunity to spell out the detail of these regulations. We are excited about it, not least because we have listened and learned.
I have listened to the noble Baroness opposite; I know, for example, that she had a particular concern—as did the noble Lord—when we met to talk very briefly in private two months ago about what we were trying to do with the one-month minimum term to migrate claimants to UC. We have now moved that to three months. We decided on three months, rather than longer, because in talking to experts and stakeholders we decided that any longer might in fact be a disincentive and unhelpful to claimants. It felt as though it was too long a burden in front of them.
We want to do all we can to work with claimants, working with stakeholders—hence having this period now, after the full rollout of universal credit at the end of this year. We will be spending until July next year going through a test and learn process. Our process will be co-designed with stakeholders to ensure that we have listened and understood claimants’ experiences. We want a process that works well for everyone. We are focusing on building safeguards for vulnerable claimants and ensuring that we have all the necessary information to enjoy a smooth transition, with uninterrupted support.
I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that we have decided that we do not want to do anything in terms of migrating claimants without face-to-face or online support because, when we did that, we actually got wrong what we thought would be a smooth, automatic transition from incapacity benefits to ESA—I am going back now to 2011. We got it wrong because we did not always have up-to-date information on people’s circumstances. We did what we call “pre-populate”, and we have decided as a department that that is too dangerous, in case we get it wrong again. We are talking about a huge number of people and we want to get it right.
Therefore, the test and learn process that we are going to go through before beginning the transition will be actually working with claimants who come forward to work with us, testing and trialling how we can make the process better. We have not yet developed the system for managed migration, for the very reason that we want to spend time with everybody: lab sessions, where we use researchers who have recruited claimants; pop-up testing, where researchers have visited job centres, and all the support organisations, homeless shelters and parent and child organisations, to talk to claimants and staff to get this right.
When we do start the managed migration process, we are going to migrate a maximum of only 10,000 people in the first year, which sounds slow, but we think that is the right thing to do. We want to spend all that time checking and making sure that we are right. I will be very happy to come back to your Lordships’ House to keep noble Lords informed of how that process is going, because it is absolutely important that we get it right. We are never going to get 100% of the cases right, but we will do our best.
The important thing is to explain that the two-week support is an additional payment. There will be no gap. That will help people to adjust from being paid two-weekly to four-weekly, but it does not represent any form of gap in transition in terms of payments. It is an additional payment, in addition to the two-week additional housing benefit—which, again, is a one-off cash payment to support people through the process.
I was asked what was meant by my right honourable friend in another place talking about what happens if claimants cannot migrate. We are of the opinion that we should keep the system entirely flexible, so that where a claimant has complex needs or is vulnerable, the work coach can have the option to suggest an extension of the deadline of migration, arrange a home visit or, to be entirely flexible, remove the claimant from the managed migration process entirely. We have to be careful that we do not allow people to fall through the cracks. Let us be clear that this one to three month minimum period is the minimum period for people to manage migrate, but we will be flexible, particularly with those vulnerable claimants who are having difficulty in migrating to the new system.
Baroness Sherlock
Before the Minister sits down, I think she may have inadvertently omitted to answer a couple of my questions. Could I invite her to check the record and write to me?
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that these regulations will be presented to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which the House normally delegates these matters?
Baroness Buscombe
Absolutely. We will make sure that these regulations will be part of the proper process.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the concessions in response to SSAC, and I think we owe SSAC and all the organisations that gave evidence to it a big debt. SSAC recommended that before the department starts the migration process it should undertake what it called a “rigorous and transparent assessment” including,
“how effectively Universal Credit … is currently operating”.
Given the Public Accounts Committee’s observation of,
“a culture of denial … in the face of any adverse evidence”,
how can we be confident that the DWP’s acceptance in principle of this recommendation will mean that, before managed migration, it really will tackle the design flaws that all the organisations on the ground are saying are preventing UC operating effectively? Following on from my noble friend, why will those who do not claim within one month of the new target date not get transitional protection, when Ministers constantly say that everyone will get transitional protection?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, let me make it clear that we are now in a very different place from when that PAC report was drafted. We are injecting an additional £4.5 billion into the system to support the migration on to universal credit. We are in a place where we are already spending £100 billion on benefits for people of working age; we have to think about sustainability and affordability.
When it comes to testing the system, we will adjust and amend our processes according to how claimants respond, which we will identify through ongoing user research with claimants, where we look to establish why claimants did not interact with the service and what they found difficult. We will use that to improve the processes. At the end of the day, though, we cannot leave the process entirely open-ended, where people for whatever reason do not choose to migrate. The important thing is that that is why we are having the whole preparation and learning process—to understand why there could be anyone who fails to go through the process or there is more than one month after the closure of when they should have applied to go on to universal credit.
We will be spending time and a lot of input into advertising campaigns; communications by text, phone and letter; and home visits. Those people will not be falling through the cracks without an extraordinary amount of effort on the part of our 83,000 employees at the DWP, who are not a department in any denial whatsoever. They want this to work. They are excited about it and work hard for it; they will help us to succeed, to the best of our ability.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that, due to the investment in work allowances, an extra 2.4 million families will keep an extra £630 per year of what they earn, by removing the taper rate from an extra £1,000 of earnings?
Baroness Buscombe
My noble friend is absolutely right. The measures in relation to work allowance will make an enormous difference to families. The measure directs additional support in a package worth £1.7 billion across Britain, to some of the most vulnerable, low-paid working families. If a single claimant has responsibility for a child or qualifying young person, or has limited capability, they currently receive a work allowance of £198 per month and those with housing costs £409. With universal credit, raising the current work allowances will mean direct additional funding to working families with children, and working disabled people, by allowing them to keep more of their earnings before the taper rate is applied.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised if I focus on the self-employed. The Social Security Advisory Committee has acknowledged that the main concern about the self-employed was not the grace period, though it acknowledged that a small extension is welcome, but the principle of the minimum income floor itself. Organisation after organisation submitted evidence to the committee to say that this would not work. The committee requested that,
“the Department should undertake a robust evaluation of the policy and its operation ... It is important to determine whether it operates equitably, what effect it has on the self-employed themselves, and what effect it is having on start-ups generally”,
and that,
“evaluation should extend to the related tests of ‘gainful self-employment’ which underpin the way in which the Minimum Income Floor operates”.
There is a fundamental flaw in the way that that has been structured. Can the Minister give some assurance that there will be such a robust evaluation of the policy?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, in all that we are doing with universal credit we constantly question and consider issues of substantive policy, because we want to make sure that the system works for the long term. The Government want to support people to be self-employed but it is right for them to be financially self-sufficient. Key to this is continuing to support people in, or considering, self-employment to progress to a level of sustained financial self-sufficiency. We recognise that it takes time for new businesses to grow and that even established businesses can experience difficulties. We will therefore provide all gainfully self-employed claimants with an equal chance and support from specially trained work coaches to grow their earnings, and to prepare and adjust for the application of the minimum income floor. We were going to move the minimum income floor to six months after migration, but have decided to introduce a grace period of 12 months.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the severe disability premium and the serious implications of not getting these regulations through. Will she confirm that these regulations support the most vulnerable claimants moving to universal credit and that, moreover, voting against them would deprive 500,000 claimants of that premium?
Baroness Buscombe
My noble friend is entirely right. I could not put it better myself. We have to make sure that we get these regulations through. If we do not, that support for half a million vulnerable people will be lost. The regulations provide transitional support for recipients of the severe disability premium while removing the complexity of dealing with different rules for seven different disability additions. We want to make sure that we take special care of those people when migrating them on to UC. As the CEO of Citizens Advice, Gillian Guy, said,
“improved protection for people who receive the Severe Disability Premium is a welcome move that will mean better financial security for many disabled people who move onto Universal Credit”.
We must have these regulations.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information she has given about the changes made in the Budget last week. However, she will know that the Government had already pre-announced billions of pounds to be cut from the budget that will facilitate universal credit by 2020. Last week’s announcements have given some money back, but not all of it. The Government’s original estimate was that universal credit would lift 350,000 children out of poverty, but the Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that, as a result of these changes, an extra 1.2 million children will grow up in poverty by 2020. What is the Minister’s latest estimate for raising families and children out of poverty as a result of universal credit?
Baroness Buscombe
I am proud to say that this country provides more benefits for families than any other advanced nation. I do not recognise the estimates; it is not right to make estimates without any underlying evidence. We have come a long way since the cuts some years ago to which the noble Baroness referred. There were cuts right across the board, in all departments. For example, the cost of social security went up by 65% under Labour and was becoming totally unsustainable. We could not continue with that rise. We have therefore had to adjust and make some very difficult choices.
We are doing all we can, with the working tax allowance and increased support for childcare costs, to support children and families. An additional 80,000 working parents who are in receipt of transitional protection and who access support for childcare costs provided by UC are expected to benefit from these regulations. The support for childcare costs provided by universal credit, worth up to £1,108 per month for two or more children, is more generous than the system it replaces. However, the most important support that anyone in a family can give their children is being in work; setting a course for that family out of poverty—a hand up, not a handout—and being role models for the children. There are over 800,000 job vacancies at the moment. We want to do everything we can to support people into work, because that is the best way to lift children out of poverty.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, a moment ago the Minister said that we had come a long way. I am not sure that is how millions of people who have endured this Government’s cuts would view matters, even though a portion is put back in today’s announcements. The Minister said that home visits would be available for help with a claim. On what basis would that be? Would they be available as of right to anybody who seeks one? I recall that with ESA there were meant to be automatic home visits for people with mental health issues. I do not believe that ever happened. What assurances do we have that it will be robust in this case?
Baroness Buscombe
It is important to explain a little more about the test and learn process, which is one of the reasons why we are taking longer than we might to introduce the first tranche of managed migration. We are not doing this by ourselves. It is very much a co-design with a number of charities, the third sector and researchers to help us work out our monitoring. We will closely monitor the quality of communications which we will issue, and whether they are understood by recipients, before we increase the pace of migration. We are also making sure to put out letters that are easier to understand, and constantly working out what we can do. However, if we hear nothing from a claimant, we will offer home visits. That has to be an opportunity for those who are genuinely afraid of change. That is one reason why we on this side feel passionately. The less scaremongering around this system, the better. I put some of the blame on the media, which has not fully understood it.
We are trying to lift people out of the system that trapped them in poverty—on legacy benefits with cliff edges, where they could not work more than 16 or 24 hours a week without losing benefits. The brilliant thing about this simplification—merging six benefits into one—is that you do not lose your benefits. Your benefits may now increase by £1,000 before they begin to taper, and the taper rate has just been reduced from 40% to 30% of your standard allowance. I also remind the party opposite that when it left government and this party came into power—the noble Baroness may shake her head—this Government had to fund debt amounting to 10% of our GDP. That was the issue facing us.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Would the Minister care to reconsider what she has just said about the taper rates being reduced from 40% to 30%?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I am sorry, it should be the debt repayment rate. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am so eager to get this right, and noble Lords may understand that there are quite a lot of numbers and it is quite technical. I am quite emotional about the fact that we are the party of social mobility and we have introduced a system that we genuinely believe will be better for everyone. It is, however, a very hard system to get right for everyone, because everyone is different—we are dealing with different situations and circumstances and we do not want people to fall through the cracks.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
I appreciate what the noble Baroness has just said, because it is an extraordinarily complex system, and this is the biggest—and riskiest—change in social security for decades. She has said that people’s lives are different. When she refers to working conditions and benefits, surely she should remember what we have been saying about the need to take great care—universal credit is great in principle but very difficult to get right. A redesign should not be beyond the Government’s confidence.
I will repeat one question that was raised by both my noble friend on our Front Bench and by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. If the Government want, as they must, to simplify whatever they can, surely they should have a better answer than the one they have given about why they do not segment certain categories of people that cannot be treated universally. It would be relatively simple to do. Apparently the department has said that it cannot be done. That is not a good enough reason when the noble Baroness is struggling to explain what will happen. There is a risk of mistakes that will bear down on the very poorest with disastrous results. This is not scaremongering, and I resent it being described so: these are very serious challenges for the very poorest in our society.
Baroness Buscombe
I agree with some of what the noble Baroness said but not that I am struggling—I am just saying as much as possible in the time allowed. There is a lot to say—a lot that is positive. I repeat, however, that she is correct in saying that it is hard and that we have to get it right. That is why we are going to spend so much time on the design, which is not there yet—we have not yet designed the managed migration process. That is the point: we will have rolled out universal credit itself in all the jobcentres—634 of them, I think—by the end of this year, but we will take the actual managed migration process much more slowly, because it will lift people already on benefits from legacy benefits on to universal credit.
I wish that we could automatically transfer certain categories of people seamlessly, but we did that in 2011 when we were moving people from incapacity benefit to ESA, and the problem was that we missed some people’s change of circumstances and underpaid them. We do not want to take that risk again—we would be facing another judicial review. We know, however, that about 700,000 people are not receiving the legacy benefits—worth about £2.4 billion—that they are entitled to, and we want them to. That is one of the main reasons why we want face-to-face contact—work coaches and claimants working together to make sure that they get the right support.
Armistice Day: Centenary
(6 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the return to the main debate, after just over an hour, is rather a challenge.
I remember something said to me by one of my old schoolteachers, who many years ago was apparently set the task of setting questions about World War 1 for a public examination. The process was going fairly well until he decided that he would be clever and ask what did not change after World War 1. He came up with the answer that there was nothing that did not change. So trying to understand how important the war was is one of the most important things we can do to understand our own past.
It was the first total war, the first time as a modern state we had anything like universal conscription, and the first time that the full weight of an empire was thrown into a war. We have heard many contributions, particularly about the Indian army, but armies from across the Empire came to aid us—in France, the Middle East and Africa. The entire state convulsed into doing something. Those four-and-a-half years probably changed the course of our history and our structure. That alone would be worth remembering, even without the hideous loss of young men’s lives. An egality of suffering was established in a way it had never been before. The sons of the aristocracy led the charges over the top and were mown down a split second before the people behind them. The nature of what we went through united the nation in a way that virtually nothing has done before or since. I hope that after four years of very good memorial services we will take a series of lessons with us and build on them.
The first lesson is probably that it was not just Tommy Atkins who fought. I remember that about four years ago I had an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Lexden—who is speaking after me—and I pointed out just how dated “Oh! What a Lovely War” was when I tried to show it to my daughter. We now have a better idea of how the whole nation came together, and the concepts of what went on have changed over time and should be constantly examined. The role of women in society was undoubtedly changed by the contribution that they made to all aspects of World War 1. We must look at it as a whole, and the great success of this remembrance is that we have drawn people’s attention to the war. The big public displays—the Tower of London, the public opening and closing ceremonies, and many others—have been a great success. Those of us who are interested have listened and learned.
However, if we get over-congratulatory with ourselves we will miss a major opportunity. Over the weekend a little survey I did about whether one or two things had penetrated showed that, alarmingly, not everybody has picked up on this stuff. One of the most constant themes your Lordships will have picked up is the contribution of the Indian army. However, an alarmingly high number of people did not realise what that contribution was. Those of us who are here may think that is almost impossible—but it has happened. We have also vaguely known about the contribution of Australia and New Zealand. Somebody said to me, “But weren’t they only at Gallipoli?” We must try to get beyond the public perception that this is just happening to us.
Although my noble friend’s very moving description of her own family reached down there, the fact is that other people on those ships on which her ancestor died would have come from other nations and would have been supporting us. Often they were nations tied to us by empire. A bond created by conquest is a very odd thing when you think about it for a second. How do we build on this? That is what I hope we will take away. We cannot continually be in a state of celebration of the past or one particular bit of the past.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out that we changed the map of Europe only to change it again shortly afterwards after an even worse conflagration. This time it was not just the young men who died—everybody was affected. In half-dealing with nationalism or concepts of empire and self, we released forces that nobody could have foreseen at the time. Eternal lessons must be reinforced and built on. If we do not do that, we will have lost this opportunity and the work that has been done. Every time we invest time, money and effort into reminding ourselves of what happened, we must use it as a building block for tomorrow.
In a few years’ time, those of us who are still in this House or in its successor body, whatever happens, will have to think about commemorating World War II. That will be an even bigger and more complex challenge, and I hope that at the end of this period we will reflect and prepare for something that will challenge us and, more importantly, our children even more than this has done.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I will reflect a little on some of the events of Armistice Day itself, a century ago, and I begin, as is right and proper, with the monarch. Throughout his reign, King George V dutifully wrote up his diary at the end of each day. He expressed himself in terse, straightforward language, which reflected his character. Late in the evening of 11 November 1918 he wrote that:
“Today has indeed been a wonderful day, the greatest in the history of the Country”.
He had witnessed remarkable public rejoicing. Time and again, he and Queen Mary had been brought out on the balcony of Buckingham Palace at the insistence of immense crowds that stretched as far as the eye could see. It seems that the King contributed more to the events of that wonderful day than has been generally recognised.
The British representative at the Armistice negotiations in Compiègne, Admiral Sir Rosslyn Wemyss, the supreme allied naval commander, entrusted to his family an account of what had passed during the discussions that led up to the signing of the Armistice at 5 am, and its implementation at 11 am. According to Wemyss, the Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, who had contributed so much to victory, instructed him to arrange for the Armistice to come into force at 2.30 pm when the House of Commons was due to meet so that he could reveal it to striking effect. Wemyss telephoned the King, suggesting that the 11th hour would be a far better time. George V agreed and the plan was changed, much to Lloyd George’s displeasure.
Lloyd George deserved, and received, great prominence on that wonderful day. In the two years since he had become Prime Minister, the political conduct of the war had been infused with a dynamism unknown under his predecessor, Herbert Asquith, great man though he was in his way.
The wonderful day was naturally tinged with deep sorrow. Long queues formed outside cathedrals and churches, for people felt a pressing need to reflect on the enormous sacrifices that had been made over four long years, as well as to give thanks for victory. Late in the evening, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, walked home from Downing Street. In his diary, he recorded encountering an elderly woman, dressed in deep mourning, sobbing her heart out. He said to her, “You are in trouble—is there anything that I can do for you?”. She replied, “Thank you, but no. I am crying, but I am happy, for now I know that all my three sons who have been killed in the war have not died in vain”. Sorrow and joy stood side by side.
The wonderful day was wonderfully free of speeches. After reading the terms of the Armistice to a packed House of Commons, Lloyd George said:
“This is no time for words. Our hearts are too full of a gratitude to which no tongue can give adequate expression”.
He moved the immediate Adjournment of the House, suggesting that,
“we proceed, as a House of Commons, to St. Margaret’s, to give humble and reverent thanks for the deliverance of the world from its great peril”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/11/1918; col. 2463.]
Lord Curzon moved a similar Motion in this House, of which he was the Leader.
Thereafter politics resumed. The War Cabinet met at No. 10 to discuss the general election campaign, which was to begin the following day. Should a vengeful note be struck? Churchill argued that leniency should be shown to the Kaiser. Sir Henry Wilson agreed, noting in his diary:
“My opinion is that there should be a public exposé of all his works and actions and then leave him to posterity”.
During the election campaign, the political leaders concentrated on setting out their plans for post-war reconstruction and social reform to build a better world for those who had suffered so much. The subsequent, incomplete implementation of these plans does not, in my view, detract from the sincerity with which Lloyd George and his colleagues proposed them, gaining a massive majority on 14 December 1918, one month after the Armistice when, for the first time, the whole nation voted on the same day.
Towards the end of his six volumes of war memoirs, published in 1936, Lloyd George placed a particularly fine chapter entitled, An Imperial War. In it, this remarkable Welsh radical praised the indispensable contributions made by those who came to our aid from all parts of the British Empire and Commonwealth. He noted how the arrival of Indian troops had averted disaster on the Western Front in 1914-15.
“Had they stayed at home”,
he wrote,
“the issue of the War would have been different, and the history of the world would have taken a different course”.
Nothing has been more important during these four years of commemoration than to secure a fuller recognition of the indispensable service rendered by men and women from Asian, African and American countries. I was glad to be able to introduce a debate on that hugely important aspect of the war a few months ago. I am glad that it has loomed large in today’s debate.
Will those who come after us remember for ever the terrible war which we have commemorated so thoughtfully and respectfully over the last four years? The greatest Englishman of the last century had no doubts. There were such powerful visible reminders, thanks to the wonderful work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Speaking in 1920, two years after the Armistice, Churchill said,
“there is no reason at all why, in periods as remote from our own as we ourselves are from the Tudors, the graveyards in France of this Great War shall not remain an abiding and supreme memorial”,
and,
“will still preserve the memory of a common purpose pursued by a great nation”.—[Official Report, Commons 4/5/1920; cols. 1970-71.]
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, for his inspiring speech opening this debate and his detailed description of the memorialising that we are doing: the remembrances and the big service at the weekend, and all the minute but important details of this national act of remembrance, which is so important psychologically, spiritually and in practical ways as well. We thank him for the details that he has given and look forward to hearing more in due course when that is relevant and applicable.
I also feel a sense of gratitude that the intervention of the Indian soldiers has been mentioned quite a few times in this debate. It has been too often forgotten, but it made an enormous difference in that, the first of the European civil wars. The First World War was the beginning of the European civil war, with, 22 years later, the second version—the two tragedies linked by just two decades—continuing the mistakes that had been made the first time. We were lucky to emerge victorious from the First World War. We are grateful to almighty God for that, and grateful for all the efforts made by many people. Most of the speeches today have been detailed descriptions of the tragedy of the First World War and the terrible losses of military life—in that war more than civilian life. All those incredibly meticulous details are important because they are part of the psychological act of remembrance that we all need so that we do not forget these things.
I declare a geographical and personal interest because, since 2001, I have lived in the Picardy/Normandy area of France, where so much of the First World War was fought. It is a searing subject for the French in that whole area, right up to Calais. Simon Heffer, in a recent article for The New European, quite rightly said that our losses were terrible, but that the French losses were even more so, and that needs to be remembered as well. It is no wonder that in 1940, at the beginning of the Second World War, Pétain was moving for an armistice, which was incredibly popular because everybody in France remembered the bloodletting and the huge loss of young male lives in that terrible episode.
I go back to the mistakes made afterwards, referred to by my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others. I thank them for drawing the lessons of the past into the future; their speeches were notable for that. Going through the details and remembering them is vital, but drawing conclusions for the modern lessons we should learn are even more important for the whole of Europe. Living in that area, I now see a new era where the latest town-twinnings are usually with German rather than English towns. The English ones came first, and now it is the German ones.
The Second World War was even more awful, because of the deaths of so many civilians, the history of National Socialism and the terrible incidents. The war in Russia, which is often forgotten, was much more savage and brutal than the war on the Western Front—fortunately for us. These lessons need to be drawn and yet after the First World War, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup said, one crucial mistake was that Germany was excluded from the peace conference at Versailles, being not even a participant in the efforts to have peace. How could you do that to a country? It of course resented what happened and then came the Second World War.
If it is seen as the European civil war, we can draw the appropriate lessons about the future for this country as well. I am still feeling very sad indeed, as I repeat on many occasions, that this country has lost its way. The appalling, tragic idea of leaving the European Union is such a mistake for this great country. The other EU member states feel that very deeply, and would be delighted and thrilled if this country had the courage to look again and change its mind. There is a huge change in public opinion as recent polls have shown. Younger participants in elections and vote-receiving activities of one kind or another are now much more minded to vote for continuing our membership of the European Union.
I know this is difficult for some Tory colleagues to accept, and I understand the awkward position they are in—they wish to support their own party and Government—but this is the reality now. If we can seize those lessons properly, and draw the appropriate conclusions, we can save this country from perdition.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Ashton for his introduction to this most important debate. I declare an interest as someone who has lectured in European history—and by that I mean the history of Europe, not the history of Britain as part of it. Many of us in this House are of an age where what happened in the First World War is much closer to our family history than it is for our children. My family was half from Britain and half from Ireland; they had very different experiences of the First World War. My father, who was living in Dublin at the time, has memories of the first military stirrings against the British. None of our Irish family volunteered to fight in the First World War. They stayed in Ireland, and I do not think the Irish people who went to war in 1914, when they were quite popular, were quite as popular when it got to 1918. As a youngish boy, my father remembered stones being thrown at British soldiers returning from the First World War.
My English family had a very different experience. My grandmother, who lived in Lincoln, was engaged to a young second lieutenant who was killed, and—as often happened in those days—she went on to marry his younger brother. He suffered from having been gassed, and from post-traumatic stress disorder. He never recovered from the First World War, and died in his 50s. The difference in those experiences did impinge on the whole family, because the contribution of the Irish to the First World War has also largely been forgotten. But there was a considerable contribution—from the south, from the Catholic areas—and it needs to be remembered because the First World War was a war we helped to win. Britain did not win the First World War. We have heard about the soldiers from the Commonwealth; the Americans of course joined in; and there was a lot of assistance from outside. We often forget that two Allied soldiers died for every German who died. The Germans had a pretty efficient fighting machine during the First World War—as indeed they did in the second.
I see the Armistice not as ending the First World War but as calling a ceasefire in what was effectively a 30-year war. In the second war, none of our family died—though one or two were injured. What caused it? It was caused by hatreds. Read the recent biography of Charles de Gaulle. Around 1908, during his stay in Germany, he wrote home to his parents, his mother in particular, saying how he hated the Germans, even though he was there learning the language. The build-up to the First World War was almost inevitable, and this is what worries me today.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, that if you keep on emphasising differences between people, you stir up trouble and hatreds. We have to work together—we are a small continent—and de Gaulle grew up wishing to avenge 1870, and with a generation intent on avenging 1870, right through to 1914, we are not going to progress as a peaceful continent if we keep on emphasising our differences. If you look at the other side of the Rhine, you see that the young Adenauer felt very much the same. Adenauer and de Galle came out of the First World War ready to formulate the peace of the 1950s. It is a great shame that our leaders at that time did not join in—and I have to say that Clement Attlee was as bad as Winston Churchill in terms of actually wanting to get involved in Europe.
Another point worth remembering is that Armistice Day is not remembered in the same way all over Europe. In fact, 11 November is Polish independence day: it is a holiday there. The Finns, the Estonians, the Latvians and the Lithuanians all saw their country born out of that war. Some of us who are in the relevant all-party group will have been going to embassies to celebrate 100 years of these different countries, and their birth. So there is quite a different attitude in some countries. The Czech Republic—Czechoslovakia as it then was—was born out of the first war, and modern Turkey would probably not have arisen had Kemal Atatürk been on the side of a victorious Ottoman empire; but he was not.
The conclusion I draw from all this is that we need a certain amount of humility and we need to learn how to build a lasting peace. We need to work out how we in Europe are going to live together. We have to start, somehow or other, talking to the Russians. It is no good the Daily Mail et cetera banging on about how horrible they are: yes, they are horrible, but we will not get anywhere unless we talk to them, and unless we sit them down and get some sense out of them.
The second thing we have to realise is that war is changing. You could not possibly have a repeat of the First World War today, with its slaughter: it would not be acceptable. I put it to noble Lords that you could not have a repeat of the Second World War, either. We are now in an age when war is conducted by drones, launched from my noble friend Lord Cormack’s home county of Lincolnshire and dropping bombs in Iraq. We have a system where, frankly, a cyberwar would probably be much more effective in ending a country’s independence than a military war.
So we have to look to the future, and I say in closing that the future must be based on international co-operation. We have to work together. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and many others, on the to my mind disastrous decision to leave the European Union. The only way we can go forward is by sitting down and talking to each other, and making sure that at the top of our minds is our recent history and the fact that we must never let it be repeated—and the way to achieve that relies on a lot of understanding, talk and work between us. Yes, it is frustrating. I spent 39 years in Brussels and I am a past master at knowing how frustrating these talks can be, but in the end it is the only way forward.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, amen to that. I want to say at the outset of my remarks how grateful I was, how encouraged and impressed, by the speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. He brought challenge and vision and reminded us that our real tribute to the fallen will be what we make of the future. Our determination must be to move forward positively and practically in building an international community.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, who very strongly reminded us of the contribution in the First World War of the Indians. It is a shameful story: we expected them to come here and then they were treated, to be honest, as fourth-rate participants. There is a tremendous wrong to be put right still, and if we fail to do it in this celebration of ours, it will be very amiss. It was not just the Indians—people from Africa and from the Commonwealth came and made a huge contribution. I also think we ought to remember the young people and their families of the United States, who played such a vital part in the last part of the war.
My noble friend Lord Clark is also someone to whom I am grateful. If I were to look for some way in which we have progressed in our understanding and our civilised behaviour as a nation, it is in the recognition of conscientious objection. The way conscientious objectors were treated in the First World War is a terrible story.
In my study at home, I keep on the wall a citation to my maternal uncle John, a captain in the Scottish Rifles who was badly wounded and awarded a Military Cross for his part in that episode. He had to be invalided back to the UK, where he was patched up, after a sort—most people said he was not fully patched up—and sent back to the front, where he was killed on the third day of the German spring offensive in 1918. I should just mention that his younger brother was killed on the North-West Frontier in the early 1930s, and he too was a captain, but a captain in the Indian Army. Why do I keep that citation on my wall? Because it is a constant reminder to me, as I go about my own activities, that my uncle was killed at 22. I think again and again about what a young man with the character and pluck that he obviously had might have made of his life. I ask myself: have I begun to equal what he might have contributed?
The point is that it was not just him, or indeed his younger brother later; hundreds of thousands of people went through this kind of experience. When we think of the slaughter, in appalling circumstances sometimes—people suffocating in mud—what are we doing to build a better future? The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, was absolutely right: the question we should have in our minds all the time is how we prevent this happening again. My father served on the north-west front in Italy, together with the Italians, in the First World War. He was so affected by what he saw that he dedicated his life—and I really mean that word—to working for peace and international under- standing. He was convinced that internationalism was essential to the future of civilisation. I am sure he would be cheering every word that the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, uttered. He also believed, of course, that the European Union was indispensable, because it was people coming together with practical arrangements to build a community in which war would become impossible. The words I heard again and again in my upbringing were “collective security”.
If I have anxiety at the moment, it is that we are losing that searing experience that our fathers brought back from the First World War, and indeed that our more close relatives brought back from the Second World War, of what war really means, of what it involves in suffering for civilians. We perhaps have not talked enough about civilians in this debate. It now sometimes seems that war is about civilians, and we find convenient language for dealing with an emotionally distressing situation: we talk about collateral damage. But think what that means to the families and the people who are that collateral damage. We move into a phase where war is done by remote control; pushing buttons, sending highly targeted drones, and the rest. Are we slithering towards a situation in which war is just another management option in our handling of international relations? That would be a disaster, and would certainly be the ultimate betrayal of those who fell in the First World War.
I would like to end with a quotation, because it has a profound effect on me. I love the hymns of Fred Kaan, a United Reformed Church minister of Dutch origin, who suffered under German occupation. I will quote one of his verses:
“God! As with silent hearts we bring to mind
how hate and war diminish humankind,
we pause, and seek in worship to increase
our knowledge of the things that make for peace.
Hallow our will as humbly we recall
the lives of those who gave and give their all”.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, as always, it is a very great privilege to speak in your Lordships’ House, but it is especially so on this occasion when we commemorate the 100th anniversary of the end of the Great War and pay our tributes to those from all across the world, and from all sides, who fought in that horrendous conflict and who gave their lives in the cause of freedom. It is even more important to me to be able to speak in this Chamber today, because my grandfather is named in the Royal Gallery war memorial.
I am a Staffordshire man, and I am very proud to have been born and bred in that county, as countless of my forebears have been. When I put my name down to speak in this debate, I read a note from the Royal British Legion which suggested that it would be appropriate if speakers could perhaps recall the parts played by their county in the Great War. I immediately thought that to be an excellent idea. So much has been said, and needed to be said, over the past four years of remembrances, that perhaps this might be a slightly different but exceptionally important angle to embark on. Therefore, in this speech—which, your Lordships will be delighted to hear, is very short—I would like to recall my county’s role.
Next Sunday, I shall have the immeasurable honour of representing the Lord Lieutenant, and therefore Her Majesty, at the service of remembrance at Lichfield Cathedral. Services will be held throughout our county, from the Moorlands and Leek in the north, to Stoke-on-Trent, to Burton-on-Trent in the east, our county town of Stafford and Enville in the south.
Staffordshire is the home of the National Memorial Arboretum at Alrewas, near Lichfield, which commemorates not only those who have fallen in so many military conflicts but those who sacrificed their lives in other tragic circumstances. The arboretum also serves as a memorial to the animals which suffered and gave their lives while supporting the military in conflict. I believe that in the course of the First World War over 1 million horses were killed.
In the county of Stafford, we remember the Prince of Wales’s regiment, the North Staffordshire Regiment, known to us as the Black Knots. Raised in 1758 as the 64th Regiment of Foot, and disbanded in 1959, when it amalgamated with the South Staffordshire regiment, it formed the Staffordshire Regiment. Known as the Staffords in those days, today it forms part of the Mercian Regiment, which has had a distinguished fighting career.
Many of those who volunteered from my family’s former estates at Alton Towers and Ingestre, joined the North Staffords. Some of their names—far too many of them—are on the war memorials in Alton and the surrounding villages near where I live. I remember with particular fondness George Greatholder, my father’s head forester, who fought in the Battle of the Somme at age 16, and at Ypres—he called it “Wipers”—and won a Military Medal and bar. George was wounded, returned to the front and eventually came home to Staffordshire. It was his task to look after me during the school holidays when I was a teenager, and I adored him and his wealth of stories. His stories were mainly about the countryside and wildlife, and I was enthralled by them. But there were never stories about his wartime experiences: those were far too horrible for him to recount.
The North Staffords saw action on the Western Front at Gallipoli, in the Middle East and in India. The South Staffords fought at Mons, Ypres, Loos, Delville Wood, Arras, Passchendaele—the list goes on and on. The sons and daughters of Staffordshire gave their all, and achieved the highest battle honours. They came from communities throughout the county: from the rural areas and agriculture; from the Moorlands; from the Potteries; from the breweries at Burton-on-Trent; from the Black Country and its industrial heartlands; and from the Staffordshire mining communities of Hednesford, Cannock and Rugeley, to name but a few. The miners were especially significant, because they were the sappers who dug the trenches and mined under the lines, very often working in appalling conditions.
When I was a teenager, my father took me to the military cemeteries in France on a regular basis. I continued that tradition with my children, and my friends and I still do it to this day. Last time, it was Ypres and the Menin Gate. We had tears running down our faces at the Menin Gate, at 8 pm on a Sunday. My father taught me to honour and respect the memories of the fallen, especially those from Staffordshire, and to remember that today we enjoy the freedoms and privileges which men and women—including those from Staffordshire, many of whom were connected to my family—gave their lives for. This is why we should hold all of them in the highest honour and esteem, and never allow their sacrifices to be forgotten.
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, there was an interesting piece in the newspapers recently about the first bullet that was fired. The first bullet is supposed to have been fired at a German, by an African from Côte d’Ivoire. How did they find that out? This is what I want to know. How do they know it was the first bullet? If it was in Africa, and was fired by some poor man from Côte d’Ivoire, I do not even know whether he managed to kill the German. Anyway, it is amazing how they find these stories. I will not be talking about that, of course, but I thought it might amuse your Lordships.
I will start with the first group of Indians who came in the ships. As noble Lords will know, the BEF failed in Belgium and Britain did not seem to have a proper standing army, so the Indians started to arrive in ships. Some 150,000 of them came at that stage. It is sad that they did not have proper clothing. We were going into winter—we were not in winter yet, we were in autumn, but we were going into winter—and they did not have appropriate clothing. This seems to me to be a bad oversight, because these people had come from villages in India and were used to heat—not just warmth but heat. That was the first group of Indians who came.
Your Lordships probably also know that there were 9,000 combatants and 6,000 non-combatants. It is very interesting that not much has been written about the non-combatants, who were also in Europe in all the theatres of war, because they were needed in those places. Nothing has really been written about their work during the war. Non-combatants are important as well, as we know, and the Indians were in practically every theatre of the First World War.
I have just found out that the Indians who were at Gallipoli were not properly mentioned until the eve of the centenary. Everybody knew they were there but they were not mentioned in the records and the things that were written about Gallipoli. The story that I am trying to put before your Lordships is that Indians were there, but not in everybody’s thinking. Some of the later records did not focus properly on the Indians, because the people creating the records had the feeling that somehow they were inferior to the white British Army. Obviously this went on because it was a big part of the British Empire not to treat people from across it as equals—but when they were prepared to give up their lives they deserve to be treated as equals.
A noble Lord asked, “Why did they want to join up?”. They did so because they were encouraged by the Indian leadership. The noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, said that Gandhiji said they should join the Army and so on, and they did. But why did Gandhi and the Indian leadership say, “Join the Army”? The idea was that if India helped Britain win the war, it might get dominion status, which was the Indians’ biggest wish—or if not that, perhaps some more privileges to run India as they wanted to. As your Lordships know, that never came about, but the Indians were the biggest volunteer army at that time.
We have had a lot of commemorative World War I events during this time. We have said and done things and had those events and so on, but how are we actually to inform the young? If you stop people on the street now and ask them, “Do you know who was involved in World War I, apart from us?”, they might mention the Dominions, because they were kith and kin, but they never mention Indians. I do not think many people know that the Indians were there during World War I. To me, that is crucial. It is the one thing we have to put right, because it is important not only for the young of this country to know that but for the Indians who have come to live here. Young Indians should have something to be proud of, but they do not know about this. How do we inform the young on a large scale? We put it in the context of history. If we are teaching anything about World War I, it should mention the people who are not mentioned elsewhere. That is the most important lesson for this period. We should make sure that the young have a chance to find out about that, especially the young Indians—I mean those from a united India. Although it is four countries now, that is all right too: all those people should be able to know what their fathers and grandfathers did, and how they came to make up the largest volunteer army.
I have been involved in the Memorial Gates, which a couple of your Lordships have talked about. They are a memorial on Constitution Hill to Indians, Africans and West Indians. It took me about seven or eight years to get them up and I had a lot of problems. Sadly, I had no support at all from the Labour Government of the time. The support I got was a great help, but it would have been even better if the Government had wanted to see the memorial in place. The support came from the Royal Family: Prince Charles became our patron and the Queen came twice. I am very grateful because, without that, we would not have been able to raise the money. If you do not have somebody such as Prince Charles as patron, nobody gives you money—so it was difficult. Field Marshal Lord Inge raised a lot of money—I do not know whether your Lordships remember him—as did I. Between us we managed to raise enough to get the memorial up.
I will save the last few minutes for my father, who decided to join the Army and volunteered in the First World War. I am so old that I am probably the only one from a minority community who can say, “My father served in the First World War”. No one else will be old enough. My mother used to say that he decided to run away to war because he failed his exams and did not want his grandfather, who was quite a paterfamilias, to know. I do not think that many people run away to war; they run away from it, if possible. He served mostly in Mesopotamia. Gandhiji had said that the Indian students should help the war effort but that they should not kill, so my father was a stretcher bearer in an ambulance corps. Fortunately he came back, because otherwise I would not be here—but he would not talk about it.
Many noble Lords have said that their father or grandfather would not tell them anything about the war. I think that my father had a terrible time. He was spoilt and brought up in a comfortable family, and he really did not like being where he was. The only thing he told us was that he lived on tins of bully beef. As a Hindu, he would not eat beef—he never did afterwards—but he lived on bully beef during the war. Mesopotamia was a horrible place and it was a horrible time, but he survived. I am very proud of the fact that I can join noble Lords whose father or grandfather was in the first war—because I too had a father who volunteered for that war.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, it has been a rare privilege during the last four years to take part in so many important debates in this House as we have commemorated the heroism and sacrifice of those who fell in the Great War. In particular, it was a privilege to lead one on the centenary of the Battle of Passchendaele and another commemorating the role of musicians, artists and poets who fell in the fighting—those special lives whose loss, in the words of Sir Hubert Parry, could never be made good.
It has also been my good fortune during these years to have been associated with the exemplary work of the Imperial War Museums, whose foundation I sit on and I declare an interest accordingly. In 2014, IWM London transformed its iconic atrium as part of a new, permanent First World War gallery, making use for the first time of the power of digital technology to engage new generations. This gallery is the richest and most comprehensive in the world, containing more than 1,300 objects, and in the first six months of opening it attracted an exceptional 1 million visitors—a figure which underlines the power of commemoration. Many millions more have visited since and taken part in some of the key events organised by the IWM, importantly including one on the vital role of women during the war. Its unique digital platform, “Lives of the First World War”, has engaged the public in a remarkable way by allowing them to contribute stories, building a digital memorial to the Great War. I hope that it helps those whom the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, talked about earlier as seeking a permanent memorial to their ancestors.
Throughout the centenary the IWM has also supported the work of 14-18 NOW, which has played its own energetic role in marking major national moments through the arts—not least through the memorable poppies tour, seen by over 4.3 million people. I pay a heartfelt tribute to both organisations and to the DCMS, which has so immaculately choreographed these last four years.
Today, as the commemorative events in this House draw to a close, I want to highlight a role played by a group which is so often overlooked but was absolutely vital to the waging of the conflict and to our ultimate victory. That is the animals who fought, were injured and died in the war, as my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury mentioned. Animals have been involved in warfare as long as men could ride a horse into battle or train a dog to attack, and they have served other purposes as well—as mascots to raise morale, and to provide companionship and comfort to those fighting. But the First World War presented the greatest challenge ever to face animals in the history of warfare, before or since, and that is why I want to remember them today.
The animals most profoundly affected were the horses that powered our cavalry. Remember that when the First World War broke out the entire British Army had just 80 motor vehicles. All other transportation of men, guns, ammunition, equipment, medicine, supplies and fuel relied on horse power and, with the mobilisation and expansion of the army, horses were required in unprecedented numbers. The British Expeditionary Force proceeded to France with 40,000 horses and mules, each one of which had to be hoisted aboard and into the holds of ships. Despite heroic efforts by the Army Veterinary Corps, for many the trauma of the journey was too much and many died during the crossing, in often terrible conditions.
Horses were then in action right from the opening shots of the war when, at Néry in France on 1 September 1914, every member of L Battery Royal Horse Artillery was either killed or wounded until the bitter end. The last cavalry charge of the war to end all wars was the charge of the 7th Dragoon Guards to capture the Dender crossings in Belgium as the clocks were striking 11 am on 11 November.
During those terrible years, horses did not just power the war, but provided vital companionship to our troops. As the author JM Brereton wrote in The Horse in War:
“On campaign, riding and reading the horse for months on end, sleeping in the open only a few yards behind the picket lines at night, and suffering the same privations, the soldier came to regard his horse as almost an extension of his entire being”.
During the war, more than a quarter of a million horses were lost on the Western Front alone. Only 58,000 were killed by enemy fire; the rest succumbed to exposure, disease and poison gas, despite the heroic efforts of the men in 1915 who, when that hideous gas first appeared, improvised gas masks for their beloved animals.
Both the Blue Cross and the RSPCA worked incredibly hard for animal welfare in every theatre of war, raising money at home to care for them and then tending to them at the front. These charities, which really came to public attention for the first time during the conflict, provided 180 horse ambulances, tented field hospitals, a convalescent depot and 13 hospitals in France to care for them. Some 2.6 million horses and mules were admitted to their care in France alone, an astonishing achievement. Then, as now, a great debt is owed to the charities that care so much for our animals.
Tragically, the Armistice did not always bring salvation for the horses that had served so valiantly. In many cases, they were destroyed rather than brought home. Perhaps worst of all was the fate that befell 20,000 war horses in Palestine. It was considered too expensive to bring them back here, and they were sold to Egypt where they were cruelly worked to death in quarries.
Of course, it was not just horses involved but other animals as well. In the desert campaign across the sands of the Middle East made famous by Lawrence of Arabia, camels were vital. During the heavy fighting on the advance to Jerusalem in the winter of 1917 alone, the British lost over 3,000 camels.
Important too was the role of dogs in the war. They performed an extraordinary number of military roles. As ambulance dogs, they sniffed out casualties on the battlefield when they were buried by debris. From 1916 they were increasingly used as messenger dogs and a special school to train them was formed at Shoeburyness in Essex. Some were sentry dogs, keeping guard duty on the horror of the Western Front. Others laid telephone wires and many served as mascots. Many of them, such as Pelorus Jack of the Royal Navy ship HMS “New Zealand”, also made good subjects for patriotic postcards, while others raised thousands of pounds for war charities. Bob at Liverpool, Prince at Crewe, and Cymro at Rhyl became well-known names.
Dogs were in high demand. Initially they came from homes in Battersea and elsewhere, but in time the War Office asked the public to send their dogs as gifts. In his excellent book on the subject, the historian Neil Storey records how one woman wrote a moving letter to accompany her dog when she sent it to war:
“I have given my husband and my sons, and now he too is required, I give you my dog”.
Our feathered friends, too, were brought into service. Canaries were used to detect poison gas but, most importantly, carrier pigeons were vital during the conflict in an age before any form of significant communication. The Emergency Pigeon Service was established to ensure a supply of pigeons to minesweepers, which were then able to send news about newly laid minefields to patrol boats. The same was true on the Western Front. During the Battle of Arras, two tanks with pigeons on board saw large bodies of Germans massing behind the hills. Within the hour, our artillery had received word of this via the pigeons and foiled the German counterattack.
Noble Lords would expect me to say a word or two about our feline friends, of course. Cats also played their part, not least in the rat-infested dugouts of the Western Front, where they did a great deal to keep down the rodent population. Often cats simply provided some companionship for our soldiers. Amid the death and despair of the front line, kittens and puppies helped to pierce the muddy gloom and were a welcome reminder of home. Cats, too, were popular mascots for ships in the Royal Navy. Many perished with their crew when ships went down, including Lyddite, the mascot on HMS “Shark” sunk in Jutland, and Togo, who went down with HMS “Irresistible” at the Dardanelles. Indeed, all animal life played its part in this terrible war.
Many of you will know or have visited the Animals in War Memorial in Park Lane, which was opened in 2004. It records the sacrifice of the hundreds of thousands of animals of all kinds who fell alongside our troops. At the conclusion of the inscription, we read movingly these words: “They had no choice”.
As we commemorate the heroism and bravery of the gallant who fought and died so that we might be free, please let us remember those who stood by them, who worked with them, who comforted them, but who had no voice or name, then or now. Let us give them that voice today, as we remember them too at the Armistice.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who introduced an interesting and thoughtful element to this debate that has not been covered before. In a briefing from the Royal British Legion, we are encouraged to give our own special thanks to the First World War generation, whether through family memories or through tributes to the heroism of people from our own part of the country. I would like to do both in my contribution. In honouring the dead, I would also like to honour those who survived but who, despite having served their country, had often to confront difficult circumstances—difficult economic circumstances, as well as, in many cases, the emotional, psychological and physical effects of that war.
My own family memory arises directly from my father, who was a veteran of the trenches near Ypres—“Wipers”, as he and his fellow soldiers called it. Like so many, he spoke little of his experiences there. As a child, I do not remember him ever talking about the First World War, although I do remember that he never ate baked beans, having had a surfeit of them in the trenches. He was awarded the Military Cross for bravery under fire but, as someone who did not like fuss or ceremony, he preferred to receive his medal through the post rather than attending a ceremony in Buckingham Palace. Until my sister and I offered the medal for the exhibition of memorabilia in your Lordships’ House, it had not been seen in public and had not been worn, as the ribbon had not been attached.
My father won a scholarship to Cambridge in 1913, which was something the family was very proud of, but his academic career was brought to an end when he enlisted and joined the Cambridgeshire Regiment. There is an excellent book about the regiment written by Brigadier-General Riddell, who commanded it. He writes movingly about the heroism and camaraderie he encountered; I know now that comradeship was something that my father treasured. In the book, the author talks somewhat scathingly about some of the stupider decisions that were taken, which needlessly forfeited gains that had been made or which jeopardised men’s lives. He writes of one of the bravest men he ever knew, a lance-corporal by the name of Nightingale. I have not been able to find out whether Nightingale survived or whether he has descendants, but I know from the book that he helped to save my father’s life. It states that when my father and General Riddell had to run across a field of death, Nightingale turned himself into a veritable chimney by lighting cigarettes and so forth to distract the Germans and give cover to the two men as they ran. Reading about Nightingale, I was also struck by the class gulf between Tommies and officers. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said about members of the Indian Army not being able to get commissions. The gulf between the commissioned and the non-commissioned at home was also wide. Nightingale wanted a commission but never got one, yet if anyone deserved promotion to a senior level it was him.
As a result of the centenary of the war, many people have looked into their family history. History has come alive to them as a result, and many fascinating stories have been revealed. It has also made us remember contributions of individual men and women across the UK in our nations and regions. In this year when we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of some women getting the vote, I pay tribute to some of the amazing war heroines from my part of the world, the north-east, whose memory deserves to be highlighted. Their work should not be forgotten.
Kate Maxey was one of most highly decorated nurses. She was from Spennymoor in County Durham, and was sister in charge of a casualty clearing station in France. Even when injured in a bombing raid, she directed nurses, orderlies and stretcher bearers, thinking of herself last. At a time when there were only 600 registered women doctors in the UK, Dr Ruth Nicholson wanted to help in France but was turned down. Undeterred, she got involved with the Scottish Women’s Hospitals for Foreign Services and, with support from our Belgian and French allies, was able to establish the hospital in Royaumont in northern France. She saved many lives as a result. Sybil Grey, the great-granddaughter of Earl Grey of the Great Reform Act, trained as a nurse, ran services in her family’s home and then established and ran an Anglo-Russian hospital in Petrograd and later a field hospital near the Russian front. She treated many people in challenging circumstances, partly because of the high number of Russian casualties and partly because of the growing unrest that lead to the Russian revolution.
In this year when we are also remembering the work of suffragettes and suffragists, I shall mention other women from the north-east. Charlotte—Charlie—Marsh, a former hunger striker, was during the war the motor mechanic and chauffeuse to Prime Minister Lloyd George. This was ironic because she had been punished for throwing tiles at the Prime Minister’s car before the war as a suffragette, yet she worked in this important capacity during the war. Ruth Dodds from Gateshead worked as a munitionette. Her vivid diaries from this period are now used by schools in the north-east and elsewhere to learn about the dangerous but essential work that women did. These women and others were brave and heroic and deserve to be remembered.
In conclusion, I agree with my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, who today in the Huffington Post urged us to ensure that our acts of remembrance also make us think about the challenges of today. A number of noble Lords have mentioned this. He is right to remind us that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. We must remember that as well as continuing to honour the heroes and heroines of yesterday.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, we have heard many fine speeches today, and I know there are many more to come. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, is not here and that we will miss his unique perspective. I wish him all the best in his battle. If anyone can prevail, he can.
This exceptional centenary year is an opportunity for us to express our gratitude to the entire World War I generation. They gave their lives to defend this country and to ensure that no hostile power could obtain control of the opposite coast of the English Channel and use it as a launch pad for an invasion of the British Isles.
My country of birth was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. My ancestors served it. I spent my formative years in Sarajevo, the city where the first bullet of the First World War was fired when Archduke Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated. As a child, I used to visit the Gavrilo Princip bridge and walk in the footsteps of the assassin, blissfully unaware of the calamity that his actions unleashed upon our continent.
Whichever side our great-grandfathers and grandfathers were on, we were united at the Paris peace conference by the reality of what the Great War left behind. The four great empires that exercised power and authority prior to 1914—Habsburg Austro-Hungary, Romanov Russia, Ottoman Turkey and Hohenzollern Germany—had disappeared or simply expired. The total direct cost of the war was estimated at $180 billion. Most devastating of all was the human cost of the war. Ten million lives were lost, and 20 million people sustained war-related injuries. By weakening so many human frames, the war opened the door to the Spanish flu epidemic, which killed a further 20 million people across the continent, reminding us that the harms of war last for decades. Tragically, all the sacrifice and suffering was not enough. The war to end all wars did not deliver. The carnage was repeated in just over 30 years, this time on an industrial scale, underpinned by the ideologies of red and black totalitarian societies, the abhorrent concept of a racial state and mass extermination camps stretching from Poland to Siberia.
As we pay tribute to those in whose blood that history was written, and as memories of both world wars fade with time, I am deeply worried that we have become forgetful of our history and reckless with our democracy. I fear that we now at times take for granted the unbroken peace that most European countries have enjoyed for more than 70 years, that we have allowed our moral radar to weaken, and that our ability to recognise what is acceptable or not has diminished. I have been shocked, as I am sure many of your Lordships have been, by some of the tone of the public debate in the handling our relationship with our European neighbours. Whatever our views, it is our duty to behave in a way that corresponds to the sacrifices made in the two world wars. This is not some romantic idea of everyone having to get along, but a matter of basic civility between nations and a reflection of the critical importance of a stable, democratic and peaceful continent, the very reason so many men and women fought and died in the two world wars.
As someone recently remarked, xenophobia has become almost acceptable, respectable and even admirable. While some may feel better throwing around disparaging comments and rude remarks, let us not forget that each time they do, and each time we pretend not to hear, rhetoric is a step closer to actions—unacceptable aggressive actions. Democracies are not immune to violence just because they are democracies. They have to be protected and nurtured. Sometimes they have to be fought for. However much we pride ourselves on our values, our history and the strength of our institutions, there is a short step between rhetoric and violent loss of life. Let us remember today the Member of Parliament the late Jo Cox, who was killed for standing up for the voiceless, and the 11 Jewish worshippers so recently killed in cold blood in America only for being Jews. We must always be vigilant and protect what has been built in blood and on lives sacrificed. I feel this keenly as I reflect that I, a great-granddaughter of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and you, the descendants of those who died to defend Great Britain, can today sit in the same Chamber.
Britain is an extraordinary and exceptional country. It stood on the right side of history in World War I, World War II and the Cold War. It is the country whose moral core was never corroded by Nazism or fascism. It is the country that has stood by those who needed protection. It is therefore worrying when the rhetoric of populism, which has never suited British core values, starts rearing its head. It is then that we must remember those who died for higher ideals. I therefore hope that as we mark the centenary of World War I we not only remember the generations who died but think of future generations and reflect on what we ourselves are going to leave behind, as there is no greater gift than security, no greater insurance policy than stability and no greater legacy than peace.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow such a compellingly argued and inspiring speech from the noble Baroness.
I have more family stories for your Lordships. I am here, I exist, only because both my grandfathers survived the First World War. My paternal grandfather, William, born into a Liverpool Catholic family, was an athlete: he played football as a schoolboy for the north of England, and as a boxer he sparred with Bombardier Billy Wells. William served at the front in the Royal Horse Artillery, losing a toe during the years of conflict.
My maternal grandfather, Joe, was born in Belfast to fierce loyalist stock. Aged 18, he joined Carson’s UVF and trained with guns smuggled in from Germany. At the onset of war my grandad joined the 15th Battalion of the Royal Irish Rifles, a Protestant force that marched with marigolds in their caps to the tunes of King Billy. Joe fought on the front line and in the trenches, miraculously surviving for the span of the war. He was in the Battle of the Somme where, as we know, 50,000 were killed or wounded on the first day. At Thiepval, the 36th (Ulster) Division lost 5,500 men in two days. Whole areas of Ulster were plunged into grief. Joe went on to fight on the Messines Ridge, at Cambrai and at St Quentin, where he was captured, and saw out the war as a German prisoner.
I can never be sure what price my two grandfathers paid for their exposure to four years of the utmost horror. My paternal grandfather, William, was bright but quick to pick a fight; he rose in the war to sergeant, but was discharged as a private. He would become an alcoholic, a mainly unemployed Bootle docker. The NSPCC would be called in to consider the welfare of my father and his siblings.
My maternal grandfather, Joe, could be cruel to his daughters too, but he was mostly quiet and introspective, though he took me, his first grandchild, under his wing and talked to me endlessly and chillingly about his war and his grim experiences, taking solace only in his racing pigeons and his pride in once having sold a Jack Russell terrier to Gracie Fields. There was one benevolent consequence of Joe’s war. By 1917, so many soldiers from the Ulster Division had been killed that Catholics were finally drafted in to make up the numbers. Unexpectedly, the camaraderie of battle softened attitudes, and a year later St Patrick’s Day was celebrated in the trenches and shamrocks widely distributed. When my Protestant mother declared that she was to marry my Catholic father, my mum was ostracised by her fierce loyalist mother but Joe, the one-time member of the UVF, had lost his sectarian impulse on the fields of Flanders, and peace was soon restored to the family.
I have visited the battlegrounds on which my grandfathers fought. I have stood in empty, flat green fields with the birds singing, not a soul to be seen, the ground around still bearing the scars of trenches, and I have listened to friends reading out loud some of the eloquent and poetic first-person accounts of battles long fought, involving massive loss of life, in precisely the place where we were standing. How could humankind have possibly managed to create and continue such fruitless slaughter? John Keegan, at the end of his masterpiece history of the First World War, describes it as a mystery:
“Why did a prosperous continent, at the height of its success as a source and agent of global wealth and power and at one of the peaks of its intellectual and cultural achievement, choose to risk all it had won for itself and all it offered to the world in the lottery of a vicious and local internecine conflict?”.
Some 1 million British, 1.7 million French, 2 million Germans and many others lost their lives in the Great War, yet the First World War was unfinished business. Only two decades later it seeded the Second World War, with even greater horror—a fivefold increase in loss of life. No one has expressed that better today than the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup.
So far, the post-war embryonic alliances that eventually grew into the European Union have succeeded in locking most of the countries of mainland Europe into a secure, harmonious and prosperous peace. The single most poignant post-war image for me is President Mitterrand and Chancellor Kohl standing together at Verdun in 1984, side by side and hand-in-hand. Even without us, may those European bonds remain forever strong and may catastrophic war never again blight our continent.
Lord Rana (Con)
My Lords, I also convey my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, for today’s debate.
Visiting our ancestral village in early childhood, I came to know that nearly every house had one or two male members in the army. Sadly, some of them never returned. It is a hilly area of Punjab with very small land holdings, and the only occupation was joining the army. They were professional soldiers and took pride in their profession. Many were recognised for their outstanding service and bravery.
When the Empire went to war with Germany in August 1914, its only fully trained and battle-worthy reserves immediately available to deploy in support of the British Expeditionary Force were the regular soldiers of the Indian Army. In addition to them, the military authorities were also able to withdraw almost all the regular British battalions from India for service in Europe. Only nine regular British battalions were retained in the country to keep a watch on the perennially problematic North-West Frontier and Afghanistan, whose intentions could be altered by a change in ruler—as was to happen, but not until 1919.
The British Expeditionary Force that crossed over to France in August 1914 was initially fewer than 90,000, which, with their French allies, faced the German spear-head of 320,000 strong. In all, Germany had an attacking force of about 1.5 million. All sides suffered severely in the bitter fighting that followed. By the end of the battle of Ypres in November, the effect of the fighting may be judged by the fact that the 7th Division, which had entered Belgium on 6 October almost 18,000 strong, had by 5 November been reduced to less than one-third of its inventory. It was this hard reality that made the resources of the Indian Army so vital. When it landed in Europe, not only was the Indian Army not well equipped, it was also unfamiliar with the terrain, the climate of northern Europe and trench warfare. It is remarkable how it coped.
The Indian Army had some 14,000 infantry and 1,700 cavalry. The Germans had launched 12 and a half divisions into what was to become the First Battle of Ypres. Its purpose was to capture the channel ports that were basic to the British war effort and the very security of the British mainland. It was a battle like no other. By the end, the BEF had virtually ceased to exist, losing some 50,000 men. The troops of the Indian Corps replaced 32,000 men of the BEF’s II Corps. The fighting that followed was marked by acts of individual bravery of the highest honour.
In the course of the war, 11 Victoria Crosses were awarded to Indian and Nepalese soldiers, as well as countless other bravery awards. One example from 1914 is Darwan Singh Negi, a non-commissioned officer of the 1st Battalion, 39th Garhwal Rifles, who was awarded the Victoria Cross. The desperate nature of the fighting may be judged by the fact that in the same action the battalion earned 16 other medals. By the battle’s end, the corps had lost some 2,000 men, who were killed and missing, and 4,000 were wounded. At enormous sacrifice, the hard-pressed forces of the Indian Army and their comrades of the BEF had thwarted what the German high command had hoped would be a decisive victory. Without the sacrifice of the Indian soldiers, the outcome of these battles in 1914 could have been different. Neither formation would ever fully recover from the ordeal.
In the course of 1915, the British Army, which by July had grown into 21 divisions, was engaged in a series of bitter but inconclusive battles. By October l915, the corps’ casualty list of killed, missing, and wounded amounted to over 21,000. Of the 47th Sikhs, only 28 men and no officers remained. Indian soldiers fought on various fronts: Mesopotamia, Gallipoli and Haifa.
In 1916, the Middle East had become the Indian Army’s principal theatre of operations. Given the scale of their losses at the Somme in 1916, Passchendaele in 1917, and in the great German offensive of spring 1918, the British had little enough to spare for the war in the Middle East. The campaign that took Baghdad on 11 March 1917 and then advanced to Mosul and Kirkuk would not have been feasible without Indian troops. So, too, Sir Edmund Allenby’s victorious advance in Palestine and Syria in 1918 depended in large part on the 54 infantry battalions and the 13 cavalry squadrons shipped from India to replace British troops that had to be sent to the Western Front.
By the war’s end, some 1.5 million had volunteered for the Indian Army; over 74,000 of them were not to return from service. We have not even touched on the material side of India’s contribution to the Empire’s war efforts. That contribution was truly remarkable. As the noble Lord, Lord Gadhia, already mentioned, Mahatma Gandhi, the great leader of India’s freedom struggle, who was in London in August 1914, set about organising an Indian ambulance corps. The rulers of princely states were generous in their support. Ganga Singh, Maharaja of Bikaner, and Bhupinder Singh, Maharaja of Patiala, both sailed for Europe. The latter raised 17,000 men from his state, visited a number of fighting fronts and, by the war’s end, was an honorary major-general.
Now that we are commemorating the centenary of the Armistice, we should also remember the unsurpassed sacrifice to the war effort from the Indian sub-continent, in both the First World War and the Second World War. The monthly salary of an Indian soldier was just 15 rupees—about one guinea. They left their homes and travelled to all parts of Europe, the Middle East and Africa to fight for the Empire for very little. The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I and World War II is estimated to be 100 million. Think seriously: it is a horrendous number of people, affecting many more families.
What have we learned from this most deadly chapter in human history? Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and other preachers of peace have come and gone. We are still living in a very dangerous world where there are too many trigger-happy Governments and individuals, ready to fight rather than sit down together to talk and listen. Commemorating Armistice Day and remembering the millions who died in these wars, we should work together to build a peaceful world.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, we are now almost at the end of this commemorative journey. I start by saying how proud I have been to serve on the Government’s World War I advisory board, along with other speakers in this debate. At meeting after meeting, I have been impressed by the diversity and dignity of the events that have been organised in all parts of the United Kingdom, in Ireland, and in France and Belgium. Others have spoken of the brilliance of the DCMS team, and I pay particular tribute to David Thompson and Jennifer Shaw for keeping the show on the road so brilliantly.
In preparing for today, I looked back at what was said in your Lordships’ House in June 2014, on the eve of the centenary of the start of the conflict. I commented in that debate that a great deal of preparation had been put in place and hoped that it would capture the imagination of as many people as possible. I also, perhaps slightly prematurely, paid tribute to the work of Dr Andrew Murrison MP, the Prime Minister’s special representative for the centenary commemoration, and I am delighted to be able to do so again, four years on, as have other speakers in this debate. Since the summer of 2011, there have been no fewer than seven Secretaries of State at the head of DCMS but, fortunately, there has been only one Dr Murrison. It is greatly to his credit that the tone and content of the commemoration programme has been correctly nuanced. It would have been so easy to get this wrong, but that has not happened. The theme of commemoration not celebration is right, as is the determination to combine the traditional act of remembrance with new initiatives to engage as much of the population as possible, especially young people. In such a fractured and divided world, it is great that the commemoration programme has succeeded in bringing us together—members of all races and ethnic groups, young and old particularly.
My involvement in the commemoration came about almost by accident. Towards the end of 2001, when I was still a relatively new Member here, I received a letter from a Belgian senator who warned me that the Flanders Government planned to extend the A19 motorway across Pilckem Ridge, the scene of some of the fiercest fighting in the Ypres Salient—a road which would have cut the battlefield in two. I was sufficiently intrigued by this to pay a visit to Pilckem Ridge during that Christmas Recess. I found that it remained largely untouched by development.
Pre-1915 photographs show the same farm buildings and the same field layout. The landscape has acquired more than a dozen Commonwealth War Graves Commission cemeteries, places of peace and tranquillity, visited by more than 150,000 people from the United Kingdom every year. It was where John McCrae, sitting in the back of a field ambulance close to what became the Essex Farm Cemetery, wrote “In Flanders Fields”, quoted by my noble friend Lady Crawley so movingly earlier. Below the fields of Pilckem Ridge, outside the cemetery, lie the remains of countless soldiers—perhaps as many as 200,000. The undeveloped farming area provides a peaceful last resting place for them, although fresh remains are found every time the fields are ploughed.
When I returned to the UK, I tabled an Oral Question in this House which led to many Members saying that they wanted to support the campaign to stop the motorway and preserve the Pilckem Ridge battlefield. As a result, we established the All-Party Parliamentary War Heritage Group, which continues to this day, with the remit of promoting and supporting the protection, conservation and interpretation of war graves, war memorials and battlefield sites. Two distinguished academics—Peter Barton and Professor Peter Doyle—volunteered to become involved having heard about my visit to Ypres, and Professor Doyle is still the group’s secretary. I continue to serve as co-chair, alongside Sir Jeffrey Donaldson MP, a fellow member of the Government’s World War I advisory board.
As a group, we engaged with the Flanders Government and, to their great credit, they abandoned the plans for the motorway extension. Now, each year, they organise impressive commemoration events around 11 November. This year, for example, they are having as their 15th “Flanders Remembers” event a concert in St Paul’s Cathedral on 8 November.
So much has been going on in the past four years that it is impossible in a single speech to cover more than a few examples. I hope, therefore, that the House will allow me to concentrate on just two areas where I have some personal involvement.
The first is the Worcestershire World War 100 programme. This is a partnership led by the Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology Service under the inspired leadership of Dr Adrian Gregson, deputy leader of Worcester City Council, and directed from The Hive, Europe’s first joint university and public library. The 2011 to 2019 programme includes council and independent museums, archives, the university, the cathedral, regimental associations, Army museums, trusts, local libraries, charities, the Western Front Association, the Royal British Legion and armed services’ benevolent funds. The project cost was £674,000, which attracted a Heritage Lottery Fund grant of £353,000.
Examples of what has been done include a people’s collection—material loaned or deposited and collected by local people in towns all over the county. The World War I bell tent has had 40 outings at shows, weekend events, schools, libraries and community groups—including in urban and rural schools in more deprived areas and with local ethnic communities—with re-enactors and other activities including poetry and poppy making. There have been displays marking specific centenary events involving Worcestershire regiments—such as the battles of Gheluvelt, Gallipoli, Qatia, Passchendaele and the spring offensive—plus longer-term exhibitions on the theme of “Back in Blighty” and the paintings of Benjamin Williams Leader.
The programme has organised heritage trails and exhibitions on the lives of Worcestershire’s very own Vesta Tilley and Studdert Kennedy—Woodbine Willie—as well as a war memorials bike ride. The “Fields of Battle: Lands of Peace” outdoor photographic exhibition by Mike Shiel, which many of your Lordships may have seen elsewhere, has been seen by 400,000 people. The South Eastern and Chatham Railway carriage which brought back the bodies of Edith Cavell and the unknown warrior came to the Severn Valley Railway on loan this summer. I should declare an interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association. Worcester will play its part in the Victoria Cross paving stone programme and is organising a military parade of the Mercian Regiment in honour of Fred Dancox VC.
The story is the same the length and breadth of the country. There has scarcely been a town or village which has not held its own commemoration. In my last few seconds, I pay a special tribute to the International Guild of Battlefield Guides; I have the honour to be its patron. It advises me that 1,800 schools have taken part in the battlefield tours programme and 6,500 teachers and students have been on a battlefield tour, many guided by guild members. They bring the former battlefields to life for the teachers and students. Guild guides have also played a key role in special school tours which commemorated a range of battles, including Loos, the Somme, Arras, Vimy Ridge, third Ypres and the spring offensive. The international programme was part of the Amiens 100 commemorations.
The evidence across the battlefield guiding industry is that bookings for 2019 are higher this year than was evident 12 months ago. That is interesting, and flies in the face of the accepted wisdom that the end of the centenary would mean a huge fall in battlefield tourism, and perhaps in remembrance. That is not so, and numbers are higher due to a wider percentage of the UK population being aware of the Western Front battlefields as a result of the centenary and the successful way in which it is being commemorated. That is a really positive legacy.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, we all know that this year marks the centenary of the First World War Armistice. The centenary reminds us of the pivotal role that our Armed Forces have played in shaping our country’s history. This was a conflict that resulted in suffering on an unprecedented scale.
I pay tribute to the contribution of Muslims during the First World War. The significant part played in the First World War by Muslims is not widely acknowledged and has been historically undervalued. Efforts must be made to redress that. I hope that today’s debate will inform others and help to address this imbalance.
At least 2.5 million Muslim soldiers and labourers from all over the world fought with the allied forces with dignity and honour. They came from many different countries, including Algeria, Canada, China, Egypt, France, India, Morocco, Russia, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Tunisia and the United States. A million soldiers and labourers came from Egypt, 80,000 soldiers came from Tunisia, 63,000 soldiers came from Morocco, 173,000 soldiers came from Algeria and 5,000 soldiers came from the United States. In fact, 10% of the Russian army’s total strength was Muslim, about 1.5 million soldiers.
Muslims were recognised with decorations for their bravery and valour in combat during the First World War. The Légion d’honneur was awarded to the Moroccan Division. During the Battle of the Marne, these brave soldiers were successful in halting the German troops’ advance on Paris. This incredible feat was called the miracle on the Marne. However, only 800 of the 4,000 Moroccan soldiers survived the battle. Furthermore, in British West Africa, 30% of African Distinguished Conduct Medals awarded to those who served were given to Nigerian Muslims who fought in Cameroon.
Muslim contributions were not only confined to military activities. Muslims also served in army nursing units, and in fact the Hui—the Chinese Muslims— were a substantial part of the Chinese labour force in Europe, on the eastern front, in Africa and in Mesopotamia.
Muslim soldiers shared their food with locals who were suffering from the famine in Europe. Prophet Muhammad—peace be upon him—and Caliph Abu Bakr laid down clear rules of engagement in warfare. One of the tenets in Islam is that Muslims should treat enemy soldiers with respect and look after them. In view of this belief, Muslim soldiers asked their officers to ensure that captured prisoners of war be taken to a place that had been prepared for them, and that they be properly fed and not harmed or tortured. Muslim soldiers felt that prisoners of war should be treated with mercy and kindness. Furthermore, Muslims shared their native traditional medical knowledge with nurses and doctors who had run out of medical supplies at the battlefront.
I turn now to Muslims from India. Although I was born in east Africa, I have Indian heritage. My grandfather joined the British Indian Army and fought in Palestine. This subject, therefore, is of personal interest to me. India raised the world’s largest volunteer army, with a total of 1.5 million soldiers during the First World War. This was greater than the combined total of all volunteers from Scotland, Wales and Ireland. There were 400,000 Muslims from India who were part of the British Volunteer Army. They fought out of love and loyalty to the King-Emperor and the Empire. They felt honour in fighting for their King, and it was this sense of loyalty and dedication that endeared them to many of their British comrades.
The First World War marked the first time that Muslim soldiers ever fought on European ground. They were originally called upon for help when British forces were suffering heavy casualties. This demonstrates just how historically important their role was. There were seven Indian Expeditionary Forces that included Muslims and they provided crucial support, fighting directly alongside British forces in Europe. In fact, at the Battle of Neuve-Chapelle, they provided half the attacking force. A British general described them as a magnificent body that performed the most useful and valuable service.
The Indian forces also saw action in east Africa, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Gallipoli and Palestine. More than 74,000 Indian troops, including Muslims, were killed or declared missing in action during the First World War, a number that is testament to the level of sacrifice and loyalty shown by the Indians in supporting the allied forces. Indian troops were awarded 13,000 medals for gallantry, including 11 Victoria Crosses. Sepoy Khudadad Khan was the first non-white person to be awarded the Victoria Cross for his gallantry in the face of overwhelming numbers. He was a Muslim who came from a place called Chakwal in present-day Pakistan. He served in the 129th Duke of Connaught’s Own Baluchis regiment. He fought in Belgium in 1914 and single-handedly kept German forces at bay in the Battle of Ypres after all his comrades had been killed, right up to the point where his position was overrun. It is thought that his actions helped to ensure that two vital ports used to supply British troops remained in allied hands. Two other Muslims were awarded the Victoria Cross: Mir Dast and Shahamad Khan. Such stories are significant as they personalise the efforts of Muslims in the armed forces, allowing us to see beyond statistics and into the hearts of these brave soldiers.
A number of Muslims who died as a result of injuries sustained in action in the First World War were buried on Horsell Common in Woking. The Muslim soldiers were able to prove that it was possible to be loyal both to their faith and to a country simultaneously. For many Muslims, religious observances were crucial for coping with the hardships and challenges on the battlefront.
I also pay tribute to other Indian soldiers in the British Army who were Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Christian and from other religions. As mentioned earlier, there were 1.5 million soldiers from undivided India. We should never forget their contribution. The union jack meant a lot to them and a number of them paid the ultimate price. Will the Minister comment on the contribution of Muslims during the First World War? Last week I arranged a meeting in the House of Lords to discuss that contribution, which was attended by several parliamentarians, including my noble friend Lord Lexden. The event created a great deal of interest and was very much oversubscribed.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, perhaps one good way to mark the centenary of the end of the First World War is to identify the main lessons from that appalling catastrophe that still have relevance and resonance today, and to commit ourselves to a renewed effort to apply those lessons which, I fear—as my remarks will show, I hope—we are not doing all that successfully. So here is a short list, although by no means an exhaustive one.
It certainly was not the war to end all wars. We surely do now need to put more resources and more political backing into conflict prevention, principally though not exclusively through the United Nations. We should encourage the UN Secretary-General to make more use of Article 99 of the charter, which enables him, on his own initiative, to bring threats to peace and security before the Security Council. We should bolster his conflict-prevention capacity. We should also be more active ourselves in both conflict prevention and in trying to bring conflicts to an end—and there I would mention the case of Yemen, which is very much a case in point.
Secondly, 1918 saw a great surge in demand to hang the Kaiser—probably not the best way to proceed if, like me, you are opposed to capital punishment. It reminds us, however, of the need to have a genuinely effective means of bringing to account those who initiate wars of aggression and those who commit war crimes. That means standing up firmly against the quite disgraceful speech recently made by the US National Security Advisor, John Bolton, attacking the International Criminal Court. We need to do everything we can to make that court effective.
The third lesson is the responsibility of uncontrolled arms races in creating the conditions for war. Obviously, in the case of the First World War the clearest example was the naval arms race between Britain and Germany. That was of course an age before nuclear weapons and the intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them. But we need to recognise that we live today in an age when arms races do still pose a risk. Just look at the naval arms race that is going on in the Far East at the moment. This is a moment, too, when even the rather inadequate international agreements on arms control are beginning to atrophy; the most recent example, of course, being the US decision to announce its intention to withdraw from the INF. We surely need to try to reverse that trend.
Fourthly, it may be that in 1918 it was recognised that some categories of weapon were just too horrendous to tolerate. That led to the worldwide ban on the use of poison gas in 1925. But we have to realise now—and we do realise—that the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was the implementation of that commitment in 1925, are being flouted in Syria and, of course, closer to home, in Salisbury.
Fifthly, perhaps the most important lesson to draw from 1918 was that the world could not afford to rely on informal co-operation between the great powers of the day, whoever they might be—the so-called Concert of Europe—to prevent conflicts breaking out. That realisation led to the foundation of the League of Nations, which of course proved unable to fulfil its purpose; and then, after the Second World War, it led to the foundation of the United Nations. Today we have a President of the United States, in contrast to Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, who can see no use for the UN and little benefit from the collective security it and NATO are set up to provide. That is a pretty sobering prospect, and so surely, as a nation which supports a rules-based international order, we need to get together with other like-minded countries to resist that trend. Of course, it is difficult to describe leaving the European Union, which has done so much to heal the wounds from 1918 and 1945, as a step in the right direction.
Finally, and sixthly, there was one lesson which perhaps we have done a bit more to learn. One hundred years ago marked the apogee of a world influenza pandemic, wrongly known as Spanish influenza, which killed more people worldwide than the war itself, many of them weakened by the privations of war. Since then we have got a little better at dealing with that sort of global pandemic—just a bit better, but remember that we did not do terribly well with Ebola the first time it broke out, and are we absolutely sure that we would do better if we were assailed by another pandemic?
So there are six either unlearned or at least imperfectly learned lessons, all of them originating from 1918—quite a challenge if the world is not to fall into some of the same horrors it fell into then.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who indeed points out some extremely important lessons.
Along with my noble and indefatigable friend the Minister, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I have heard every single speech of this remarkable debate. I will begin by adding my tribute to another tireless person, who does not even have a seat, and say how much we all appreciate what Dr Murrison has done over the last four years.
Forty-eight hours ago I was sitting in Lincoln Cathedral. It was probably the largest choir ever assembled there, with choral societies from all over Lincolnshire, together with the cathedral’s own choir: over 400 singers and two orchestras had come to take part in Britten’s “War Requiem”. It was an intensely moving evening. They very cleverly projected on to one of those soaring Purbeck marble columns at the end of our glorious nave the names of Lincolnshire men who had died in the First World War. It was moving, too, when at the end—as happens, and as will doubtless happen at the Albert Hall on Saturday night—poppies came drifting down. As I sat there, various thoughts came to mind. I thought of my mother, who had no brothers but had six male cousins, five of whom perished in the First World War. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury referred in his speech to Staffordshire, which was my adopted county for over 40 years. I had the honour to represent a Staffordshire constituency in the other place, and I was churchwarden in Enville, the little village in the south to which he referred. I had to take part in the service, either there or in the neighbouring village of Kinver, every Remembrance Sunday, where the list was read out: something like 45 or 50 names from Enville and Kinver, these two small Staffordshire villages. It was an extraordinary cataclysm. It has not been mentioned today but it brought crashing down four empires: the empire of the Kaiser, the empire of the Tsar, the Ottoman Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, referred in a particularly moving and apposite speech.
It is crucial that we remember sacrifice, but remembrance is hollow unless it is accompanied by a determination that this should not happen again. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made an important speech at the beginning of this debate when he said, in effect, that 21 years later we were at it again—in 1939, the year of my birth. I was born just a few months before the outbreak of that war in which my father served throughout. The continent that was torn apart between 1618 and 1648 in the ghastly Thirty Years War, and torn apart and dismembered from 1914 to 1918, was again torn apart in the Second World War. It must not happen again.
We did better after the Second World War, with the founding of NATO and—I make no apology for saying it—the founding of the European Union. Full of imperfections as any human institution is, it did so much, first through the Coal and Steel Community, to bring together those who had in some cases been enemies for centuries. We were late in on the act, but we are a European power. We prevented the hegemony of France in the early 18th century with the treaty of Utrecht. We prevented it again just 100 years later; we can go into the Royal Gallery and see that wonderful picture of Wellington on the field of Waterloo. We prevented it again—with wonderful allies to whom there has been much and proper reference during the course of this debate—in 1918; and again in 1945, when some of the most stirring rhetoric of the war came from the Dispatch Box in this Chamber, because the Commons met in here for most of the war. It was from that Dispatch Box that Churchill delivered most of his great wartime speeches.
When we came together to join the European Union, we were already a founding and leading member of NATO. We have done much to play a leading part, looked up to by the Baltic states, Finland and some of the smaller countries as a leader. They are distraught that we are leaving, but we are. The moral of this is not to refight the referendum; I do not want a second referendum. The moral is to say that it is incumbent upon us to forge the strongest possible links with our friends, allies and neighbours in Europe in the years to come. We also have to remember that there are threats as yet unspoken of in this debate, or potential threats.
I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Balfe when he talks about Russia. He is right. It may not be the most attractive regime, but let us think back to the days of what Reagan called the “evil empire”. Let us remember also that in Muslim extremism and terrorism we have a common foe, which is not to gainsay any of the positive remarks made about Muslims a few minutes ago. We have got to be together.
We have also got to remember one other thing that has not been mentioned at all in this debate: the Second World War, which we shall be commemorating on Sunday too, was also fought in the Far East.
“For their tomorrow, we gave our today”.
Those words will be read out. I want us to have the most positive commercial and other friendships that we can with China. But let us not forget, that is a dominant power. It will be the most powerful nation in the world by the middle of this century. It has already created for itself the semblance of an empire in Africa. We have got to be prepared and be aware that our defence policy is crucial, our defence expenditure is vital and our vigilance is utterly necessary—because if we are not aware of that, we shall be letting down the people we were thinking of in Lincoln Cathedral 48 hours ago, during that Great War requiem.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for permitting me to speak in the gap. The Minister made a most impressive introductory speech to this debate. He referred to the participation of the two Irish divisions at the battle of Messines in 1917. I can add another significant fact: alongside those two Irish divisions were an Australian division and a New Zealand one. The noble Lord, Lord Birt, referred to the famous 36th (Ulster) Division, but the 16th Division, from the south of Ireland, was staffed entirely from the south into the five regiments from southern Ireland, which were disbanded in 1922.
I was interested to hear about the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, with his Irish forebears; but returning Irish servicemen from the British Army had to be totally concealed within their family. They were treated like black sheep and could never be referred to. There is distressing evidence that has come to light that there were several murders of men who had been identified as having served in the British Army. That lasted right through the Second World War, but then came the remarkable transformation of the British-Irish relationship. There were the significant contributions by the two presidents to the peace process; then the Belfast agreement; the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Dublin; and the visit by President Higgins to London, where he found time to inspect the laid-up colours of the five regiments in St George’s Chapel.
I am a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. Four years ago, it was the UK’s turn to host the meeting. We met in Ashford in Kent and took coaches through to the Ypres battlefields. There are a remarkable number of Irish memorials, even in that smaller bit of the Western Front, in addition of course to the cemeteries. Our Irish colleagues were really impressed by all these, because the graves had not been visited for a century in the vast majority of cases, either by their compatriots or, indeed, by their families. In the Tyne Cot Cemetery, which I think is the largest cemetery of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission—that remarkable organisation—I came across the grave of an Irish soldier of the Great War, known only to God. One can speculate that it might well have been a crucifix which was the only identifying object—but that may be. My Irish friend was in tears. That is the legacy which we now enjoy within British-Irish relations, and we can pay proper tribute to 30,000 deaths, more or less distributed between those two Irish divisions, and acknowledge the contribution that Ireland made to the Great War.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, with your Lordships’ permission, I will speak for a few seconds only. My father was born in 1894, so he was just old enough to serve in the First World War, which he did—first in the Devonshire Yeomanry, then in the South Wales Borderers, and finally in the Royal Flying Corps. All I need to say is that he was there.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, 1 was the youngest child of a late family. My father reached 18 in 1917 and went out in a reinforcement draft to the Highland Division in March 1918, just as the last great German attack was launched. When at last, in his mid-80s, he began to talk about his experiences, he told me that at one point he was second in command of the remnants of his battalion as a sergeant, with only one officer left.
I want to focus on how well we have commemorated the centenary of the first global war, and what lessons we should take from this for the approach to future commemorations, including those for the centenary of the Second World War in 20 years’ time. Like the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I have been on the Government’s advisory group for the commemoration of World War One. I saw the early exchanges in Whitehall about the approach to take and I was the first British Minister to talk to the German Foreign Office about how we might work with it to remember together.
As we all know, history is a constant battle over preferred narratives. As a nation, we British are deeply divided and confused about which historical narratives we prefer. I recall seeing an early memorandum to the then Prime Minister in 2012 which stated that, in our approach to the commemoration of World War I, we should ensure that we did not give support to the myth that European integration was the outcome of the two world wars. The Government’s stated purposes in their approach to the commemoration of the centenary were youth and education. We achieved that aim in engaging our younger generations to discover the histories of their local communities in war and the impact of the loss of life on families throughout Britain. We have done very well in symbolising reconciliation with Germany, from the shared events in St Symphorien cemetery, the shared concert with the Bundestag choir and the participation of President Steinmeier in the ceremonies of next weekend.
However, we have failed in educating our younger generation about the wider context of the war and the extent to which British forces depended on the contribution of allies and imperial troops. We have not embarked on the exercise which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, so eloquently called for. I recall entering a book shop in the Yorkshire Dales two or three years ago—as well stocked with volumes on the two world wars as on steam trains and Yorkshire traditions—to find the owner arguing with a visitor about Brexit. He was saying: “After all, we beat the Germans in two world wars and now they are telling us what to do”. That echoes one of the widely held myths of British history, propounded by Margaret Thatcher among others, that Britain stood alone in two world wars to defend freedom against tyranny when others had given up the fight. I tentatively suggested that we had had a lot of help from others in both wars, most of all from the Americans. I was told that, so far as he knew, the Americans had not taken part in World War 1.
It is not that surprising that few Britons appreciate the importance of the American contribution. In spite of proposals that we should make a major event of the US entry into the war, the only significant commemorative event took place on the Scottish island of Islay earlier this year, beyond the reach of major news programmes. It marked the wreck of two US transports as they approached the Clyde: important, but not helping our younger generation to understand just how vital the USA was to the achievement of victory after four exhausting years of a war of attrition.
In contrast to the welcome gestures of reconciliation to our former German enemies, we have neglected the contributions of our allies and imperial forces. We held a small ceremony by the statue of Marshal Foch in London last April, to mark the point at which British forces came under his overall command, with a Guards band and the participation of two French soldiers from Foch’s former regiment. We have not recalled that elements of the Belgian army held part of the Ypres salient throughout the First World War, using England as their support and supply base. As several other noble Lords have said, we have done far too little to inform most of our younger generation of the importance of the Indian army. Less has been said of the West Indies Regiment in the Palestine campaign. I recall the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, remarking that her grandfather was a sergeant in one of its battalions. We have missed a great opportunity to contribute to national integration and to encourage more from our Asian and other ethnic minorities to enlist in our forces today. We have failed to explain how closely our history is linked to our continental neighbours.
The French commemoration has been much more generous to its partners and allies, as well as to its former enemies. An open-air exhibition along the Champs Elysées, in 2014 to 2015, carried pictures of allied troops in all their diversity: Scots, English, Indian, Moroccan and Algerian as well as French. British troops have marched in their 14 July parade. A special ceremony in Paris marked the American entry into the war, impressing President Trump so much that he wanted to initiate regular military parades in Washington on his return. The British, in contrast, have focused on our own war and our own forces, leaving the Americans, French, Belgians, Indians, even the Australians and Canadians, too much in the background.
The remembrance ceremony at the Cenotaph is, in effect, the annual symbolic representation of British history and identity. In 1919, the first parade past the Cenotaph included troops from 12 empire and allied forces—the French, Americans and others—as well as from Britain. Since then, however, it has shrunk to an entirely British ceremony, unchanged for over half a century and almost entirely white, with only the Commonwealth high commissioners from outside the UK. I welcome the participation of the German president in this year’s event as a welcome sign of openness to change.
Should we not in future years follow the French example in their 14 July ceremonies and invite contingents from other countries, with whom we have shared—and still share—common dangers and threats, to take part? This could include contingents from India and Pakistan, to mark how much Britain depended on their predecessors in past conflicts; Polish troops and airmen, to explain to our young people the crucial contributions that they made in the Second World War—in intelligence, in the Battle of Britain, at Arnhem and Monte Cassino; and Belgian forces, to make our right-wing politicians recognise that many Belgians fought on, from British bases, in both world wars. When in Government, I recall a Conservative Minister remarking that the Belgians never fight, to be sharply corrected by an official who reminded him that Belgian and British planes were flying joint missions over Libya at that time. The French, our most vital ally in World War I, whose resistance to occupation we supported in World War II and, with the Americans, our closest ally today, should of course also be included.
Britain did not stand alone, in either world war. The myth that we did—that we not only invented freedom but saved it from continental tyranny—is embedded in our most widespread national narrative, and in the way we have approached commemoration of the sacrifices in the two wars. As we reflect on the efforts we have made to educate our younger generations on the national experience of World War I, I hope that we will learn lessons for a more inclusive approach in the future: a recognition that Britain’s security has been maintained with the support of others, and will be maintained in the future only if we continue to co-operate with others within an institutionalised European and international order.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to play a part in a debate of this kind and I am very grateful for the opportunity.
As it happens, the first speech, by the Minister, and the last, by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, have both referenced the participation by the German President in our commemorative events this weekend. That emboldens me to begin by quoting from a German philosopher, Leibniz, who once said that the present is suffused with the past and charged with the future. There is, then, no time like the present, this centenary moment, to take stock of what has gone before while positioning ourselves for what is to come.
This debate has been a perfect vehicle for exploring this dynamic, and we can only thank all who have contributed for their evocative, personal and challenging remarks. From this vantage point, we in this Parliament, and the nation at large, must bring the past alive again, not for its own sake but in order to recommit ourselves to the future—a note that has been struck again and again during this debate.
A kaleidoscopic array of experiences has flooded my mind, as it has the minds of us all, and shown us just how connected we all are to the events of 1914-18. Let me run down a short list of such memories that spring from my own mind, not in the hope of being exhaustive but in an attempt to illustrate the wide spectrum of our national and international life that was drawn into this conflict 100 years ago.
The Sunday school room in Burry Port where I used to play and learn as a boy was a simple, lean-to, wooden affair—not Lincoln Cathedral. A certificate on the wall carried the name of Bert Owen. Many years later, I discovered that he had survived the horrendous battle for Mametz Wood in 1915 but died two years later at the battle of Messines. A photograph on our kitchen wall at home shows Private Robert Edward Rhodes with his simple medals, from Staffordshire. He would have been my wife’s great-uncle. He died aged 21 in Flanders fields. These were two lads from small towns, just like millions of others, and many references have been made to just such people. “Short days” they,
“lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved”.
My student holiday job was as a male nurse in St David’s mental hospital in Carmarthen. I shaved and bathed a poor man who had been gassed and shell-shocked 40 years previously before being committed to that institution where, as far as I know, he spent the remainder of his days. I remember the geriatric ward of a local hospital at the very beginning of my life as a Methodist minister. The mere sight of a young man wearing a clerical collar was enough to set off a barrage of abuse aimed directly at me—there was no place for God in the minds of so many of those who endured the trenches. Those were two hospitals where veterans were victims, just like millions of others, who had heard,
“The shrill demented choirs of wailing shells”,
but were now left to deal with their ghosts and their unresolved anger, or else just kept out of sight because their cases were too hard for us to contemplate.
Another of my holiday jobs was to help demolish what had been a national explosives factory in Pembrey. Millions of shells and tons of explosives were manufactured there. The factory poured its toxic chemicals into the sea where I and my pals used to swim and cavort. Its workforce during the Great War was largely made up of women—their yellowing skin and hair making it only too obvious where they worked.
Margaret Broadley was deputy matron of the London Hospital. She lived out her life as a spinster, sublimating the deep energies of the love she once had for her sweetheart through her chosen vocation of nursing. She never forgot, as she told me often enough, his kisses and caresses. Those were women, like millions of others, working tirelessly behind the scenes, so many of them widowed before they were wed.
I am wearing a khadi poppy, of which much mention has been made. Let it stand this evening, with permission, for Indians, Africans and Caribbean soldiers, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians.
Let us remember that not only soldiers served from our imperial regions. I can picture the endless supply lines that supported the military effort. Recently, I visited Kenya and met a number of people from a sprawling township on the edge of Nairobi known to this day as Kariokor—the Carrier Corps. The place name survives in its strange and mutilated form.
“Gathered like pearls in their alien graves”,
lay what the poet Sarojini Naidu called the “Gift of India”, and she would surely have added those of so many other places from around the Empire too. The reading of that poem was one of the highlights of our Parliament Choir’s commemorative performance of Mozart’s Mass in C minor just last week.
I might also mention a cantata, a composition of Brian Hughes performed in Cardiff by the National Youth Choir of Wales, accompanied by the National Youth Orchestra of Wales, called “Sorrows of the Somme”. Indeed, as has been mentioned often, the wide cultural response to the safeguarding of the memories of that awful time have been very striking.
I come towards the end of my list of memories. I remember the memorial I dedicated in the National Memorial Arboretum in my capacity as president of the Boys Brigade. We remembered 11 members of our movement who had been awarded the Victoria Cross for their courage and leadership during the Great War. I remember that the names of hundreds of young soldiers are written in magnificent copper-plate on a vast, framed roll of honour in the parish of Saint John, in Croydon, where I now live—or chiselled on large marble slabs on the chapel wall at Trinity College, Cambridge. They remind us of all those who paid the supreme price on the battlefields, and they remind us of the classlessness of those from across the social spectrum who gave what was their today so that we might enjoy what would become our tomorrow.
“At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them”—
the words of Lawrence Binyon, will ring out across the land over the next few days. I feel a need to hold these words up for greater scrutiny, especially the word “remember”, and I hope noble Lords will forgive me for this. The verb “to remember” is one of the English language’s precious jewels. It has a distinctive meaning which is often lost in the way we employ it. I suspect we would do well to pronounce it differently: to “re-member”, with a hyphen in it, rather than simply “remember”. We “re-member” that which has been “dis-membered”. Memory serves a greater purpose than merely recapturing something that is in danger of passing out of our minds. “Re-membering” is about rebuilding a fragmented world, putting flesh on the ideals we have for our world. How better to honour the memory of those who paid such a price for our freedom?
What followed the First World War, far from “re-membering” a dismembered social order, too often simply added to its fragmentation. It concerned itself with punishment and revenge rather than reconstruction. The Second World War became an inevitable consequence of the failure to win the peace.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has said, it was in the years following the disintegration caused by the Second World War that the world seemed at last to have come to its senses. The founding of the United Nations and its various agencies, the Bretton Woods agreement, the Marshall Plan, the European Union and NATO were all aimed at “re-membering” a dismembered world. We set our target—let us not forget this—on: saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war; reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights; establishing and maintaining the rule of law; promoting social progress. The object of our emphatic intention to honour the memory of those who served their King and country in that godforsaken war surely has to be to build a world worthy of their sacrifice.
Abraham Lincoln saw it that way—and only too clearly—when he stood at the battlefield of Gettysburg during his nation’s Civil War:
“The world … can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated … to the great task remaining before us … that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion … that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain … that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom … and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.
Gosh, those words ring true now. Lincoln! Thou shouldst be living at this hour: the world hath need of thee.
I am grateful for the privilege of adding my voice to those who have contributed to this debate, and of giving thanks for the Armistice which brought the First World War to its end. The challenge it leaves us with is clear enough. We must work hard for the “re-membering” of our dismembered world. We will truly honour the memory of those who have gone before when we put our best efforts into building a world fit for those who have yet to be born. Remembering is a forward-looking activity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, we have had a most moving, measured and dignified debate and I am most grateful to all noble Lords across the House for their contributions, which appropriately reflected the gravity of the subject under discussion. I thank noble Lords for their kind words about the efforts of DCMS. The credit absolutely belongs to the officials in the department, whose energy has been remarkable, even to the extent of being hospitalised on one occasion. This was not due to some ghastly accident, but was actually due to bedbugs: there was an infestation in one of the hotels they were staying in. Such is life in the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
I think the speeches this afternoon and this evening stood on their own merits and need no summary from me, even if I were capable of giving one, so I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not pick out and comment on all individual speeches. To me, a number of themes came through. The first, mentioned by many noble Lords, is that of India and the contribution made by soldiers from the Indian subcontinent, of many religions, who came to our aid. I said in my opening remarks that we have taken care to recognise the participation of all our Commonwealth allies. I hope that I can provide reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, and my noble friend Lord Sheikh about some of the things that have taken place which have recognised that. Much of the Government’s wider programme reflected that contribution, as I said.
There were examples such as “The Unremembered”, delivered by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which told some of the lesser-known stories of those who volunteered, such as the Indian Labour Corps. In 2016, 14-18 NOW produced the “Doctor Blighty” exhibition in Brighton, a spectacular light projection showing the experience of Indian troops recuperating at the Royal Pavilion Military Hospital that I was very pleased to see. I also managed to attend the “Stories of Sacrifice” exhibition in Manchester, specifically marking the contribution of Muslim soldiers in the First World War and delivered by the British Muslim Heritage Centre. We tried to include representatives, both culturally through 14-18 NOW, as I said before, and through specific events, not only nationally but in many local events around the country.
Another theme that registered with me and was repeated in many speeches was learning the lessons of the war and the incompleteness of the peace. I think we all agree with that, even if we may not all agree on the lessons. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has given us an excellent starter for 10. What this leads to is the question of legacy and what will be left behind after this 1914 period. We decided early on that we were going to stick with the two key dates, 1914 and 1918, but we hope that there will be a legacy. I hope that it may reassure noble Lords that, according to the Government’s recent Taking Part survey, over 70% of people asked said that the centenary events had helped them to understand what was experienced by people who lived at the time of the war. We are trying to build on this success. There are a number of projects, brought about as part of the centenary commemorations, which will continue to provide educational and cultural benefits beyond the centenary period.
For example, the Heritage Lottery Fund has awarded more than £96 million to more than 2,200 First World War projects, many at a local level. The Heritage Lottery Fund will continue to support projects that help communities engage with and learn more about their First World War heritage. These include such things as the First World War Memorials Programme, a Historic England project that has added 2,500 war memorials to the National Heritage list for England and repaired more than 400 war memorials in the UK. My noble friend Lord Black and I have already mentioned the Imperial War Museums. Their Lives of the First World War project is an online resource which records the stories of individuals from across Britain and the Commonwealth who served in uniform or worked on the home front.
Through this project, and the refurbishment of its First World War galleries, which he mentioned, Imperial War Museums—which was of course founded in the middle of the First World War—has been a key partner to the Government over the centenary period. It was also intimately involved in the 14-18 NOW project with Peter Jackson in digitising and colouring World War I films. I recommend the programme “They Shall Not Grow Old”, which is on BBC2 at 9.30 on 11 November. Anyone who has seen it will know that by taking old World War I films, digitising them and colourising them, an amazing change has been made—it makes it appear as if you were there.
The Government have supported a number of other projects. This includes £40 million for the First World War Centenary Cathedral Repairs Fund and the £5.3 million battlefield tours project, which allowed nearly 6,000 students and teachers to visit the battlefields. Over 1,700 schools have taken part and I am delighted that the Chancellor found another £1 million to secure the continuation of this legacy project.
However, I take on board that we are not talking about just education or raising awareness, and that we ought to consider that we may be on the edge of another, potentially very dangerous, shift in the global order. I will make some exceptions here and mention the speeches of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, as well as those of my noble friends Lady Helic and Lord Balfe. As politicians, we must think about the lessons of the past in relation to our current position in the world, and the future policy that that entails, all within a moral dimension. I will certainly reread those speeches, along with many others.
On a different topic, no debate on this subject would be complete without mentioning the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. Many thousands of casualties from the British Empire are buried in some 23,000 CWGC sites in more than 150 countries around the world. These moving and sensitively maintained sites are a permanent reminder of enormous sacrifices. In 2017, the commission launched the centenary internship, which was supported and funded by a Libor grant from the Government.
It is striking that the First World War still has the power to engage us, young and old alike. It lives with us daily in so many ways: in memorials, in our culture, in our family lore and in our national psyche. We now know—this has been mentioned by many noble Lords—that the Armistice was not the end of the conflict. The challenges of the peace negotiations, the birth of new nations and the all too brief hiatus between the wars were all still to come. Despite that, it is right that we recognise that 11 November 1918 was a monumental moment in the history of the United Kingdom, her Commonwealth and her allies.
Surprisingly, in uncertain times, the First World War can still unite us. It brings us together in awe and horror, respect and gratitude. This is a war which started over a century ago yet it seems almost tangible and within our grasp. There is no way we can make amends. We have no recourse to change history to prevent the bloodshed, nor can we ignore the scars. The facts will never change: millions of lives were ended, millions of families were torn apart, and the world was never the same again.
However, I firmly believe that we can tell ourselves, and future generations, that over the last four years we have saluted those who served, and we have done justice to their bravery. Bearing in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, I am certain that, for years to come, we will remember them.