House of Commons

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 12 December 2018

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

1. If the Government will make it its policy to build a national memorial to British service personnel killed on service in Northern Ireland.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)]

May I start by paying tribute to my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), who has been typically generous and helpful with his time and efforts during the handover?

I am sure that everyone on both sides of the House will agree that we all owe a vast debt of gratitude to the heroism and bravery of British servicemen and women who were killed upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Their sacrifice will never be forgotten. Within the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire sits the armed forces memorial. Rightly, it includes the names of every member of the armed forces killed while serving in Northern Ireland, as a permanent reminder of their bravery and sacrifice.

[John Mann]

Anthony Dykes, who came from Harworth, a mining village in my constituency, was murdered on 5 April 1979. His parents, Fred and Kathleen Dykes, are two of the finest people I have ever met and represent everything that is good about my community and this country. Other grieving parents have specific memorials. For Fred and Kathleen’s son and others who were killed or murdered on duty in Northern Ireland, there is no such memorial. Is it not now time that, as with other conflicts, there is a specific memorial for those who served our country and lost their lives in the conflict in Northern Ireland?

[John Penrose]

I understand and empathise with the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. In fact, as I visited the former Massereene Army barracks in Northern Ireland last week, I paused to pay my respects at a local memorial to two former Army engineers who were killed in 2009. There are many such memorials to individual acts of heroism or tragedy scattered not just across Northern Ireland, but around the rest of this country. Those commemorate individual actions and tragedies. The national memorial is the one in Staffordshire, and we should not underestimate its importance or value—it having been opened by Her Majesty the Queen and recording the names of everybody who has been killed on service in Northern Ireland and other conflicts.

[Mr Speaker]

I would gently point out that this is not an essay exchange competition; this is Question Time. For goodness’ sake, let’s speed up.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will the Minister remind the House how many brave British service personnel were killed or wounded in Operation Banner, which was the defence by this country against a terrorist onslaught in Northern Ireland?

[John Penrose]

Having been in the job for three and a half weeks, I am afraid that I do not have the precise number, but it was very many and the tragedy was huge.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

One of the last formal acts I did as Lord Mayor of Belfast in 2013 was to unveil a memorial stone in the Belfast City Council memorial garden to the Ulster Defence Regiment and others who served in Operation Banner. May I invite the Minister to come with me to see the memorial there and to consider how best nationally we could reflect the Government’s recognition of sacrifice in Northern Ireland?

[John Penrose]

I will gladly go to that memorial.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

2. What recent steps she has taken to promote Northern Ireland businesses throughout the world.

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

7. What recent steps she has taken to promote Northern Ireland businesses throughout the world.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)]

Britain is a global trading nation and is about to become more global, so we want to promote the strengths of Northern Ireland’s business community to a global audience. So far, I have visited CM Precision Components in Downpatrick, the Causeway Chamber of Commerce, Randox in Antrim, Coca-Cola in Lisburn, Queen’s University Centre of Excellence in Precision Medicine in Belfast and many Northern Ireland representatives of the Federation of Small Businesses, Chamber of Commerce, Confederation of British Industry and Institute of Directors.

[Tom Tugendhat]

On every visit I make to embassies in my role as Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, it has been made very clear to me that Northern Ireland has an amazing economy that is growing and has a rightful place around the world. Does my right hon. Friend—forgive me, I meant my hon. Friend; the day is young—agree that Northern Ireland’s economic achievements would only be greater if the Northern Ireland Assembly were out there assisting and promoting it through the Northern Ireland Executive?

[John Penrose]

I completely agree that things would be hugely improved by a functioning Assembly and Executive. I have been in this role for only a couple of weeks, but, as a former businessman, I have been hugely impressed by the economic progress since the Belfast agreement. Northern Ireland is open for business and we want the whole world to know.

[Craig Tracey]

In his first few weeks of meeting businesses, what is my hon. Friend’s assessment of the unique strengths of Northern Ireland for global companies looking to grow and invest their businesses, and what support will he provide as Minister?

[John Penrose]

In the meetings that I have held so far, I have been hugely impressed by the skilled and stable workforce in Northern Ireland. I have also been impressed by its world-leading research—for example, in the precision medicine centre that I visited at Queen’s in Belfast—and by the strong sectoral abilities in cyber-security, life sciences and aerospace. We are doing a great deal and we need to continue to do so to promote that economic growth.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Minister will be aware in recent times of the success that companies have had across the globe in the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland from China to Taiwan, Australia and Dubai. There is perhaps a chance of hosting a conference in Northern Ireland to promote the agri-food business and business as a whole. Is that something in which he would be interested?

[John Penrose]

The short answer is yes. If the hon. Gentleman brings me the details, I will be delighted to discuss them.

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

In relation to the Belfast region city deal announced in the recent Budget, will the Secretary of State justify or explain why the percentage of match funding guaranteed for Belfast is not being replicated elsewhere in the UK, most notably in my city of Dundee under the Tay cities deal?

[John Penrose]

As I understand it, city deals vary from place to place. They are situation and location specific almost by definition, so there is not a particular standardised approach to any one of them. They are tailored and deliberately so. I am afraid that that is what inevitably happens. With any luck, some other city deals, perhaps in other parts of Scotland, may conform more closely to what the hon. Gentleman is after.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to boost business in Northern Ireland will be to deal with air passenger duty and corporation tax, which are, unfortunately, devolved matters? Will he therefore encourage the institutions in Northern Ireland to get up and going again? If not, will the Government take some action?

[John Penrose]

My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, is absolutely right to point out that these are devolved matters and that they need to be taken forward by a devolved Assembly and Administration—the Executive. We want to encourage all sides to get going again, because, clearly, these issues are important to the people of Northern Ireland and need to be addressed.

[Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the EU withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

6. What assessment her Department has made of the effect on Northern Ireland of the UK leaving the EU.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

10. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the EU withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

12. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the EU withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

13. What assessment her Department has made of the effect on Northern Ireland of the UK leaving the EU.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

14. What assessment she has made of the potential effect of the EU withdrawal agreement on Northern Ireland.

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

15. What assessment she has made of the potential effect on Northern Ireland of the EU withdrawal agreement.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

May I start by putting on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), the former Minister?

The withdrawal agreement is the best way for Northern Ireland and the whole United Kingdom to ensure that we leave the European Union. It protects all the things that we value in Northern Ireland—the constitutional and economic integrity of the UK, and vital jobs and investment—and, for the people of Northern Ireland, it continues the progress that we have made over the past two decades under the Belfast agreement.

[Douglas Chapman]

On Saturday 8 December, just five short days ago, the Secretary of State penned a letter to the people of Northern Ireland. The letter stated that the deal protects all the things that we value. As the Prime Minister is now desperately rushing around Europe to change that very deal, may I ask what the new letter will say this Saturday?

[Karen Bradley]

I stand by the comments that I made in the letter. This is the best deal to ensure that the United Kingdom leaves the European Union as one united kingdom. The Prime Minister, though, has recognised the concerns that there rightly are around the backstop, and she is seeking to address those concerns.

[Liz Twist]

Will the Secretary of State tell us what aspect of this deal would require the Northern Ireland Assembly to be sitting? If the Government cannot get devolution in Northern Ireland back up and running, will they resort to direct rule to implement their deal?

[Karen Bradley]

We all want to see the Executive back up and running, and we want to see the institutions in place. The Good Friday agreement achieved so much for the people of Northern Ireland and those institutions are such an integral part of them. I know that the politicians in Northern Ireland do want to come back to do that. I think the hon. Lady is referring to the Stormont lock in paragraph 50 of the joint report, and the Government stand by that lock.

[Patrick Grady]

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether she has carried out any analysis on the exact economic and competitive advantages that Northern Ireland would have over the rest of the United Kingdom in the event of the backstop being activated? If she has, will she publish them? If she has not, will she commission some?

[Karen Bradley]

I think that it is clear that this Government want to see us go into the future relationship with the European Union by 31 December 2020 and that the backstop is an insurance policy that none of us wants to see activated.

[Alan Brown]

Article 5 of the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol on the withdrawal agreement, which states that

“free movement for Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of their nationality, to, from and within Ireland”,

means that people will be able to move about as part of the common travel area. So with the end of free movement post Brexit, what additional checks will be imposed on people travelling to and from Northern Ireland from the UK mainland?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman does not understand the way that the common travel area works today and the fact there is free movement across the island of Ireland for all citizens and nationalities. Of course there is a good working relationship between the Border Force agencies in Northern Ireland and their equivalents in the Republic, so that we can ensure that those who do not have the right to be in the United Kingdom do not access the United Kingdom.

[Mr Sharma]

Throughout the debates on the EU, we were talking about the European arrest warrant. I give the Secretary of State another opportunity today to clarify why there has been in the withdrawal agreement little in the way of commitment on the European arrest warrant, which is key to policing in Northern Ireland.

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the European arrest warrant is used in Northern Ireland more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and it is an incredibly important instrument. I hope that he has read the political declaration that accompanies the withdrawal agreement, which is clear that in the future security partnership we will have a deeper relationship with the European Union than any other third country, including on surrender of EU nationals.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The Prime Minister has told us that she is on a quest for “democratic legitimacy” for her agreement in respect of Northern Ireland. Is this not a curious term to use given that the one group of people who have been consistently ignored by the Government are the people of Northern Ireland, who voted not to leave the European Union?

[Karen Bradley]

The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Nearly 17.5 million people in the United Kingdom, including people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine, voted to leave the European Union. The people of Northern Ireland want to see this deal, because they want to see us leave the European Union in a managed way that is not chaotic and that works for Northern Ireland.

[Damien Moore]

What feedback has my right hon. Friend had on the withdrawal agreement from the business community in Northern Ireland, and is there any differentiation between those who are on the border and those who are not?

[Karen Bradley]

I have significant engagement with businesses across Northern Ireland, and I have found an absolutely consistent message, which is that those businesses, to protect jobs and to protect the progress that we have made since the Belfast agreement, want to see this deal so that Northern Ireland can leave the European Union, with the whole United Kingdom, in an orderly way. In fact, we were very pleased to welcome 12 business and civic society leaders to Westminster last week to express exactly that view.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Given the desire by all sides to avoid a hard border between the Republic and the north when we exit the European Union, why is that not, in a legally enforceable way, within the withdrawal agreement or the backstop agreement so that we use new technology for these purposes, not old and untried technology?

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend will know that the backstop can be ended, if we go into it in the first place, by the future relationship or by alternative means, and that can of course mean new technology. But at this time there is no technology that deals with the issue of the border in a way that respects the rights of the people of Northern Ireland and respects the Belfast agreement and the way that it operates.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the evidence presented to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee following our visit to Northern Ireland, published on Monday, saying that businesses and trade bodies in Northern Ireland are crying out for clarity and certainty as we leave the European Union?

[Karen Bradley]

I was delighted to find myself on the same aeroplane as the BEIS Committee on its visit to Northern Ireland, and am sure that it heard the same message I hear when I am in Northern Ireland, which is that businesses want certainty and clarity, and would like to see us implement this deal so that we can ensure that we leave the European Union in an orderly way.

[Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Last week, the Secretary of State was telling everybody that this was the best deal and the only deal. The Prime Minister now says that that is not the case and she needs changes. What does the Secretary of State say to that?

[Karen Bradley]

As I have said, this is the best deal. This is the best way for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union as a whole in an orderly way, but the Prime Minister has recognised and listened to the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and many others in the House about the backstop, and she is looking to assuage those concerns.

[Nigel Dodds]

The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. She is telling everybody that this is the best deal, it is a wonderful deal and everybody should accept it. However, the Prime Minister is telling everybody that nobody likes it, the Irish do not want it, Europe does not want it and the British Government do not want it. How does the Secretary of State explain the utter contradiction in those arguments?

[Karen Bradley]

I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a contradiction. I think he is talking about the backstop. We all agree that the backstop is a very uncomfortable thing that none of us wants to see introduced, just as we never want to see any insurance policy called upon, because the fact that it is called upon means that the worst has happened.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I welcome the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) back to the Government—although, with recent developments, it may be a short stint.

In recent weeks, the Secretary of State has publicly stated that the current backstop protocol puts Northern Ireland in an unrivalled position in the world as a destination for foreign direct investment. However, her Cabinet colleague the Scottish Secretary has said that any suggestion of an advantage for Northern Ireland is a wholly false argument. Who is right—the Scottish Secretary or her?

[Karen Bradley]

I trust that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to somehow use the unique situation in Northern Ireland and the success of Northern Ireland to try to impute a special status to Scotland. The fact is that Northern Ireland has a land border with Ireland and therefore will be in an unrivalled position, because it will be the only place that has both a land border with the European Union and access to trade deals through the independent trade policy of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

I do not wish to tempt fate, but at the moment, the Government Benches are a model of decorum. By contrast, there is a very large number of noisy private conversations taking place on the Opposition Benches, which I feel sure will now cease, as the Front Bench spokesperson comes in.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister of State to his place. Paragraph 50 of the EU-UK joint report last December made it clear that there would be a guarantee, consistent with the 1998 agreement, that the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive would be consulted on any regulatory changes. Why did that guarantee disappear in the withdrawal agreement? Why did the Secretary of State allow it to disappear?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman refers to an important point. This withdrawal agreement is the only agreement that we can guarantee is consistent with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. He refers to paragraph 50 of the joint report. The Government’s commitments under paragraph 50 still stand, but quite rightly, we do not want to negotiate our sovereign rights, which are a sovereign matter for the United Kingdom, with the European Union. We want to do it unilaterally.

[Tony Lloyd]

Paragraph 50 was very clear about the role of the Assembly and the Executive. The Secretary of State’s words are not good enough. Why should Northern Ireland Members have confidence in this Government? Why should the people of Northern Ireland believe that this Government are committed to devolution, to the peace process and to the Good Friday agreement?

[Karen Bradley]

It is this Government who have inserted in the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on the future relationship our absolute commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is this Government who are committed to abiding by all our commitments under paragraph 50 of the joint report, including the points about the Stormont lock and unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the market of Great Britain. We stand by those commitments.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State will be aware—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Hush for Lady Hermon.

[Lady Hermon]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Since the withdrawal agreement protects the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the consent principle as guaranteed by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that it is unforgivable for the Labour party—the architects of the Good Friday agreement—to appear to have abandoned the Good Friday agreement by voting against the Brexit deal negotiated by the Prime Minister?

[Karen Bradley]

I have to say that I agree with the hon. Lady. I think putting party politics above the Good Friday agreement and all that we achieved through that is unforgivable.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

4. When she plans to respond to her Department’s consultation on addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

It is clear that more needs to be done to address the legacy of the past. The current system in Northern Ireland is not working well for anyone. This needs to change to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors of the troubles and to ensure that our armed forces and police officers are not unfairly treated. We are carefully considering all the views received in almost 18,000 responses and intend to provide an update in due course.

[Mr Francois]

As the Secretary of State will recall, I have been raising with her for over a year the issue of military veterans who are being legally scapegoated for political and financial gain. It is getting worse. We now have the case of David Griffin, a retired Royal Marine, who is being reinvestigated for an alleged offence 46 years ago, of which he was cleared at the time. He is a Chelsea Pensioner. Is the Secretary of State proud of the fact that, on her watch, we have given “get out of jail free” cards to alleged IRA terrorists and we are now pursuing Chelsea Pensioners instead?

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend raised this case with the Prime Minister last week. I, too, am upset to see this situation. This is a result of the current system that we all want to see changed. I say very gently to my right hon. Friend that I have also wanted to work with him on finding a solution to this, and I look forward to continuing to do so, because there is no one simple solution, but we all want to see the system changed.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

While the headlines are dominated by Brexit, the sad reality is that the witch hunt against our veterans who served in Northern Ireland continues. Can the Secretary of State outline what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on finding solutions to stop that witch hunt?

[Karen Bradley]

I can assure the hon. Lady, with whom I have spoken about this matter on a number of occasions, that I work across Government with all colleagues, because we need to find a way to deal with this issue. There is no one simple solution, but we have to have a way to deal with this that is legal, fair and proportionate.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

In supporting the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), may I remind the Secretary of State that veterans were upholding law and order in the Province and it was the terrorists who were trying to kill people? We should bear that in mind when looking at this issue as a whole.

[Karen Bradley]

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that is exactly what we are doing. We would not have seen the peace process without the hard work, dedication and dignity of our armed services and our police. They are the reason that we actually were able to have a peace process and we must never forget the sacrifice they made.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

May I, too, welcome the Minister of State—[Interruption.] Thank you, ma’am—the Prime Minister is very gracious. May I welcome I believe the ninth Minister to whose substance I have stood as mere shadow? May I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), a decent man who is wrong on Brexit, but right on many other things?

May I ask the Secretary of State this? She has previously made it clear that she does not support a statute of limitations in Northern Ireland. Does she therefore agree either with her colleague the Secretary of State for Defence, who describes the persecution of veterans as a “ridiculous vendetta”, or with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which says that

“we have the law and…we should all be equal before it”?

[Karen Bradley]

It is possible to agree with both. It is a delight to respond to the hon. Gentleman, who has incredible popularity in this House. I hope that he heard the documentary on the BBC yesterday, when the Defence Secretary made it clear on the record that we are looking at every option across Government. We are working across Government on this because we all want to see a solution to this problem.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

5. What plans the Government have to support armed forces veterans in Northern Ireland.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

8. What plans the Government have to support armed forces veterans in Northern Ireland.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)]

This Government are clear that it is only due to the unstinting efforts of our police and armed forces that we have relative peace and stability in Northern Ireland today. I was honoured to meet the Reserve Forces and Cadets Association for Northern Ireland recently when launching the veterans strategy there.

[Victoria Prentis]

Will the Secretary of State ensure that any proposals that she brings forward to deal with the legacy of the past are balanced and proportionate, and that our brave veterans are fairly treated?

[Karen Bradley]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that guarantee.

[Ian Paisley]

Three hundred and nineteen Royal Ulster Constabulary officers murdered, 258 Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers murdered, and over 200 of those cases unresolved—what is the Secretary of State going to do to bring justice to those gallant members from our community?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman puts it very well. We need to see this issue dealt with. The current system is not working for anybody. We need to see it resolved. We are working through almost 18,000 responses to the consultation and we look forward to working across the House to find a resolution that works for everyone.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is also proposing to support some of the 500 victims of the troubles with a victims pension. Can she tell us when the first payments will be made?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Gentleman knows better than anyone that this is a devolved matter. It is a frustration that we do not have an Assembly and an Executive in place to make these decisions, but I want to see progress made.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 12 December.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with all those caught up in the horrific incident in Strasbourg last night, and we stand ready to give whatever support the French authorities may need.

Today, I will have meetings—possibly many meetings—with ministerial colleagues and others.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Just a normal day in the office then, Prime Minister. I also want to give my condolences for the tragic events in the beautiful city of Strasbourg.

Last year, the Prime Minister told us that there was not going to be a general election, and then there was. This week, she told us that she was not going to pull the meaningful vote, and then she did. Can I ask her now if she is going to rule out having a general election and a people’s vote?

[The Prime Minister]

Can I say to the hon. Lady, first of all, that I think that a general election at this point in time, in the middle of our negotiations, would not be in the national interest? Secondly, as she will have heard me say before in this House, I think we should respect the result of the referendum that took place in 2016.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Q6. Given what we could call uncertainty about the future of the withdrawal agreement, could the Prime Minister give people some certainty—that is, EU nationals in the UK—that whatever happens to that deal, they will be allowed to stay on roughly the same terms that are in that draft agreement?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, because I know that EU nationals living here in the United Kingdom will be concerned about what might happen if a deal is not agreed. We have been very clear as a Government that the withdrawal agreement that we have agreed does respect the rights, and protect and guarantee the rights, of EU citizens living here. But in the unlikely event of no deal, I have been clear that this Government will still protect EU citizens’ rights, and we would wish to know that actually, other EU Governments would respect the rights of UK citizens living in the EU as well.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am sure that the whole House will join me in joining the Prime Minister in condemning the shootings in Strasbourg and extending our sympathy to the families of those that have been killed or injured there.

I am delighted to see the Prime Minister back in her place after her little journeys. Having told the media this morning that she has made progress, can she now update the House on what changes she has secured to her deal?

[The Prime Minister]

I travelled to Europe yesterday and met several Heads of Government, the Commission and the European Council, precisely because I had listened to concerns raised in the House. I took them to Europe, and no one I met yesterday is in any doubt about the strength of concern in the House about the duration of the backstop. I am interested that the right hon. Gentleman wants to know what progress we have made, because actually he could not care less what I bring back from Brussels. He has been clear that whatever comes back from Brussels he will vote against it, because all he wants to do is create chaos in our economy, division in our society and damage to our economy. That’s Labour. That’s Corbyn.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

It is very clear that nothing has changed. If the Prime Minister needed any clarification about the temporary nature of the backstop, she need not have gone to Europe; she could have just asked her Attorney General, who said it endured indefinitely.

As the Prime Minister may recall, when she left on her journey, we were about to start day four of a five-day debate on the deal. Since she has not achieved any changes, either to the withdrawal agreement or to the future partnership, will she now confirm that we will have the concluding days of debate and votes within the next seven days, before the House rises for the Christmas recess?

[The Prime Minister]

I had discussions with people yesterday, and I have made some progress, but of course there is an EU Council meeting and further discussions are to be held. The right hon. Gentleman asks about the meaningful vote. The meaningful vote has been deferred, and the date of that vote will be announced in the normal way. The business motion will be agreed and discussed in the usual way. [Hon. Members: “When?”] I will tell Opposition Members when. We had a meaningful vote in the referendum in 2016 and, if he wants a meaningful date, I will give him one: 29 March 2019, when we leave the European Union.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

That is totally and utterly unacceptable to this House. This House agreed a programme motion. This House agreed the five days of debate. This House agreed when the vote would take place. The Government unilaterally pulled that and denied the House the chance of a vote on this crucial matter. The Prime Minister and her Government have already been found in contempt of Parliament. Her behaviour today is just contemptuous of this Parliament and this process. Her appalling behaviour needs to be held to account by the House. The people of this country are more and more concerned about the ongoing chaos at the centre of her Government. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must have calm on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] Order. The questions will be heard, however long it takes, and so will the answers. Do not try to shout down. All you do is wear out your voices, and you will not succeed. Amen. End of subject.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

When the Prime Minister made her Lancaster House speech, she set out her negotiating objectives, and they are worth quoting. The first objective is crucial:

“We will provide certainty wherever we can.”

Does this look or feel like certainty? Can she mark her own homework?

[The Prime Minister]

Indeed we have at every stage—the right hon. Gentleman said we would not get agreement in December, and we did; he said we would not get the implementation period in March, and we did; he said we would not get a withdrawal agreement and political declaration, and we did. Concerns have been raised about the backstop. As I said, we continue those discussions, and no one yesterday was left in any doubt about the strength of feeling in the House. Of course, we all know what his answer to the backstop is: ignore the referendum and stay in the EU.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

If this is an agreement, why will the Prime Minister not put that agreement to a vote of this House?

The Federation of Small Businesses says that planning ahead is impossible. Many, many other people around the country find planning ahead impossible, because all that they see is chaos at the heart of Government and an inability to plan anything for the future. Yesterday the cross-party Exiting the European Union Committee, including Conservative Members, unanimously found that the Prime Minister’s deal

“fails to offer sufficient clarity or certainty about the future.”

Will the Prime Minister give the country at least some certainty and categorically rule out the option of no deal?

[The Prime Minister]

The way to ensure that there is no no deal is to agree a deal. The right hon. Gentleman talks about the impact on businesses. I will tell him what will have an impact on businesses up and down the country: what we learnt just a few days ago, that the shadow Chancellor wants to change the law so that—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Prime Minister’s reply must be heard, and it will be.

[The Prime Minister]

Businesses will be affected by the fact that the shadow Chancellor wants to change the law so that trade unions in this country can go on strike in solidarity with any strike anywhere in the world. That may be solidarity with trade unions. It is not solidarity with small businesses, and it is not solidarity with the ordinary working people who would pay the price of Labour.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My question was, would the Prime Minister rule out no deal? She has failed to do that.

Let me tell the Prime Minister that this sorry saga is frustrating for businesses, for workers, and, actually, for many of those behind her as well. Many of them are trying to work constructively to find a solution. Yesterday, her former Brexit Minister said that a new customs union with the EU “could be the basis for a parliamentary consensus”. When will she start listening to people who actually want to find a constructive solution, rather than denying Parliament the right to debate it and vote on her deal?

[The Prime Minister]

We all know one group of people who do not want to find a constructive solution: the Labour party’s Front Bench. That is what we see on the other side of the Chamber: no plan, no clue, no Brexit.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The time for dithering and delay is over. The Prime Minister has negotiated her deal—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will be heard.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The time for dithering and delay by this Government is over. The Prime Minister has negotiated her deal. She has told us that it is the best and only deal available. There can be no more excuses, no more running away: put it before Parliament and let us have the vote. Whatever happens with the Prime Minister’s Conservative leadership vote today is utterly irrelevant to the lives of people across our country. It does nothing to solve the Government’s inability to get a deal that works for the whole country. The Prime Minister has already been found to be in contempt of Parliament. Will she now put this deal before Parliament and halt the escalating crisis which is so damaging to the lives of so many people in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

We all know from the multiplicity of changes in plan that we have seen from the Labour party that there is one thing we can be sure about: whatever U-turn comes next in Labour’s policy, the right hon. Gentleman will send out—[Interruption.] He will send out—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said a moment ago that the Leader of the Opposition must be heard, and, belatedly, he was; and the Prime Minister will be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

Whatever change in Labour policy we see, the right hon. Gentleman will send out his henchman to reveal it all to the world: “The Inconstant Gardiner.” [Interruption.] Somebody will explain that to the Leader of the Opposition a little later. The right hon. Gentleman should be honest with people about his position: he could not care less about Brexit; what he wants to do is bring down the Government, create uncertainty, sow division and crash our economy. The biggest threat to people and to this country is not in leaving the EU; it is a Corbyn Government.

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

Q8. A few weeks ago Ben McKenzie from Neilston, a pupil at Eastwood High School, took his own life, having been the victim of cruel online threats and bullying on social media and his mobile phone; he was just 13 years old. Nearly £10,000 has been raised in his memory for Beautiful Inside and Out, a Scottish charity that supports the families of victims of child suicide. Can the Prime Minister set out what this Government are going to do to tackle cyber-bullying not just to support and empower victims, but to deter and prevent children who might be engaging in these acts without realising the consequences they can have, because no family should be enduring a Christmas without their child due to suicide?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has raised an extremely serious issue and I am sure the thoughts and condolences of the whole House are with Ben’s family at this terrible time after this terrible tragedy. We need to address cyber-bullying in both ways, as my hon. Friend said: both working with the internet companies on what is put out on their platforms and with schools to help people recognise this material and deal with it, and supporting those children who could, as my hon. Friend said, be the victims or who might be carrying out these attacks. Our consultation last year on internet safety showed that despite a range of voluntary initiatives and good work by a range of charities—I commend the work of the Scottish charity Beautiful Inside and Out and the amount of money that has been raised—this remains a serious issue for millions of people. I know the Scottish Government have been addressing this with their “Respect for All” approach, and we have funded the UK Safer Internet Centre, which is providing guidance for schools, but we should all be taking this issue seriously and the Government will continue to work on this.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on cyber-bullying and indeed on the terrible tragedy yesterday in Strasbourg?

We were promised “strong and stable” and we were promised a vote on the Brexit deal, but this Prime Minister cannot even do her own job because of the Tory civil war. This Government are an embarrassment. Christmas is just two weeks away; will the Prime Minister bring forward her meaningful vote on the Brexit deal next week?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, we are having discussions with European leaders and others and those discussions will continue. What matters is that they are in no doubt about the strength of feeling in this House on the issue of the duration of the backstop and they are in no doubt about the strength of feeling in this House that that should be addressed in a way that has legal force, and that is what we are discussing and continuing to negotiate with the European Union. As I said earlier, the date of the deferred vote and debate on this will be announced in due course in the normal way.

[Ian Blackford]

That is contemptuous of Parliament. Parliament voted for a meaningful vote; we should be having the vote and it should be happening next week. This Government are a farce: the Tory party is in chaos, the Prime Minister is a disgrace through her actions. The reality is that people across Scotland and the UK are seeing this today. Prime Minister, take responsibility, do the right thing: resign.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes his remarks about deferring the vote, but it is precisely because I and my colleagues in Government have listened to the views of people across this House that we are pursuing this issue further with the European Union. That is being respectful of the views that have been raised in this House.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Q10. Many businesses up and down the country have put their plans on hold while waiting for us here in Parliament to agree our future trading relationship with our biggest and closest neighbour. Does the Prime Minister agree that their interests, and those of their workers, their suppliers and the country as a whole, are best served by concluding the agreement with the remaining 27 and by those on this side of the House supporting her in the vote this evening?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I agree with him, particularly on the need to ensure that we do not increase or create more uncertainty. The public voted to leave the EU and they want us to secure a deal that delivers on that result. We should not risk handing control of the Brexit negotiations to Opposition MPs in Parliament, because that would risk delaying or even stopping Brexit. None of that would be in the national interest, so I think we need to get on and deliver a good Brexit for the country.

[Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)]

Q2. When I stood for election, I vowed not to vote for any Brexit deal that was not in the best interests of Lewisham West and Penge. After pulling the Brexit vote, the Prime Minister must now concede that her deal is doomed. The House and her own party appear to have no confidence in her, but will she have confidence in the people and give them a say with a people’s vote, including an option to remain in the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

We have deferred the vote on the agreement. On the issue that the hon. Lady raises about putting the vote to the people, I say to her, as I said to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and as I have said on many occasions in this House, that the House put its faith in the votes of the people of this country when we decided to give them the referendum in 2016. People voted to leave the European Union and it is now our duty to deliver on that.

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Q12. This House has a duty to ensure that the next generation live better lives tomorrow than we live today, so how does my right hon. Friend respond to the audit carried out by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that found that three quarters of the hundreds of babies who die or suffer brain damage each year could be saved by better care? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that every expectant mother and unborn baby receives appropriate monitoring?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. I know that it is close to the hearts of many Members of the House. Every death or injury of a child is a tragedy, and we have a commitment to halving the rates of stillbirth, neonatal death and brain injury after birth by 2025. That is supported by system-wide action under our national maternity safety strategy. We are increasing midwifery training places by 25% and investing millions of pounds in training for staff and in new safety equipment to ensure that the NHS can provide world-class care for mothers and babies, but we recognise that we need to continue to ensure that we do all we can, and I can give my hon. Friend the reassurance that we will do that.

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

Q3. As the right hon. Lady reflects on her premiership, may I ask her which of the following judgments she most regrets: laying down red lines before the Brexit talks had even begun; wasting precious negotiating time on a general election; or consistently failing to face down the hardliners on her own Benches and reach out to forge a consensus in this House and the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman the judgment that was the right one. It was to accept the vote of the people in the referendum, to deliver on the vote of the people in the referendum and to deliver a good Brexit for the future of this country.

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

Q15. Small businesses are the backbone of my constituency. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced a revitalisation fund for our high streets. May I ask my right hon. Friend when it will be made available? It will prove a vital lifeline for my constituency, because of the anti-business policies of Labour-controlled Sefton Council.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the help that we have announced for the high street. He is absolutely right that the Leader of the Opposition may stand up and claim to be interested in business and small businesses, but we so often see Labour councils up and down the country doing exactly the opposite. We have provided £675 million in the future high streets fund so that plans can be made to help to make high streets and town centres fit for the future, and we will be publishing a prospectus for the fund shortly.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Q4. Can the Prime Minister confirm which of these is worse: no deal or no Brexit?

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

Or a Labour Government.

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that we deliver on Brexit for the people of this country. I believe that we should do that with a good deal with the European Union, and I believe that that is what we have negotiated. I also believe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) said from a sedentary position, that the worst thing for this country would be a Labour Government.

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

At a time of grave national crisis on an issue that we all agree is of huge importance to future generations, can my right hon. Friend think of anything more unhelpful, irrelevant and irresponsible than for the Conservative party to embark on weeks of a Conservative leadership election?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. and learned Friend has raised an important issue. It is about the impact that the weeks of that campaign would have on the decision that the House has to take and that we have to take as a country in relation to leaving the European Union, because there is no doubt that the process would go beyond the legislated date of 21 January. That would mean that one of the first things that the new leader would have to do—were a new leader to come in—would be either to extend article 50 or rescind it, which would mean either delaying or stopping Brexit.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Q5. Away from the madness of the Prime Minister’s own MPs, may I welcome her back to the real world? Last week, Marian was forced to queue outside St George’s hospital, Tooting, with a badly infected left leg because the A&E was full. Knowing what happened to my constituent, will the Prime Minister tell me how long that queue will be should the local NHS get its way and move the A&E at St Helier hospital to leafy, wealthy Belmont?

[The Prime Minister]

I am concerned to hear the case that the hon. Lady raises about her constituent. It is absolutely right that decisions on delivery of services should be taken by local clinicians, because they are best placed to assess local need. I understand that the local NHS is looking at the considerable challenges facing Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust and at the options for future services, but that process is at an early stage. Knowing the hon. Lady as I do from when we both sat on Merton Council, I am sure that she will continue to raise the concerns of her constituents, and I would encourage her to do so.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Shortly, 34,000 copies of “Your Money Matters”, a free personal finance textbook, will wing their way to every secondary school in the land. Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying thank you to Martin Lewis, who is its funder, Young Money, which is the organisation behind it, the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people, which I chair, and, not least, the Department for Education for making this fantastic resource for our young people happen?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has done an important thing today by raising people’s awareness of this booklet, which will be extremely important for secondary schools. It is a really good piece of work, and I congratulate all those involved. I know that my hon. Friend, through his chairmanship of the APPG, has taken this matter seriously and has been championing it for a long time. I hope that he is pleased to see this piece of work being done, and I am sure that he will want to carry on to ensure that financial education is taking place and that young people are prepared for their future lives.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

Q7. The economy is stalling, business investment is falling, and we have the grotesque—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I could not care less what somebody chuntering from a sedentary position says is or is not the truth; what I care about is that the hon. Lady will not be shouted down any more than any other Member in this place will be shouted down. Be quiet and listen.

[Mary Creagh]

The economy is stalling, business investment is plummeting and we have the grotesque spectacle of Tory MPs putting party interest before the public interest. If the Prime Minister survives tonight’s vote, will she finally rule out no deal, face down her hard Brexiteers, let this place vote down her deal and put it back to the public in a people’s vote?

[The Prime Minister]

First, if the hon. Lady wants to ensure no deal, the way to ensure no deal is to agree a deal. That is the best way to ensure there is not no deal. She talks about the economy: employment is at a record high, wages are growing and we have had 23 consecutive quarters of growth, the longest run in the G7. That is a balanced approach to the economy. That is Conservatives delivering for the people of this country.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

May I ask my right hon. Friend to take her mind back to September 1997, when a referendum was held in Wales? The result of that referendum was 50.3% in favour of an Assembly and 49.7% against, on a turnout of 50%. Nobody questioned whether we should accept the referendum. Does that hold any future reference for us?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making a very important point about the principle that was accepted at that time, which was, however small the margin, the overall result of the vote should be accepted and acted on.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Q9. Last week, I hosted an event to raise money for Hallam FM’s Mission Christmas, a charity doing fantastic work helping children in need in my constituency, and for the local food bank. Indeed, many of the 41% of children living in poverty in my community will really need help this Christmas. What message does the Prime Minister have for those working hard to make ends meet but who will find themselves forced to rely on food banks for their family’s Christmas meal and Mission Christmas for their children’s presents?

[The Prime Minister]

First, may I say how good it is that Hallam FM has been doing this work? There are many charities up and down the country that work to provide a better Christmas than many children would otherwise have. That is important. We do not want to see people relying on food banks, but the way to ensure that people are able to provide for themselves without having to rely on food banks is to ensure that people are in work, that that work is well paid and that work always pays, which is exactly what we are doing.

[Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)]

Residents in Erewash are clear that we need a strong Government to deliver on Brexit and on our domestic agenda. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for us to unite on the Conservative Benches, as the real threat to our great nation is the party opposite and a Labour Government?

[The Prime Minister]

I echo my hon. Friend’s comments. Many members of the public want us to get on with Brexit and to ensure that we are delivering for them on the domestic agenda, like the record number of new homes we have seen being built—the best number ever, bar one year, in the last 31 years. It is important that we get on to that domestic agenda, and to do that we must unite as a party and bring our country back together again. She is absolutely right that the greatest threat to the jobs, livelihoods and futures of her constituents, and constituents around the United Kingdom, would be a Labour Government.

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

Q11. Last month, a 16-year-old boy was tragically killed in a knife attack in my constituency. This came as knife crime has almost doubled in Coventry over the last five years. I know that some good multi-agency work is happening in this field, but does the Prime Minister still think that we have enough police officers on our streets to be able to fight crime and the fear of crime?

[The Prime Minister]

I extend my condolences to the family of the hon. Lady’s constituent who suffered this terrible attack. Obviously there is a concern, and I recognise that concern, about the rise in violent crime, which is why the Government have produced the serious violence strategy. Members on both sides of the House, on a cross-party basis, sit on the serious violence taskforce. We are giving extra powers to the police to tackle knife crime through the Offensive Weapons Bill, and we have strengthened firearms control through the Policing and Crime Act 2017.

This is not just about police action. We have announced the £200 million youth endowment fund, which will help to work with young people who otherwise might find themselves drawn into gangs and the use of knives, to prevent them from doing so and to prevent these crimes from happening in the first place.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns and those of my constituents about the further delays and increased costs of Crossrail, and the failures of Transport for London and the Labour Mayor of London?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely share my right hon. Friend’s concerns and his constituents’ concerns, and indeed my constituency is also affected by the delay of Crossrail. Yes, we should recognise the role that TfL and the Labour Mayor of London have played in this. We want to see Crossrail. It is going to be of benefit to my right hon. Friend’s constituents and mine, and the Labour Mayor needs to get his finger out on this.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q13. In 1997, the British Prime Minister issued an apology to the people of Ireland for Britain’s historic role in the great famine—a famine that saw 1 million people die and 1 million people be displaced from their homeland. That apology sent out a powerful and important message. Will this Prime Minister condemn any notion and any suggestion that food shortages in Ireland will be used to strengthen Britain’s negotiating hand during the Brexit negotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to absolutely give that assurance. We would not use that issue in any sense in the negotiating strategy. We want to work with the Irish Government to ensure that we are providing a good Brexit for the UK and for Ireland, and I believe that would be a good Brexit for the European Union.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

One of my constituents in Oadby has written to me to say, “I voted for Brexit and I urge you to support our Prime Minister unreservedly and vote for this Brexit deal.” Another constituent in Great Glen says, “The Prime Minister has done a terrific job in trying circumstances. The headbangers from all sides and the supine attitude of the Labour party has meant she has had an impossible job, but she has done so well.” Finally, a third from Saddington writes, “I am an employer of 30 people in the Harborough constituency. To vote against the deal will cause political chaos and open the door to the worst possible scenario for this country—a far left Labour Government.” Does the Prime Minister agree with me that my constituents have got a lot more common sense than the Members opposite, who want to stop Brexit and fundamentally damage our democracy?

[The Prime Minister]

I think, Mr Speaker, that this can be an occasion where I give a very short answer: yes.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q14. The self-serving chaos unleashed on this Parliament this week is emblematic of the way in which this Government have consistently treated the people of our country. In the light of the Prime Minister’s conduct, the pound has fallen by 2% in the past 48 hours—her Budget’s equivalent of running the entire NHS for six weeks. Does she believe that this is a price worth paying for her Brexit deal?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady talks about what the Government are doing for the NHS. It is this Government who are establishing a 10-year plan for the sustainability of the NHS and putting the biggest cash boost in its history into the NHS to ensure it is there for all our constituents, now and in the future.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that we all owe a huge debt of gratitude to our police officers, prison officers and probation staff, who are in the frontline of keeping us all safe, which is the first duty of any Government? In that regard, may I ask her to take a close and personal interest in the 2019-20 police funding settlement?

[The Prime Minister]

First, let me agree with my hon. Friend; we do owe an enormous debt of gratitude to all those who are on the frontline, putting themselves potentially at risk for us—not only police officers, but prison officers and probation officers, whom he referenced. I assure him that, as he has, I have been looking, with the Home Secretary, at the 2019-20 police funding settlement.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The plotters behind her know that any replacement Prime Minister would face exactly the same party arithmetic and exactly the same deadlock on Brexit. This deadlock can be changed only by going back to the people. Today, The Times also said that is her only chance of saving her job and saving her deal. So can she tell the House: what exactly is she afraid of?

[The Prime Minister]

The issue is that this House overwhelmingly voted to give the choice to the British people as to whether or not to leave the European Union. The British people chose to leave the European Union and I strongly believe it is the duty of Members of this House to deliver on that vote.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

What does the Prime Minister consider most important: playing parliamentary parlour games in this place, or protecting jobs and businesses by going back to the negotiating table and thrashing out a deal that will pass through this House?

[The Prime Minister]

It is in the interests of employers and in the interests of people whose jobs are at stake to make sure that we get a good deal with the European Union. That is why it is important that I was in Europe yesterday and will continue to be in Europe doing exactly as my hon. Friend says: negotiating the deal that I believe can get the support of this House to ensure we can move forward and deliver a good Brexit.

[Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)]

Does the Prime Minister judge that it is more welcome or more appropriate to face a no confidence motion from her Back Benchers or from the Leader of the Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, one of those will take place. What I think is important for everybody in this House is to recognise that we have, I believe, a solemn duty to deliver on the result of the 2016 referendum. I believe the best way of doing that is with a good Brexit deal with the European Union that protects jobs and honours the referendum. I believe that is the deal we have negotiated.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman, whose mellifluous tones we listened to only a few moments ago, that I am very happy to entertain a point of order, but that it should come after the urgent question. I am sure he will retain the thrust of it in his head and he will share it with the House in due course. We will await that with eager anticipation, but not until we have had the urgent question from Emily Thornberry.

Institute for Statecraft: Integrity Initiative

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

12:42

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on his Department’s funding of the Institute for Statecraft’s integrity initiative.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

The Institute for Statecraft is an independent UK-based charity whose work seeks to improve governance and enhance national security. It runs a project called the integrity initiative, which is working to counter disinformation overseas by bringing together groups of experts to analyse and discuss the problem posed by Russian disinformation.

The Government are funding this initiative with nearly £2 million this financial year. That funding covers its activity outside the UK and it does not fund any activity within the UK; nor does it fund the management of the integrity initiative’s social media account. Recent reports that Foreign Office funding has been used to support party political activity in the UK are therefore wholly untrue.

[Emily Thornberry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank the Minister of State for his opening remarks.

Let me make it clear at the outset that I have no interest today in debating the integrity initiative’s purpose of countering the very real threat of interference in western democracies and the spread of disinformation by the Russian state. If a debate needs to happen on how that objective is best pursued, it is best left for another day. The issue before us today is much more simple and fundamental: it is a cardinal rule of public life in our country that official resources should not be used for political purposes, a rule we saw symbolised this very morning when the Prime Minister delivered her statement outside Downing Street with the usual Government coat of arms removed from her lectern because of the political nature of her statement. There is, I am afraid, absolutely no doubt that the publicly funded integrity initiative has broken that rule repeatedly by using its Twitter accounts to disseminate articles attacking the integrity of Conservative and Labour officials, of Conservative peers and, repeatedly, of the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition.

I greatly welcome the Minister’s statement on Monday, in which he totally condemned such behaviour by a publicly funded organisation, and said that not only must it stop, but that he wanted to know

“why on earth it happened in the first place”.

That is doubly important in this case, because the integrity initiative’s use of Twitter as a tool for disseminating information has not been a fringe activity, but is an integral part of its applications for Foreign Office funding over the past two years. Indeed, the budget for its agreed objectives of increasing reporting in the media and expanding the impact of its website and Twitter account amounted to £275,000 in this financial year. In the list of key deliverables it promised the Foreign Office this year, it stated explicitly that one of its instruments of delivery will be its

“600-plus Twitter followers, including influential players”.

In the light of all that, I hope that the Minister of State can answer some more questions to explain, as he put it, why on earth that misuse of public funds has taken place. First, were Foreign Office officials monitoring the integrity initiative’s social media output, given that it was an integral part of the activity for which it was being funded? If so, why did they not flag up concerns to him about the dissemination of personal attacks? If not, why was this misuse of public funds going unchecked? Secondly, does the funding agreement governing the integrity initiative make clear that its use of funds and its public statements must comply with Cabinet Office rules? Finally, if the Government intend to renew that funding for the next financial year, what arrangements and agreements will be put in place to ensure that nothing of this sort ever happens again?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is a matter of regret, Mr Speaker, that the right hon. Lady did not listen to the answer that I gave a moment ago. Let me explain to the House what has been going on. The Institute for Statecraft was hacked several weeks ago and numerous documents were published and amplified by Kremlin news channels. The Russian state media campaign that followed fits with a wider pattern of Russian disinformation against the UK. This campaign’s objective is clear: it is yet another example of Russian disinformation intended to confuse audiences and discredit an organisation that is working independently to tackle the threat of disinformation. The current Russian disinformation activity is precisely the sort of disinformation that this project is designed to counter. It is regrettable, but perhaps rather unsurprising, that some have been fooled, and have used this to make accusations about British politics in exactly the way hoped for in this malign activity.

While that is going on in the UK, the sort of activity that we do fund is doing its utmost to counter Russian disinformation overseas, which is undermining democracy and its institutions ever more widely across the world. The FCO has given a grant to the Institute for Statecraft this financial year of nearly £2 million. Our agreement, written into the contract with the institute, specifically states that the grant must not be used to support activity intended to influence, or attempt to influence, the UK Parliament, Government or political parties. We have not seen any evidence that the integrity initiative has breached this obligation, and the accusation that Government money has been used for domestic political purposes is utterly unfounded.

[Emily Thornberry]

What?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I say once again to the right hon. Lady that no Foreign Office funding is used for the initiative’s UK domestic activity. She can look at me as aghast as she likes, but the money that comes from the Foreign Office is used for activity overseas, and she should accept that as the—[Interruption.] If she does not accept it, she should say in terms what she is accusing me of, because that would be a breach of the forms of the House.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It would clearly be concerning if any Foreign Office money was being used for party political activities, so I welcome the Minister’s reassurances. Will he confirm that an investigation has been launched to see what has happened, and that when a proper, independent investigation has come to proper conclusions, he will take action on them?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Perhaps one of the accurate things that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said was that when I was interviewed on Radio 4 and this matter was sprung on me, I said that I would look into it straightaway, and I did. I have established the facts and I am satisfied that our money does not go towards funding any kind of UK domestic activity.

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Rubbish!

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Mr Speaker, I have been accused of speaking rubbish by the hon. Lady. She should mark her words carefully before she bellows untruths at me across the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Nobody should bellow across the House from either side. I know that the right hon. Minister of State is very well able to look after himself. The word “rubbish” is sadly used relatively frequently in the House, and it is certainly not unparliamentary. It is a matter of taste rather than of order. I am glad to see the right hon. Minister of State breaking out into a smile. It would be more seemly if colleagues would conduct these exchanges in a slightly more restrained fashion. To that end, I now look in hope—possibly in anticipation—to Mr Stephen Gethins.

[Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)]

I wish to put on record that a number of FCO-funded non-governmental organisations do extraordinary work in the most difficult circumstances. Before I came to this place, I worked in the south Caucasus and the western Balkans, where many of those organisations do that extraordinary work. They deserve our support for doing that but, more than anything else, they need to know that the Foreign Office has full openness and transparency. Our most powerful tool against any Russian misinformation is respect for the rule of law, the democratic process and, critically, transparency; we owe that to those working in these organisations. The Minister will be well aware of many people who work in very difficult circumstances and find themselves at the hard edge of Russian disinformation campaigns.

We need to have confidence in our democratic process. There should be no undermining of politicians, be they Labour, Scottish National party or Conservative, or of anybody else. What further steps will the Minister take to ensure that impartiality and integrity goes to the very heart of all funding that comes from the Foreign Office? I hope that he will consider the tone of the question I am putting to him, and will agree with me that those who are doing difficult work in difficult conflict environments deserve the full support of this House, and to know that the Foreign Office has their back.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for both what he asked and the tone in which he asked it. He has experience of these issues and I share in pretty well everything that he just said. The integrity initiative, in its activity abroad, endeavours to deliver exactly that sort of transparency to counter fake news and disinformation, in the way that I think the hon. Gentleman and all of us would hope. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury said in her opening remarks that she would support that sort of activity.

What is more, this charity is incorporated in Scotland, so it is subject to the Scottish Charity Regulator, and that kind of non-partisan activity is required. Within the UK, the charity does some automatic retweeting of stories that relate to Russia. Of course, on some occasions that includes mentions of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition; equally, there could be mention of a Conservative, as indeed has happened on many occasions. It has been judged to be no more than non-partisan repetition of stories that relate to Russia.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I am reassured to know that we are taking on Russian misinformation. I am right to be, aren’t I?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Yes, my right hon. Friend is right to be. The whole House should appreciate that this is an ever-increasing challenge, and one that we need to meet in the cyber field, as we do in the information field. That is what we are doing.

[Emily Thornberry]

In a united way.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position “in a united way”—yes, and she could add to that unity by recognising the truth of what I have said, instead of denying it in her normal way.

[Emily Thornberry]

I’m not a gentleman. I have never been a gentleman.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Minister said that the Institute for Statecraft was hacked several weeks ago. Will he clarify for the House whether that hacking extended to the Twitter account of the integrity initiative, which has been retweeting articles that are undoubtedly critical of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and the Opposition’s policy?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The answer is that I do not know, but if information is on a Twitter account, it is publicly available anyway. It is the information that was not publicly available that was hacked, and I deplore that hack. That is what is now being used by Russian-inspired sources to create the sort of encounters we are witnessing here today.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

This is the first time I have come across an accusation from a Labour party spokesperson that retweeting a New Statesman article was a smear against Labour. Despite the fact that the Government’s financial support has nothing to do with the institute’s UK activities, will my right hon. Friend reassure Members that if any evidence is found that the institute is involved in efforts to discredit the Labour party, he would unequivocally condemn such behaviour?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Yes. If our funding were being used for that, then yes, I would condemn it, and the contract would be withdrawn. [Interruption.] I hear again from a Labour Front Bencher an accusation, which I have categorically denied today, that Foreign Office funding is paying for UK Twitter activity and the management of the institute’s account. I say to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who has been shouting at me from the Front Bench, that he should withdraw that accusation, because I have spoken in honesty to the House, and he should recognise that.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Russia has been pushing the boundaries with its international interference and disruption, and we have seen incidents such as Salisbury and what is happening in Ukraine. Our defences against cyber-attack will be depleted if we leave the European Union, so will the Minister tell the House what plans have been drawn up to increase the skills and resources required to counter future cyber-attacks?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We are one of the leaders in cyber-defence; indeed, we assist other countries in learning the techniques necessary to protect against the sort of hacking that we are discussing in part today. I am confident, and I have enormous confidence in the professional competence of our officials in defending this country from cyber-attacks and malign cyber-activity.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

How sure are we that the Russians were behind this hack? If we are sure, what are we going to do by way of response?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

One of the responses is, of course, to counter in the sort of way that we are doing in the House today. Unfortunately, I do not have as many allies across the Chamber as I would like to have in so doing. We know the origin of the attack because it takes exactly the same pattern that we have seen in previous attacks.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Russians are engaged in hybrid cyber-warfare against our country and many others. We seem to play by different rules from theirs. What are we doing to counter the nefarious activities of the Russian propaganda channel RT and of Sputnik?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

We do indeed play by the rules, because we have integrity in upholding the rule of law and acting within the confines of our own law. Some might say that that puts us at a disadvantage, because other people break the rules to try to get the better of us, but we have strong cyber-defences. The kind of activity that the integrity initiative undertakes is designed to counter the sort of activity to which the hon. Gentleman rightly refers. It saddens and dismays me that I do not have the full support of those on the Opposition Front Bench in defending what we are doing.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I welcome the absolute clarity of the Minister’s statement and his refutation of the allegations. I also welcome the work of the Institute for Statecraft. Does the Minister agree that we need to double down on that work, because as the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has shown, the reality is that Russian disinformation is a danger to our democracy and our very way of life? We should not fall into Russian traps and aid the sort of paranoia that we have seen in the coverage of this matter in the likes of The Canary and that type of publication.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I fully agree. We should not be taken for a sucker. If we allow malign forces to divide us and try to rule over us, that is what will have happened to us. Again, I urge the Front Benchers of Her Majesty’s Opposition to appreciate that this is a proper part of government activity—within the rules, according to a contract—and it behoves them to accept the assurances that have been so clearly and openly given today.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

On the allegations of Russian influence, is the Minister aware of concerns about some activities of peers in the House of Lords who are representing Russian companies, including Lord Truscott, who is the remunerated chairman of the advisory board of Russian Gold Fund, which is a private equity investment fund about which it is possible to find out precisely nothing, including who is investing in it and where the money is going?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is not for me to comment on the propriety or otherwise of any Member of the House of Lords. It has its own standards and rules, and it is for that House to apply those rules as it sees fit.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the robust way in which he has answered these questions. Will he ensure that the Institute for Statecraft reviews its editorial policy so that we counter Russian fake news and disinformation and so that it does not fall foul of criticising UK politicians?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I am very happy to say yes. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that when it comes to challenging officials on any issue, I do so very robustly, to establish the highest standards of activity in everything the Foreign Office does. Therefore, in response to this situation, I have certainly been grilling officials to find out exactly what is happening. I have asked them to engage with the Institute for Statecraft to look at its editorial policy to ensure that there is, and will remain, an absolutely clear division between its domestic activity under its charitable rules and any overseas activity that we fund and is subject to the contract we have.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I completely support any attempts to deal with misinformation campaigns, whether they originate from Russia, Saudi Arabia, the hard right in the United States of America or Syria—or, for that matter, in Catalonia last year. I want to make sure that a project such as this really works, but it will not have the confidence of the whole nation unless we are able to see some changes in the way in which it operates in this case. I would have more confidence if the Government were to engage in the kind of investigation that is ongoing in the United States of America into Russian involvement in democratic process in this country. Why can we not have that investigation?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Again, that is an area where there is an enormous amount of work going on in the Government. I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. We have seen all sorts of social media activity and we have seen completely verified activity of Russian intervention in democratic processes, such as the election in Montenegro and perhaps the referendum in Catalonia. That is in addition to the full spectrum of activity that we are specifically discussing in this urgent question.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Government are still not in favour of expelling the Russian Federation from the Council of Europe? The Russian Federation is in breach of all its international obligations, yet the Government are not doing what they could do, which is to expel it from the Council of Europe.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but a matter of that sort is for the Council of Europe and I know that the parliamentary representatives are discussing it. Russia has not paid its dues and this question is being discussed regularly.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

May I just observe that the Minister seems to be rather affronted by the anger felt on this side of the House, particularly by my Front-Bench colleagues, on this issue? He really need not; he ought to be sharing in that anger. Does he think that the investigation that he has undertaken so far is sufficient, or does he plan any further inquiry into this matter? Does he think he has done enough?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No, I do not share in the anger because the accusations that are being made are misplaced and have been categorically denied. Right hon. Ladies and Gentlemen in particular should accept the assurance on that basis.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am delighted that the Foreign Office is spending money trying to counter the disinformation and fake news that is coming not just from Russia but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, from all over the world. What comments has the Minister given to this organisation to impress upon it that its domestic use of its Twitter account, whether right or wrong, may be undermining what it is trying to do internationally?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I actually think that that is a perfectly fair question about whether the domestic activity of the organisation somehow taints the legitimate and Foreign Office-funded international activity. What I resent very deeply is Members of this House not accepting the assurances given that Foreign Office funding does not pay for that domestic activity. In the organisation’s defence, I think that all it does is to forward from already open website articles anything that happens to mention Russia. It is deemed to have done so on a non-partisan basis, so in as much as it may occasionally mention the Leader of the Opposition, it could also mention anyone on the Conservative side. That distinction ought to be accepted and understood, particularly by Opposition Front Benchers. I have undertaken to conduct exactly that sort of review, because it is important that our activity is clear, distinct and not in any way muddled with the sort of activity that the hon. Gentleman is describing.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Minister clarify when the Foreign Office became aware that the account had been hacked? Was it before or after the press coverage?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I suspect, although I am partly speculating, that the Foreign Office probably knew fairly quickly. The matter did not necessarily come to Ministers straightaway, probably because it was not deemed to be that serious. Unfortunately, these things happen all too frequently at the moment.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

According to documents that the company itself has filed with Companies House, one of the directors describes his own occupation as “senior civil servant”. Now, it may be that that is his former rather than his present occupation, but a simple glance at his career indicates that he has held a number of senior and presumably sensitive posts within both Her Majesty’s Government and NATO. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government were aware, until now, that this individual held that directorship? Were the Government involved in any way in nominating or recommending him for that position? And what approval of authorisation, if any, did the individual require before he became a director of what is, as the Minister has said, is an independent company limited by guarantee?

[Mr Speaker]

It was very cheeky of the hon. Gentleman to ask three questions, but I am sure the Minister will respond.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I believe that I would be right in saying that perhaps the reason for this is that NATO is also a funder of this activity. Therefore, I imagine that the name to which the hon. Gentleman refers has a connection with NATO. However, should this be inaccurate, I will of course write to him straightaway.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

In the end, this is about trust. In a recent parliamentary question to do with public money to fund social media ads to promote the Brexit deal, I asked the Government whether they would place the contents of these ads in the Library for us all to see. Unfortunately, this request was declined. Does the Minister agree that, to ensure public trust and transparency, the content and audiences of any ads paid for by public money should be published centrally as a matter of course?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

The Foreign Office funding for the Integrity Initiative does not really pay for advertisements, so that is not really relevant to today’s urgent question. May I just refer to the earlier question regarding when we knew about the hack? We first knew about it on 23 November.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Minister is burying his head in the sand. The fact is that this organisation has received more than £2 million of public money in just over 18 months, and it is a matter of fact that it has been engaging in a smear campaign against the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party. It has also taken credit for derailing the appointment of Pedro Banos as the director of Homeland Security in Spain. This is a democratic outrage, and will the Minister therefore agree to an independent inquiry into the activities of this organisation?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I have said this on many occasions this morning: what the hon. Gentleman says about domestic activity—smearing the Leader of the Opposition —is utterly untrue.

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Will the Minister now make it clear when he knew, how long the institute was hacked and what he has done about it?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I have sort of answered all those questions already this morning. I first knew about this when there was a report in the Sunday papers. I answered a question sprung on me on the “Today” programme at 7 o’clock yesterday, after which I sought all the facts, which have equipped me truthfully to answer this urgent question today.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Does it not concern the Minister that the internal checks within the FCO have led it to sending cheques for £2 million to a derelict mill in Scotland as an address for this charity?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Well, that is not the cleverest of questions. The charity was incorporated in Scotland. Most of its activities are in the UK and all payments are channelled properly to where they belong.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister tell us a bit more about the Foreign Office’s counter-disinformation and media development team—what its objectives, resourcing and budget are and whether it has operational interface with the integrity initiative?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

This question this morning is primarily about the integrity initiative. We carry out a lot of activity. Indeed, it is linked with our cyber-facilities in the UK Government, so, across Whitehall, there is all sorts of counter-disinformation activities. This is managed by our strategic fund—the conflict, stability and security fund—so increasingly across Whitehall, we are having to be alert and equipped to counter cyber-attacks and disinformation.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

The Government should be doing much more to counter Russian disinformation in Britain and in the west. In particular, may I ask the Minister to comment on the activities of RT, which cannot be regarded as a serious news organisation? It is a wholly owned Kremlin propaganda channel, which has engaged in dishonest campaigns to undermine our democracy. Does he agree that it is a channel that mainstream politicians should not have anything to do with, and will he contact his counterparts at DCMS and ask them to encourage Ofcom to review the channel’s licence?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

It is a rare moment of early festive good cheer that I can find myself wholly in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is not something that always happens across the Floor of the House. He is absolutely right about the extent to which Russia Today is an obvious mouthpiece for the Kremlin. It distorts information; it spreads disinformation; and it has quite a few useful idiots who it puts in front of the camera, and we should identify those so-called useful idiots and make sure that none of them is ever in our midst.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I agree with the shadow Foreign Secretary that we should scrutinise all instances of public bodies in receipt of public funds, yet the fact remains that the integrity initiative has criticised all political parties, including my own, when they have fallen foul—inadvertently or not— of the Russian disinformation narrative trap. I am a wee bit concerned that we fall into a trap where we are exposing the plethora of, some would say, Putin-Verstehers in grey suits in all political parties. I understand that the origin of much of the information discussed today emerged as a result of a hack perpetrated by actors of a dubious origin. Will the Minister enlighten the House further on the circumstances of that hack, and will he bring a report back to the Floor of the House?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Obviously, when I referred to my “Today” programme interview, it was on Monday, rather than yesterday. Let me just say to the hon. Gentleman that we are having an investigation into the hacking. It is continuing. We cannot attribute it with certainty to an absolutely specific source, but it does fit in with the wider pattern that I mentioned earlier, and therefore, of course, we have our well-founded suspicions.

Points of Order

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

13:14

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The wait is over. A few days ago, a senior Labour Member of Parliament addressed a public meeting in my constituency relating to the relocation of a post office—a very sensitive public matter. I will not name the MP in question, but I would like your guidance please, Sir, on the correct procedure for Members in terms of when they should or should not show the courtesy of letting a sitting Member of Parliament know.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The answer is straightforward: it is a long-standing convention in this House that a Member visiting the constituency of another Member in a political or public capacity should notify the Member whose constituency is to be visited. If the visit is of a purely private character, for example, going to lunch or dinner at somebody’s house in that Member’s constituency, the obligation does not apply. I am bound to say to him, and I am sorry that he is obviously highly dissatisfied about this, that this is a recurrent complaint from Members on both sides of the House and I hope that, in the interests of the House as a whole, Members on both sides would honour the convention. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) says from a sedentary position, “Who was it?”. Well, the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) has not named the Member. I think that he is focused on the principle rather than the personality. It seems to me that the principle applies regardless of who the personality is. However, if the hon. Member for Bolsover is particularly keen to know the identity of the person concerned, he can always have a cup of tea with the hon. Gentleman, although he may think that that is a step too far.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

A big step too far.

[Mr Speaker]

Why is that response not a great surprise to me?

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am saving up the Front Bench. It would be a pity to squander the hon. Gentleman at too early a stage of our proceedings.

[Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may remember that an independent report into the allegations of sexual harassment, abuse of power and bullying at UNAids, which Britain currently chairs, has recently been published calling for the resignation of the current executive director. Can you think of any way in which it would be possible to elicit a statement from the Secretary of State for International Development, whose responsibility this is, on what she and the Government are doing to effect the resignation of the said executive director?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman could seek an Adjournment debate on the matter. There are other routes open to him and I think that he knows that. I cannot offer any promise to him but, if he were able to demonstrate that it was a matter of urgency, it could be aired on the Floor of the House. Sometimes, when I am asked by a disappointed or, dare I say it, a mildly frustrated Member who has not been able to air the matter of concern to him or her, my advice tends to be: persist, persist, persist. Just because a Member is unsuccessful the first time round, it does not automatically follow that the Member will continue to fail.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have raised this matter with you and the Clerks, and I understand that measures are being taken to address this issue, but I want to raise with you the concern that there are hundreds of young people here today campaigning for a people’s vote from the For Our Future’s Sake organisation and Our Future Our Choice. They have been in the House to meet MPs over the past few weeks and have had very constructive discussions. They are not protesters. They are not here to cause disruption; they are here to speak to their elected representatives. Can you ensure that they are being allowed in to meet MPs and to use the Committee Rooms that they have booked with Members and that this does not happen in the future? It sends out a very bad message if, for whatever untoward reasons, young people coming to express their democratic rights are prevented from accessing Central Lobby and speaking to their Members.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to do so. My reply is a nuanced one that I hope is fair in the circumstances, and those circumstances include the fact that I have been in the Chair and not able to view the circumstances directly, so I am reluctant to rush to judgment.

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is as follows. If constituents have meetings with their Members, they should of course be given ready access to those Members and should also be permitted to get to a Committee Room with maximum expedition. Security and logistical concerns may mean that larger groups are filtered through Central Lobby in batches so that they can obtain the relevant green card. However, I will investigate the circumstances of what happened this morning more fully and write to him when I have full information.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman, whose point of order is very reasonable, will understand if I say two things. First, I share his insistence on ready access and his passion for the idea of public engagement—in particular, the idea that young people who want to get into this place and communicate with Members, and register their views, should have the opportunity to do so. It is not for nothing that I have chaired the UK Youth Parliament for the past 10 years here, and not for nothing that I have gone to the UK Youth Parliament’s annual conference every year for the past 10 years. That is not just because I enjoy talking to them, though I readily admit that I do, but also because I enjoy hearing from them. That, I think, is important.

The second point I would make, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept in the spirit in which it is intended, is that I know that our staff are utterly dedicated and conscientious, and I would not want to criticise those staff unless there were a very compelling reason to do so.

I take on board what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will look into it and get back to him.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is customary for the local government finance settlement to be announced to Parliament in early December. Indeed, Ministers had pencilled it in for 6 December. Last week, in a written statement, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government deferred the statement until after the “protected period”, by which I assume he meant the expected meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement, which of course should have been last night.

Have you, Sir, had any indication from the Government as to when they expect to bring the statement before the House, as given the late change to this week’s business, it could have been made by now? I am not asking you to speculate on rumour and uncertainty, with the Government perhaps wanting to collapse business next week. However, this is crucially important, notwithstanding the psychodrama unfolding on the Government Benches, because our councils are now entering the council tax-setting cycle and need to have certainty about their budgets and their council tax requirements, including the police precept, ahead of the bills being sent out in March.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, in all candour and conviviality, that no one could accuse him of excluding from his attempted point of order any point that might to any degree, in any way, at any time be judged to be material. That is my polite way of saying that his point of order is supremely comprehensive.

My answer to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. First, the business question is the obvious opportunity for this matter to be aired and, as he is sitting next to the shadow Leader of the House, he can attempt to add it to the list of important matters that she will feel inclined to raise at the business question tomorrow.

Secondly, although I obviously have absolutely no way of knowing whether the contents of the prospective statement are likely to be finalised any time soon, if they are finalised soon, there is no shortage of time for this matter to be aired either tomorrow or, indeed, next week. The hon. Gentleman is dextrous in his use of parliamentary mechanisms to secure the attention of the House. We will leave it there for now.

If there are no further points of order—if the appetite has been satisfied—we come now to the ten-minute rule motion for which the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) has been so patiently waiting.

International Trade and Development Agency

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

13:24

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an International Trade and Development Agency to coordinate the development and delivery of policy between the Department for International Trade and the Department for International Development; and for connected purposes.

I am sure that all Members of this House will be familiar with the old adage, “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for life.” But I feel that another line should be added to that: “Buy that man’s surplus fish and watch him lift himself out of poverty.”

In March 2016, I went to Sierra Leone, the country of my mother’s birth, to see the impact that UK aid has had. Sierra Leone is a country that was ravaged by civil war—a civil war that was ultimately brought to a close because of the involvement of British armed forces. More recently, Sierra Leone was hit by Ebola, a disease that was able to take hold because the social and medical infrastructure of the country was smashed during the civil war. British aid and British medical professionals were instrumental in winning the fight against Ebola. When mudslides in Sierra Leone’s capital of Freetown took the lives of hundreds, UK aid stepped up and supported the country once again. 

However, when I spoke to the people of Sierra Leone—a country that was hit by war, disease and natural disaster—on my visit, I found that the thing they craved most from their relationship with the UK was not further aid, thankful though they were for the aid they had received, but increased trade. They wanted to be able to sell to us and to be able to buy our products and services in return.

The Department for International Development has the remit to end extreme poverty and tackle the root causes of disease, mass migration, insecurity and conflict. I know that DIFD does look at helping countries on the journey out of poverty by supporting the development of their commercial potential and establishing the foundations for future trading relationships, but it will always feel pressure to focus on countries with the most poverty and at the times of greatest hardship. Our constituents very rarely complain when they see UK aid supporting those in the most extreme hardship. We are, at heart, a nation of people with an internationalist outlook and a desire to support people when they are at their lowest ebb. There is, however, less vocal support for our development spending when it is not targeted at the points of most extreme poverty and hardship. Yet it is this area that gives countries the best chance of becoming permanently economically self-sufficient. 

Since the EU referendum vote, the people of the United Kingdom have embraced a new-found interest in international trade policy. We have seen a significant appetite to build on our current relationships and become, once again, a global trading nation. It is right that in the immediate post-Brexit world, the International Trade Department prioritises increasing trade flows between the UK and other larger developed economies. This is the most efficient use of limited Government resources: time, money, and people. But there is a danger that countries who are neither at the poorest nor the richest end of the spectrum fall between the two. We see very little public disagreement when our aid spending is directed at countries like Sierra Leone, which has gone through such difficulties, but when it is directed at countries like Nigeria and Pakistan, we too often see negative headlines and public disquiet. Yet it is countries like these—not at the lowest ebb but certainly not yet fully economically stable—that could be permanently helped out of poverty through trade with the United Kingdom.

If the UK is going to take up its rightful position as a truly global leader in this field, we need to ensure that we have a repository for the kind of expertise necessary to look into things like trade preferences for least developed countries and how we make sure that countries growing out of LDC status are not presented with a cliff-edge change to their trade status. 

Addressing those complexities is a tall order for our civil servants, spread across two Departments, and takes deep, specialist expertise. Civil servants rotate through different jobs across Departments every few years, so we often have to rely on outside expertise, and unfortunately there is little institutional memory in this area. Equally, asking civil servants to assess the impact of policies and programmes they have designed is like asking someone to mark their own homework. Parliament must also be able to access independent evidence and analysis, be well informed about the shape of our new trade arrangements with developing countries as we leave the EU, have visibility of the impacts of those trade arrangements and, if they are performing less well than expected, call for improvements.

A similar basket of requirements brought about the creation of the United States International Trade Commission some 100 years ago. That is why we should have a similar but enhanced organisation here in the UK at this pivotal moment in our history. The agency would be a statutory body, reporting to Ministers and Parliament, probably with a staff of around 50 full-time professionals. The agency would have five main functions.

First, it would carry out analysis and consultations with businesses in the UK and in developing countries to build up a robust evidence base, monitoring our trade with developing countries and assessing the impacts on growth, employment and development, reporting to Ministers and Parliament annually.

Secondly, it would specifically review the scope and design of our trade preference systems for developing countries and advise Ministers at least every two years on how these were performing and where improvements were needed, including which countries should be included, excluded or graduated.

Thirdly, it would recommend how we can best craft our future trade agreements with developing countries in goods, services and technology to maximise the benefits for promoting shared prosperity at home and abroad and overcome red-tape barriers for developing countries exporting to the UK.

Fourthly, it would undertake sustainability impact assessments of all future UK trade agreements with developing countries, following the model that has been used extensively by the EU but for which we currently have no system here in the UK.

Finally, the agency would track our Aid for Trade programmes, assessing performance against Government targets and recommending best practices for joined-up and effective UK aid spending in this area.

We have the opportunity to create an organisation of truly global standing that could be a model for other OECD countries and an international centre of excellence. We have the chance to make a statement to countries around the world, rich and poor, that we do not just want to make poverty bearable; we want to make poverty history.

11:54

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak in opposition to the Bill. Let me start by making it clear that trade, development and ending poverty very much go together. That has always been at the heart of the Department for International Development’s agenda, having been put at its heart when the Department was established by the Labour Government in 1997. I sat in that Department as an adviser and worked with many organisations, particularly on trade and development issues, for many years. I worked alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), who served as a joint Trade and DFID Minister, on how we properly put those issues together.

I am a Labour and a Co-operative MP. Fair trade and trade justice are at the heart of what Co-operative MPs stand for. Many of us are members of the fair trade group in Parliament, and many of us have argued for support for trade with developing countries—trade that will lift people out of poverty.

The hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) mentioned the Make Poverty History campaign, in which I was closely involved in 2005. One of its three pillars was trade justice, alongside more and better aid and dropping the debt. All those things go together. While I agree with some of the principles put forward by the hon. Gentleman, his speech belied a wider agenda. This is essentially part of an agenda about Brexit and an attempt by some Government Members to undermine and take apart the Department for International Development by other means than a straight-out abolition. That has been a hallmark of some Conservative policy over the last few years, which is deeply disappointing. While we have, on the face of it, a commitment to the Department and to the 0.7% spending target, a series of measures have undermined the Department and its core objectives.

I am not sure that some of the things the hon. Gentleman suggested would be compatible with the International Development Acts. Those Acts were clear that poverty eradication had to be the foremost agenda of UK aid and development policy. He said that the Department feels “pressure” to focus on countries with the most poverty. I think that it should. That should be the primary purpose of our aid and development spending—those most in poverty.

[James Cleverly]

Not exclusively.

[Stephen Doughty]

The hon. Gentleman says that I was not listening. I was listening carefully. He is blurring objectives. The focus should be on poverty and on our common interest. There is a way of devising international development policy and trade policy that is in the common interest of both parties—of our country and of developing countries—and ensures that we move together in generating and spreading wealth and prosperity for all people in the world, including in those countries, rather than having a self-interested trade policy.

Past Conservative Governments do not have a positive record on this. I would hate to see a day when we slip back to things like the Pergau Dam scandal, or where things are tied simply to self-interested trade policies and we attempt to get self-advantage rather than to focus on common interests between ourselves and some of the poorest countries in the world.

There is a good way to go about this. It is the policy that we have practised in Government through the Department for International Development. It is the policy that has been pursued in much of our work through multilateral agencies, which do much to promote trade and development and provide trade capacity.

The hon. Gentleman spoke about the EU. One of the greatest tragedies of Brexit is that we are potentially coming out of key European development agencies, the European development fund and the arrangements that exist for close co-operation with many countries, including many in the Commonwealth and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. It has been far from perfect. I have campaigned when I think the EU has got things wrong in its relationships. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West will remember he and I having lively discussions about policy in a previous life and where that went.

The reality is that, on the whole, the EU has had development and poverty eradication at the heart of its policies and its relationships with the ACP countries. We already have trade agreements with many of those countries. We already have supportive policies in aid and development. One of the tragedies of Brexit is that we will potentially just chuck all that in the bin.

The European development fund, the European Commission’s humanitarian office—ECHO—and many other programmes are some of the Department for International Development’s highest rated multilateral programmes. I previously served on the International Development Committee, and we saw evidence of that when looking at the funding of multilateral agencies.

It seems absurd to suggest that we come out of all those programmes and create something else that is hugely bureaucratic and would, I fear—whatever the intentions of the hon. Member for Braintree—be used by other Government Members and those with agendas to simply undermine the work of the Department for International Development.

There is also the crucial issue of the extra bureaucracy and cost of setting up such an agency. Why do we need it? We already have a Department. We already have UK aid. We already have the multilateral agencies that have these relationships. We already have many experts working in trade facilitation and trade and international development. Why would we create another costly agency and reorganise and shunt civil servants back and forth yet again when we already have people doing excellent work in that area, in not only this country but many of the others with which we co-operate? I do not need to mention all the names, but there are many other agencies that we have worked with for many years, such as Crown Agents.

Of course, we also have the Commonwealth Development Corporation. Mr Speaker, you will know, because I have spoken on this at great length before, that I have been a critical friend of the CDC. The CDC has got things wrong in the past. The huge extra funding given to it was premature and too much to absorb quickly, but I know that the CDC is working to look at all those issues. It is important that we stick with what we have. It works perfectly well. It has poverty eradication at the heart of it. We have excellent people working on it. We do not need to create something else.

As I said, this Bill unfortunately sits alongside a series of other agendas. We have seen attempts by this Government to rebadge aid and development spending and redraw the definitions used at an international and UK level—“Let’s say we’re keeping the 0.7% target, but we’ll undermine it in every way we can by sticking everything else under it and claiming that it’s development spending.” We have seen the repeated diversion of our aid funding to private contractors, many of whom have actually been seriously criticised for some of the work they have been doing. As I have said, we have had the huge increases to the CDC. I am not opposed to an increase to the CDC, but I have had some serious concerns about its level.

We have also seen this with the Government’s two cross-Government funds—the conflict, stability and security fund and the prosperity fund. Many parts of that work are excellent—the funds are doing excellent work—and we cannot have a purist development policy in which we do not work with other agencies. However, I certainly have some serious questions about the way in which other Departments have been spending money through the prosperity fund without reference to our development objectives and without reference to poverty eradication as the first point. Quite frankly, there has been very lax scrutiny from other Departments—including, I am sorry to say, the Foreign Office—about where that is going and how it is being spent.

I do not think that the fate of the world’s poorest people and the relationships of common interest that we should be building together, as I have said, should somehow be used instrumentally in the Brexit process. They should not be used as some sort of Brexit sweeteners for us to try and grab magical trade deals that, frankly, we already have, but are also not going to replace our excellent trading relations with our EU neighbours or, indeed, the trading relations that exist between us as an integral part of the European Union and many of the world’s developing countries.

We have to have a relationship of mutual respect: not simply one of self-interest, but one of common interest. We will truly make poverty history by supporting and working alongside developing countries, not by acting in an instrumental way in which we are putting our own interests before those of others. I therefore oppose the Bill, and I hope the House will divide on this.

Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

13:41

Division 278

Ayes: 42

---

Conservative: 42

Noes: 243

---

Labour: 212
Scottish National Party: 11
Liberal Democrat: 9
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 4
Conservative: 2

[James Cleverly]

Recount!

[Mr Speaker]

I am not quite sure which football team the hon. Gentleman supports—

[James Cleverly]

Arsenal.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, in that case the hon. Gentleman is always a model of good behaviour—always. Any Arsenal fan is to be commended. We appreciate the amiable demeanour of the hon. Gentleman in the circumstances.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I might seek your advice on this matter. The Home Office has just laid a written statement on an update of the Government’s anti-corruption strategy 2017 to 2022, which originated from David Cameron back in 2016. I have been unable to get a hard copy of it, but having this as a written, not an oral, statement denies Members of the House the opportunity to hold the Government to account on the commitments in the strategy. We are at least due by now a consultation on the new economic crime of failure to prevent money laundering—I asked the Prime Minister about that in her statement on the G20 the other day. I know that these are good days to bury bad news and that this Government like to duck big challenges, but have you received any advance notice or indication of when there will be an oral statement from the Minister with responsibility for crime prevention on the anti-corruption strategy, which would give us in this House an opportunity to debate its progress?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to the hon. Lady is that no, I have received no indication of an imminent statement on that matter by any Government Minister. This is not, strictly speaking, a point of order upon which I can rule, although I must say that in raising an attempted point of order that does not constitute a point of order, she is not in a notably isolated minority—that is to say, the vast majority of attempted points of order are, of course, nothing of the kind. They are points of frustration, points of point-scoring, points of view and points of advertisement, rather than points of order. What I would say is that it is of course for the Government to decide whether, and if so when, to make a statement on the matter and to judge what form that statement should take. Principally—I say this as much for the benefit of people attending to our proceedings who are not Members of the House as for those who are—they have to make a judgment about whether to make a written or an oral statement. That partly depends on the timetable and how much space there is in the day, and it partly depends on their judgment about the level of importance to be attached to the matter.

The hon. Lady has made clear her view that an oral statement would have been appropriate in this case, and no doubt that view will have been heard clearly on the Treasury Bench. Meanwhile, although she is disappointed not to have witnessed a statement that she thinks is appropriate, she has at least succeeded in highlighting the fact of the imminent publication—well, we think the imminent publication, but certainly the important publication—of the document concerned.

If there are no further points of order, the Clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.

Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords]

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

Consideration of the Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

[Mr Speaker]

I should inform the House that I have selected the amendments on the amendment paper—although they are starred as tabled after the usual deadline—because of the late notice of today’s business. I should also inform the House that I have today issued a provisional certificate that clause 2 of the Bill, as amended in Public Bill Committee, relates exclusively to England and Wales and is within devolved legislative competence. At the end of the Report stage on a Bill, I am required to consider the Bill as amended on Report for certification. At that point, I will issue my final certificate.

Clause 3

Authorised court and tribunal staff: legal advice and judicial functions

13:58

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 1, in page 3, line 28, leave out subsection 3 and insert—

“(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”

This amendment would require that where statutory instruments delegating judicial functions to authorised persons are brought they would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 2, in the schedule, page 6, line 36, at end insert—

“(aa) is a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification, and”.

This amendment would stipulate that the minimum legal qualifications for authorised persons should be three years’ experience post-qualification.

Amendment 3, in the schedule, page 8, line 31, at end insert—

“( ) is a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification, and”.

See explanatory statement to amendment 2.

Amendment 4, in the schedule, page 11, line 12, at end insert

“and if they are a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification”.

See explanatory statement to amendment 2.

Amendment 5, in the schedule, page 11, line 32, leave out subsection 67C and insert—

“67C Right to judicial reconsideration of decision made by an authorised person

A party to any decision made by an authorised person in the execution of the person’s duty as an authorised person exercising a relevant judicial function, by virtue of section 67B(1), may apply in writing, within 14 days of the service of the order, to have the decision reconsidered by a judge of the relevant court within 14 days from the date of application.”

This amendment would grant people subject to a decision made under delegated powers a statutory right to judicial reconsideration.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 1 and the other amendments. We are being encouraged to wave through this wafer-thin Bill, which is both narrowly constrained and obscurely drafted. This is a Bill that sneaks through changes that will change unconstitutional double delegation—that is, of legislative power to unaccountable judges sitting on procedure rule committees and of judicial powers to non-independent courts and tribunal staff.

Let us begin with clause 3, which delegates judicial functions to authorised staff. This provision must be understood in the context of a wider court reform agenda and the austerity measures that seek to make significant cuts. These efficiencies, generated through the proposed reforms, arise not only from the reduction in the size of the courts estate, but from savings on judicial salaries. Ultimately, the Bill seeks more justice on the cheap.

The Bill will ensure that judicial powers are delegated to non-independent courts and tribunal staff. The procedure rule committee is primarily made up of senior judges, who would ensure relatively little external public scrutiny of this delegation of judicial functions to non-judicial employees of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. That is a really important point.

The Bill provides that regulations under clause 3 must be made under the negative resolution procedure. In effect, this will allow new rules of court stipulating which judicial functions can be delegated and to whom, and the requisite qualifications or experience that an authorised person must have to take on these judicial functions, but, as the Bill stands, such a delegation will come into force without any real parliamentary scrutiny. In essence, by providing that the regulations in the Bill are to be made under the negative resolution procedure, the Government are avoiding proper scrutiny by a democratically mandated legislature here in this place.

Our amendment, which is supported by the Bar Council, would ensure more constitutionally appropriate accountability and scrutiny, through the affirmative resolution procedure, of these sweeping regulations. These regulations concern powers to make rules stipulating which judicial functions can be delegated and to whom, and the qualifications and experience required before a member of the administration can be given these judicial functions. Without careful scrutiny and additional safeguards, the Government’s drip-feed approach to court reform will erode some of our most fundamental institutions and our understanding of the rule of law.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady comment on whether the qualification provision will raise the bar significantly above that in current regulations for such people and whether that will put at a disadvantage people already carrying out those functions?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

We are talking about two different things. The authorised persons are to have delegated to them many judicial functions, and it is only appropriate that they have some experience. In those circumstances, three years’ post-qualification experience is not a big ask, obligation or burden. We are asking for the minimum, and we are being very reasonable and practical about it. We are only surprised that the Government are not taking our concerns on board and changing the rules.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

One reason we need proper scrutiny is the tendency towards rationalisation of the courts, which eventually means long waiting times—that cannot be justice for anyone waiting for a trial. There have been endless cases of this now, and it is getting worse, not better. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not fair on the victim or the perpetrator?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

My hon. Friend is spot on. That is one of our concerns about the Government’s proposals.

We need a process that requires transparent and public scrutiny in this House of the scope of future delegated powers. The safeguards the Opposition seek on the powers created by the Bill are not unreasonable and would not interfere with the notion of reasonable delegation of non-contentious administrative functions; they simply press for further oversight and accountability.

Our amendments providing that the authorised persons must be solicitors, barristers or chartered legal executives with more than three years’ post-qualification experience have been recommended and drafted by the Law Society and are supported by the Bar Council. In other words, all the practitioners in the country are supporting and asking for these changes, and I ask the Government, even at this late stage, to consider adopting them. In the circumstance, we believe them to be the minimal ask of the Government. It is a lower qualification threshold than what is currently required of pupil supervisors, or indeed of solicitors, to supervise an office.

It is worth remembering that authorised staff are not subject to the training, experience, ethos and oaths of professional judges, and could be performing judicial functions while also—this is really important—being employed directly by HMCTS. This raises genuine questions of independence.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

We are talking about taxpayers’ money. Does the hon. Lady not accept that where such tasks are routine—say, straightforward case preparation—the people performing them should not need a legal qualification?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

These people will be performing judicial tasks and functions and so will need to be appropriately qualified, which is why we have tabled the amendments.

[James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)]

It is my understanding that these are mainly interlocutory functions, not actual judgments or significant judicial functions.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

No, as we understand it, although it is envisaged that some of these tasks will be procedural, others will be very important to people whose rights are affected. We might think, for example, that requests for adjournments are straightforward, but they are not. As practitioners and former practitioners will know, they can be complicated, because when a judge decides whether to grant one, they take into consideration a host of things, so it is important that the person be appropriately qualified.

We accept that the procedure rule committee will be able to iron out some of the questions about what are judicial and what are administrative functions, but the main thing is that these people will be carrying out judicial functions and deciding some difficult issues, and it is only appropriate that they be qualified and appropriately experienced.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We discussed this in Committee. Interlocutory case management often has a large bearing on what happens in a case; it can alter what happens in a case and it can alter cost decisions. In their own way, such decisions are as important as purely judicial decisions. The Government’s proposal might be a false economy, so I support what she is saying.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank my hon. Friend, a former shadow Justice Minister, for his intervention, and I take his point.

We acknowledge that the relevant procedure rule committee will set out the procedural requirements for who can carry out the procedures, but we also know that these committees are predominantly made up of senior judges, so this will have implications for the independence of judicial decision making.

We also believe that such a shift will not match the expectations held by members of the public on the experience and independence of those making judicial decisions about their rights.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

The hon. Lady referred to the independence of the judges. Is not the whole virtue of this proposal that the rules governing who should be delegated what functions will be made by judges, and should not be made by politicians in any circumstance? Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the former Lord Chief Justice, observed:

“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedure are a very real fetter on the administration of justice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]

He counselled against too much restriction of the kind that is being proposed.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The procedure rule committee obviously has a place in our judicial system, and we accept that judges and others are involved in it, but everyone knows that there are times when, because of financial pressures, services are cut to the bare minimum. We believe that, to protect our judicial system, the functions concerned should be clearly set out, and those that will have an effect on someone should be decided by an authorised person with a legal qualification.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is getting perilously close to suggesting that judges will do justice when they are inside a court, but will be incapable of ensuring that justice is done when they are outside a court, on the procedure rule committees. Will she make it crystal clear that judges will always, in all circumstances, want to do justice, and can be trusted to do so?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

We are not suggesting that judges will somehow not be independent. As I have said, I have the highest regard for our judiciary in court, although from time to time we might disagree with the decisions that judges reach. In the real world, however, there are often targets to be met and financial constraints to be considered. We are saying that when the procedure rule committee is making rules, it should be guided by Parliament.

[Robert Neill]

rose—

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I have taken a number of interventions, and I will make some progress now. Otherwise we will be going round in circles on the same point.

The Bill provides for judicial functions to be delegated to authorised staff across the criminal, civil and family courts and tribunals. However, it also states that while those staff will be independent of the Lord Chancellor when carrying out the delegated functions, they will remain court staff, and will not take the judicial oath of independence. It is surely important for those who will be making any type of judicial decision to take that oath. They cannot be described as independent when they are employed by the court in which they will serve.

There might, for example, be economic pressures. The court might want to get rid of cases very quickly, within a certain period. The promotion prospects of those who are employed directly by the courts will, of course, be affected, and, unlike judges, they will not be governed by the oath of independence, the Bar rules and the Law Society rules. People who are making judicial decisions should be appropriately qualified, with the proper ethos and the proper rules that apply to solicitors and barristers, and to which members of the legal profession, such as me, must have regard.

Our amendment 5 would ensure that a party to any decision made by an authorised person exercising a relevant judicial function, or the function of a tribunal,

“may apply in writing, within 14 days of the service of the order, to have the decision reconsidered by a judge of the relevant court within 14 days from the date of application.”

We will be quite happy if the Government want to increase the period to 21 days, or reduce it to fewer than 14, but we want people to have a right to judicial reconsideration of a decision made by an authorised person. We cannot understand why the Government do not want to accept the amendment.

14:09

The statutory right of reconsideration would allow any party to a decision made by an authorised person to have that decision reconsidered by a judge, as recommended by Lord Justice Briggs in his 2016 “Civil Courts Structure Review: Final Report”. The right is already provided for in, for example, tribunal procedure rules. Lord Justice Briggs said:

“The creation of an extensive right to have the decisions of Case Officers considered by a judge has from the outset been regarded as the natural safety valve for concerns about what was...described as the delegation of judicial functions to persons who are not judges”.

We are asking for a minimum safeguard. The right of reconsideration would have the benefit of freeing an authorised person from the obligation to produce detailed reasons for every decision, as would be the case if the right of appeal, for example, were created. It has the additional benefit of going further than a right of review by guaranteeing judicial oversight of a decision.

More importantly, that statutory right would ensure compliance with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which refers to the right to a fair trial. Decisions that affect people’s rights must be made by an independent and impartial person, and that person cannot be a member of court staff or employed directly by a tribunal. We consider this to be a proportionate safeguard that would be relevant to the new powers created by the Bill, given the provision in article 6 that the determination of a person’s civil rights and obligations, or any criminal charge against them, must be undertaken by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.

The requirement for independence would apply not only to the tribunal, but to any judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power. As the Ministry of Justice acknowledges in its human rights memorandum on the Bill,

“In considering independence...guarantees against outside pressures are relevant—as is the question whether the body presents an appearance of independence”.

In the memorandum, the MOJ suggests that it is intended that

“case management decisions which it is proposed these authorised members of staff will be able to take will be uncontentious and not of sufficient importance to engage Article 6”.

However—I say this particularly to those who have practised in law and have attended court, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made the point earlier—case management decisions can have a significant impact in shaping the ultimate outcome of a case. For example, a decision on the appropriate timescales within which a party should take a step in proceedings may be significant, as failures to comply with a timescale will lead to some or all of the party’s case being struck out.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Justice’s factsheet on the delegation of functions to non-judicial staff states:

“In future, we expect that authorised staff may be able to carry out a…range of…functions”

and responsibilities,

“including case management powers and some mediation roles.”

That suggests that what is envisaged is more than a delegation of purely procedural powers to authorised persons. In effect, a mediation role is almost like a judicial role, and people who have not been properly trained and are not properly qualified should not be mediating between the parties to the proceedings. Even in its own paper, the Ministry of Justice seems to expect those staff to play a much bigger role in decision making.

Labour Members strongly believe that Parliament must have a role in ensuring that the new system of delegation proposed in the Bill includes a backstop protection—the word “backstop” has been used a lot in the last few weeks—of the right to a fair trial. Our amendments have been endorsed by the Law Society, the Bar Council and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. They propose a statutory right to judicial reconsideration for any party to a judicial decision made by an authorised person or non-judge. This would afford stronger protection of the right to a fair trial, and would guarantee the independent and impartial determination required by article 6. Another of our amendments seeks to ensure that, in drawing up the rules on reconsideration, the procedure committee must consider which functions and decisions could clearly have a material impact on the substantive rights of the parties.

The safeguards we are calling for are not unreasonable; they are minimal if we understand that the provisions in this so-called “uncontroversial” Bill have the potential to profoundly impact on our justice system. But to truly understand the impact of this Bill, we have to look at it in the context of the Government’s wider austerity agenda. The double delegation of powers that the Government are intent on introducing is a slippery slope that, without proper controls, puts rights at risk. We can resist this—and we do. Without further careful scrutiny and additional safeguards, this Bill has the potential to erode long-established legal rights.

The Government must take notice of the clear limitations of this Bill. They should listen to those who seek to improve this Bill and accept our amendments to ensure that we protect our judicial system.

[Robert Neill]

I hope I shall make a better stab at my speech than I did of being a Teller earlier.

I rise to oppose these amendments, tempted though I am by the way in which they were proposed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), whom I respect as a fellow lawyer. However, I do have to say that she seeks to go further than is appropriate and seeks to put a needless restriction on the ability of the procedure committee in particular to come to the appropriate balance. I have very great respect for the views of both the Law Society and the Bar Council—I say that with reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a non-practising barrister and a consultant to a law firm—but ultimately the scheme envisaged by the Government is a right and balanced one, and reflects in particular the views of the senior judiciary, which I think is important because ultimately it is the judges who are best placed to decide the appropriate level of delegation. They are the people who work day to day with these staff; they see day to day the nature of the boxwork—as it is sometimes called—and the other things that come in.

For these reasons, when the matter was debated in the other place, both Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the recently retired Lord Chief Justice, to whom I have already referred, and Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, recently retired president of the Supreme Court, counselled against an undue restriction on the operation of the civil procedure rule committee, already a well established body of the kind the Opposition seek to bring in. I think they also broadly supported the overall thrust of the Bill.

The hon. Lady referred to austerity. That is not the objective of this Bill; there has been a long-standing proposal to modernise the civil justice system. She referred to the work done by Lord Justice Briggs, for whom I have the greatest respect. The Bill is a logical follow-on from the Briggs report, and it is necessary if we are to achieve modernisation and make the courts more accessible for litigants. This is an entirely sensible Bill; that is why the judiciary has pushed for these sorts of proposals, and why Lord Thomas said that he “warmly” welcomed it. It will save some £6 million; he regards that as a realistic figure. That is important in the context of the available resources for the courts system. We all accept that the courts are under pressure, and this is a sensible way forward that does not impede the basic requirements of access to justice or fairness.

Lord Thomas said two further things that we should bear in mind. He spoke about the developments in civil procedures; the rule committee has been an important part of that over the last 15 to 20 years, so it is not as though the committee were unused to dealing with these matters. The committees bring together representatives of the legal profession. As a former practitioner, I agree with his description of that committee as

“a highly representative body with many representatives of the legal profession. Certainly, the committee will always try to reach a view by consensus—when I was a member of it for more than six years there never was a division; we always managed to agree.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]

Most experienced practitioners will be aware of that. I think we can say the same of the criminal procedure rule committee; these are very well established bodies, and judges do not forget that they are judges when they are there.

It is a little unworthy, I say with respect, to suggest that the judiciary—we have talked about the senior judiciary chairing these bodies—would acquiesce in an inappropriate level of delegation for a purely financial consideration. They would be going against their judicial oaths. I do not think for one second that the hon. Lady really means to say that they would do that. The amendments would, however, put needless constraint on the committee’s work. That is why I quoted before and quote again Lord Thomas’s observation:

“Experience has shown that detailed restrictions on procedure are a very real fetter on the administration of justice”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 June 2018; Vol. 791, c. 2039.]

In the other place, he gave a number of examples that I need not give here showing why that could be counterproductive.

It is also worth considering the speech of Lord Neuberger. He pointed out the following:

“There are two protected factors: one is that nothing can be done without it being in the rules, and the second is that the Lord Chief Justice needs to give his or her authorisation to the person who makes the decision.” .”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 887.]

Those are important safeguards.

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend speaks with great expertise. What he is saying goes back to the point raised earlier about the possibility of the functions that are delegated having legal significance. Presumably if that was the case, they would not be delegated to start with.

[Robert Neill]

That is precisely right. It is inconceivable that any Lord Chief Justice would give his or her consent to a delegation that was inappropriate or would put the interests of justice at risk. I never sat as a deputy district judge—they used to be called deputy registrars in my day, so long ago was it—in civil matters, but I have many friends who do, and a great deal of what is called boxwork, with which at least some on the Treasury Bench will be familiar, was of a very administrative kind. We expect the district judges in a busy county court to deal with that, whereas it seems perfectly reasonable for many of these matters, which are often of a very interlocutory nature, to be dealt with by an experienced member of court staff who has been in the service for many years. We are not talking about the ultimate determination of the case in any of these matters. That is why Lord Neuberger referred to that safeguard or protection, and the protection that that would be laid before Parliament.

Lord Neuberger made another important observation on the attempt, as it seems to me, to fetter the discretion of the committee. He posed a rhetorical question, as perhaps senior judges and other lawyers tend to do:

“Whether it is right to provide in such clear terms, and such uncompromising general terms, for the circumstances and requirements for”

appeals—which is what he was talking about—seems to him to be questionable. He was making this point:

“Having chaired the Civil Procedure Rule Committee for three years, I can say, as has been quoted in relation to its criminal equivalent by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas, that considerable care is given to ensure that all the requirements of justice are met. It is very rare, if ever, that I can remember a decision being arrived at which was not arrived at by consensus.”

These questions are considered, not only by the judiciary but by practitioners, including members of the solicitors’ profession and members of the Bar. Plaintiffs’ and defendants’ interests are represented on these committees, as are both ends of the profession—solicitors and barristers—and all levels of the judiciary, from the High Court bench through the circuit bench to the district bench. This is a broad-based body and, as Lord Neuberger said, these

“details should be worked out…by the rule committee”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 890 to 891.]

I think that that is a forceful argument for leaving the proposals as the Government intended.

14:31

This is an important matter, but I hope that the House will not be lured into setting an undue restriction that, with every respect to the intentions of the hon. Member for Bolton South East, could give the impression that Parliament did not trust the independence of the judiciary, because that would certainly not be correct, or that it sought needlessly to circumscribe the way in which judges operate their courts. It is fundamental that we as party politicians—that is effectively what virtually all of us are—should not interfere in the way in which judges organise their workload and the staffing of the courts. As well as being impractical and unhelpful, that could also set an undesirable precedent in which Parliament, as well as setting the statutory framework in which judges operate, sought to delve too closely into the control of the everyday operations of an independent judiciary and court system.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

I rise briefly to speak in favour of the amendments tabled by my Front-Bench colleagues. I believe that safeguards need to be in place to ensure that people are properly qualified to make decisions and particularly that contentious decisions should be reviewed by a qualified judge. I want explicitly to address concerns about how this might transpire in the family courts. Several of my hon. Friends raised the concern in Committee that the family courts could be the most affected by potential delays and the perverse consequences of the measures in the Bill.

This is particularly relevant given the recent exposure of the case of Sammy Woodhouse. I am sure that colleagues will be well aware of her case. I know that the Minister is, and I am grateful to her for meeting Sammy and me last week. Mr Speaker also welcomed Sammy to Prime Minister’s questions last week. Her bravery in putting herself forward, in risking being held in contempt of the family court and in waiving her anonymity to speak about her experiences, so that we in this place can drive change, is inspiring. We owe it to her and to the many other survivors to ensure that we drive change and ensure that what happened to her and to too many other young women and girls never happens again.

Those young women and girls were failed by the state. They were failed by our legal system, by the police, by the Crown Prosecution Service, by local authorities and by government at every level, and now they are being failed yet again by our legal system. Our entirely permissive system, which allows anyone to make an application through the family courts, means that men who have been convicted of rape—in Sammy’s case, the father of her child, Arshid Hussain, is serving a 35-year prison sentence—can apply to the courts for access or visitation rights. Sammy’s case shocked the nation, but unfortunately it was not unique. Just yesterday, I spoke to another woman who had to respond and attend court after the man who was convicted of raping her and fathering her child had applied through the family courts from prison.

This could be prevented through a simple ban on any man convicted of fathering a child through rape applying to the family courts. I know that the Government are reluctant to bring this forward, out of concern for the convicted rapist’s article 8 right to a family life, but I am afraid that that simply is not good enough. I will always defend our human rights as enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights—I say this on the day of the 70th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights—but article 8 is a qualified right and not one that should override the rights of women and children and their safety. Surely, we should be starting from the presumption that if a child has been conceived through rape, the man should have no parental rights to that child and that we should allow such rights only in exceptional circumstances, not the other way round.

When I speak to victims of rape and survivors of child sexual exploitation in situations such as Sammy’s—women who have an almost uniformly terrible experience of the family courts—their feeling is one of betrayal and despair that every day is a battle in which they have to fight for their most basic rights. They are often forced to relive their traumatic experiences and justify themselves over and over, yet they are so often told about the rights of the men who have abused them and who can now click their fingers and drag their victims back through the courts to traumatise them all over again. Women such as Sammy, who have already given evidence, spoken out in criminal trials and been to hell and back, should not then live the rest of their lives trying to bring their children up in horrendously difficult circumstances with the threat of being dragged back through the courts once again to face the man who raped them. It may be the case that no judge would allow such access in any circumstances, but it is surely intolerable for women in this situation to have to face the man in court all over again, and I believe that we as a Parliament should make that crystal clear.

The family procedure rule committee met earlier this week to discuss the consequences of Sammy’s case and to consider amending practice direction 12C. I hope that the committee will be able to bring much greater clarity, but this is likely to be in relation to local authorities’ duty to notify in the case of a care order. That will not solve the problem, and I worry that, combined with the measures introduced in the Bill, it could bring greater uncertainty to the process and leave victims with even greater uncertainty and fear that their abusers might be able to weaponise the courts against them. As I have said, I am grateful to the Minister for meeting Sammy and me last week, but we were both really disappointed that the Government were not willing to take more immediate action to address this thoroughly intolerable situation. I hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on what action they have now considered and on the implications of the Bill for this important issue.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)]

It is an honour to take this Bill through its final stages. I should like to start by addressing some of the key points raised today by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi). She suggested that we were sneaking the Bill through the House. However, it was introduced seven months ago. Not only that, but it forms part of the Prisons and Courts Bill, which was introduced in this House in 2017 and which fell at the general election. The provisions in this Bill have been well known for some time. They have been debated in this House, and they are not being sneaked anywhere at all. The thrust of the hon. Lady’s speech was that this is a Bill about cuts, but it is certainly not. The Bill is part of our £1 billion court reform programme.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

My hon. and learned Friend is making an important point. In 2010, this country faced its largest budget deficit since the second world war, and all that my constituents want is value for money from the Government. The measures that we are taking forward today may not be the most exciting or sexy things that we will do this House, but they are a key part of value-for-money government.

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that has a number of aspects. First, my Department had to make cuts in 2010 because of the poor financial situation that we inherited from the Labour party. Secondly, it is important that we deliver justice fairly to those who are part of the justice system, but as he says, we also have a duty to the taxpayer. Overlaying those two points is a third point. Notwithstanding the position we inherited and notwithstanding our duty to taxpayers, my Department is undertaking a significant reform programme that is investing in our justice system. A couple of weeks ago, the Ministry of Justice held a conference at which more than 20 countries from around the world were represented. They talked about their own reform and modernisation programmes, but ours is one of the most ambitious. We are at the forefront of innovation, and we are investing in our justice system to bring it up to date in the 21st century.

[Robert Neill]

Is this not also important in the context of the speech by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd in the other place? He said that

“the operation of the criminal, civil, tribunals and family procedures rule committees has enabled us far more than any other state to keep our rules up to date.”

We need to continue to do that. That is why he stated:

“I urge the greatest caution in trying to put into primary legislation anything that restricts in this way the powers of the rule committees.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 425.]

[Lucy Frazer]

That is an important point. Our justice system is renowned throughout the world, thanks to its flexibility, which is enabled by the rules committees along with the other measures that allow us to develop our jurisdiction.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East finished by suggesting that we should listen and take the amendments on board, but we have listened and made amendments. We made amendments in the other place to include safeguards and improve the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister makes a good point about our duty to the taxpayer. Irrespective of this nation’s financial situation, we always have a responsibility to spend the taxpayers’ money wisely. As she knows, Northallerton magistrates court in my constituency will close. She has put in place some mitigation measures to help people to continue to have access to justice, but will she ensure that those measures are in place before the closure of that court?

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend and, indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker have campaigned hard about the closure of their local courts, and the dispensing of local justice is important in Northallerton, as it is in Chorley. My hon. Friend makes an important point, because, following campaigning by my hon. Friend and his constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), we committed not to close the court on the basis that we would do so only when the technology was in place to ensure that we could continue to deliver justice. We need to move with the times, but we must also ensure that people get fair procedures and justice in the tribunals.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. and learned Friend is being most generous in giving way. Does she also recognise that modernising and simplifying procedures saves money not only for the taxpayer, but for litigants? Part of access to justice is about reducing needless costs for litigants.

[Lucy Frazer]

That is an important point, because when we talk about what we have saved, we often mean what has been saved at the Ministry of Justice, but the reality is that ensuring that justice is served for the people who use it is at the heart of our reforms. Many of our changes have received positive feedback. In a recent trial at the tax tribunal, people were able to access justice from remote locations and not have to go to a physical court. That was well received, because people did not have to disrupt their day by physically entering court. Of course, that will not be appropriate for everyone, but we must ensure that we use the advantages of technology in the future.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice for giving way—[Laughter.] That bought us 32 seconds. I am interested in what she has said. Is she able to dilate—preferably at some considerable length—on the benefits that might accrue from people not having to go to court in rural areas, such as North Dorset, where public transport is scarce and where not everybody has access to a motor car? The changes could be of huge benefit to large, sparsely populated rural areas such as mine.

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I also represent a rural area. Interestingly, some of the greatest and most interesting innovations at our conference were from Australia, where the geography is an issue, and we can learn a lot from its procedures. Over recent years, 300,000 people have started engaging with our online services, which have been well received.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Lucy Frazer]

I will take one intervention and then address the amendments.

[Simon Hoare]

I am grateful. Can we read across from what my hon. and learned Friend says that she is making strong representations to ministerial colleagues at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, to BT and to other providers to ensure that hotspots, blackspots, notspots—call them what you will—in rural areas that are poorly served by a reliable, speedy, robust internet will be filled to allow all our citizens to access justice and make representations using technology? With the best will in the world, if the technology is not there—I know that my hon. and learned Friend knows this—people will not be able to use it.

14:49

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes a second important point, which is that we cannot roll out and continue to use technology unless the technology actually works. I regularly talk to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and others about the importance of ensuring that the systems that we already have in place work well, so that the technology does not fail us when we are trying to hold court hearings.

[Neil O'Brien]

Further to the important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) about virtual and online courts and creating hassle-free access to courts for all constituents, can the Minister give us figures for the extent to which the change has helped to unclog our courts? One of the benefits of the Bill for my constituents is not just hassle-free access for them, but the fact that our courts will not be clogged up by the traffic cases and small beer that lead my constituents to wonder why serious criminals take years to be processed. Will the Minister give us some stats about the growth of virtual and online courts and what this Bill will do to those stats?

[Lucy Frazer]

I mentioned earlier that 300,000 people have already started engaging with our services online. They can apply for probate or divorce online, and many people are doing that. We also have our new online civil moneys claim court, which enables people to apply online and defend online. In one case in the first week after its launch, we had a settlement without people going to court at all. Technology will not only enable us to unclog our courts and get quicker hearing times, but give our constituents better access to justice because more people will be engaging with it. It will be cheaper for them to engage, and therefore more people will be able to access fairness and justice in the resolution of their claims.

I turn to the essence of the Bill and the Opposition amendments. Amendment 1 relates to clause 3(3), which provides for the use of the negative resolution procedure, which the hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested is not appropriate when dealing with the judicial functions of staff. However, the Government think that the amendment is inappropriate for several reasons. First, clause 3(3), which provides for the use of the negative resolution procedure, is not actually concerned with judicial functions. Clause 3(3) is in fact cross-referring to clause 3(2), which allows the Secretary of State to make

“consequential, transitional, transitory or saving”

provisions relating to authorised staff by way of regulations.

In reality, clause 3(3) allows us to amend references in secondary legislation to, for example, justices’ clerk—a post abolished by the Bill—to authorised officer. So far, we have identified over 200 references and over 60 pieces of secondary legislation that would need amendment, and there may be more. It is a standard clause for this type of provision. We know that that is the correct reading of the measure because the power to enable staff to carry out the judicial functions that the hon. Member for Bolton South East is concerned about is actually set out in the procedural rules made by the independent rules committees. This is clear from clause 3(1), which refers not to regulations but to procedure rules. The procedure by which the procedure rules are enacted is set out not in this Bill but in other legislation, namely the Courts Act 2003, the Civil Procedure Act 1997 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.

Amendments 2 to 4 relate to the qualifications of those undertaking advice or judicial functions under the Bill. Amendments 2 and 3 require that any staff member who gives legal advice to lay justices or judges of the family court must be legally qualified and have more than three years’ experience post-qualification. Amendment 4 requires the same qualifications for any staff carrying out judicial functions.

The Government absolutely agree it is important that those who undertake functions in our courts are suitably qualified. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, and as he has said on many occasions, our justice system is renowned throughout the world, and much of that is down to the experience and quality of our judiciary. Ensuring that those who work within our justice system have the right skills is fundamental to justice.

[Neil O'Brien]

Members on both sides of the House would agree that we have a world-renowned judiciary. In fact, Members are profoundly nervous when we see headlines in our papers calling judges, “Enemies of the People,” which we would all disavow. These are people who, day in and day out, do things in court that could cause them to be threatened. They are taking risks on behalf of the rest of us, and it is a high-quality system. With that in mind, and given the respect in which the judiciary are held by this House, does my hon. and learned Friend agree it is important that we do not accidentally do them down in this debate? Does she agree it is not right for the shadow Attorney General to suggest, I think unintentionally, that temporary judges may be less impartial than permanent judges? All our judiciary are high quality.

[Lucy Frazer]

That is absolutely right. As a former barrister, I appeared regularly before experienced judges, all of whom were full of integrity, undertaking important roles.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested that all judges need qualifications of some kind. Of course, we have magistrates across the country who are doing outstanding jobs in our justice system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) mentions, temporary judges, just like full-time judges and judges who operate on a permanent basis, are recruited because of their expertise and skill. They are trained, and they carry out their roles as they should.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. and learned Friend mentioned the fine work done by magistrates. Is there any way we could relax the requirements in order to increase the number of cases that may be considered by magistrates? I understand that magistrates are the most cost-effective part of the justice system.

[Lucy Frazer]

Magistrates undertake a significant number of roles, and they have vital responsibilities. In fact, they deal with over 95% of all criminal cases, the majority of which are less serious criminal cases, but they are very important. I am pleased recently to have attended the Magistrates Association conference, where I met a number of magistrates who are doing vital work across the country.

[James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I declare an interest, as my wife is currently going through the process to become a magistrate. I am struck by how the role of magistrates is so little understood. There are a number of people in my professional and personal circles who might make good magistrates, but they are unaware of the process or of the importance of the role. What more could be done to highlight the significant role that magistrates play in the criminal justice system?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am pleased to hear that Mrs Cleverly is undertaking this important role. My hon. Friend is right that it is important, and employers do understand. The Lloyds banking group recently won an award for encouraging staff to take time off to undertake this important role, and we need to do more to encourage employers to encourage their staff to take part in this important function.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

A short intervention.

[Simon Hoare]

Everything I do is short, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We are all, thank God, living longer. At some point, might there be merit in reviewing the retirement age both for our judges and our magistrates? With people taking early retirement and so on, the receptacle of wisdom should not be lost to the courts, particularly taking the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) on the difficulty of finding people to fill these posts.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We need to move on now. I was very generous before, but magistrates have absolutely nothing to do with the Bill, as the Minister well knows.

[Lucy Frazer]

I am happy to come on to the three reasons why amendments 2 to 4 cannot be accepted. First, the amendments are not necessary. The functions are already being carried out, and carried out well, by those with lesser qualifications than those sought by the hon. Member for Bolton South East. The qualification requirements for legal advisers in the magistrates court and family court are currently set out in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, as they have been since 1979, and amendments 2 and 3 would raise the qualifications bar significantly higher than the current regulations and would rule out a large proportion of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff from giving legal advice in future.

[James Cartlidge]

There are many people in the Chamber with huge legal expertise. All I can claim is spending my year off as a junior outdoor clerk, for which the only qualifications needed were a ponytail and a cockney accent, as far as I could see. From my short experience I discovered the huge number of staff who make up our courts and keep them ticking along. They might be administrative functions, but we should not be afraid of reforming our courts to give those people greater roles that help them to make more of their career.

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Not only is it important to ensure that the qualifications match the role, but these reforms will ensure good career progression for competent and organised staff. Similarly, in relation to amendment 4, it is already the case that some staff can exercise judicial functions in almost every jurisdiction except the Crown court. The range of functions they can carry out varies enormously, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) pointed out earlier, from legally qualified legal advisers in the county court setting aside default judgments to non-legally qualified caseworkers in the lower tribunal dealing with postponement requests and issuing strikeout warnings.

Accepting amendment 4 would rule out a large proportion of those staff, who are already exercising judicial functions and who may have been doing either or both for a number of years. Such a loss of expertise would be particularly damaging and would impact on the service that Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service can provide. The hon. Member for Bolton South East suggested that introducing authorised staff was damaging to justice, but I did not hear any examples of inappropriate action by any of our current staff who do not currently have those qualifications and who are already carrying out these roles.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

The Minister is outlining well the position under the current regulations. Does she agree, therefore, that specifying the needed qualifications in primary legislation would be unwelcome when we already have a perfectly effective system that does not require such qualifications, which could then in future be changed by further primary legislation?

[Lucy Frazer]

That is the heart of the Government’s position, and it takes me neatly on to my second point. The Bill, as drafted, already ensures appropriate procedures are in place to ensure that parties are protected. Those points were clearly put by my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Bromley and Chislehurst—the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice always puts things clearly and cogently. The Bill rightly allows the relevant procedure rule committees to set the requirements relating to the necessary qualifications or experience of these staff in the future, depending on the functions they permit staff to carry out.

15:00

[Kevin Hollinrake]

This is an important point. Will my hon. and learned Friend come on to address not only the human cost if these amendments are accepted, with the potential for people in these roles at the moment to lose those jobs, but the financial costs of making those people redundant and replacing them with qualified people?

[Lucy Frazer]

Yes, those are important points. A large number of people already carry out these important roles and do so very well, and we would like to retain them.

Both the judicial functions that may be carried out by staff and the accompanying qualification requirements will be set out—it is just that they will be set out in the procedure rules, which are made by way of secondary legislation and are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

[Neil O'Brien]

Progressive politicians on both sides of the House believe in labour market progression; they believe people should be able to act up, do more, learn more, take their career further and earn more. By putting in primary legislation artificial demarcations that stop skilled people doing things they are capable of doing, we would be doing people down; we would be putting a limit on their aspirations. That is why we must reject these amendments.

[Lucy Frazer]

That is an important point. Some people are already carrying out these functions and doing them well, and they will be able to see a future career progression for themselves. The legal and other qualifications they should have will be set out, but they will be set out by the committees, which are judicially led and independent of Government, and include representatives of the legal professions, and court and tribunal users. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the judges placed on those are leading the procedure rule committees and have significant expertise. It is they who are best placed to assess the appropriate level of qualification or experience for authorised staff, in the light of the functions they choose to allow those staff to exercise.

My hon. Friend rightly said that the member of staff will not be able to give legal advice or exercise judicial functions until they have been authorised to do so by the Lord Chief Justice or their nominee, or by the Senior President of Tribunals or their delegate. Authorisations are therefore ultimately the responsibility of the judiciary, and those people will not authorise staff unless they are satisfied as to their competence.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. and learned Friend will know, and perhaps she will confirm, that the way this works in practice is that either the Lord Chief Justice or the Senior President of Tribunals makes the authorisation. Alternatively, in the case of the civil jurisdiction, for example, this will invariably at least go to the senior presiding judge or the presiding judges of the circuit. We are talking about people who, in their administrative role, never mind their judicial capacity, will have visited and met these—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister, come on. And you have had three speeches already, Bob, you don’t need to stretch the imagination of the Chamber.

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Select Committee, was making an important point. The rule committees are—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Some might think it is very important—[Interruption.] Order. Would the Minister like to sit down for a moment? In fairness, I am beginning to get a little frustrated with the people who were not here for all the speeches; we had no speakers in, and now everyone wants to come in with interventions. I have only got one Member now down to speak on Third Reading, so if people really want to make a contribution, they know what to do.

[Lucy Frazer]

I hope that more will put in to speak on this important subject. I wish to pick up on what my hon. Friend was saying, because he cited a number of speeches from the other place, where senior members of the judiciary were highlighting the appropriateness of the Government’s position. Lord Neuberger, former President of the Supreme Court, warned that these amendments would place

“a potential straitjacket on the ability to appoint the appropriate people to make appropriate decisions.”

He went on to reflect that there “will be many decisions” for which the experience set out in the amendments

“would be appropriate, but there will be others where less experience would be adequate for the decision-making.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 882.]

Thirdly, I come to an important point that has not yet been mentioned in the House. The amendments would limit flexibility should new routes to legal qualifications emerge. For example, one key change that we have made in the draft regulations that we published alongside the Bill is to include fellows of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives, or those who have passed the necessary examinations to be a CILEx fellow, among those who can give legal advice. That is a progressive step, but if we were to accept amendments 2 and 3, it would be much harder to respond to such changes in the future, as we would have to amend primary, rather than secondary, legislation.

Furthermore, a legal qualification might not be the most relevant qualification for a particular judicial function. For example, it is more helpful for a registrar in the tax tribunal to be a tax professional by background, rather than a legal professional.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East raised a number of points on independence, and I wish to start by saying that I think the judiciary, whether sitting in court or in committee, has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said when he was in his place, the highest level of independence and integrity.

The hon. Lady queried, both here and in Committee, the independence of authorised staff, implying that those with a legal qualification were more likely to be independent. Under the Bill, all court and tribunal staff who are authorised to exercise judicial functions will now be independent of the Lord Chancellor when doing so, and subject only to the direction of the Lord Chief Justice or their nominee, or the Senior President of Tribunals or their delegate.

The Bill also provides, for the first time, protections from legal proceedings and costs in legal proceedings and indemnities for all authorised staff when carrying out judicial functions, which will further safeguard their independence in decision making.

Finally, amendment 5 deals with the right of reconsideration of decisions taken by authorised staff in the courts. I wish to start by acknowledging that the hon. Lady and the Opposition have listened carefully to the points made in Committee; I note there is now no amendment dealing with decisions taken by staff in the tribunals, and I welcome that.

It is right that in some circumstances a party to proceedings may wish to have the decision reconsidered, but we remain opposed to the amendment for three reasons. First, the Bill already ensures that a right of reconsideration will be available when appropriate. We believe that the independent procedure rule committees—comprised, as I and others have said, of jurisdictional experts and experienced practitioners—are best placed to decide whether such a right of further reconsideration is needed and, if so, the form that that right should take.

Indeed, the procedure rule committees in the civil and tribunals jurisdictions have already included in their respective rules a specific right to judicial reconsideration for decisions made by authorised persons in appropriate cases. For example, the magistrates courts and the family court have their own existing mechanisms for reviewing various decisions, which amendment 5 would cut across.

Secondly, the right identified by the hon. Lady is too broad, even by her own admission. In speaking to amendments in Committee, she said that

“we accept and acknowledge that one should not be able to ask for reconsideration simply because one disagrees with the decision of the authorised person; one must have a cogent reason. There must be proper grounds for requesting a reconsideration.”—[Official Report, Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 4 December 2018; c. 17.]

I was delighted to hear those words, because the Government have also been arguing, both here and in the other place, that a blanket right of reconsideration simply would not work in practice. Yet amendment 5 would give a party in a case an automatic right to request that any decision made by an authorised person exercising the functions of a court be reconsidered by a judge, irrespective of the merits.

Thirdly, the approach we put forward is fair and balanced. The Government listened to concerns about ensuring there were adequate safeguards in the Bill. For that reason, we moved amendments on the right of reconsideration that were accepted on Report in the other place. They effectively require the rule committee, when making rules, to allow authorised staff to exercise judicial functions to consider whether each of those functions should be subject to a right to judicial reconsideration. Where a rule committee decides against the creation of a right of reconsideration, it must inform the Lord Chancellor of its decision and the reasons for it.

The hon. Lady also referred to the Briggs report, and I would like to touch on that very briefly. The recommendations made by Lord Justice Briggs are taken from the report “Civil Courts Structure Review”, the focus of which was the courts of the civil jurisdiction. While an unqualified right of reconsideration might have been appropriate to recommend for the civil courts, given their unique way of working it would be ineffective simply to transpose this recommendation on entirely different jurisdictions.

The civil procedure rule committee has built a right of reconsideration into its rules, but this will not necessarily be appropriate for other jurisdictions. It is for each jurisdiction, with the expertise it has within the rule committee, to decide what is right.

That approach has found favour in the other place. Lord Thomas, former Lord Chief Justice and former chair of the criminal procedure rule committee, said:

“I support what the Government seek to do and urge a substantial degree of caution in respect of the proposals brought forward by the noble Baroness”—

that is, Baroness Chakrabarti. He added that the Government’s approach provides the right balance:

“It gives discretion to a body that knows and has a lot of experience, but it contains that degree of explanatory accountability that will make sure that it does not do anything—even if we were to worry that it might—that goes outside a proper and just delegation”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 425-26.]

The Bill strikes the right balance between ensuring appropriate safeguards and transparency of decision making, and leaving the jurisdictional rule committees the discretion to determine the most appropriate mechanism for reviewing decisions by authorised people.

Finally, I would like to respond to the very important points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). I was very pleased to meet her and Sammy Woodhouse a week or so ago. She raised issues that are outside the scope of the Bill, but none the less what Sammy went through was harrowing and the hon. Lady made some important points. As she knows, I committed to look very carefully at the issues she raised and I assure her that we are doing that.

As the hon. Lady mentioned, we have already taken some steps. We have, as she alluded to, asked the president of the family court to look at the practice directions and he has committed to doing that with the rule committee. My officials have spoken to the Association of Directors of Children’s Services about whether it is appropriate to send further guidance to councils on the circumstances in which they should apply to court not to give notice of hearings to parties, such as happened in the Sammy Woodhouse case. The Department will continue to look closely at those issues.

For all those reasons, this is an important Bill that will ensure that we can bring flexibility to our judges, deploy them in the most flexible way, use their resources where they are needed and not when they are not needed, and ensure that those who operate our court system do so effectively and fairly for the people they serve.

The Ministry of Justice is putting users of the court at the heart of our reforms and of our programme on court reform. The measures will not only save on cost—that is not the primary reason for them, although it is important—but ensure that cases go through the system fairly and well. For those reasons, I urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 2, in the schedule, page 6, line 36, at end insert—

“(aa) is a qualified solicitor, barrister or chartered legal executive with more than three years’ experience post-qualification, and”.—(Yasmin Qureshi.)

This amendment would stipulate that the minimum legal qualifications for authorised persons should be three years’ experience post-qualification.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

15:15

Division 279

Ayes: 246

---

Labour: 229
Liberal Democrat: 8
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 4
Green Party: 1

Noes: 308

---

Conservative: 299
Democratic Unionist Party: 9

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I have now to announce the result of the deferred Division on the question relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The Ayes were 513 and the Noes were 13, so the Question was agreed to.

Amendment proposed: 5, in the schedule, page 11, line 32, leave out subsection 67C and insert—

“67C Right to judicial reconsideration of decision made by an authorised person

A party to any decision made by an authorised person in the execution of the person’s duty as an authorised person exercising a relevant judicial function, by virtue of section 67B(1), may apply in writing, within 14 days of the service of the order, to have the decision reconsidered by a judge of the relevant court within 14 days from the date of application.”—(Yasmin Qureshi.)

This amendment would grant people subject to a decision made under delegated powers a statutory right to judicial reconsideration.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

15:30

Division 280

Ayes: 243

---

Labour: 228
Liberal Democrat: 7
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 3
Green Party: 1

Noes: 312

---

Conservative: 303
Democratic Unionist Party: 9

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Consideration completed. I will now suspend the House for no more than 5 minutes in order to make a decision about certification. The Division bells will be rung two minutes before the House resumes. Following my certification, the Government will table the appropriate consent motion, copies of which will be made available in the Vote Office and will be distributed by Doorkeepers.

15:44

Sitting suspended.

15:50

On resuming—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I can now inform the House that I have completed certification of the Bill, as required by the Standing Order. I have confirmed the view expressed in Mr Speaker’s provisional certificate issued earlier today. Copies of my final certificate will be made available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website.

Under Standing Order No. 83M, a consent motion is therefore required for the Bill to proceed. Copies of the motion are available in the Vote Office and on the parliamentary website, and have been made available to Members in the Chamber. Does the Minister intend to move the consent motion?

[Lucy Frazer]

indicated assent.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) (Standing Order No. 83M).

[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

13:39

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I beg to move, That the Committee sit in private.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am afraid I cannot accept that motion because the hon. Gentleman is not a member of the Committee.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Dame Rosie. I am grateful for your indulgence. Can you clarify that the reason why I cannot move that motion is that I represent a constituency in Scotland, and am rendered a second-class Member of the House by the legislative apartheid that is English votes for English laws?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

The point is that the Legislative Grand Committee represents Members of Parliament from England and Wales. In no way does that imply that the hon. Gentleman is second-class.

I remind hon. Members that if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote.

Resolved,

That the Committee consents to Clause 2 of the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill [Lords] as amended in the public bill committee.—(Lucy Frazer.)

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before we return from the Legislative Grand Committee, my understanding is that, as a Member representing a Scottish constituency, while I may not be able to move a motion, I can contribute verbally. Is that correct?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has rather missed his chance.

[David Linden]

I stood to catch your eye.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, I am afraid you did not. I am very sorry.

Third Reading

15:55

[Lucy Frazer]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is a small and technical Bill, but it is a key component of our £1 billion programme of reform that will see our courts and tribunals modernised for the 21st century and, importantly, make access to justice quicker and easier for all. It is also the first step in the legislation that will underpin these reforms, as we will introduce further courts legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.

The judicial measures in the Bill will enable greater flexibility in the deployment of judges. They will allow the senior judiciary to respond more effectively to changes in demand and to make better use of the skills and experience of the existing cohort of judges. This Bill will free up judges from the most routine tasks by enabling appropriately qualified and experienced staff in courts and tribunals to carry out a wider range of judicial functions than they can at present. Through these measures, the Bill will improve the overall effectiveness and efficiency of courts and tribunals and, importantly, it will reduce delays. This will ensure that we deliver a speedier resolution of matters, which is important in benefiting those who use our courts and tribunals system.

As I have said, this is a short Bill, so I will be brief, but I would not want to finish without thanking the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and other Members of this House for the constructive way in which they have engaged on these issues. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord Thomas, the former Lord Chief Justice, and the noble and learned Lord Neuberger, the former President of the Supreme Court—they have been widely quoted in this House—for their wise counsel in the other place and for sharing their expertise on how the measures in the Bill will operate in practice.

I thank the Clerks and other parliamentary staff for helping the proceedings on the Bill to run so smoothly, and I extend my thanks to our hard-working Bill team, our private offices, our Parliamentary Private Secretaries and the Whips. It has been an honour to take the Bill through the House, and I look forward to seeing the important measures it contains being implemented in the coming months. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.

15:56

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I, too, thank all hon. Members who have participated in the proceedings on the Bill today and throughout its passage for the considered and learned contributions they have made. I also thank the Public Bill Office, as well as organisations such as the Law Society, the Bar Council and Justice for the expertise and support that they have provided throughout these proceedings.

From the outset, we have made clear our reservations about the measures contained in the Bill: the fact that there is no proper parliamentary scrutiny of the delegation of powers to non-judicial staff; the fact that there are no minimum qualifications and experience for staff to whom powers are delegated; and the fact that there is no statutory right to reconsideration by a judge of the decisions made by authorised staff. We have been clear that we are not opposed to the principle of reform and change to our courts system. However, we cannot support the changes in this Bill without the protections that we, the Bar Council and the Law Society, among other organisations, and legal professionals have called for. Unfortunately, on these matters, we feel that we have been ignored, and therefore we will oppose the Bill on Third Reading today.

Judges hold considerable power in our courts system. They have the power to commit individuals to prison, to detain, to repossess, to grant injunctions and to issue search orders, among many others, and it takes judges years to develop the experience and qualifications necessary to wield these powers. That is why we should not take the handling of powers given to them lightly, yet that is precisely what the Government are doing in this Bill. They are passing powers currently exercised by the judiciary to authorised court staff and, most crucially, they are doing so without sufficient scrutiny. The delegation of powers exercised by the procedure rule committees will be done under delegated legislation, with no more safeguards than using a motion under the negative procedure. This is not simply a procedural matter, as the Government have stated today, but one that has the potential to change the nature of our justice system.

Under the Bill, authorised staff will find themselves able to wield considerable power. Although some decisions might seem insignificant, no court decision is small or inconsequential. The smallest decision’s implications can reach far beyond the here and now, well into the advanced stages of a case. We can easily see authorised staff making decisions that are contested because the procedure rule committees, not Parliament, are granting them the power and functions. The Government should have accepted our amendment today to require that when statutory instruments delegating judicial functions to authorised persons are introduced, they are subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing Parliament the necessary scrutiny, but they chose not to do so.

The lack of scrutiny of delegated powers and functions is even more worrying considering the lack of qualifications and experience that the Bill requires to wield them. We rightly expect a minimum standard of our judges, and so do the public. We expect that decisions in our courts are made by those with experience and the necessary qualifications, which is why we have restrictions and a thorough vetting process for those who wish to become members of our judiciary. Justices of the peace—magistrates who do not hold a legal qualification—nevertheless have considerable life experience and are still advised by trained, experienced and qualified legal staff. The Government, however, have imposed none of these requirements of experience and qualification on authorised staff.

In the Public Bill Committee in the Lords, the Minister responsible stated that the minimum standards we sought to impose then, and sought to impose in the Public Bill Committee in this House and again earlier today, would be more restrictive than those that are currently imposed on people providing legal advice in magistrates and family courts. However, that is no excuse and there is no reason why, when authorised staff are making decisions that were previously made by trained and experienced judges, we should not be upholding a higher standard. The Government counter that the decisions being made by authorised staff will be limited and that they will not be contested, but they cannot give that guarantee here today, for even the most basic decisions—extending time for service and taking pleas—may give rise to contention.

Even if we were to provide tight restrictions in the Bill for decisions that were delegated to ensure that they were not contested, that would not alter the fact that even non-contested elements of cases require experience—a view supported by Sir Brian Leveson in his review of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. Furthermore, if staff were legally trained and qualified, they would still be without the benefit of the experience that our judges hold through their many years of service in our legal system. That is why experience is just as crucial here as qualifications, as shown by our amendments and by the support that they received from the Bar Council. There was no reason why the Government could not accept the amendments on this issue, and no reason for them not to hold authorised staff to a higher standard when they are granted the power to make decisions. Clearly, however, the Government thought otherwise of the Bar Council’s expertise.

Our final point is that the Bill fails to provide sufficient safeguards for the decisions that are made by authorised staff, with no statutory right to judicial reconsideration. Clearly, the Government have not taken heed of the warning to be vigilant when judicial powers are being exercised by non-members of the judiciary. The explanations that they have provided in their factsheets—that delegated decisions will not be contested—are insufficient, as are the safeguards provided by the procedure rule committees, which are too open to pressure to reduce the right to reconsideration to ease pressures and backlogs in the courts.

Any legal decision made in our courts must be open to review and appeal. It is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, and the decisions made by authorised staff should be no different, yet the Bill does not uphold that spirit by failing to make available a statutory right to reconsideration. In failing to provide that statutory right, the Government have undermined the expectation of the public that legal decisions will be made by a judge or can be reviewed by a judge, and they have undermined our courts and judicial system in the process.

The Bill is a poor replacement for what should have been a thorough Bill filled with real courts reform. We are disappointed that the Government have failed to take up the baton of reform and to change their punitive legal aid cuts, which have left thousands unable to exercise their right to access to justice, created barren legal aid deserts and allowed legal rights to degrade to the point where they are no longer worth the paper they are written on. They have failed to change course on a courts closure programme that forces people to travel miles, at great cost and difficulty, to get to their closest courts and uphold their rights, and they have failed to address the urgent need for protection for domestic violence victims being cross-examined and questioned in the family courts by the very same people who subjected them to the abuse.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I agree with everything he has said. There is one other aspect that I am sure he as a constituency MP, like me and others, has faced, which is the delays experienced by our constituents in the immigration tribunal, some having to wait up to two years for a decision on whether they can bring spouses into the country. Does he agree that the Government have failed to act to clear the backlog?

[Imran Hussain]

My right hon. Friend is a distinguished parliamentarian and, as ever, makes a really important point. It is not within the remit of the Bill—one of the problems with the Bill is that its narrow scope prevents important issues such as the one he raises from being discussed—but I absolutely agree with him.

The Bill is a shadow of what it could and should have been and fails to provide protections and safeguards on the changes the Government have introduced. It is on these grounds—the lack of protections for courts, judges and people seeking justice—that we will oppose the Bill today.

16:06

[Robert Neill]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). We have had a constructive and civilised debate on both sides. I do not agree with all his conclusions, but none the less it has been a good debate. I particularly congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the stellar way in which she has taken the Bill through all its stages. I am sure that it will not be the last time she does that.

I support the Bill. I would have liked a bigger Bill, and I would like not to have lost the Prisons and Courts Bill in the 2017 Dissolution, but we are where we are, and this is a valuable step forward. I particularly welcome my hon. and learned Friend’s commitment to introducing further legislation. As she and the House know, this is part of the very important courts modernisation programme, particularly on the civil side, and builds on the work of Lord Briggs of Westbourne. I know that those involved in his review are most anxious that the remaining statutory underpinnings for the updating of procedure rules and other matters be introduced as a matter of urgency, and I urge her to do that as soon as the legislative timetable permits.

I think that the Bill strikes the right balance. I would take issue with the hon. Member for Bradford East over the suggestion that the judges, exercising their oath of office on the procedure rule committees, would allow themselves to be swayed by considerations of convenience or financial matters in deciding upon the appropriate scheme of delegation. There is not a shred of evidence in the history of our modern judiciary to suggest such a thing, and it does a disservice to the judiciary. We should trust the judges.

[Imran Hussain]

I want to make it absolutely clear that—as I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who is Chair of the Justice Committee, will accept—no one in the Opposition is challenging in any way, shape or form the good standing of the judiciary. The point, which has been made time and again, is that certain matters are within the remit of the procedure rule committees, but there are others that this House and the other place should have scrutiny of.

[Robert Neill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I entirely accept the intentions behind it. We will have to differ on the question where the line should be drawn between which decisions are appropriate for Parliament to decide and which are appropriate for the judiciary, but I am grateful for the sentiments that he has expressed, which I am sure have reassured us all.

I am happy to proceed on the basis of recent advice from senior judges who have been referred to in the debate and on the basis of what is in the Bill. It will make savings, and at this point perhaps I can put in a plug to the Minister. It might be appropriate, for example, to use that £6 million-plus to restore the funding for the Family Drug and Alcohol Court National Unit. I particularly regret that we have lost some of the emphasis on problem-solving courts following the loss of the Prisons and Courts Bill. Perhaps, given that we now have a unified planning court, we could also consider the Lord Flight’s suggestion in the other place for the establishment of a unified housing court.

Having made those suggestions for what might happen in future, I will end by saying that I welcome the Bill and will support it today.

16:10

[Andy Slaughter]

Let me begin by saying that it was indeed a pleasure to serve on the Bill Committee, not least because of its brevity. I think that the Minister alluded to that when she described it as a small Bill. It is a small Bill, but I am afraid it is also a rather inadequate and unsatisfactory Bill. I am not going to repeat the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), but he was absolutely right to say that there were no adequate safeguards, and that the nature of the delegation of functions has not been specified sufficiently for us to feel certain that we can support it.

As my hon. Friend observed, the most disappointing aspect of the Bill is that it represents just the shards, or the remains, of the legislation on this subject that we were promised. We hear a great deal about the—is it the £1 billion programme of investment in digitisation in the courts? However, the Bill goes nowhere towards addressing this. Nor does it deal with the oft-raised concerns of Members about how that is being funded and about funding through court closures.

Let me give one brief example. You will understand why I picked this example, Madam Deputy Speaker. This week I asked the House of Commons Library for a list of court closures since 2010. It gave me a list of 156 courts and buildings that had been closed since then, but one figure stood out. Hammersmith magistrates court accounts for nearly 20% of the entire saving that the Government have made during that time. Some courts have been sold for £1, but Hammersmith magistrates court was sold for £43 million. Perhaps the Government are rubbing their hands and saying what a valuable contribution that is to the reform agenda.

Let me make these points to the Minister, if the Minister will listen. I will wait until I have her attention.

A couple of years ago, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), called me in for a tête-à-tête and showed me a planning brief for what would happen to Hammersmith magistrates court after it was sold. Apparently, it was to become a mixed housing development. The Minister may like to know that it has now been sold to the developers of an 850-bedroom hotel, who are currently awaiting planning consent.

I would like the answers to two questions, not necessarily today but at some point. First, how much did the Minister’s Department spend on drawing up that detailed planning brief and marketing it for a purpose which has now gone completely by the board? Secondly, notwithstanding the large capital receipt, does she believe that it is fair recompense for a site on which, apparently, there is to be an 850-bedroom hotel? In fact, two will be built on one site. This shows the folly of the way in which the Government are conducting their programme of investment and disinvestment. When courts are closed, the detriment to communities is obvious, and in the case of Hammersmith magistrates court the closure did not take place for operational reasons; its purpose was purely to generate a capital receipt.

The Bill will no doubt be passed today, despite our assertive opposition to it, but we will return to more serious matters on a subsequent occasion. We must subject the Bill to further scrutiny, and the Government must present the House with proposals for legislation to deal with the serious questions of how that digitisation and so-called reform programme is or is not working, and what the cost to our community is of the loss of well-established and vital court facilities.

16:14

[John Howell]

I spoke on Second Reading and pointed out the extent to which the courts were undergoing reform. A number of Members have commented on that today and I will not go over what I said in that earlier debate again. It is understood that we are seeing a major reform process and the work of Lord Briggs on this is well understood, but to judge the effectiveness of those reforms and this Bill we must determine whether it passes two tests. First, does it make it easier and swifter to obtain justice? Secondly, does it provide better access to justice? The Bill passes both tests.

The Bill provides better access to justice by making sure that is quicker and swifter, and achieves that by freeing up judges’ time to focus on the most pressing cases. As I said on Second Reading, when I was on the Industry and Parliament Trust course I sat with judges and was able to see their enormous workload. Anything we can do to help free that up has to be a very good thing.

I echo, too, the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on the planning and housing courts. I have sat with a judge on a planning court, and I thought it achieved a tremendous amount in bringing things together. I take particular pleasure in the work Lord Thomas has done on this, as a former Lord Chief Justice and a reforming Lord Chief Justice. He went out of his way to help reform the system and I am glad he is still doing so. The comments of Lord Neuberger have also been excellent.

I assure the Minister that I support this Bill.

16:17

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) on his excellent speech.

It was a great pleasure to serve on this Committee. Despite the to-ing and fro-ing there was also a lot of cross-party agreement in the Committee; it must be acknowledged that there was some real working together.

The Bill opens up greater flexibility and will over time open up new technologies and the ability to deploy them in order to provide better access to justice. I had a fantastic briefing from the Ministry of Justice where officials went through all the things that will go live over the next few months and years in terms of accessing justice online. I was greatly encouraged by that. I pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister who has piloted that and is a champion of it, and who has made real headway in that regard. It will make a real difference on the ground.

The delegation of judicial functions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, is a logical follow-on from the Briggs report. These changes will save £6 million. There will be greater access to justice and greater use of technology. I hope that that £6 million gets ploughed into some of the schemes my colleagues have spoken about. The Ministry of Justice does a fantastic job on what are, we must acknowledge, limited resources due to the financial situation we inherited.

I am happy to support the Bill, and full speed ahead.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

16:19

Division 281

Ayes: 302

---

Conservative: 295
Democratic Unionist Party: 7

Noes: 233

---

Labour: 228
Plaid Cymru: 4
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

Delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Exiting the European Union (Companies)

That the draft Takeovers (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 29 October, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Question agreed to.

Diabetes: Artificial Pancreas

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

16:34

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I would like to begin with some acknowledgements to those who contributed towards the material that I will be using today, so let me place on record my thanks to Dr Jacq Allan from Birkbeck University and the charity Diabetics with Eating Disorders; Sandie Atkinson-Goulding; Dr Weston and Dr Zaidi from the Royal Liverpool University Hospital; the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation; Incisive Health; and Diabetes UK. I thank them all for sharing their expertise, briefing notes and academic work with me.

I intend to highlight the technology that is available for people with type 1 diabetes, point out some issues surrounding access to technologies and say a few words about the lack of structured education and psychological support available for type 1 diabetics. To conclude, I will make some suggestions to the Minister on what the Government can do to progress towards artificial pancreas systems.

Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune condition, where an individual cannot naturally produce insulin. According to JDRF, this condition affects 400,000 people in the UK, of whom 29,000 are children. JDRF is leading on and funding the design of an artificial pancreas, which will change the lives of those affected by type 1 diabetes considerably. The artificial pancreas is in advanced human trials and the work in the UK is being led by Professor Roman Hovorka at the University of Cambridge, with funding from JDRF. Artificial pancreas systems automate blood-sugar management, dramatically reducing type 1 diabetes-related risks and improving the lives of people who have the condition. The artificial pancreas consists of a continuous glucose monitor, a computer programme and an insulin pump that work together to automatically control background insulin levels. These artificial pancreas systems, which may be a combination of existing or newly developed continuous glucose monitoring systems and insulin pump technology, have been termed the “artificial pancreas” because they monitor and adjust insulin levels just as the pancreas does in people who do not suffer from diabetes. Artificial pancreas systems have the potential to transform lives, particularly for those who find it difficult to maintain good blood-glucose control.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that simple continuous glucose monitors that are already available—I believe the Prime Minister wears one—are still not being allowed to children and young people who would benefit from them because some clinical commissioning groups do not prescribe them? When I asked the Secretary of State about this affair, I was told that the Department has no intention of monitoring what CCGs measure. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is not a satisfactory state of affairs?

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right in what he says, and I will be covering precisely that point later in my speech.

A recent JDRF-funded trial found that the artificial pancreas is better at helping people to manage their glucose levels than the best currently available technology. People who used the artificial pancreas spent 65% of time with glucose levels in range, which compares with 54% of time for people using a continuous glucose monitor and an insulin pump. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there are significant regional variations in access to existing diabetes technologies, such as insulin pumps, in many parts of the country. The most recent national diabetes audit, published in July 2018, shows that although the overall uptake of insulin pumps has increased, the proportion of people with type 1 diabetes attending specialist services who are treated with pumps varies from a pitiful 5% to 40% at best.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is familiar with a group called #WeAreNotWaiting. They are people who are developing their own equipment, pumps, monitoring system and computers, because they are not prepared to wait for technology that could be made available to help them.

As my right hon. Friend says, the pumps are available but not widely available on the NHS, despite being a leading British technology. Of course, the other problem is that there is no push from the Government for concerted commercial development of these systems in this country.

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am aware of the #WeAreNotWaiting group and as recently as earlier today I had an email from one of them. I will not name them, because I do not have permission to do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Howarth]

I will give way in a moment. I just want to finish answering the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe).

The email reads:

“As someone who has built an artificial pancreas using the open artificial pancreas system and is reaping the rewards from this technology, I just wanted to wish you good luck with this evening’s Adjournment debate. Having been a type 1 for 38 years, I can confirm that this is truly life-changing.”

Before I give way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I want to say a word about those who are manufacturing their own artificial pancreases. In some respects, we should celebrate that there are so many young people out there who have the ability to build what is in effect an artificial pancreas, while, at the same time, writing their own algorithms to link them together. That is truly amazing.

I have a background—this is a long time ago—in engineering and I cannot even conceive of doing that, so it is very encouraging that people are doing it. On the other hand, I worry. I have spoken to clinicians and one said to me, “I’ve looked at some of them and they are viable devices, but I worry about people building something that is not reliable and then relying upon it. There could be serious consequences down the line.” But this does show what is possible when people—in their bedrooms or in their mum and dad’s garage—are effectively able to control their own diabetes.

[Jim Shannon]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on using modern technology to deal with diabetes. I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. I know other Members in the Chamber have similar ailments.

Northern Ireland has some of the highest levels of diabetes in the whole of the United Kingdom. We have the highest level of type 1 diabetics among children in the whole of the United Kingdom per head of population. That gives an idea of the importance of this debate.

I am very interested in the success of the artificial pancreas given to a teenager in Leeds. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this revolutionises both treatment and quality of life, but that it must be available throughout the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? It must not be a postcode lottery. This must be available as a matter of course for those who fit the protocol. Will the Minister tell us how we can do that across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain—Scotland, Wales, England—and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who must be psychic, because that is the very next point I was going to make.

There have been, as the hon. Gentleman says, postcode lottery-style problems with accessing the technology. For example, with FreeStyle Libre, a flash glucose monitoring device, patients in Liverpool are able to get it on prescription if they meet the criteria. That is very welcome, but many patients from outside the area cannot get one, as up to 30% of CCGs do not fund them. There needs to be more work done on that and I know the Government have made an announcement, which I will refer to in a moment.

Thanks to Diabetes UK’s campaign on 14 November, World Diabetes Day, NHS England announced that from April 2019 the FreeStyle Libre will be made available to all who meet the clinical criteria regardless of where they live. That is a very welcome development. I do not think it will apply to Northern Ireland, but I hope a similar policy is adopted in Northern Ireland. Innovation in diabetes technology is evolving rapidly in exciting ways.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. To go back to the postcode lottery of funding, I wonder whether the Minister will talk in her winding-up speech about the work of the Scottish diabetes technology improvement plan, which was supported by £12 million of funding and has resulted in increased insulin pump usage in Scotland. I wonder whether we might emulate that scheme.

[Mr Howarth]

The common-sense approach is to look at what is going on elsewhere—in Scotland and in other parts of the world—to get the best of what is available and use it in the most effective way. My hon. Friend is quite right about that.

It is pointless giving type 1 diabetics the latest technologies, such as an artificial pancreas system, if they are not given structured education to support them to use the technology that is available. The limited uptake of educational programmes is a matter of great concern, and I hope the Minister shares that concern. Despite guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, in 2014-15 only 2% of people newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes were recorded as having attended structured education courses. For some, that lack of knowledge of the key principles of self-management is a major barrier to the use of technology, because without sufficient education, type 1 diabetics are not equipped to get the best results from the technology available.

[Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)]

This is a very important debate and I am pleased we have time to listen to it. I will have to go and listen to my leader at 5 o’clock, so I apologise if I leave in the middle of the debate. With type 1 and type 2 diabetes, it is crucial to diagnose as early as possible. With type 1, which is very different from type 2, it is possible to diagnose very early on in the life of that person. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allude to the differences between lifestyle issues and something that a person normally has when they are born. Surely the answer is testing early, so people can find out and have their educational needs met, and hopefully the product can be available across this great nation of ours.

[Mr Howarth]

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, who has a background in these matters, has drawn attention to the distinction between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. That is not to say that one is superior to the other, but they are two entirely different conditions brought about by entirely different circumstances. As I said in opening my speech, type 1 diabetes is an auto-immune condition. Nobody is entirely sure what triggers it in some people, but those in whom it is triggered have some predisposition towards the condition.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Howarth]

I have not quite finished answering the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). It is particularly important to draw the distinction for young people because, often, young people with type 1 diabetes are bullied very cruelly on the basis that their peers in school accuse them of having brought it on themselves by eating too many sweets or too much sugar. Of course, that is complete nonsense, but that does not stop that kind of bullying taking place.

[Keith Vaz]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate and on being a champion for those with diabetes throughout his parliamentary career. Can I take him back to the issue of structured education, which is one of the great pillars of diabetes care? We do not do it well enough and we do not give those with type 1 diabetes enough support. Does he agree that it is important to ensure that all CCGs give proper consideration to who delivers that kind of education? It should not be delivered by anyone other than those with the expertise to deliver it.

[Mr Howarth]

Yes. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who does a massive amount of work as chair of the all-party group on diabetes. He is very knowledgeable on the subject and the issues involved, and he is of course right. I think I had already said more or less the same thing as he just said, but obviously I agree with myself and with my right hon. Friend.

Let me move on to the digital solutions, such as apps, which could offer platforms to deliver education in a convenient and personalised format. I should add the rider that mobile apps need to be safe, reliable and accredited to be clinically safe. It worries me that some apps out there are produced commercially but do not contain wholly accurate information. It is unsafe to rely on apps that are not properly accredited and that have not been assessed and evaluated by experts who know what they are talking about.

In addition to the low uptake of structured education, the number of specialists working in diabetes care is falling. Between 2010 and 2012, there was a 3% fall in the number of NHS sites that employ any diabetes specialist nurses. Anyone who has any experience of dealing with young people with diabetes will know that nurse specialists are often the very best possible source of advice.

In the light of this shortage, a national network of centres—possibly between eight and 10 expert diabetes technology centres, supported by virtual clinics—could well be a potential platform for the development of more effective structured education for patients, and for professionals as well. I shall say more about that in a moment. Such a network would be helpful for training future generations of diabetes clinicians effectively to provide artificial pancreases, and in the development and evaluation of new technologies.

One of the problems that type 1 diabetes sufferers tell me that they experience is the merry-go-round of different services that they have to access. They may have a problem with neuropathy, or a foot or eye problem, but they cannot access all those services in one place. Many diabetologists, although brilliant at dealing with the diabetes side of the problem, are not equipped to deal with young people who have, for example, psychological problems. All the services need to be better integrated.

[Sir Mike Penning]

I do apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will have to slip away straight after this intervention.

One group of people the right hon. Gentleman missed out, although it was not intentional, was parents. When a child is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, there is a journey for the parents as well as the child, so there needs to be support for them. I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that diabetes does not pick on certain people from certain areas; it just picks on an individual. Sometimes it is hereditary—a lot of work is being done around the hereditary route—but it is not a choice; it is something that comes on to the family, rather than just the individual.

[Mr Howarth]

The right hon. Gentleman is right, and it was an omission on my part not to have acknowledged that. Any parent of a diabetic child has to experience the disease—at second hand, but in very important ways. The younger the child, the more responsibility parents have to take, so that is important. By the way, training and other support for parents needs to be built into the system.

[Jim Shannon]

I just want to reinforce what we do for diabetics in Northern Ireland. The surgery that I belong to, in Cuan in Kircubbin, holds diabetic classes twice a year. The staff there do tests on all the diabetics—type 1 and type 2—including for their blood pressure, feet, eyes and all the other things they need to test in the clinics. The surgery then reports back on those tests. For instance, patients will get an eyesight test a month after they have been to the clinic. That shows that there are ways of dealing with this. I am not sure whether surgeries on the United Kingdom mainland do something just as good, but perhaps they should.

[Mr Howarth]

There are centres where people can access a lot of services in one place in a similar way to what the hon. Gentleman describes as happening in Northern Ireland.

I attended an interesting conference in Vancouver three or four years ago. I found out—the Minister or one of her colleagues might want to investigate this a bit further—that some of the smaller island states tend to provide all the services in one place because they do not have the capacity or resources to do anything else. It is an accident of geography that they are forced to do that, but it seems to work very well, particularly in some of the Pacific island areas, where there is a massive problem with type 2 diabetes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I apologise for coming to the debate a bit late. My right hon. Friend may have touched on this; the issue affects not only families, but schools, which need to have a bigger appreciation of the difficulties that kids experience not only with diabetes, but in other areas. I had a private Member’s Bill some years ago that proposed a cluster of schools having a specialist who could spot early problems with children, including diabetes and all sorts of mental health problems. Does he agree that would be helpful?

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend may have been late, but he is never behind. Of course I agree with him.

In October, I tabled a written parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, asking how many patients with type 1 diabetes had been referred for psychological support, psychiatric support, and treatment for an eating disorder or diabulimia in the last 12 months. I was told that the information is not held centrally. I then took the matter up with Knowsley clinical commissioning group, but it turns out that it does not hold that information either.

The lack of psychological support for adults and young people with type 1 diabetes is a real and important issue. It was one of the key points in the national service framework for diabetes when that was first brought into being. Most patients on Merseyside, which is my part of the world, still cannot get the support that they need.

Diabulimia, which is a syndrome, rather than a condition, is an eating disorder present among those with type 1 diabetes. It involves the omission of insulin doses, which leads to high blood glucose levels and the body’s cells being deprived of oxygen and energy. The available research suggests that around 40% of females between the ages of 15 and 30 with type 1 diabetes deliberately induce hyperglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis in order to bring about weight loss. Anyone can go on the internet and quite easily find out that if they omit to use their insulin, they can probably lose half a stone in a week, but of course the risks in involved in doing so, including damage to vital organs, should not be taken at all.

According to the charity Diabetics with Eating Disorders, 60% of all females with type 1 diabetes will have experienced a clinically diagnosable eating disorder by the age of 25, and new research suggests that 11% of adolescent males also engage in insulin omission for weight loss. I just want to pause at this point and say a word: although I am describing something that affects type 1 diabetics, it is all part of a wider problem of body image and an obsession with a particular type of weight range. Although diabetics, because of their condition, have a different means of achieving that weight loss, it is an issue that has to be addressed nationally. I know that the fashion industry, for example, has started to make some moves in that direction, but it is a national problem, particularly for many young women who feel that they have to look a certain way to be acceptable. That is, of course, nonsensical, but, nevertheless, it is the way that some of them feel.

Sandie Atkinson, a PhD candidate at Liverpool John Moores University, believes that there is a lot more that clinics can do to reduce the psychological impact of type 1 diabetes and, as a consequence, reduce the prevalence of diabulimia. She says:

“By being empathetic to the issues that impact blood glucose level outside of the realm of an individual’s ability to manage and having realistic expectations of them in light of these uncontrollable factors, individuals might feel less inclined to hide their true condition from Healthcare Professionals.  The likelihood of them being more open would undoubtedly be in the best interest of the patients and the NHS at large.”

While conducting her research, those whom Sandie spoke to described the problems that they had in accessing support in clinics. One participant said:

“Eating disorders thrive on secrecy and yet people feel with diabetes they can’t be honest about the expectations of where they are with control so there’s two lots of secrecy there that really does a lot more damage”.

A second interviewee said:

“There’s something about the way that we treat diabetes and I don’t know if it’s maybe because there is some internal stigma, but there’s something needs to be done…I just kind of feel like we’ve got it all wrong…right from the off you should have a psychologist…at least for the first year. I mean the research is all there, suicide risk goes up, self-harm risk goes up, mental health declines…We know this but we’re like, ‘oh yeah, we’ll see you in six months’ time’.”

To progress towards artificial pancreas systems, there are a number of things that the Government must do. The NHS needs to establish a new national framework that encourages innovation. The framework could include some of the following elements: first, a national strategy, with allocated funding, for diabetes technology, allowing all people with type 1 diabetes to self-manage their condition by considering individual medical need and the potential to improve quality of life and psychological aspects of care.

[Steve McCabe]

If the NHS were to develop that approach, would it not, as well as giving people much more freedom, autonomy and control over their life, produce massively more data—the strongest commodity in the NHS at the moment—which would mean that we could predict this condition, and look at other possible methods of controlling or treating it?

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend is right, and I did highlight earlier that I was unable to get statistics, either centrally or at CCG level. It is important that we collect more data, interpret it properly, and use it to inform policy.

Secondly, there should be mandatory funding accompanying any positive guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as part of a technology appraisal, and a national clinical consensus pathway that covers artificial pancreas technology, with NICE incorporating that into commissioning guidance. That sounds very bureaucratic, but if it was taken seriously, it could have a major positive impact.

Thirdly, there should be progressive procurement policies that recognise the value, within the foundations of artificial pancreas policy, of innovations such as continuous glucose monitoring and insulin pump therapy. We should encourage continuous glucose monitoring with integration capacity, and insulin pumps that have artificial pancreas potential. I would also encourage continued innovation in diabetes technology. If we are to progress towards an artificial pancreas, the foundations need to be better established across the country; that is in addition to the changes I have highlighted. A 2018 audit of the use of insulin pumps showed a positive increase in usage, but also highlighted a wide disparity between specialist services, which we have already mentioned.

[Sandy Martin]

Is it not the case that in CCG areas where specialist pumps and continuous glucose monitors are prescribed regularly, the amount of emergency care needed for people with type 1 diabetes is reduced? Not investing in those things makes no financial sense whatever.

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend is right. This is not just about technology, important though that is. Anyone with diabetes who manages it well—and technology will help to do that—will have fewer hospital emergency admittances. I do not have the statistics to hand—I am not even sure they exist—but those people will clearly have fewer hospital admittances and fewer complications with their diabetes, and therefore cost the NHS less. As I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, however, the NHS is not very good at doing cost-benefit analysis. It needs to get smarter at it, because the point that my hon. Friend makes is right, not only as regards the support we give to people with type 1 diabetes, but about the cost to the NHS of dealing with the consequences.

[Liz McInnes]

I want to echo the point about cost-benefit analyses and how bad the NHS is at joining up different departments’ budgets. It really needs to get better at being able to identify that spend in one area leads to a huge reduction in spending in another.

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend makes the point more clearly and eloquently than I did.

A new device that takes us closer to the artificial pancreas has been developed by Medtronic: the MiniMed 670G. A number of people with type 1 diabetes have started using the system in the UK in a pilot phase before it is rolled out more widely across the country. However, only 15.6% of those with type 1 diabetes are using insulin pumps, and it is potentially a concern that healthcare professionals would be unlikely to recommend an artificial pancreas if someone was not already using a pump and continuous glucose monitoring. If the issues to do with NHS access to today’s type 1 diabetes technology can be addressed, a path can be cleared towards adoption of the artificial pancreas.

We need to ensure that people living with diabetes are equipped with the skills to self-manage. That would support patients in using current technologies effectively, and ultimately in using artificial pancreas systems. Structured education is central to enabling people living with type 1 diabetes to best manage their condition through effective use of monitors and insulin pumps. The NHS can support type 1 diabetics to do that by increasing the provision and uptake of diabetes education. To do that, it needs to make diabetes education courses more accessible and convenient, possibly through digital solutions.

A recent survey by Dexcom revealed that more than three quarters of people with diabetes suffer from stress, anxiety attacks or bouts of deep depression. While healthcare teams help, and teach people how to manage their blood glucose levels, type 1 diabetes is largely a self-managed condition. The NHS needs to ensure that the resources and community support that people with type 1 diabetes require are well advertised, well recognised, well understood and well invested in. I believe we are on the threshold of being able to make type 1 diabetes not a thing of the past, but a thing that can be well and easily managed, and I hope the Minister will take these words seriously and do everything she can to advance that day.

15:53

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who has been an hon. Friend for almost 30 years and is a great champion for those with diabetes, in particular type 1 diabetes.

I declare an interest, as a type 2 bordering on type 1 diabetic. The usual suspects are here, including my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has popped out but I know will be back. The Government Benches are empty, apart from the Minister and the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), because Conservative Members are listening to the most famous type 1 diabetic in the world, if we discount Halle Berry and Mary Tyler Moore. I admire so much the way in which the Prime Minister does her job, with all the demands on her, as a type 1 diabetic—we do not even notice, and that is because of the technology that has been developed and the way in which she conducts herself.

[Liz McInnes]

Among the most famous type 1 diabetics, we must not forget Sir Steven Redgrave, the Olympic rower.

[Keith Vaz]

Indeed. Before anyone else jumps up with another name, I include all diabetics in what I am saying.

The Prime Minister and others such as myself talk about diabetes, and we are not cowering in corners; we are debating it openly. Because of technological advances, we are able to do our jobs and continue with our lives in a way that was not possible when diabetes was first discovered 100 years or so ago.

The first artificial pancreas, which was developed by Sir George Alberti through funding from Diabetes UK, was the size of a filing cabinet. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine walking around with an artificial pancreas of that size? We should always acknowledge the research and innovation of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley spoke and the power of science to change people’s lives.

I want to give a few examples from my own city of Leicester of the work that has been done on diabetes. There is the work done by Professor Kamlesh Khunti and Melanie Davies of the University of Leicester; my own general practitioner, Professor Azhar Farooqi, who diagnosed me with diabetes—had I not been diagnosed, I might not be standing here today, because I did not know what the symptoms were—and Professor Joan Taylor from De Montfort University, who began developing her own version of the artificial pancreas.

It was very interesting to learn from my right hon. Friend’s speech about all the other clever people—probably much cleverer than all of us here—who have been able to develop their own artificial pancreas. Not all of them will be able to fly, so to speak, but it is amazing that people are putting their minds to it, and Professor Joan Taylor at De Montfort has done the same. There is also Professor Hovorka of Cambridge University who, like George Alberti, was funded by Diabetes UK in developing the artificial pancreas. These people deserve our respect and admiration for what they do, because they spend day after day trying to make the medical breakthrough that will help people and save so many lives. I want to thank them for what they have done, because their work has enabled us to get to the position we are in today.

There are also the private companies. Members do of course criticise, as we are entitled to do, the profits made by drugs companies. The Minister will know because she has to sign the cheques—perhaps she does not sign the cheques, but she sends them to the Treasury to get them signed—when the bills come through for the artificial pancreases and the metformins or Glucophages and all the other things that we take. The cost has gone up and there is no doubt that the drugs companies do make very big profits, but they should be commended for putting back so much of their profits into research and development. That is something that the Government cannot do, but it is something that those companies do every single day.

In acknowledging the huge cost of drugs, we also have to acknowledge what companies such as Novo Nordisk do. I declare an interest in relation to Novo Nordisk, because it has worked with the all-party group on diabetes, which I chair, for a number of years. Roche Diabetes Care is another such company, and there are many more. There are so many of them that I cannot name them all, but they have all been involved, and they will all invest and research until the breakthrough comes.

We know from FreeStyle Libre what Abbott has done. I remember the former Prime Minister—it is of course based in David Cameron’s old constituency—telling me five years ago about Abbott and the work it was doing on FreeStyle Libre. Now, thanks to the decision of Ministers, FreeStyle Libre is available, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley has said. That is why, when we have that breakthrough, it is vital that such a facility and such equipment is available to all, irrespective of where they live.

We did not have access to FreeStyle Libre in Leicester, even though we have so many experts at Leicester University and De Montfort, until the decision taken by the Government. Actually, we will not get access to it until next April, so my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and others will have constituents who still want to get FreeStyle Libre, but cannot do so. We do not want that to happen for those who need pumps and artificial pancreases, because it is vital that they get such equipment straightaway. If they do not, it will affect their lives.

What my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley said about wellbeing or mental health and diabetes was interesting. That is something that people very rarely recognise, and I have only myself recognised it, having been a sufferer, in for the past two years or so. They do not actually know it because they think it is part of their condition. For type 1 diabetics, it is even worse. We can just have our pills—I take six in the morning and three at night; some people take more—but the fact is that they live with the injection of insulin for this condition for the rest of their lives.

The deputy leader of the Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson)—obviously, he is not in his place today, because he has other things to do—has reversed his type 2 diabetes. Anyone who sees him in the Division Lobbies will know that he looks a completely different man from the person I knew when I voted for him to be the deputy leader, because he has adopted the Pioppi diet and changed his lifestyle. He does all the things that I do not, because I do not manage my diabetes particularly well. However, people cannot do that with type 1—it is with them forever. The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), who obviously has gone to Committee Room 14, mentioned that there is that fundamental difference. Sometimes when we talk about the thousands —or the millions, now—who have type 2 diabetes as opposed to type 1, we talk about people changing their lifestyle, their diet or their wellbeing, but that does not apply to the type 1s.

[Sandy Martin]

Does my right hon. Friend believe that it would help an awful lot of people with type 1 diabetes if we changed the name of the disease, given that it is completely different from type 2?

[Keith Vaz]

Of course. There is the possibility of doing that—as we do with cancer, for example, which is a much more emotive illness. Of course, people can die from diabetes complications. My mother died from diabetes complications. What I am noticing from the correspondence that I get as chair of the all-party group is that people are writing to say that their relatives have died of diabetes complications and that clinicians are now putting that on death certificates and, in some cases, voiding insurance. I had a very interesting meeting with an insurance company recently that wanted to void the insurance of a particular individual because they had not notified it that they had type 2 diabetes. I asked its chief executive, “If you cross a road and you are knocked down by a car, and you have type 2 diabetes but didn’t know it and had not notified the company, would you still have your insurance voided?” and he said, “Yes,” which is outrageous. The implications are huge. This is a wide area, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to try your patience by talking about the whole, global aspects of diabetes. We could be here all night. Forget about the 7 o’clock Adjournment motion—we would be here forever, but actually, we need to be specific about type 1.

In answer to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), perhaps there is a case for doing what he suggested, because “type 1” and “type 2” are still very technical, whereas with cancer, there is the type of cancer that someone is suffering from. People may not understand that, so it is worth exploring, and we could certainly do that at the all-party group. The vice-chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton, is here—we will be able to look at it—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley is a frequent visitor. Let us see what we can do about it in future.

I want to end with three asks of the Minister through the good offices of my right hon. Friend. We have talked about CCGs, but we do not have the capacity in CCGs for diabetes champions. We still do not know how many specialist diabetic nurses there are in regions or even in constituencies. The hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) is a Health Minister, so I am sure that everyone will jump about when she goes back to her constituency, but if she asks the question, “Do we have a list of specialist diabetic nurses?” the answer is no. Do we have a list of those doctors such as David Unwin and others who are doing incredible work on diabetes—even if that work is not shared elsewhere? The answer is no.

In answers to parliamentary questions, I have a list of “don’t knows” coming back from Ministers. That is no criticism of the Minister—it is just that Ministers do not know. They do not keep that information centrally. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley and I, as former Ministers, know that we had to sign PQs like that, too, when we just did not have the answers, because the information is not kept centrally. However, some of this information should be—there should be information about who the specialist nurses are—so could we get the CCGs together in some way to talk to them about the issues raised by my right hon. Friend, because lives are time-limited if they do not have access to the equipment that he is talking about?

The second issue is that the Government must be prepared to make a commitment, although not to providing additional funding, because the NHS is stretched. Where private sector companies, such as Roche and others, are investing and doing research that will benefit the public, is there any way to assist them by providing them with greater capacity to research, whether through encouragement, incentives or some other means? We need to do that because we do not have the money to do the research ourselves.

The third issue concerns personnel in the Department. I was astonished to learn that the Secretary of State had still not met the diabetes tsar, Professor Jonathan Valabhji. I tabled a question asking when he last met him, and it turned out he had never met the very expert appointed by the Government to assist in these matters. He is an outstanding diabetes tsar—probably the best the country has ever had—a frequent visitor to our meetings and a professor at St Mary’s, but he has not met the Secretary of State. Please will the Minister talk to her colleagues and ask that one of them meet with Professor Valabhji? It would be helpful if it was the Secretary of State, though, and would be of some assistance to him.

My final point concerns that made by the hon. Member for Strangford and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley. Diabetics such as myself—the same applies to type 1 diabetics—have to see nine different professionals, but we see them on different days, at different times and in different places. When we have our bloods done, there should be someone to help us with structured education, which is vital—we should not be made to book another appointment for another day when perhaps we cannot make it; there should be someone to check our eyes, too; and all this at the same time.

In Leicester, we are developing the first diabetes village, where a patient can do the lot on a Saturday morning—all eight of the main functions, including wellbeing, mental health and lifestyle. If someone with type 2 diabetes goes to the doctor in Doha and gets a prescription, before they get their medication, they are sent to a gym to make sure they make the necessary lifestyle changes before their medication kicks in. They have medical centres there with the panoply of services diabetics need.

Tomorrow, we will be holding an international diabetes summit in Committee Room 14, if it is vacated in time. In that respect, my message to Conservative Members is: get on with it, as the Prime Minister would say, and finish it off tonight—I do not have a vote in that election—so that we can have Committee Room 14 back. The Diabetes Minister, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), and people from China, Denmark and Italy, are coming to share their experiences, and type 1 diabetes will be high on the agenda. The more of these meetings we hold in this place, the better it is to keep diabetes on the agenda.

Once again, I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate and for making sure we talk about these issues, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton, too, for her last debate on diabetes. We should keep putting in for these debates to make sure this is the highest possible priority for the Government.

17:28

[The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for his incredible work highlighting the importance of the right treatment for type 1 diabetes and of making use of technology in that treatment. I also thank him for giving us this opportunity to debate the issue. He has made some incredibly valuable suggestions, as indeed has the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I have listened with great interest and will carefully consider some of their fascinating suggestions.

Supporting the rising number of people with diabetes is one of the major clinical challenges of the 21st century, and improving outcomes and care quality for those living with, or at risk of, diabetes are key priorities for the Government. The right hon. Member for Knowsley correctly highlighted the role that modern technologies, when properly used, can play in the care of people with type 1 diabetes. Key to managing it is, of course, monitoring and controlling glucose levels, and—as he explained in great depth—a number of different technologies are available for that purpose, including glucose monitoring devices and insulin pumps.

As the right hon. Gentleman said, artificial pancreas devices are an emerging technology that combines continuous glucose monitoring with insulin pumps. One system, the Medtronic 670G system, which he mentioned, was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and a European licence is being pursued.[Official Report, 23 January 2019, Vol. 653, c. 3MC.] Large randomised clinical studies of similar systems are now beginning and several are expected to come to the market in the next five years. Teams in the UK are leading some of that work.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East talked about the funding of research on diabetes. The Department funds such research through the National Institute for Health Research. In the last five years, the NIHR has awarded just over £144 million for work on diabetes, and 346 active projects are taking place across the NIHR infrastructure. One of them involves the closed-loop insulin delivery system to which he referred.

Giving people access to diabetes technology as swiftly as possible is, of course, a priority. Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, said recently:

“Tens of thousands of people with Type 1 diabetes across the country will benefit from life changing glucose monitors on the NHS.”

The announcement referred to the FreeStyle Libre, a device that the right hon. Member for Leicester East also mentioned. NHS England will ensure that flash glucose monitoring is available on prescription to all patients who qualify for it in line with current recommendations. From April 2019, all qualifying patients will be able to receive it from their local GP or diabetes team.

The right hon. Member for Knowsley talked a lot about structured education and psychological support. In line with existing NICE guidelines, structured education should be offered to all patients within 12 months of diagnosis of diabetes. As he said, reported attendance levels at structured education courses have historically been low, but they continue to increase, and this year alone NHS England has invested £10.5 million to improve attendance by people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

[Keith Vaz]

May I pursue another point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth)? I understand that the NHS is still paying providers, even though people do not turn up. That is a big problem. We need to look at the providers. There is a reason why people do not turn up. We need to change the system in order to make them more able to do so.

[Caroline Dinenage]

That is an excellent point. The purpose of the £10.5 million that I have just mentioned is to improve attendance. It is clearly necessary to look at the way in which the service is provided and at who is providing it, and to ensure that it is provided in a way that will make people attend.

The right hon. Member for Knowsley spoke about improving care for those with diabetes and eating disorders, including what is often referred to as diabulimia. I think he will be pleased to hear that NHS England is supporting two pilots to test, trial and evaluate the effect of integrated diabetes and mental health pathways for the identification, assessment and treatment of diabulimia.

We will continue to create a health system that supports innovation, promotes the testing and development of health technology, and ensures that the best innovations are used so that patients can benefit as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

17:33

House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Commons Chamber

Division 277

Ayes: 513

---

Conservative: 276
Labour: 221
Democratic Unionist Party: 9
Liberal Democrat: 4
Independent: 3

Noes: 13

---

Conservative: 5
Labour: 4
Liberal Democrat: 3
Independent: 1

Draft Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 Draft Bank Recovery and Resolution and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Wednesday 12th December 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Ms Karen Buck

† Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)

Burden, Richard (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)

Campbell, Mr Ronnie (Blyth Valley) (Lab)

† Champion, Sarah (Rotherham) (Lab)

† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)

† Dunne, Mr Philip (Ludlow) (Con)

† Foster, Kevin (Torbay) (Con)

† Glen, John (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)

† Heald, Sir Oliver (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)

† Lewer, Andrew (Northampton South) (Con)

† Merriman, Huw (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)

† Reynolds, Jonathan (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)

† Stevens, Jo (Cardiff Central) (Lab)

† Thewliss, Alison (Glasgow Central) (SNP)

† Villiers, Theresa (Chipping Barnet) (Con)

† Walker, Thelma (Colne Valley) (Lab)

† Whittaker, Craig (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Sarah Rees, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 12 December 2018

[Ms Karen Buck in the Chair]

Draft Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

08:55

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Bank Recovery and Resolution and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

[John Glen]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. As has been said before, Her Majesty’s Treasury, as part of preparations for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, is laying statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the UK in the event of a no-deal scenario. That includes the two SIs we are debating today, which will fix deficiencies in UK law relating to the UK’s prudential regime for credit institutions and for bank resolution. As with other SIs that the Treasury has laid and debated under the 2018 Act, they are designed to provide continuity at the point of exit by maintaining existing legislation, but amending it where necessary to ensure that it works effectively in a no-deal context.

The first SI being considered today concerns the prudential rules that apply to banks, investment firms and building societies under the framework set by the EU capital requirements regulation and capital requirements directive. The second SI relates to the bank recovery and resolution directive, which sets out requirements for ensuring that bank failures can be managed in an orderly way and provides a common EU framework for firm resolution. In a no-deal scenario, the UK would be outside the European economic area and the EU financial services framework. The SIs will make amendments to retained EU law so that the legislation would continue to function effectively in a no-deal scenario.

The draft capital requirements regulations will make amendments to the retained EU capital requirements regulation and the domestic secondary legislation that implemented the EU capital requirements directive. The draft regulations will make the following principal amendments. First, they will make changes to the group consolidation regime for liquidity and capital. Current EU legislation allows EU banking groups to report a single set of figures for their activities across the EU. The SI will amend those requirements, so that they operate at UK level only. That will not affect the application of consolidated capital requirements, which are already calculated and reported on a national basis, but it will introduce an additional layer of liquidity consolidation in the UK, as liquidity is currently consolidated at EU level.

Secondly, the draft capital requirements regulations will remove the preferential capital treatment available for exposures to certain EU institutions and assets, including sovereign debt. For example, the EU capital requirements regulation does not require firms to hold capital for EU sovereign debt, because it rates those exposures with a zero risk weighting. That is to incentivise investment in certain EU asset classes. In line with our general approach, we will not grant the EU unilateral preferential treatment in the absence of an assessment of equivalence after exit day. We would therefore not automatically continue with the regime of preferential capital treatment for EU assets.

The draft capital requirements regulations will also remove the requirement for UK regulators to seek approval from EU institutions for the use of macroprudential tools to deal with systemic risk, including action that may need to be taken in a financial crisis.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My understanding is that during the implementation period, we will continue to take the EU laws in this area, so the CRR will be part of our law anyway, and we will look to maintain that position until we reach a new agreement. Is the Minister saying that if we had a no-deal exit, we would do something different and we would not want to retain the position in that way while we negotiated a Canada deal or something of that sort?

[John Glen]

I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend’s intervention. What we would do in a no-deal scenario in respect of CRR II, which is in flight at the moment within the EU, would be to use the Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill, which came before the House of Lords last week and will hopefully come to the Commons at some point in late January. That would give us discretion on how or whether to implement the file that would then land after our exit from the EU, or part of that file, based on what makes sense for the UK economy. We have listed in that Bill all in-flight files, and we would make a decision on the suitability of its inclusion in UK law at a future point following our exit.

To conclude on the first SI, removing the requirement to seek approval from EU institutions is necessary so that UK regulators are able to continue to exercise the macroprudential functions that Parliament has given them. Effective exercise of those functions is essential to maintaining the stability of the UK financial system.

Moving on to the second statutory instrument, the bank recovery and resolution SI will amend the Banking Act 2009 and related domestic and retained EU legislation, with the following principal amendments. First, the draft regulations will amend the scope of the UK’s third-country resolution recognition framework to include EEA-led resolutions. This will ensure that in a no-deal scenario, the same approach will be followed for EEA countries and other third countries in recognising third-country resolution actions. We have that arrangement now with the USA, for example, and we would have to treat EU countries in the same way, or similarly. The UK’s approach to recognising third-country resolution actions has been and will continue to be consistent with our G20 commitments.

The refusal of the UK to recognise a third-country resolution action is only permitted where the Bank of England and the Treasury are satisfied that one or more statutory grounds for refusal exist. Those grounds are: first, that recognition would have an adverse effect on UK financial stability; secondly, that it is necessary for the Bank of England to achieve one or more of its special resolution objectives; thirdly, that a third-country resolution action treats UK creditors less favourably; fourthly, that recognition would have material fiscal implications for the UK; or fifthly, that recognition would be unlawful under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Secondly, the bank recovery and resolution SI will remove deficient references that require UK regulators to follow the specific operational and procedural mechanisms set out in the bank recovery and resolution directive to co-operate with EEA authorities. The removal of these references will not, however, prevent UK regulators from choosing to co-operate with their EEA counterparts after exit. UK regulators will remain able to share information with EEA authorities in the same way that they currently do with authorities in third countries, such as the United States. Additionally, the UK will continue to participate in international crisis management groups, which enhance co-operation between home and host authorities of systemically important banks. Finally, the draft regulations address deficient cross-references to the bank recovery and resolution directive in UK legislation, and ensure that delegated regulations retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act continue to be workable following exit.

In line with the approach the Government are taking across all files laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, both SIs transfer a number of functions currently within the remit of EU authorities, in particular the European Banking Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority, to the relevant UK bodies. Those functions, such as the development of detailed technical rules on certain provisions of the regulations, will now be carried out by appropriate UK authorities, namely the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Bank of England. This is appropriate, given the regulators’ expertise in prudential and resolution policy and in the supervision of global firms. The regulators are currently undertaking public consultations on the changes they propose to make to binding technical standards. The SIs further confer regulation-making powers on the Treasury to replace delegated powers that were previously conferred on the European Commission, in line with the approach taken across other Treasury legislation.

To summarise, the Government believe that both SIs are needed to ensure that the regulatory regime applying to banks, building societies and investment firms works effectively if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I hope that colleagues across the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

09:05

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It really is a pleasure, Ms Buck, to serve under your chairmanship. Once again, the Minister and I find ourselves in this room, as we work through the list of dozens of Treasury statutory instruments that are needed as we prepare for EU withdrawal. It is nice to see that there is a crowd this morning—there must be something else going on today, perhaps later on.

On each of these occasions, I and my Front-Bench colleagues have spelled out our objections to secondary legislation being used in this manner, as well as the challenges of ensuring that there is proper scrutiny, given the sheer volume of legislation passing through these Committees. All of this legislation is speculative, as it prepares us for a UK no-deal exit. It feels surreal to stand here discussing the finer points of financial regulation when the overall process is in total chaos.

It is near inconceivable that we are now so close to exit with no agreement in place and no vote scheduled on any such agreement. That places even greater importance on the work we are doing here, as with every passing day that this chaotic situation is not resolved, we inch closer to crashing out of the EU without a deal. That is a frightening prospect, particularly for financial services and especially for those parts of financial services that cannot operate within an equivalence framework.

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the statutory instruments are rigorous in their approach to ensuring the EU financial regulatory framework. The two instruments up for discussion today are of central importance to the stability of our financial system. Both the capital requirements and the recovery and resolution regime were designed to prevent the events of 2008 ever being repeated, given the catastrophic economic consequences. They required considerable co-operation across Europe, supported by wider efforts to comply with new rigorous international standards. Dismantling any element of that regime would be very ill advised, and we do not want to find ourselves in a position where Governments ever have to bail out the banks again.

With that in mind, I will begin by addressing the draft capital requirements instrument. I want to flag a major concern at how this provision is being transposed into UK law, and the potential disadvantage for UK banks. Colleagues will know that the EU capital requirements regulation mandates banks and financial institutions to maintain levels of sufficient quality capital, so that they are more resilient in market downturns or distress and, therefore, less likely to collapse. Different metrics are used to assess the quality of capital, and institutions are required to hold assets in certain ratios to comply with the regulation. It appears that this statutory instrument will remove preferential treatment for EU government debt for UK banks and, therefore, put UK banks holding EU government debt as a capital buffer at a disadvantage, as the Minister confirmed in his opening remarks.

EU member states’ government debt is considered very safe by the EU and banks do not need to hold much to meet regulatory requirements. If there is no agreement on equivalence for financial assets, the capital requirements statutory instrument says that UK government debt will no longer be considered so safe by the EU itself and, therefore, the UK Government will respond by removing preferential treatment for EU debt.

The guidance states:

“Once the UK has left the EU, in the absence of an agreement and where no equivalence determination has been made, the EU27 would automatically fall into the category of a third country where EU27 exposures would no longer receive preferential capital treatment. Therefore, this SI will remove preferential treatment for EU27 exposures.”

On the face of it, that will leave UK banks that hold EU government debt suddenly at a higher risk from a pricing perspective. It will become more expensive for them to hedge their risks in a no-deal environment, where markets are likely to be extremely volatile anyway. Trade publication GlobalCapital expresses that simply as a

“hit to UK bank capital ratios at the worst time imaginable”.

Where does that leave UK banks with significant EU operations, which are likely to hold this type of debt in large quantities? The Minister has repeatedly assured us that no substantive changes are being made from a policy perspective in the transposition of the rules through statutory instruments, but it seems this risks having a real and negative impact through a decision to change the treatment of EU government debt. Will the Minister please explain how the decision was reached and how it could be remedied to prevent increasing costs for UK banks and the requirement to re-hedge their positions?

The second instrument relates to a framework closely associated with the capital requirements: the recovery and resolution regime. That relates to so-called living wills for financial institutions if they fall into credit-related difficulties. That is another mission-critical strand of post-crisis regulation that continues to evolve.

The Bank of England has announced its plan to bring in a self-assessment regime for UK banks from 2020, which will require them to demonstrate their own winding down and restructuring plans for times of distress, without causing market contagion or requiring a taxpayer bail-out.

The guidance to the bank recovery and resolution statutory instrument states that:

“HM Treasury’s approach to onshoring the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive is to ensure that the UK’s Special Resolution Regime is legally and practically workable on a standalone basis once the UK has left the EU.”

The challenge is how we can ensure that the recovery and resolution regime continues to be effective while potentially operating in isolation. Realistically, most of the biggest firms in this country are cross-border, so close co-operation will be needed with our EU counterparts to ensure that the risk of contagion is minimised and our approach is consistent. The statutory instrument is very light on detail in that regard. Will the Minister elaborate on the Treasury’s role in ensuring that this approach is followed? Is there an existing interaction with a third country or with third-country firms that the Treasury is using as a guide?

The banking framework in the UK has evolved significantly since 2007 to the benefit of both the taxpayer and market stability. Much of that has been achieved through close international co-operation with the EU and G20. We need to make sure that any future framework enshrines that hard work, especially as banks and financial institutions are likely to be highly stressed by market conditions if we crash out without a deal. Sadly, given the chaotic back and forth of the Government this week, the reality is that the prospect of no deal is becoming likelier by the day.

09:11

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Buck.

I want to pick up where my colleague the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde left off. This week, we have lurched closer to the prospect of a no deal Brexit due to the incompetence of the UK Government and Back Benchers who are more interested in feathering their own nests than in the interests of the country as a whole. It is utterly ridiculous for my constituents to see all these shenanigans as the clock ticks and we get ever closer to the point where the UK leaves without a deal.

We have the ridiculous prospect of the Prime Minister touring EU capitals only to find, as was totally predictable and inevitable, that people are not interested in speaking to her—the deal is already done as far as the EU is concerned. All of this is a distraction at a time when we should be focusing on the economy and on those people at the very bottom who are losing out massively as a result of UK Government policies.

We are here today to look at these statutory instruments in further detail, which is hidden away in these Committees rather than being scrutinised in a more open way. It is interesting to look at both instruments and their wider implications such as the familiarisation costs, which I mentioned at a previous SI Committee. The capital requirements regulations will have a total familiarisation cost of £1.7 million, which is absolutely huge. Businesses are being asked to bear those costs as a result of a decision that was not theirs. It will have a huge impact.

The FCA estimates that around 800 businesses will be affected. The Bank of England estimate is 209, so some 1,009 businesses will be affected. I ask the Minister, as I often do, how that is being communicated to those businesses because the clock is ticking, and they need to know and make preparations. The Fraser of Allander Institute mentioned yesterday in its report that small businesses are under-prepared for the prospect of a no-deal Brexit. For a long time, perhaps we hoped that that might not happen, but who knows whether that will remain the case? The Government have a job of work on their hands to ensure that all those businesses are aware of what might happen in the event of a no deal Brexit, and what it will mean for each and every businesses across this country.

The Financial Markets Law Committee is concerned, as I am, about the regulatory burden on the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority. How will they cope with the additional work coming to them? They are concerned about the recognition in UK law as things progress, withdrawing from the shared protections we have in the EEA and the impact on the market as a whole.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Under the withdrawal Act, of course, EU law just comes into our law on the day we leave, but it would be ineffective in this area because there are a lot of references to institutions that we will no longer be in. Does the hon. Lady agree that the regulations are needed?

[Alison Thewliss]

I do not dispute that they are needed. I am not sure that Brexit is needed, but that is a different argument for a different day. The note mentions that the FCA and PRA will be updating the rule books in time for exit day. I want to press the Minister a wee bit more about what stage the preparations are at, and whether the expectation is that they will be ready in time. What progress has been made?

As to the capital requirements and, under the CRR, the binding regulations to co-operate and share information with EEA authorities, removing them and moving to a more discretionary system within it obviously means there is a question as to how we maintain the rigour of the system. If it is going to be sharing on a discretionary basis rather than being obliged to do so as part of the system, how will we ensure that things are going to work properly and as well as they can work at the moment? How do we prevent the slide towards another financial crash in a system that is more discretionary rather than one that obliges us to do certain things?

I want to mention research from the London School of Economics, and concerns about the impact that everything that is happening has on the UK’s voice in the shaping of the regulations:

“The weakened UK voice means that opposition to greater harmonization and EU calibration of international standards may be less strong in the Council than it was over the original CRD IV negotiations. Conversely, while the UK can be expected to support the proposal to lift certain of the contested CRD IV remuneration rules from smaller and less complex firms, other Member States may be less accommodating and more influential.”

Again, that relates to the loss of the UK voice in all such matters. We end up in the worst of all worlds as a result of the decision. We become rule takers and have less influence over the things that affect financial services, which are a huge part of the economy of the UK and my constituency. I hope the Minister addresses those concerns.

09:17

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Members for Stalybridge and Hyde and for Glasgow Central for their questions, and acknowledge concerns about the rigour of the process. All I can say to the Committee is that I am doing everything I can to ensure that it is as rigorous as possible.

For both statutory instruments, there was significant engagement with industry and the regulators. The draft Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 were laid on 21 August, with an explanatory note seeking to draw out concerns. The draft Bank Recovery and Resolution and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 were laid on 8 October for consideration.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde accurately characterised the global drivers of the regulations. I want to address the specific concern he raised about the directive on the change in capital requirements consequent on our leaving in a no-deal scenario. He is right to say that the capital requirements regulation specifies how much capital and liquidity firms must hold against different types of exposures. He is right that certain EU assets are subject to a 0% risk weight, meaning that no capital needs to be held against those exposures. However, in a no-deal scenario, the UK will treat the EU as a third country and vice versa.

Without an assessment of equivalence between the EU countries and the UK, the EU would end preferential capital treatment for UK exposures, so it has been Government policy not to grant the EU unilateral preferential treatment in the absence of equivalence, and the SI makes the appropriate amendments to ensure that EU sovereign debt is no longer treated more favourably than other assets of a similar nature.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Glen]

Perhaps I may just make the next point, and see whether it addresses the hon. Gentleman’s concern.

EU sovereign debt will none the less retain the low risk ratings that sovereign debt typically attracts. In addition, we are introducing transitional powers for the regulators to phase in the new requirements. That is up to two years, mitigating much of the impact.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am grateful for that clarification, and for the second point in particular. I understand the political case for not having a unilateral preferential regime that is not reciprocated by the EU. However, when we think about all the market volatility and stress that no deal gives us, to reclassify the capital adequacy of UK resident banks feels quite difficult, even if it is phased in over a period of two years, which is not that significant to be honest.

[John Glen]

I acknowledge how it sounds, but this is a regulatory change to enable the discretionary power. The Government’s intent is to make prudential assessments in a non-politicised way.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

May I say how delighted I am that the Government are taking an approach that allows discretion? That was one enormous problem at the time of the financial crash, which was also a sovereign debt crisis. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde forgot to mention who was in charge at the time. That crisis was exemplified perhaps most clearly by Gordon Brown standing outside the shiny new Lehman Brothers office when it opened, shortly before the crash. The capital regime was so inadequate at the time under that regime—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

In America?

[Mr Bacon]

In London. The point I was going to make, and why I am so glad that the Minister is introducing provisions for discretion, is that part of the problem of the sovereign debt crisis was that—

[The Chair]

I urge the hon. Gentleman to remember that interventions should be brief.

[Mr Bacon]

Yes indeed. Part of the problem with the sovereign debt crisis—perhaps the biggest problem—was the equal treatment of lots of different kinds of sovereign assets, such as Greek Government bonds, when in fact they were nothing like equal. That led to the distortion that helped to cause the problem.

[John Glen]

The Government and regulators are clear on the imperative to work closely with industry to ensure that change is not disruptive for firms. UK regulators will be given the ability to phase changes in over the next two years. We will treat all third countries similarly, which means, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, continuing to co-operate through international crisis management groups to plan and resolve issues with cross-border firms. The UK’s participation, and enthusiasm to participate, in such forums will be undiminished. Nothing in the draft regulations will change how the UK co-operates with third countries.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised the bank recovery and resolution SI and concerns around the appearance of disengagement. There is no intention whatsoever for the UK Government or regulators to be isolated in any way. We will continue to participate. However, these steps are necessary to domesticise our regulations in the context of a no-deal scenario.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central has on several occasions, and perfectly sensibly, mentioned the regulatory burden and additional costs. She is right to draw attention to the £1.7 million assessment for the capital requirements SI and the £400,000 for the bank recovery SI. I point out to her that those are one-off familiarisation costs. For the 1,000 companies she mentioned, they are one-off costs of around £1,700 and £1,200 for some of the very biggest institutions. I accept that it would be desirable for them to not have those costs, but it will be necessary in a situation in which we do not secure a deal.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

If we were to import all European law into our law in a form that was ineffective and hopeless, would there be costs to the City and to our financial institutions of having an ineffective system? It is all very well for the hon. Member for Glasgow Central to criticise the cost of the regulations, but without them we would not have a system that works.

[John Glen]

My right hon. and learned Friend is of course correct. We are creating as smooth as possible a scenario in a no-deal situation. The costs would be much greater if we did not do so. However, I stress that we seek to maintain close relationships with all third countries.

[Alison Thewliss]

Will the Minister tell me a bit more about how the costs have been communicated to the 1,009 businesses and the 350 businesses that will be affected?

[John Glen]

As I mentioned, the regulations were laid on 21 August and 8 October. There was engagement with industry during that intervening period, and those costs will have been made clear during that time. We have tried to be as transparent as possible and to engage as closely as possible with different trade bodies and, through them, with firms, so that there is an understanding of the costs.

The Government believe that the regulations are needed to ensure that prudential and resolution regimes applying to banks, building societies and investment firms work effectively if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. We do not want to lose the progress in establishing these regimes that we have made over the last 10 years. I hope the Committee has found this sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

Draft Bank Recovery and Resolution and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Bank Recovery and Resolution and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.—(John Glen.)

09:25

Committee rose.

Draft Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

Wednesday 12th December 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Ian Austin

† Beckett, Margaret (Derby South) (Lab)

† Campbell, Mr Alan (Tynemouth) (Lab)

† Dodds, Anneliese (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)

† Gibson, Patricia (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

† Glen, John (Economic Secretary to the Treasury)

† Herbert, Nick (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)

† Howell, John (Henley) (Con)

† Jenkyns, Andrea (Morley and Outwood) (Con)

† Jones, Susan Elan (Clwyd South) (Lab)

† Keegan, Gillian (Chichester) (Con)

† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)

† Pawsey, Mark (Rugby) (Con)

† Thomas, Derek (St Ives) (Con)

† Vickers, Martin (Cleethorpes) (Con)

† Walker, Thelma (Colne Valley) (Lab)

† Whitfield, Martin (East Lothian) (Lab)

† Whittaker, Craig (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

Bradley Albrow, Matthew Congreve, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 12 December 2018

[Ian Austin in the Chair]

Draft Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018

14:15

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Austin. For most people in the UK, pensions are their largest financial asset, but that, unfortunately, makes pensions an attractive target for fraudsters. Pension scams can have a significant and devastating impact on people’s lives. Scams can lead people to face retirement with a greatly reduced income and unable to build their pension savings back up.

From recent debates in the other place, I am aware of the strength of feeling on tackling cold calling. As well as being a nuisance, cold calling is the most common method used to initiate pension fraud. According to Citizens Advice’s most recent statistics, 97% of pension fraud cases brought to it originated from a cold call. That is why the Government are taking action to ban pensions cold calling.

Before I discuss the regulations, I will briefly explain how the current system works. The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003—PECR—permit firms to cold call consumers for marketing purposes, subject to a couple of exceptions, which are where the consumer has notified the caller that they do not wish to receive such calls, or has listed their number on the telephone preference service. The current regime, therefore, permits cold calling unless a consumer has proactively opted out.

The purpose of these regulations is to amend PECR in order to much more tightly restrict firms from cold calling consumers about their pensions. The regulations do that by creating an explicit opt-in regime that prohibits all such calls unless one of two tightly drafted exemptions applies and the caller is authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority or is the trustee or manager of a pensions scheme. The exemptions mean that the ban does not have an unnecessary or disproportionate impact on legitimate activities.

It is important to highlight that the exemptions do not apply to so-called introducers, which are the marketing firms that seek to establish leads that they then pass to financial advice firms. Introducers undertake the majority of pensions cold calling. Under the proposed regulations, there are no circumstances under which introducers are permitted to call consumers about their pensions.

The first exemption applies where the consumer has given consent to the caller to receive direct marketing calls about their pension. It has been included so that consumers can seek information on pension products. The regulations are fully in line with the general data protection regulation, which sets a high standard for consent. Consent must be actively given—for example, the use of pre-ticked boxes is not permitted.

The second exemption applies where the consumer has an existing client relationship with the caller, such that they would expect to receive such calls. It means that individuals can receive information about investment opportunities from firms with which they have a client relationship.

To help to future-proof the regulations, the definition of “direct marketing in relation to pension schemes” has been drafted widely, which will help to ensure that we capture new activities that may evolve in future, as well as activities that we know scammers already use.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

On the changing approach taken by the scam companies, will the regulations cover the use of texting and contact through messaging? I know from constituents’ experiences that a response by way of text is deemed to be consent and they then get the phone call.

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. The pensions cold calling ban does not include direct marketing via texts and emails, because they are already closely restricted under PECR. Under regulation 22, texts and emails are restricted unless consumers have given consent. That is an opt-in regime.

[Martin Whitfield]

To pursue that point, is the Minister saying that a response to a text is not deemed to be consent for a subsequent phone call?

[John Glen]

Those regulations deal with that matter; I am dealing today with the banning of cold calling. I will move on to enforcement, and then I will be happy to respond.

The ban will be enforced by the Information Commissioner’s Office, a world leader in the protection of information rights. The ICO’s tough enforcement powers include fining offenders up to £500,000. I am also pleased to say that from Monday next week, 17 December, directors of companies making unlawful calls may also be personally liable for penalties of up to £500,000.

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

The Minister says that named directors “may” be liable. Will he give us clarity on what “may” means in that context?

[John Glen]

What I mean is that there is scope for them to be fined up to £500,000, according to the breach that they have committed. That will be a matter for the ICO to adjudicate.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank industry and charity stakeholders for their engagement with the consultation over the summer. As a consequence, I am pleased to say that we have a set of regulations that our stakeholders can get behind. I emphasise that the Government do not consider this ban to be “job done”. We understand that scammers are skilled at adapting to circumstances and that scams are constantly evolving. As such, we will continue our efforts to understand and take action on future scams.

Project Bloom, a cross-Government taskforce established in 2012 and currently led by the Pensions Regulator, continues its work to tackle scams and identify emerging threats. In addition, the Government are committed to limiting the statutory right to transfer, to help prevent funds transferring from occupational pension schemes into fraudulent ones.

In conclusion, the Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to help protect consumers from pension fraudsters, and I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

14:37

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the rationale for the measures. Of course, we have talked in previous Committees about other statutory instruments arising out of them. This is a significant problem; I understand that more than 11 million pensioners, in particular, are being targeted annually by cold callers, with fraudsters making 250 million calls a year, which is the equivalent of eight per second. That is a huge problem, and behind those figures there is a significant human impact on some vulnerable people.

As the Minister will be aware, during the Committee stage of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 the Labour party called for the FCA, rather than the ICO, to be given functions in respect of the ban on unsolicited direct marketing relating to pensions. The FCA has much stronger powers than the ICO and can strike off members who contravene the rules. We also called for an offence to be created for the use of information obtained through cold calling.

Will the Minister explain his response to those points? I have looked through the accompanying material and it is not crystal clear to me which body will be responsible for enforcing the ban, or whether the respective powers of the FCA, as against those of the ICO, have been taken into account in this determination.

I am concerned about the restricted powers of the ICO. I am sure that the Minister is aware of the views of various representative bodies. In particular, the Fair Telecoms campaign has intimated that the ICO has restricted means of ensuring compliance. I recall sitting on a previous Committee examining delegated legislation related to other parts of the Act, where we discussed transferring authority to the FCA precisely because it is a more powerful and authoritative body. It would be useful to hear more about that.

Secondly, it would have been helpful to ban the use of information derived from cold calls. That would have resulted in firms that provide financial services covered by the FCA being banned from using information gathered by introducers, thereby breaking that part of the chain. I know that that idea was not accepted by the Government, but has the Minister considered other means of dissuading such forward use of that information?

Thirdly, perhaps I have not got to grips with the relevant part of the legislation, but it is not clear to me exactly who the draft regulations will cover with respect to the telephone preference service register. The Fair Telecoms campaign maintains:

“This change in regulation will only affect the behaviour of callers who are currently checking numbers on the TPS register before making calls. For those who do not it simply adds to the cases that may be the subject of action by the ICO, rather than making any significant change.

Targets with their numbers on the TPS—the basis for many of the statistics given about the volume of calls alleged to be covered—are not affected in any way by this measure. It is understood that 80% of UK households have their number recorded on the TPS. At best, this measure can only affect the remaining 20%.”

Will the Minister clarify whether the draft regulations are focused on those not covered by the telephone preference service? If so, is it the Government’s view that the service is sufficient? It would be helpful to hear the Government’s thinking on the matter.

Fourthly, the Minister states that the draft regulations are in line with GDPR requirements, but some have suggested that their consent provisions are weaker than those in the GDPR. It would be helpful to understand where the exact language used about consent in the draft regulations has come from and why it is formally different from the language used in the GDPR.

Fifthly, as I understand it the regulations are drafted to cover only cases in which there is specific reference to

“funds held, or previously held, in an occupational pension scheme or a personal pension scheme”.

Cases in which a caller fails to make specific reference to the source of the funds that may be used for an unwise investment will therefore not be covered. Is the Department aware of that potential loophole? We can all imagine a particularly inventive and devious caller simply manipulating their sales script to comply with the letter but not the spirit of the draft regulations by talking in general terms without referring to a specific existing personal or occupational pension scheme.

Finally, may I push a little harder on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian? Would a response to a text message that was legal under PECR be sufficient to enable future cold calls within this regime?

[John Glen]

indicated dissent.

[Anneliese Dodds]

The Minister shakes his head, helpfully. I will take that as a no, but it would be great to get a response to my other questions.

14:43

[Patricia Gibson]

I welcome the proposals, as far as they go. The Minister may be aware that I have long campaigned against the whole culture of cold calling on the grounds of the distress, disturbance and alarm that it causes and the door that it leaves gapingly open to scammers of all kinds.

I was interested to hear the Minister say that the UK Government will implement my Bill to make named directors responsible, the Unsolicited Marketing Communications (Company Directors) Bill—in September, I think he said. The Government exactly reprinted and resurrected my Bill in the name of one of their own Back Benchers; that was ironic, given that one of the Bill’s goals was to deal with scammers, but its implementation is very welcome. However, there is a very serious point to be made.

If all consumers are to receive welcome protection from cold callers on receipt of their pension, surely the Government must concede that cold calling, in and of itself, leaves all consumers open to fraud or heavy-handed sales techniques. So far, at least, it seems that protection from cold calling is not to be extended to all consumers. I know that that issue is not in the Minister’s remit today, but it is an interesting point. Will he explain why the Government are not extending that protection? There has been a delay of more than two years in the important policy of using named directors’ responsibility to protect not only those with pension pots, but all consumers.

I welcome the common-sense approach outlined by the Minister under which the consumer will be able to receive marketing calls about their pension if they have explicitly consented to that. Of course, explicit consent cannot mean just ticking a tiny wee box at the bottom of a page of very small writing; it has to be more robust than that. People should not opt in to receive pension marketing calls by accident. Opting in must be clear and explicit. What assurances can the Minister give about that?

We are told that the general data protection regulation

“sets a high standard for consent”.

Will the Minister give us more detail about what that high standard looks like and what it involves?

I have concerns about the ICO being able to take action against organisations that contravene the regulations. We know that, in the past, companies that faced heavy penalties from the ICO for various breaches simply closed down and reopened with the same staff and premises under a different name. That is why named director responsibility matters so much. I welcome the Minister’s comment that it will be enshrined in law in September—

[John Glen]

December.

[Patricia Gibson]

This December or December 2019?

[John Glen]

I am very happy to confirm that I mean 17 December—next week.

[Patricia Gibson]

Excellent. I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has to say, and I welcome that. I have waited a long time for it. There has been a delay over named director responsibility. We want it not just for people with big pension pots, important as they are, but for all consumers in all industries. The two-year delay was a wasted opportunity. I wonder how many people have been swindled while we have waited.

The ICO can take any enforcement action it likes, but without named director responsibility it is a paper exercise because companies simply phoenix and evade their responsibilities. Penalty notices without named director responsibly are pie in the sky; they will not deter scammers.

I welcome these measures, and I am very pleased to hear about the December deadline that the Minister set out. I think he understands my reservations about this not being extended across every industry. For pension pots, this will stop scammers calling people without fear of reprisal and, when they receive a notice of penalty, simply putting it in the bin because it does not mean anything.

I urge the Minister to go back to his colleagues and make the case for real protection for all consumers in all industries. The Government supported named director responsibility for this measure, but we need to stop scammers across the board, not just in the area of pensions.

14:47

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Members for Oxford East and for North Ayrshire and Arran for their points, which I will try to respond to as fully as I can. I will start with the last point, about the delay. All I can say is that, since I have been in office, this is something I have focused on. It came out of the legislation that was introduced in the spring. I am pleased that we are at this point. I cannot account for the delay fully, but I am glad we are at this point today.

The hon. Member for East Lothian asked whether, if someone has opted into receiving text messages, they are opting into receiving calls. The answer is no, because the GDPR requires granular consent to something clear and specific. Consent to receiving a text is not consent to receiving a call.

[Martin Whitfield]

Just to clarify, the experience that I am aware of is that a text message was used, which itself invited consent. The caller used the consent given by the response to the text message to phone again. The measure talks about the specific line that the caller has been authorised to use, but I wonder whether the Minister understands that, in the regulations, the consent to approach a person has to be for the telephone number/line, in which case the text messaging system would not be consent at any time.

[John Glen]

As I say, text messages are not the subject of these regulations, which relate to the PECR. I am relying on box notes to clarify the point. I will have to take this away and write to the hon. Gentleman. I understand the specific example that he has raised, and I will not leave him in any ambiguity on that point. Currently, my understanding is that one cannot opt in to receive cold calling by text message, but I will write to him as soon as I can on that matter.

The hon. Member for Oxford East raised issues relating to the ICO and the FCA. I will not rehearse those points again, as we have already have discussed them, but I will respond to the concern about the effectiveness of the ICO as an enforcement body. The ICO will enforce restrictions on unsolicited electronic direct marketing under PECR, and it is appropriate that the planned ban is enforced through that existing framework. As we have discussed, the ICO has tough enforcement powers, including a fine of up to £500,000. There would be a risk of confusing consumers and industry if we had different cold calling enforcement regimes for different sectors. If the Committee agrees to introduce the ban, the FCA will work closely with the ICO where breaches of the rules by FCA-authorised firms are identified and, crucially, the ICO will be able to enforce bans on introducers that are outside the FCA’s remit, because they are not FCA-authorised firms.

The hon. Member for Oxford East also talked about the telephone preference service. This statutory instrument would change it from an opt-out to an opt-in regime, which makes restrictions on pensions cold calling much tighter. In addition, although not all consumers are aware of the TPS, those listed on it would still be protected by the ban.

The ICO’s guidance is indeed clear that consent under PECR is to be understood in accordance with GDPR. Although the FCA is not prohibiting the use of personal data collected by third parties through cold calling, the Government and the FCA will keep the proposal under review as the effectiveness of the ban is monitored. An authorised firm that accepts business from an introducer must meet the FCA’s regulatory requirements, including carrying out due diligence on the introducers they transact with. If customers are given unsuitable advice by an introducer, the authorised firm may be held responsible and subject to regulatory action. The FCA has alerted investment advisers and authorised firms to their responsibilities when accepting business from unauthorised introducers or lead generators. Organisations are already required to process or handle personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR.

I assure the hon. Members for Oxford East and for North Ayrshire and Arran, and the Committee as a whole, that the Government are engaged in an ongoing process. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not “job done”. I recognise that there are a range of concerns from consumer organisations and different parts of the industry about whether further restrictions or bans should be in place. One of the reasons for the draft instrument is that, in future, we can introduce additional restrictions more speedily should they be required.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

On a slightly different topic, in 2015, a constituent of mine, 92-year-old Olive Cook, committed suicide by throwing herself over the Avon gorge. That hit the national headlines because she had been inundated with calls from charities. She was on the databases of 99 different charities, and a lot of them would trade in her details. To stop cold calling now, has the Minister considered the lessons that we tried to learn and the work of the Charity Commission to try to stop cold calling following that incident?

[John Glen]

I am extremely sorry to be reminded of that case. The regulations introduce a ban on pensions cold calling, but I would be happy to look into the matter and see what the collective conclusion of Government was on that particular case and its implications. I am happy to examine that in the context of my previous remarks.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran spoke about a more comprehensive cold calling ban. As I tried to indicate, pensions cold calling is a special case where levels of consumer detriment are particularly high. The Government are committed to taking action. I accept that, for some, action has not been taken as quickly as it could have been, but a balance has to be struck between ensuring that consumers are adequately protected and providing the right conditions for legitimate direct marketing industry to operate.

[Patricia Gibson]

Nobody wants to stop businesses going about their lawful work, but if we had named director responsibility across every sector, that would allow legitimate businesses to thrive, while the scammers and the cowboys would be the ones to suffer.

[John Glen]

I am happy to look at appropriate additional measures, in the light of the evidence presented. I would like to draw the Committee’s attention, for example, to situations where utilities companies use calls to prospects to secure a switch to their service, or where the publishing industry uses calls to consumers who have indicated some affinity with the brand. Many national newspapers and magazine publishing houses use that approach. I am not, in this response, indicating that the Government are closed off to any further moves, but it has to be done on an evidential basis.

[Patricia Gibson]

The examples that the Minister has given are of legitimate businesses going about their normal work. We are not talking about that sort of business; we are talking about the ones that phone up, pester, scare, disturb, annoy and scam people.

[John Glen]

Fraud is fraud, and with actionable fraud the police can be contacted in such circumstances. With respect to the cold calling mechanism, I have said all I can on that. The Government are open on the basis of evidence to move forward.

The hon. Lady also raised the issue of how the Government will ensure that consumers do not accidentally give consent through ticking a box on a form. To give clarity on what GDPR sets out, it is a high standard of consent, requiring a positive opt in. Any default method, such as a pre-ticked box, does not constitute consent under GDPR, as I made clear in my opening remarks. Guidance to firms on complying with GDPR highlights that that request for consent must be prominently displayed, clear and specific, and separate from the terms and conditions.

I hope that that deals—

[Anneliese Dodds]

rose—

[John Glen]

Clearly, it does not. I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, who has been generous and helpful in his responses. I have one question remaining, which might fit into the rubric of what he has said about Government being open to further tightening, if necessary. I have handed over my speaking notes, but I recall that the legislation refers specifically to occupational or other pension schemes, and how a scammer or somebody selling inappropriately could use general talk of pensions to get into that conversation, and thus creatively comply. Will the Minister’s Department look at that carefully?

[John Glen]

I am clear that this is about pensions cold calling. I understand what the hon. Lady is saying about loopholes, in the sense that that conversation could hide that intent. It would be appropriate for me to reflect on that and write to the hon. Lady and the Committee. She raises a fair point, and the last thing we want to do is leave such ambiguity out there.

To conclude, this legislation will make a real impact in tackling pensions scams, deterring pensions cold callers by making their actions illegal and signalling to consumers that legitimate companies will not cold call them about their pensions. I hope the Committee will have found the sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

14:58

Committee rose.

Draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) REgulations 2018

Wednesday 12th December 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Philip Davies

† Bradley, Ben (Mansfield) (Con)

† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

† Clarke, Mr Simon (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)

Daby, Janet (Lewisham East) (Lab)

Day, Martyn (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)

† Elliott, Julie (Sunderland Central) (Lab)

† Esterson, Bill (Sefton Central) (Lab)

† Green, Kate (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)

† Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Henderson, Gordon (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)

† Lopez, Julia (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)

† Mak, Alan (Havant) (Con)

† Murray, Ian (Edinburgh South) (Lab)

† Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

† Tolhurst, Kelly (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy)

† Whittingdale, Mr John (Maldon) (Con)

† Wragg, Mr William (Hazel Grove) (Con)

Ian Bradshaw, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 12 December 2018

[Philip Davies in the Chair]

Draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

14:29

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Since the UK’s 2016 referendum decision to leave the EU, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has undertaken a significant amount of work on the withdrawal negotiations, preparing for a range of potential outcomes. We have been working, and must continue to work, to prepare for a no deal scenario.

The regulations aim to address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively, as well as other deficiencies arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, in the field of accounts and reports of UK corporate bodies. The law in the UK on the preparation and filing of accounts and reports for corporate bodies is compliant with the EU accounting directive. There is also a directly applicable EU regulation that relates to the preparation of accounts in accordance with international accounting standards—the so-called IAS regulation. Both the accounting directive and the IAS regulation apply throughout the European economic area. The Department intends to introduce a separate statutory instrument that will address how we intend to deal with the deficiencies presented by the IAS regulation after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.

The fundamental elements of the current companies’ accounts and reports legislation will remain the same after exit. However, that legislation still needs to be amended to ensure that it works effectively once the UK has left the EU. An important component of the accounting directive, and therefore the UK’s company law, relates to reciprocal arrangements for company group structures—for example, exemptions permitted to businesses from producing consolidated accounts if the parent is registered anywhere in the EEA and is producing consolidated accounts that are compliant with EU law. In the absence of a negotiated agreement regarding the economic relationship between the UK and the EU, it would be inappropriate to continue with preferential treatment for EEA entities, or UK entities with EEA parents.

The statutory instrument will mean that businesses registered in EEA states will be treated in the same way as those from third countries. UK businesses with EEA parents will therefore no longer benefit from the exemption from having to produce consolidated accounts because their EEA parent company produces consolidated accounts. However, UK businesses with parent entities registered in the UK will not be affected by the changes.

The regulations do not create new criminal offences. However, the scope of the pre-existing criminal offences will be extended, in that some companies that previously benefited from an exemption will no longer do so. They will be exposed to the possibility of committing a criminal offence in a way that they were not before. Also, some businesses with links to the EEA will now fall within the scope of existing criminal offences in the UK for failure to file accounts and reports. For example, dormant companies with parent entities listed in the EEA will no longer be exempt from preparing and filing accounts with Companies House. Failure to do so would mean that they would be committing an offence, and they would be liable to incur fines and penalties. That is consistent with the approach for similar companies with parents outside the EEA.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell the Committee whether she anticipates, or has anticipated, more parent companies moving to the EEA from the UK as a result of the UK leaving the European Union?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I do not have any indication of the number of companies that have stated that they would leave the UK after EU exit.

The accounting directive sets out the requirements for businesses to report payments to Governments worldwide relating to the extraction of natural resources by way of logging and mining. Alongside that, it provides a power for the Commission to grant equivalence to third countries for their systems of reporting payments to Governments regarding logging and mining activities. This statutory instrument transfers that power to the Secretary of State.

The Government have carried out a de minimis impact assessment of the regulations, because the overall costs to business were expected to be small. That confirmed that the impact on business would be minimal and that the resulting costs would be in relation to the company’s size. There is a small chance that certain second-order impacts may arise from changes to one of the exemptions. Currently, the ability to switch between accountancy frameworks—the requirements for the preparation of companies’ annual accounts—is limited to once every five years, unless the company de-lists from any regulated market in the EEA. The change made by this statutory instrument will mean that a company can only satisfy that condition by de-listing from the UK market.

Although we think the amendment is a minor one, it may provide an incentive for companies to de-list from the UK markets. Companies list their securities on capital markets primarily to access a larger capital and investor base—for example, because they are considering growing their businesses. They do not take de-listing decisions lightly. Given the scale of the changes introduced by this statutory instrument, it is very unlikely that they would do so to try to circumvent the reporting requirements.

The Government have worked closely with business and regulatory bodies to ensure that regulations achieve continuity wherever possible, while addressing the deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. My officials have benefited from the wisdom of our many stakeholders, and the statutory instrument incorporates their views. In the event that the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, the regulations will be critical in ensuring that UK accounting law continues to provide transparency and certainty to investors. The regulations will also ensure that companies operating in the UK have clear guidance for preparing and filing their accounts. I commend the regulations to the Committee, and I ask the Committee to support and accept them.

14:37

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Yet again—for the third time in a week—we are here to discuss the consequences of no deal and the changes that are needed to regulations. Yet again, we are told in the explanatory notes that they are relatively minor, but when we dig deeper we find that they affect quite a large number of pieces of legislation and that in combination, they are significant. The combined effect of these SIs, along with many other aspects of the way Brexit is progressing, demonstrates just how important it is that the Government rule out any prospect of no deal as urgently as possible. Businesses are crying out for that certainty. The more of these SIs we consider, the more uncertainty is created.

In this case, the reporting requirements will change significantly, in particular—but not exclusively—for companies where the parent company is in the EEA and subsidiaries are in the UK. The advice note produced last month by specialists Linklaters contains the heading:

“Brexit set to increase accounting requirements for UK entities with EEA parents or subsidiaries”.

That is not something that any Government or any business would want to read. It summarises the fact that this SI, along with the others, will lead to great potential difficulties for businesses and the economy.

I think the Minister quoted from paragraph 2.11 of the explanatory memorandum, which states that

“it is inappropriate to continue with preferential treatment for EEA entities, or UK entities with parents or subsidiaries from EEA States, or entities listing on EEA regulated markets, because that would amount to unreciprocated preferential treatment.”

I do not deny that that would be the case in the disastrous event of no deal, but we must be trying to avoid that. That prompts some questions, which I would like to explore with the Minister, about the impact of this SI.

Paragraph 7.4 sets out in a little more detail what is anticipated. It talks about the changes to the Companies Act 2006—at least, I think that is what it refers to:

“Section 399 CA06 set out conditions under which UK subsidiaries with EEA parents were exempt from the requirement to file group accounts. That exemption has been reduced in scope so that it applies only to UK subsidiaries with UK parents.”

How many companies are going to be affected? What proportion of the economy will be affected? I asked a similar question yesterday and I do not think we ever quite got the answer. Perhaps the Minister can have another go today. She may not have had the answer yesterday, and if she does not have it today, I am happy for her to say so and to write to me separately.

That also applies to the point about an impact assessment. As with previous SIs, the Government say that it is not relevant because of the limited impact. Let us get an honest assessment of the impact of the changes. How many companies will be affected? What size are those companies? What proportion of the economy will be affected?

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South asked an interesting question about the potential for businesses to move from the UK into the EEA after Brexit. What assessment has been made of that? What came back from the consultation about the prospect of that happening? Presumably, if a company that is registered in the UK at the moment wants to avoid additional reporting requirements, it would be tempted, if it has an EEA parent, to re-register in the EEA. What are the consequences if that happens?

What consequences have the Government considered, in terms of the feedback from the consultation and any assessment they have carried out? If no assessment has been carried out, why on earth not? This could have quite serious consequences. I can think of a very sizeable business located in my hon. Friend’s constituency that might be affected by such a desire to shift registration, and I can imagine the consequences of shifting that registration and the business operations associated with it. Some answers would be very much appreciated, if we are to do justice to our scrutiny of the regulations.

How was the consultation carried out? How many businesses were consulted? What business organisations were consulted? What were their responses? Paragraph 10.2 of the explanatory memorandum describes it as an informal consultation, but that does not give an indication of its scale or scope, or what the responses were. In order to make sure that we are properly assessing the impact, scale and consequences of the regulations, we need answers to those questions as well.

I have made the point about the Government’s decision that the regulations do not justify a full impact assessment. Frankly, if this is of a more sizeable scope and if the potential for businesses to relocate is significant, there will be a significant impact. I am surprised that the Government have decided that an impact assessment is not required.

I turn to other matters. How will the new arrangements operate? What will the arrangements be for companies listed in the EEA that have subsidiaries in the UK? What will be the reporting arrangements to replace what happens at the moment? It was not clear from the Minister’s initial remarks how that will work, so perhaps she can confirm that. Will Companies House be sufficiently resourced to address the additional accounting requirements that Linklaters refers to in its analysis? For that matter, will businesses be sufficiently resourced to address the additional work? Will additional funding be required for Companies House, or will it just have additional responsibilities without extra resources to discharge them?

Specifically, will the Minister describe the impact of the regulations on extractive industry companies registered in the EEA? How will they be affected? I understand from the explanatory notes and analysis that there is a particular issue about the effect of the changes on country-by-country reporting by extractive companies, such as those in the mining sector. As Linklaters tells us, there will be significant issues in respect of the exemption from the requirement to prepare consolidated accounts. There will also be significant impacts when it comes to the exemption from the requirement to prepare a non-financial information statement, the ability to change accounting frameworks on de-listing, the dormant company exemption from producing accounts, country-by-country reporting by extractive companies in mining, qualified partnership accounts and overseas company regimes.

Those significant changes go substantially beyond what the Minister said in her opening remarks about the scale and scope of what we are being asked to approve. Will she give that her detailed attention, with any support that her officials can deliver this afternoon? Will she write to the Committee to answer the questions that I have raised?

On their own, but especially with the other statutory instruments we have been asked to approve, the regulations are an indication that significant changes are being made to the legislative framework of this country as a result of no deal planning. I accept that we have no choice other than to address the regulations this afternoon, but that does not mean we have to do so without adequate scrutiny.

14:49

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Member for Sefton Central for his usual thorough reading of the statutory instrument and preparation for the debate. I want to finish by reminding the Committee that the SI is being brought forward for a no deal scenario. As a Government, we are still working towards a deal, and that is what we hope we will have as we leave the European Union.

[Ian Murray]

I would hate to get into a debate about Brexit, because I am sure you would call me out of order, Mr Davies, but would it not be much better for the Government to rule out a no deal scenario? We could then spend most of our time in the House dealing with what we need to deal with, rather than preparing for no deal.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Actually, I think it is quite right that as a Government we are preparing for no deal, and we will continue to do so. That is why I am here presenting a statutory instrument—so that in the event of no deal we will be able to give business confidence and clarity on what the outcome will be, whether it is liked or not, in a no deal scenario.

I will try to answer some of the questions that the hon. Member for Sefton Central posed about the statutory instrument. He asked about the total number of companies that might be affected. There are approximately 3.8 million active companies on the UK register as it stands, and 98.5% of them happen to be micro or small businesses. There are approximately 35,000 medium-sized businesses and 20,000 large entities on the register. We have assessed that fewer than 20,000 companies will be affected by the statutory instrument, with a range of sizes and set-ups.

I was asked what assessment we have made of de-listing. As I have outlined, we did not carry out a full assessment, because we established from the data we have that the burden and cost to business will be below £5 million. The burden on business will relate to the potential costs of having to file accounts and make preparations, where they had been exempt. Obviously, that is a small cost to a limited number of organisations.

Obviously the de-listing is very difficult to assess. It is very difficult to assess how many companies would take the decision to leave the UK based in a no deal scenario. As I have said, as a Minister I have not been made aware of any companies that have registered an interest in leaving the UK, based on the changes that we are considering. We estimate that the number of organisations that might decide to de-list would be very small, but it is a very difficult number to assess.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister said that nearly 20,000 businesses would be affected by the regulations. The explanatory memorandum states that there is “no significant” impact on business. I just wonder whether she can tell me how many businesses it would take for the Government to decide that it was a significant number worthy of an impact assessment.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, because I have just outlined it, we are talking about approximately 20,000 businesses that would be affected, out of the current 3.8 million businesses that are registered in the UK. That is a small number of businesses in relation to the total number of registered companies. However, we are talking about the cost, and the burden will relate to the potential extra costs in relation to accounting and reporting.

We must remember that, as Members will have read and as I have mentioned, dormant companies for example have been exempt. They will no longer be exempt, so there will be a cost to that under the regulations in a no deal situation.

[Ian Murray]

To follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, there is an impact assessment that says that the cost to business is negligible, but will the Minister’s Department be producing an impact assessment of the cumulative cost to business of all the SIs that are going through in preparation for a no-deal Brexit, and when will we see it?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are assessing the impact as a Department in all ways, and we are doing that informally. We do it through working with stakeholders. These SIs are not just dreamed up. As I said in response to an earlier question, we have consulted our officials and worked with stakeholders. We have spoken to auditors and accountants—the people who will be responsible for imparting this information to the companies they work for and for understanding the true cost to business—so we are always assessing the impact of everything we do. Especially as a business Minister, one of my priorities is to make sure that when we do things around business, we reduce the burden when we can. The actual answer is that we need to prepare for scenarios, and in doing this we are aware of the potential outcomes and risks, which would affect 20,000 businesses.

[Ian Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Once more on this.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister is being incredibly generous, and I am grateful to the Chair for indulging me on this point, but it is incredibly important. The Minister quite rightly says that the Government have not just dreamed these SIs up. Of course they have not, because there is a process that has to be run through if the Government decide that they wish to go down the route of a no deal Brexit. What is the cumulative effect on business of all the SIs that are currently before her Department? They have not been dreamed up, but they are there, they are measurable, and they can be added together to show the impact of the SIs that are currently on the table and their cost to business.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I will try again to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. There is no policy change in this SI: it is correcting deficiencies in the retained EU law. If he is asking about the impact of no deal, I refer him to the work that has already been done by Government on the impact of a no deal scenario versus a deal scenario, rather than these individual statutory instruments. As he will know, there are a number of statutory instruments across all Departments that may well affect businesses in different ways, which do not come under my responsibilities as a junior Minister in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I just want to press the Minister on this point about the overall cost to business of the no deal planning that she has talked about. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central has mentioned the specialist media coverage of the accounting requirements that have already taken place in one sector of the economy, and this is the third Delegated Legislation Committee on this topic in this week alone. By when will we receive from the Minister the true cost to business of these extra responsibilities and regulations from her Department?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the assessments of the effect on business have been well reported. With this particular SI, we are talking about the impact on a very small number of businesses, compared to the 3.8 million that are registered. The vast majority of UK-registered companies will not be affected by the SI at all, because we are not changing the policy; we are correcting deficiencies so that we are legal and can operate correctly and efficiently in the case of a no deal scenario. Quite rightly, if we are able to establish a future relationship with the European Union—if we are in a situation where we have a deal—this is one of a number of elements that would be part of those ongoing negotiations. However, I am unable to give the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent clarity on the direct question he asked regarding the total cost to business for all the SIs that have been passed or are coming up.

[Nick Smith]

On this topic, in this Department.

[Kelly Tolhurst]

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to accountancy, we are talking about the accountancy SI today.

[Nick Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am going to carry on, because I have given as full an answer as I am prepared to give.

As I highlighted in my introduction, and as I have reiterated, we are not changing the way in which we ask companies to report. We will work with Companies House, as we do already, to ensure that we identify all the companies that are affected by not having the exemptions, that we have the data, and that any guidance that is needed is issued well before the SI comes into effect.

On the extraction industries, the hon. Member for Sefton Central is right that currently the EU Commission has the power to grant equivalency to third countries. We are not changing any of the criteria for that; rather than the EU Commission having that power, the Secretary of State would have the authority to make those decisions in a no deal situation. As I outlined, the SI will correct the deficiencies in EU retained law.

[Bill Esterson]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I give way.

[Ian Murray]

It is called scrutiny.

[Bill Esterson]

I think my hon. Friend has anticipated my question. Will the Minister explain what the scrutiny process will be for the Secretary of State’s decision making in the event of no deal?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. As I outlined, the European Commission has the power to grant equivalency, and we are not changing any powers here. Having looked at this, we believe that it is small enough for us to have it in an Executive power. If the European Commission has those powers currently, it is right they would be transferred to the UK Secretary of State in a no deal situation. Scrutiny would operate exactly as it does currently.

[Bill Esterson]

Really?

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Absolutely, because the Secretary of State would make those decisions and grant those powers. Granting equivalency to third countries is obviously a small part of it.

Effective financial reporting underpins the success of every business. It helps to inform decision making, to improve performance and to promote confidence in a company’s future. As the UK exits the EU, it is paramount that we maintain the integrity of the UK system of accounting and reporting. The regulations will ensure that it remains coherent, operable and understandable for companies, users of accounts, and the general public, who rely on the transparency that it provides. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

Division 1

Ayes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

Noes: 6

---

Labour: 6

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

15:06

Committee rose.

Draft Merchant Shipping (Recognised Organisations) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 12th December 2018 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir Christopher Chope

† Afolami, Bim (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)

Berger, Luciana (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)

† Cowan, Ronnie (Inverclyde) (SNP)

Coyle, Neil (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)

† Donelan, Michelle (Chippenham) (Con)

† Fabricant, Michael (Lichfield) (Con)

† Farrelly, Paul (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)

† Foxcroft, Vicky (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)

† Garnier, Mark (Wyre Forest) (Con)

† George, Ruth (High Peak) (Lab)

† Ghani, Ms Nusrat (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport)

† Goodwill, Mr Robert (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)

† Hair, Kirstene (Angus) (Con)

† Huq, Dr Rupa (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)

† Swayne, Sir Desmond (New Forest West) (Con)

† Thomson, Ross (Aberdeen South) (Con)

† Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)

Yohanna Sallberg, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 12 December 2018

[Mr Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Draft Merchant Shipping (Recognised Organisations) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

08:55

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Merchant Shipping (Recognised Organisations) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Recognised organisations play an important part in ensuring that ships are built and maintained so that they can operate in compliance with national and international standards on safety and the prevention of marine pollution. ROs are organisations with experience and expertise in the surveying, inspection and certification of ships. They carry out those functions on behalf of maritime nations such as the United Kingdom.

Globally, the International Maritime Organisation develops rules on ROs. The IMO introduced the recognised organisations code, which updated and consolidated existing requirements, and entered into force in 2015. The code contains criteria against which ROs are approved, authorised and assessed, and gives guidance on how flag states should monitor ROs. As in many other areas, the European Union has adopted legislation to harmonise the way in which member states implement IMO requirements. EU regulation 391/2009 and related legislation established a system for approving ROs, criteria for assessing RO performance based on IMO criteria, monitoring measures, and remedial measures if ROs are underperforming, including fees, penalties and, finally, the removal of RO status.

The regulations before the Committee are made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Department expects to lay approximately 65 EU exit statutory instruments. The Act retains EU legislation that is directly applicable in UK law, such as that on ROs.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend—[Interruption]—yes, and possible future Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest says—believe that these regulations are a good example of contingency planning in the event of no deal, but also the planning that has to go ahead following our withdrawal from the EU?

[Ms Ghani]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The Department for Transport has always been, and continues to be, thorough in preparing legislation for all scenarios, including no deal.

[Michael Fabricant]

Bravo.

[Ms Ghani]

I thank my hon. Friend.

The regulations make provision under section 8 of the 2018 Act to correct deficiencies in such EU legislation as arise from the UK leaving the European Union. We need to amend retained EU legislation on ROs for the legislation to function correctly in future. The regulations will therefore amend EU regulation 391/2009 and subsidiary EU legislation, which comprises Commission regulation 788/2014 on rules for fines, penalty payments and the withdrawal of recognition, and Commission decision 2009/491 on criteria for member states to use when judging whether an RO’s performance is unacceptable. The regulations also revoke Commission implementing regulation 1355/2014.

Under EU legislation, member states may delegate the inspection and survey of ships to EU authorised ship inspection and survey organisations, or EU ROs. At present, there are 12 EU ROs, six of which have been authorised to act on behalf of the UK. The regulations will make the necessary changes to adapt an EU system for ROs to one that can function as a UK system after exit. It is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s intention that the six EU ROs that are currently authorised on behalf of the UK would continue to remain authorised and recognised as UK ROs following our exit from the EU.

To enable the legislation to continue to work as part of UK law, the regulations will change references to “the member state” and “the Commission” to “the Secretary of State” or “the United Kingdom” where appropriate. Changes to definitions and other wording in the legislation have been made to reflect the UK’s position outside the EU, and redundant reporting requirements have been removed.

Certain powers have been transferred from the European Commission to the Secretary of State for Transport. That will enable us to keep up to date with changes to the IMO rules that apply to ROs in relation to standards and the criteria for assessing RO performance. Those criteria are used to measure the effectiveness of the rules, procedures and performance of recognised organisations in relation to safety and the environment.

The regulations will also enable the Secretary of State to make rules in relation to the imposition of fines and penalties and the withdrawal of recognition; the establishment of criteria for assessing ROs’ performance and the effectiveness of their rules; the amendment of the criteria that ROs must follow and the interpretation of those criteria; and the amendment of the criteria for use of port state control inspection data for assessing unacceptable levels of performance by ROs. Other changes include transferring powers to review fines and penalties from the European Court to the UK courts by way of a statutory appeals procedure.

The regulations will be accompanied by merchant shipping notice 1672, which provides information to the industry on the standards that ROs apply and on requirements for recognising, authorising and assessing ROs. I should also mention directive 2009/15, which governs the relationship between states and ROs and includes the authorisation of ROs. That directive was implemented administratively through formal agreements between the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and each RO. The directive will not be saved in UK law after exit, but the MCA will put in place new agreements with each RO when the regulations come into force. Those arrangements will be very similar to the previous agreements between the MCA and the ROs but will reflect the changes made in these regulations.

The regulations make necessary changes to ensure that the existing regulatory framework for recognition, authorisation and monitoring of recognised organisations is retained and operates effectively. They will ensure that the law on recognising, authorising and monitoring ROs continues to function after the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, enabling the UK to continue to comply with its international obligations as established by the International Maritime Organisation. The regulations are fully supported by the Government and I commend them to the Committee.

09:02

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I will be brief.

As the Minister outlined, the regulations bring a series of EU Commission decisions and regulations on merchant shipping marine pollution into UK law under the Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They aim to ensure that international criteria for the performance of private sector companies—so-called recognised organisations—contracted to survey regulatory compliance in merchant shipping continue to apply after Brexit.

The areas of compliance are the five key UN conventions underpinning international maritime regulation. Those various regulations and decisions were implemented to tackle marine pollution. Studies show that ships contribute between 2% and 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Roughly 14 million annual cases of childhood asthma are estimated to be related to global ship pollution using current fuels. I am sure the whole Committee agrees that that is shocking. We welcome steps to deal with that problem.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under IMO rules there are annex VI areas, including many of the affected coastal areas in our country, where heavy marine fuels cannot be used and ships have to switch to diesel? The problem has been mitigated by the IMO in many sea areas, including the English channel and the Baltic sea.

[Karl Turner]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I accept that there are some mitigations, but the research clearly shows that this is still a real problem.

The Opposition are supportive of this instrument and do not intend to divide the Committee, but I would like to put on the record and raise some points with the Minister. As ever, I certainly do not expect a detailed answer now, given the constraints of the Committee. I would, however, be grateful if she responded in writing in due course.

First, will the Minister clarify the post-Brexit arrangements with the European Maritime Safety Agency for access to its inspection database ahead of the new IMO restrictions on the sulphur content of shipping fuels coming into force on 1 January 2020? Although we of course welcome action aimed at reducing sulphur emissions from shipping for environmental and health reasons, there are significant challenges for short sea shipping and ferry operators. What recent discussions has the Minister held with UK ferry operators and shipping companies on meeting those restrictions?

Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified how the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers and the maritime labour convention are included in the responsibilities for the ROs authorised by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to carry out inspection and survey work on its behalf. Also, how does all that tie in with the Government’s 25-year environment plan? I have a note with those questions that I am happy to hand to the Minister and her civil servants and I would be very grateful if they responded to these points in due course.

09:04

[Ms Ghani]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to this morning’s debate, and to the Opposition for their support. This debate has shown that the Committee appreciates the important part that ROs play in ensuring maritime safety and environmental protection.

The regulations will ensure continuity for ROs and the shipping companies that rely on their services. It is not our intention to make changes to how ROs operate, or to the relationship between the MCA and ROs. The regulations only adapt a system for ROs designed on behalf of the EU member states into a UK system. The MCA has already taken steps to promote continuity in discussions with the ROs.

The regulations are essential to ensure that legislation on ROs, which are a crucial part of the regulatory framework for shipping, continues to work effectively in the UK from day one after our EU exit. I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to respond in writing to some of the issues that he raised. However, I remind him that we are part of the high ambition coalition driving the IMO’s standards not only on greenhouse gas emissions but on other emissions into our waters.

I am in the middle of preparing the Government’s 30-year strategy, “Maritime 2050”, which will look not only at the training and rights of seafarers but at environmental impacts. I am more than happy to give more detail as I take that forward. I established the clean maritime council to ensure that we not only deliver on our country’s ambitions but lead the way in the world. I hope the Committee has found this morning’s sitting informative and will join me in supporting the regulations.

Question put and agreed to.

09:07

Committee rose.

Ministerial Correction

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Ministerial Corrections

Wednesday 12 December 2018

Education

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Ministerial Corrections

Improving Education Standards

The following is an extract from a speech on Improving Education Standards on 29 November 2018.

[The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)]

At Downhills Primary School in Haringey in 2011, just 63% of pupils were achieving the expected standard in the old SATs in reading, writing and maths combined, compared with the national average at the time of 79%.

[Official Report, 29 November 2018, Vol. 650, c. 442.]

Letter of correction from Nick Gibb.

An error has been identified in my opening speech.

The correct wording should have been:

[Nick Gibb]

At Downhills Primary School in Haringey in 2011, just 63% of pupils were achieving the expected standard in the old SATs in reading, writing and maths combined, compared with the national average at the time of 67%.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill (Twenty Second sitting)

Committee Debate: 22nd sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th December 2018 Public Bill Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: Ms Nadine Dorries, † Albert Owen

Allan, Lucy (Telford) (Con)

Bone, Mr Peter (Wellingborough) (Con)

† Charalambous, Bambos (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)

† Fletcher, Colleen (Coventry North East) (Lab)

† Foster, Kevin (Torbay) (Con)

Harper, Mr Mark (Forest of Dean) (Con)

† Khan, Afzal (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)

Lee, Karen (Lincoln) (Lab)

† Linden, David (Glasgow East) (SNP)

† Matheson, Christian (City of Chester) (Lab)

Mills, Nigel (Amber Valley) (Con)

† Norris, Alex (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)

Paisley, Ian (North Antrim) (DUP)

† Smith, Chloe (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office)

Stewart, Bob (Beckenham) (Con)

Wiggin, Bill (North Herefordshire) (Con)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

Wednesday 12 December 2018

[Albert Owen in the Chair]

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

10:00

[The Chair]

Before we begin, although I am sure Committee Members are interested in what is on their electronic devices, I remind them to switch those devices to silent. As we know, the Committee cannot consider the clauses of the Bill until the House has agreed a money resolution.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Committee do now adjourn.

This week has been—what can I say? For one thing, the Prime Minister delayed the crucial Brexit vote at the eleventh hour. As we have seen with my Bill, the Government’s strategy on every major issue is delay, delay, delay. More than a year since my Bill passed Second Reading, we are still waiting for a money resolution. Just as with Brexit, the Government are afraid of going to a vote that they know they will lose, so they are using procedural tricks to delay. The threat of a general election looms larger and larger every day. We in this Committee cannot be sitting ducks, waiting for some signal that events are turning for the Government in order to make progress.

Question put and agreed to.

10:01

Adjourned till Wednesday 19 December at Ten o’clock.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 12 December 2018

[Sir Henry Bellingham in the Chair]

UK Fishing Industry

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

09:30

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK fishing industry.

I felt it was important to hold this debate in the run-up to the last Fisheries Council that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), will attend and have a voice in. We have heard lots of debates in this place about what will happen to fisheries policy once we leave the European Union in March 2019. As is normal, we should have a debate about what the Fisheries Council will decide this year.

Before I move on to the Fisheries Council, I would like to set the record straight. We have heard many people in recent times quote the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, implying that it welcomes the deal that is on the table. I want to quote the federation’s chief executive, Bertie Armstrong:

“We have made it very clear since the referendum in 2016 that anything other than full, unfettered sovereignty over our own waters would be crossing a red line for the fishing industry.

Despite the stated wishes of French president Emmanuel Macron, which we know are shared by the other large fishing nations, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany, we should give a clear and resounding ‘Non!’ to the idea of guaranteeing continued access.

Access and quotas must be negotiated…not carved up in advance.”

I do not think those words describe some of the things we have heard attributed to Bertie Armstrong in the main Chamber in recent times, and I wanted to set the record straight.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on obtaining this debate. Bertie Armstrong also said, when giving evidence to the Fisheries Bill Committee last week, that the fisheries were put into the transitional arrangements because there were four or five countries that would have blocked a transitional deal otherwise. He was probably right about that, but the question for him, and—indeed, for the Minister and Prime Minister—is, if that was the attitude to the transition, what will be different come the final deal?

[Mrs Murray]

I completely agree. I think Bertie’s words have been taken out of context and misquoted. He went on to say:

“The link between access and trade breaches all international norms and practice and is simply unacceptable.”

When the European Union negotiated our terms of entry, it was very keen to get access to the United Kingdom’s then 12-mile limit—it was not until 1976 that we had a 200-mile limit—but that must end. The weak words I have heard about us negotiating with our European partners are completely wrong, because under international law we have control. We should decide how much surplus our fisherman, other member states and other nations—it is not just member states of the European Union—are allowed to take. British fishermen must be treated fairly.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Does she accept that Bertie Armstrong and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation do not speak for the whole of the Scottish fishing fleet and the Scottish fishing industry? The industry is multifaceted, particularly in my constituency on the west coast of Scotland, where fishermen entirely depend on getting unfettered access to their live catch and getting that on to European tables.

[Mrs Murray]

I completely agree with and respect the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation has specifically been used by various people in the main Chamber as a way of backing up their point, and has thus been misquoted. I felt it was right to put on record that what has been attributed to it in the past was not the full story.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. We both talk a lot to Bertie Armstrong—I spoke to him on Monday. In the quote she repeated, she is absolutely correct about what Bertie Armstrong and other members of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation have said: nobody is taking anything for granted, and we must continue to fight our case in future negotiations. Bertie Armstrong and others have come out in support of the withdrawal agreement, but only in as much as it gets us to that next phase. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Mrs Murray]

I do not accept that. Having spoken to him myself, I know he has not said that he respects the withdrawal agreement completely. That is why I wanted to put on record that what we are hearing in the main Chamber is not the whole statement.

I do not want to focus on subjects that we can discuss in other debates, so I want to address the Council of Ministers, which is due to meet later next week—the Minister might correct me on that. We need to realise that this is a very significant Council of Ministers meeting, because it is the last time our Fisheries Minister will actually have a voice at the table. Even if there is an implementation period, although he will attend future meetings, he will not have a voice. It is extremely important that we all realise that.

Secondly, from 1 January next year, the landing obligation comes into force. There are conflicting regulations as far as that is concerned, because it opens up the whole question of choke species. In recent weeks, bass, which is not really subject to quota, but is subject to a bycatch limit, has affected the small boats in south-east Cornwall, many of which fish from the constituency of my friend, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). Because of EU regulations, these fishermen have to discard bass—a very high value fish—at sea, where it does not survive. That goes completely against the grain of sustainability and conservation. Once we take back control of our waters, the Minister will have the flexibility to make changes to UK legislation so that the rules fit what fishermen are actually catching.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that really important point. In Brixham, in my constituency, fishermen are very worried about choke species with cod, which they cannot avoid catching. I wonder whether she feels the same about cod fisheries?

[Mrs Murray]

Absolutely. I wanted to point out what Bertie Armstrong had said, wholly and solely because, off the south-west coast, in areas VIId and VIIe—or VIIb to VIIk, actually, which is the whole of the south coast—UK fishermen have a tiny proportion of the EU total allowable catch. They get something like 8% of that quota, compared with 80% for our French counterparts. That is what causes the concern and the problems, because if there is cod on the ground, fishermen cannot stop the cod swimming into their nets, and many have to be discarded. What happens when fishermen catch a net full of cod? They cannot land it, but they cannot throw it away either. That is a good illustration of the problem with the landing obligation under the top-heavy bureaucratic common fisheries policy.

I have mentioned the south-west and area VIIe, but I want to point out to the Minister some of the proposals that are on the table for the North sea stocks. I understand from the National Federation of Fishermens Organisations that the proposals are for a 22% reduction in whiting, a 33% reduction in cod and a 31% reduction in haddock. What will the Minister do to rebalance that?

If all the fish, using zonal attachment, were available for the British fishing fleet to catch and land from when we leave the European Union—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said that we will leave the common fisheries policy on March 29 2019 at 11 o’clock in the evening—it would certainly benefit the United Kingdom and our economy. We should look to redress the imbalance that has been heaped on the industry for more than 40 years.

Other hon. Members want to speak, and we have only a short time for the debate, so, in summary, I wish to hear what the Minister will do at the Council. Will he send a message to our European partners that when the United Kingdom leaves on March 29 2019, we will honour our obligations under the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and the United Nations fish stocks agreement—particularly article 62—and set quotas in a sustainable way, as is our obligation, but make available to other nations only the surplus of fish that the UK fleet cannot catch? It will be interesting to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say at the end of the debate. I will finish now, because I promised other hon. Members who want to contribute that I would speak only for a short time.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who introduced the debate extremely well, for being concise and for giving other hon. Members a good chance. I call Brendan O’Hara.

09:39

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

I, again, congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing this extremely important debate. Had it not been for events elsewhere, which I fear have conspired against us, it could have made the front pages tomorrow morning.

All hon. Members who represent fishing communities know the importance of the industry—not just to those directly involved in the catching and processing side of the business, but to the overall economic wellbeing of our coastal communities. The fishing industry in my constituency has undergone great changes in the last few years and would be almost unrecognisable to someone who fished the waters of the west coast of Scotland a few decades ago. Back then, herring was the mainstay of the local industry, but changes to technology and a focus on new species has seen a move away from herring towards prawn and scallop fishing.

Today, freshly caught high-quality Argyll and Bute seafood is in demand across the world, particularly in Europe, as I said earlier. I am delighted that the fishing industry remains a mainstay of our local economy. Of course, in Argyll and Bute we also have a thriving fish farming industry, which includes award-winning halibut producers on Gigha and salmon from Argyll, which boasts the prestigious Label Rouge, awarded under the most stringent criteria by the French Ministry of Agriculture.

As well as praising and promoting the excellent produce, I want to highlight some of the issues and challenges facing boat owners, skippers and producers on Scotland’s west coast. What I am about to say will come as no great surprise to attentive hon. Members, because I said it last year—and, I believe, the year before that.

Despite being raised by MPs representing the west of Scotland and Northern Ireland for many years, the issue of access to crew persists. It is a problem that only the UK Government can fix, but they have chosen not to. Once again, I ask the Government to relax the rule and allow non-European economic area crew to work on fishing vessels that operate inside the 12-mile limit on the west coast. One look at a map of the west coast of Scotland shows that the 12-mile limit extends vast distances into the Atlantic. Few inshore vessels can or will travel that distance, but they are told repeatedly that they cannot recruit professional international seafarers from countries such as the Philippines or Ghana, and can use only UK or EU nationals to crew their vessels.

Last year, I highlighted the case of Jonathan McAllister, a skipper from Oban who was struggling to find suitable crew. He eventually found a crew of EU nationals from Latvia, who worked so well as share fishermen that they were invited back this year. In May, Mr McAllister contacted me again to say that one of the Latvian crew members had been refused entry to the UK and had been detained and questioned about the non-filing of a tax return.

Those allegations turned out to be utterly baseless, but on that basis, the crew member was detained at the Dungavel detention centre, pending his deportation to Latvia. That EU national, an experienced professional seafarer who had come to work legally in Scotland, was detained for seven days before being released without charge. He was then able to join his shipmates in Oban freely, but at what cost to Mr McAllister’s business?

The entire crew have already said to Mr McAllister that, regardless of the political situation in the UK, they will not return in 2019, so he will have to find yet another crew. Even when our skippers jump through the hoops the Home Office set for them, they are still penalised. It is little wonder that so many are totally scunnered and are seeking a way out of the industry.

Access to crew is just one issue affecting the west coast fishing industry. Last week, I met the Clyde Fishermen’s Association, which represents 65 boats, including mobile and static vessels. We met principally to discuss the Fisheries Bill, but we also spoke generally about the health of the industry on the west coast of Scotland. Naturally, Brexit and anything that would adversely affect the association’s ability to export directly into Europe was a huge concern, as over almost four decades our west coast fishermen have perfected getting their catch out of the water and delivering it fresh to some of the best restaurants in Europe in a matter of hours. Reports of six months of disruption at the ports post Brexit would be absolutely catastrophic for its members.

Another area of huge concern on the west coast is the possibility of having to work within a different regulatory framework from colleagues in Northern Ireland, who, because of the backstop protocol, would essentially retain unfettered access to the single market and the customs union. It is worth remembering that Northern Ireland is just 12 miles from my constituency, so we fish in the same waters for the same catch. Indeed, on a clear day, I reckon I could see the house of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) from the edge of my constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is the one with the Union flag on the chimney.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is not alone in having that.

My constituents, who voted overwhelmingly to reject Brexit in the referendum, could face economic ruin by being placed at a severe competitive disadvantage to their Northern Irish colleagues. That is completely unacceptable. If the UK Government can arrange for one part of the United Kingdom to remain in the single market and customs union, they can do it for Scotland. It is utterly essential that the health of the west coast of Scotland’s fishing industry is not sacrificed by Brexit.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the catastrophic implications of our crashing out with no deal and no transition, particularly because of the extreme friction that would cause at the borders? It would certainly affect my fishermen and I wonder whether he feels the same.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The effects of crashing out are absolutely unthinkable. However, I have to say that being put at a competitive disadvantage by the current withdrawal deal would be equally catastrophic, although it might be a slightly slower catastrophe. That is why a deal that, ideally, keeps us in the European Union, but at least keeps us in the customs union and single market, is absolutely essential for the future wellbeing of the industry in my constituency.

I expect that we will hear much about the common fisheries policy during this debate. It is a ridiculous argument to say that anyone who opposes Brexit or who would choose to remain in the EU is automatically a diehard supporter of the CFP as it is currently constituted. I would say most forcibly that the UK fishing industry never required the upheaval of Brexit; all it required was for a Government of whatever hue at any point in the last 40 years to stand up for it and not cede to Europe everything that Europe asked for, simply to gain an advantage elsewhere in negotiations.

[Mrs Murray]

I am really shocked to hear that. Despite being personally involved in the fishing industry for the last 40 years, I have not been able to find a single fisherman who supports the CFP. However, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he wants to stay in the CFP by staying in the European Union. Does he agree? If he does not, he needs to put that on the record now. The two go hand in hand.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Let me say to the hon. Lady that the two most certainly do not go hand in hand.

[Mrs Murray]

They do!

[Brendan O'Hara]

If that is the hon. Lady’s argument, then she is saying something about Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservative party. Ruth Davidson said on 1 October:

“I voted to remain. I fought for remain. If there was another vote tomorrow, I would still vote remain.”

The extension of the hon. Lady’s argument is that Ruth Davidson is a supporter of the CFP, which I think Ruth Davidson herself would argue with. There is nothing to say that remaining and seeking to reform the CFP are mutually exclusive: they are not mutually exclusive. We can remain in the European Union and we can fight to reform the CFP.

[Mrs Murray]

rose—

[Brendan O'Hara]

I will return to the hon. Lady in a minute.

All that would have been required was for some UK Government in the last 40 years not to throw the fishing industry under a bus, but the UK Government have had no cognisance of the importance of the fishing industry. Now, the CFP is regarded as some sort of totem that people can coalesce around.

I suggest that the hon. Lady has a look at Hansard, because it is actually quite difficult, until the very recent past, to find a Conservative politician arguing against the CFP.

[Mrs Murray]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain to us why the previous leader of the Scottish National party, who was formerly the Member for Gordon and before that the Member for Banff and Buchan, actually put a Bill before the House to withdraw from the CFP. If what the hon. Gentleman is saying is absolutely correct, he is disagreeing with his former leader.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I do not think I am disagreeing with my former leader. What I am saying is that one can remain within the European Union and have a reform of the CFP—

[Mrs Murray]

You can’t!

[Brendan O'Hara]

The CFP is a political decision and it can be reformed. If consecutive UK Governments had not sacrificed everything, including the fishing industry, to get where we are, we would not be in the situation that we are in now.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I remind all Members here in Westminster Hall that in our 2017 manifesto we committed to either fundamental reform of the CFP or its complete scrapping. And it was in 2004 that the former party leader, who I think was the Member for Banff and Buchan at that time, introduced a private Member’s Bill calling for the scrapping of the CFP.

[Brendan O'Hara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since the 1970s, it has been the Scottish National party that has opposed the CFP. We have opposed it; we have sought its reform; and any record in Hansard will show that that is the case.

The fishing communities across the UK did not need Brexit to thrive and survive; they needed a Government who cared and put their interests first. I look forward, with certainty, to the day when that Government is an independent Scottish Government, who will look after the interests of all our fishermen and not throw them under a bus at the first opportunity, as has been the case in the United Kingdom throughout the years of the CFP.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

Order. It might be of interest to Members that from now onwards a limit of six minutes per speaker would be advisable.

09:55

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry, and I will try to be as quick as I can.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing this debate, which is about a subject that I know is very close to her own heart as well as being a key industry in her constituency.

Fishing at least has been, if it is not now, the lifeblood of constituencies represented by hon. Members around this Chamber today. Under the European Union’s common fisheries policy, we have seen many smaller fishing constituencies—and, in some cases, not so small fishing communities—reduced to a mere shadow of their former glory. I am sure that hon. Members would agree that, regardless of how else we might feel about Brexit, the CFP is a discredit to our coastal communities that we must take every possible opportunity to redress.

My own constituency of Banff and Buchan has fared relatively well in the last few decades, Peterhead being the largest whitefish port in Europe and Fraserburgh the largest port in Europe for nephrops. Although those ports survive, overall activities are not what they once were. As we look forward to a “sea of opportunity”, it is not only those brave fishermen who go out to sea to catch the fish who stand to benefit. We must also see an expansion in our capacity to process the product. We need to improve infrastructure and transport links, and perhaps invest in chiller facilities at one of the Scottish airports to help facilitate the export of fish to countries further afield than the EU, such as in north America and the far east.

An expansion in our ability to catch more of our fish in our waters will also see a benefit to those services and industries that support the fishing sector: boat building, maintenance and servicing are just a few examples. One local fisherman told me recently that when his boat is in for annual maintenance and he berths it in dry dock, he provides work for around 40 different contractors, mostly from around the local community and certainly from around north-east Scotland. The more fishing opportunities that we have, the more active our fishing boats will be, and the better things will be for the wider coastal communities and the economy.

[Mr Carmichael]

I think that the figure produced by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation is that something in the region of 40% of the fish in our waters are caught by the UK fleet. I think the hon. Gentleman is a supporter of the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement and deal. What share does he expect the UK fleet will have at the end of the day if that agreement is implemented?

[David Duguid]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Of course, there is nothing in the withdrawal agreement that specifically states that any shares will be given up. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall said earlier, we should start from the default position of, “We have full access and that is our access to negotiate in the annual negotiations going forward.”

I will move on. The Scottish demersal sector has performed reasonably well during 2018, but the prognosis for 2019 is less buoyant, given the reduction in total allowable catches for some of our key commercial stocks, such as North sea haddock and cod. The TACs for the jointly managed stocks with Norway, which were set as a result of negotiations that have been concluded, have already been listed by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall.

The TACs for stocks such as anglerfish, hake and so on are due to be set at the December Fisheries Council. Such reductions, at a time when the landing obligation is due to come fully into force, could be problematic to say the least. The reduction in North sea cod could make it a choke species for the fleet. The landing obligation is explicit in the demand that catches of all regulated species must be landed ashore. Once the quota of North sea cod is exhausted, the fleet will be required to stop fishing for the other major species, such as haddock, whiting, saithe, hake and anglerfish.

There is a significant and real risk that tens of millions of pounds of fish could go uncaught as a result. I ask the Minister to give some clarity today about the action he will take to avoid early closure of our fisheries. What discussions has he had with the devolved Administrations on this matter?

There is real concern about the number of non-UK vessels operating in the Scottish sector, mostly in the waters around Shetland, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) will appreciate. A recent analysis carried out by the industry set the numbers of vessels catching whitefish as follows: 19 UK- based but foreign-flagged vessels; 12 Spanish vessels; 33 Norwegian vessels; eight German vessels; 27 French vessels; and 23 Danish vessels—a total of 122 vessels. To provide some scale, the Scottish fleet has only about 85 vessels targeting whitefish. Does the Minister agree that an influx of foreign vessels at this level is unsustainable for stocks and clearly unfair to our fishermen? What does he plan to do to protect our stocks from being plundered by foreign vessels?

Finally, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) mentioned, access to non-EEA crew continues to be an issue for a number of our vessels, given that they are prohibited from operating within 12 nautical miles of the shore. Non-EEA workers enter the country to work on a fishing vessel using a transit visa, the current definition of which allows vessels to operate out of the UK without entering a foreign port, so long as they stay outside of 12 miles while fishing. The skipper of a vessel is required to demonstrate to the overseas British embassy that his vessel has operated for the previous three months outside of 12 miles; only then will the fisherman be granted his visa.

The situation has led to a number of vessels being sold due to crew shortages, particularly on the west coast of Scotland. We have made several representations on a cross-party basis to the UK Immigration Minister for the 12-mile restriction to be removed, so that every segment of our fleet can get access to the same pool of labour. There are currently 4,900 full-time fishermen in Scotland, of which over 800 are non-EEA. Given the current plight of our vessels when it comes to finding suitable crew, I ask the Minister to push for that 12-mile restriction to be lifted.

10:01

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Sir Henry, and I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing what has become a useful annual fixture in the calendar, ahead of the Fisheries Council that the Minister is now very familiar with. I will take this opportunity to remember and commemorate all of those who go out and fish for the benefit of their communities and the whole country. Those people are in what is still the riskiest occupation in the whole of the country, and they deserve our thoughts and our thanks for the work they do, as does the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. I notice that a small situation occurred off the coast of the hon. Lady’s constituency in recent days, when the RNLI was required to go out and rescue a French vessel that broke down. It is not just those directly involved in the fishing industry, but all those associated with maritime activities, who deserve our thanks.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray]

I wholeheartedly support what the hon. Lady has said. Will she also recognise the work of the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen, which provides support not only for UK fishermen, but also for those from other member states who find themselves in trouble or hardship off the coast of the United Kingdom?

[Melanie Onn]

Yes, absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, and she is right to recognise the work of that organisation. I will also take this opportunity to remember our colleague and former Member of this House, Margaret Curran, who has been very unwell. She used to make valuable contributions when she was an elected Member, and we are the poorer for her no longer being in this House.

The hon. Member for South East Cornwall was assiduous in pointing out how important this Fisheries Council is going to be: this will be its final meeting, and will set the tone for all our future fishing relationships. The general nature of fishing lends itself to becoming quickly adversarial over territorial and quota disputes, but there is an enormous amount of room for generating good relations with those countries that have traditionally fished alongside UK vessels. We might not like it, and the fishing industry of the UK might not like it, but even if we eventually are in the driving seat, taking back control of our waters—that is language that I do not like to use, but that is what is hoped for within the industry—so that we can decide who fishes, where they fish and how much they fish for, we will still require good relations in the future, because we do not want to see any conflict or aggression over borders or quotas. I cannot see how this House could possibly wish to encourage any kind of negativity or conflict over those issues, which is why it is all the more important that the Minister sets the tone and the boundaries of expectations going forward.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) said that successive Governments have failed on the CFP, and have not taken a strong enough stand. I suspect that the Minister may wish to dispute that, given his endeavours in recent years, but it seems that the selling out of the UK fishing industry in the withdrawal agreement is history repeating itself a little bit. There is no guarantee in the withdrawal agreement that anything will change: the Minister has said that for the next two years, he does not expect a great deal to change, and beyond that, we really do not know. The withdrawal agreement is wholly unsatisfactory to an industry that is looking for more certainty, and for a redress—a rebalance—of the inherent unfairness that they see as having been inflicted on them for a number of years.

I recognise that other hon. Members want to contribute to this debate, so I will just touch on the east coast specifically. We have traditionally had a very different industry from that of the south-west or Scotland: we were a deep-sea area, with deep-sea fisheries that were going into Atlantic waters—although the people of Whitby and Bridlington will no doubt say otherwise, because their fleets were much more inshore and smaller. The instrumental thing for Grimsby, about which I cannot get a satisfactory answer from the Government, is our relationships with Iceland and Norway. We will still want access to those waters, so what will be the impact of the European economic area and European Free Trade Association agreements that Norway and Iceland have with the EU? How will that affect the UK once we have left the EU? That is if we actually leave—it is all looking decidedly ropey today. How will that affect those agreements? That is why I urge the Minister to continue those good relations, because we will still need good relations with those countries and with the EU if we are to continue the relationship that we have at the moment.

I am going over time—sorry, Sir Henry. I will just say that to some of those larger fleets, as UK Fisheries Limited has said, for the east coast of England, Brexit means that

“UK fishing opportunities, including access and quota, will only be traded if there is a reciprocal benefit to the UK and that there will be a fairer share of the fish in UK waters allocated to UK fishermen. This has the potential to correct the current situation where fishing vessels from the East Coast are prevented from going to sea due to lack of quota, while those from other countries can continue to fish. There are, however, a number of threats that are particular to the fleet based in the area.”

I will write to the Minister with more detail, if that is okay, to allow colleagues to make their contributions.

10:08

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing this debate. I also congratulate hon. Members on the way in which we have worked together to give everyone an opportunity to speak. I will do what I can to stick to the time I have.

It is good to be able to discuss this issue before next week’s Fisheries Council, and there are a few things about the European Commission that I would like to raise on behalf of fishermen in and around west Cornwall and on the Isles of Scilly. First, bass has been a contentious subject for a few years now. As has been said before, bass is not the biggest share of the fish we catch, but it is a premium fish that is part of all aspects of fishing in west Cornwall. Will the Minister provide some clarity on measures to manage the recovery of bass stock? Have they been effective? Where are we today? What does he expect going forward?

The Commission’s recommendations for next year appear to plan to increase the take for bass for those that target bass, but to continue to restrict the landing of dead bass caught as bycatch. That makes no sense to me. When I have had the opportunity, I have argued that if bass is caught as bycatch and is dead, it makes no sense to discard it, particularly when the Commission wants to fully introduce the discard ban next year. What can anglers expect in and around west Cornwall? What can the inshore fleet and the over-10s expect for bass next year and going forward when we hopefully have more control over how we manage that species?

The Commission’s intention is to fully introduce the discard ban or landing obligation from 1 January. Is that still the commitment? Can that be achieved? Is our fleet prepared for that? It has been a tricky thing to do in recent years. We are throwing away fish that we are not legally allowed to land. What happens if that continues? Fisherman cannot avoid fish that are caught when targeting something else.

Moving on from the Commission, I want to do some blue-sky thinking for the inshore fleet. In Cornwall and my constituency, we have a number of small ports. Newlyn is the fourth biggest port for fishing in the UK, but the small ports and communities rely heavily on the inshore fleet. When we are free of the common fisheries policy and the London fisheries convention, there is a real opportunity to look at how the inshore fleet can help to revive coastal communities and sustain a supply of good-quality fish in the local community. We can also supply a training opportunity and training ground to bring fresh blood into the industry. We have heard how difficult it is to attract new people into fishing. They see no future in it, yet the inshore fleet provides a real opportunity to train safely, learn the craft and move on to a bigger vessel, if that is what they want.

It would be good to talk openly about what can be done for the inshore fleet. Because of the restrictions they already face with the weather and the size of their vessels, people are restrained in how often they can catch and what they can catch. There is a real opportunity to look away from quotas and look at how the inshore fleet can revive communities and the sector.

UK fishing is complex. We have heard today how diverse it is, but we have four key areas. In my constituency, we have the over-10s; the under-10s and the inshore fleet; a mixed fishery—bycatch and discards are a real challenge, because they catch what they never targeted—and sea angling, which is a significant part of our local economy. As we move beyond the common fisheries policy, there is good reason to respond to the asks of the industry. In Cornwall, the fish producers have asked the Government to set up a formal advisory council to guide policy and promote collaboration from Government, devolved Administrations, regions and the industry. It is imperative that the industry sits around that table.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) discussed the challenges of dispute resolution. The fishing community in my community and across Cornwall has asked the Government to set up a dispute resolution mechanism to address differences across the regions, the devolved Administrations and international fisheries so that we do not have years and years of problematic disputes that prevent people from fishing for a living and from providing good nutritious food. Will the Minister give some indication as to whether those two requests—the advisory committee and the dispute resolution mechanism—are being considered seriously?

10:14

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who spoke, as she often does, with authority and with knowledge and experience of the fishing sector. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to participate in this debate and for going ahead with it—by the way, that is not something we can trust in any longer with the business of the House. The fact of the matter is that we are discussing this issue because it is of such importance. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions this morning, and I look forward in particular to the responses of the Minister and also the shadow Minister, who has deep knowledge of the issue.

I represent the fishing village of Portavogie. It is the second largest fishing village in the whole of Northern Ireland. It used to have 130 boats in the harbour. A person used to be able to cross the harbour without touching the water, just by walking across the decks of the boats. That is no longer possible, as the number of boats has reduced to 75. Why is that? It is due to EU bureaucracy and red tape. There are other key issues, including crew. The fishermen and fisherwomen of Portavogie look forward to leaving the EU and to being unfettered and free. Boy, we cannot wait. We look forward to that occasion.

Leaving aside the fact that this will be the last EU Fisheries Council at which the United Kingdom plays a full role, it is far from business as usual. Previous EU decisions dictate that fish stocks will be managed, by 2020 at the latest, according to the principle of maximum sustainable yield. The Minister knows the issue well. Importantly, the EU’s landing obligation, or discard ban, will be fully implemented from 1 January 2019.

With those factors in mind, the landscape for this December’s negotiations in Brussels will be complicated enough, even without Brexit in the background. In the Irish sea, fishermen will always contend that there is room for improvement with fisheries science. We need to put on record the commitment of Northern Ireland fishermen to that science. Discussions are ongoing to utilise the industry’s assets to expand acoustic surveys of the demersal species in the area, which have been valuable in changing the perception of Irish sea herring in particular. We are working with nature, and sometimes what goes up comes down. That is a flaw in the concept of maximum sustainable yield, which argues that all stocks can be maintained at a maximum level. Nature just does not work like that. It is not straightforward by any means.

The industry has accepted the scientific advice for the most economically important fishery in the Irish sea for Northern Ireland, which is nephrops—prawns. Portavogie prawns are renowned the world over. They are exported across Europe. They are a brand name, and it is important to put that on the record. Any change to the total allowable catch should reflect the advice of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which includes scientific assumptions on survivability.

To be specific, our aim should be for a TAC that reflects the landing figure plus dead discards. That principle has been accepted for other species with high survival rates. The result should mean a percentage reduction in TAC that is in the low 20s, not the 32% advocated by Brussels. Again, I express some concern. We met the Minister last week, which was most constructive and helpful, and I thank him for that. We met the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation, the Irish Fish Producers Organisation and my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). I look to the Minister to address the discrepancy and make a commitment on that.

The TAC for whiting is the top priority for the Irish sea in 2019. Of all the TAC issues, Irish sea whiting has some rather unique issues and is a priority. The Commission has proposed a TAC of 612 tonnes for next year, solely to cover the bycatch in the nephrop fishery. The fishing of the nephrop fishery by the UK fleet outstrips that of the Republic of Ireland by a factor of four to one, which again underlines its importance. That approach is unlikely to win support from the Republic of Ireland. Its application of the Hague preference would see it secure more than half of the quota in a fishery where it takes about 20% of the catch. We do not share the faith that some have that the Republic of Ireland would be willing to apportion the Union quota on the grounds of need without using it as a swap currency to extract other quota species from the UK. The conclusion is that we need to aim for Irish sea whiting to be treated uniquely, by making it a temporary prohibited stock—in other words, removing it from the list of TAC species.

The imposition by Ireland of the Hague preference mechanism continues to hang over quota allocations. As the United Kingdom leaves the common fisheries policy, the Hague preference will no longer apply to Irish sea stocks. That outdated quota distribution methodology will fall, and at the very least UK fishermen in the Irish sea will immediately recover the one third of their quotas for cod, whiting and plaice that they have annually handed to the Republic of Ireland, and which the Republic of Ireland has gratefully accepted, despite its feigned economic and social concern for the community in Northern Ireland.

That feigned concern extends to the hard sea border that the Dublin Government have erected and maintained against fishermen from Northern Ireland. The Minister knows the voisinage agreement very well, and I do not need to go into the issue in any detail. It was among the issues highlighted in the report by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. The recommendation was clear: encourage the Dublin Government to resolve their side of the reciprocal agreement, or face the UK’s withdrawal from that agreement. Interested parties in the Republic of Ireland talk about the noise coming from Northern Ireland on the issue, and they have every right to acknowledge it. However, they should not forget that about 40% of the fish and shellfish captured by the Irish fishing fleet come from UK waters.

It should be left to the United Kingdom’s fisheries administrations to decide how quotas are allocated. Quotas are a massive issue within each jurisdiction, reflecting the different nature of the fishing fleets in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are better together; let us work together on this matter as well. The Fishing (Access to Territorial Waters) Bill recognises the principle of equal access by UK-registered fishing fleets to all UK waters.

Increased TACs, be they as a result of decisions made at the December Fisheries Council or of a new fisheries agreement with the UK, will be pointless unless we have the ability to catch the fish. That comes back to the key issue of crews, which the Minister and Members know about. Filipino crews are consistently dependable. They come to work, do the business and commit themselves totally to it. We spoke to the Minister about that last week, and I know he shares our concerns, as does the shadow Minister. We look forward to some help in persuading the Home Office to put those fishermen into the skilled category, thus enabling them to become part of what we want for our fishing fleets across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As the Minister prepares to wish his EU opposite numbers “bon voyage” at the end of next week’s Fisheries Council, we send him good wishes in his endeavours. He has proven himself to be a friend of the industry in Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom. His judgment, and that of his officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, and the Departments in Scotland and Wales, is fundamental to securing a deal that is in the national interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. We look forward to a sustainable result.

10:22

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on securing the debate, but observe in passing that it is somewhat unsatisfactory that we are in Westminster Hall and limited to 90 minutes on a Wednesday morning. This debate was traditionally part of Chamber business, and happened in Government time. I understand the reasons why it was taken out of Government time, which I think were sound. However, it was always the understanding that time would be available, and for us to have to rely on a ballot for the annual fishing debate is unsatisfactory. I hope the Minister will make representations to those in charge of business management within Government to ensure that we are not put in this situation again.

As I listened to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) talk about Alex Salmond’s Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill, I reflected on the fact that it was when the hon. Member for South East Cornwall was here lobbying on behalf of that enterprise that I first met her. It is worth reflecting on the fact—I say this as the last man standing who was a sponsor of that Bill—that the argument advanced by the Conservatives who supported Alex Salmond’s Bill was that it was perfectly possible to come out of the common fisheries policy while remaining in the European Union.

Times change, and arguments of a different nature seem to be advanced these days, but it is worth putting those historical accuracies on the record. Also on a point of historical accuracy, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said that Alex Salmond wanted to abolish the common fisheries policy. That was a tweak that I introduced; originally, Alex Salmond’s Bill was for withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. Personally, I was never persuaded that that was possible, but it is all largely academic and of historical interest these days.

The Fisheries Council, to which the Minister will travel next week, is the last that we will know in the current set-up. It will be interesting to see what we are able do this time next year if we are out of the European Union but still part of the common fisheries policy, as the transitional arrangements would suggest. It will not be an easy Council. The Minister is aware that the scientific advice, especially in relation to North sea cod, is challenging, and that will produce a difficult outcome. I am sure he will argue with some force and vigour that the interests of our fleet should be maintained. I wish him well in that enterprise. I would be interested to hear how he anticipates advancing that argument this time next year, when we will not be at the table. As the hon. Member for South East Cornwall said, we will not have a voice.

Ahead of that, there is, today and tomorrow, the EU-Faroes bilateral in relation to pelagic stocks. The apportionment allows the Faroese fleet access to 30% of the mackerel in EU waters—something of a misnomer, because they are essentially Shetlands waters. We have been burdened with an exceptionally bad deal. It allows us access to 30% of the stocks in their waters, but frankly 30% of quite a lot can hardly be compared with 30% of very little, which is essentially what we get out of the deal. Will the Minister tell me what he has done to influence the progress of the talks and to ensure that the interests of the pelagic fleet in Shetland in particular are better treated than they have been in the past, and how he anticipates such an arrangement will work in the future?

Other hon. Members spoke about the need for visas for non-EEA nationals. I led an Adjournment debate on that on 11 July. The Immigration Minister told me that she accepted that it was something that needed

“work as a joined-up Government.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 1084.]

I wonder how that work as a joined-up Government has been going; it does not look particularly joined-up from where I see it today. However, it is of enormous importance. As the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said, it particularly affects the inshore fleet, but it also has a serious effect in relation to the bigger boats in the whitefish and the pelagic sectors.

Essentially, to get round the lack of proper working visas, fishing crews are having to come in on transit visas. The welfare issues surrounding that are well documented. The real difficulty is that it leaves fishing skippers having to fish where visa regulations allow them to, not where they know they will find fish. Eventually that will have an impact on safety—we all know that. That is why the issue cannot be kicked down the road any more. The subject commands attention on behalf of fishing communities represented on both sides of the House. I have been on delegations with the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As we come to the end of the year, I say to the Minister that if he is genuinely part of a joined-up Government, we need to see a resolution to this issue.

I have had my six minutes, Sir Henry—I could talk for an awful lot longer. I leave a minute, which I hope might be given to the Minister, if the Front Benchers can maintain good discipline, so that we all have an opportunity to intervene on him when he speaks.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Carmichael, for being so concise in your remarks. I call Deidre Brock.

10:29

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Henry. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), whose long-standing commitment to the cause of fishing safety is a badge of honour and who is commendably tireless in her pursuit of a safer environment for people who work in the industry. She clearly has a very personal knowledge of the fishing industry; her personal loss means that she speaks with profound understanding of what is so often at stake for so many of the crews who go out to bring back fish. I cannot imagine what it takes to continue to campaign, as she does, for a better situation for them.

I speak from a less personal standpoint, but I absolutely acknowledge the nature of the task that the fleets face on each trip out to sea. I also recognise the unrelenting nature of the job and the difficult economic circumstances that face the fleets and the communities that depend on them. The uncertainties attached to working in the industry, onshore as well as offshore, must only be heightened by the chaos that dogs the Brexit process. I have to say that things are a little calmer in this Chamber today than they have been in the main Chamber over the past couple of days. Staid and sober consideration of the issues before us is certainly a better way to proceed.

I commend the hon. Lady for what she said about the comments quoted from the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation. She made the important point that those words have been taken out of context and misquoted; I commend her honesty, and I hope that when hon. Members discuss these matters in the future, they will hear her wise words. She and other hon. Members also spoke about the Fisheries Council meeting next week—the last time the Minister has a voice at the table. A very important point arising from the flawed deal that the Prime Minister may or may not have negotiated is that the fishing industry will have lost the opportunity to influence and guide decisions made at that Council. The hon. Lady made a doughty challenge at the end of her speech for the Minister to provide clarity on the issue, particularly on aspects that relate to her constituency and its interests. Her points were well made and I look forward to the Minister’s response, as I am sure we all do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) shared stories about the difficulty that the hostile environment approach to immigration has caused for access to crew, a point made by hon. Members across the Chamber. He also raised vital concerns about the advantages to be enjoyed by Northern Ireland under the arrangements in the current withdrawal deal and gave us some spirited discussion about the vexed issue of the CFP. I am sure that that spirited discussion will continue long into the future.

The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) reiterated my hon. Friend’s call to relax the tight restrictions on non-EEA crew members, which are causing big problems. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) called for the maintenance of good relations with other countries—a really important point that I appreciate her making and heartily endorse. She also noted that there is no guarantee that anything will change under the current deal or that it will address the inherent unfairness that fishers see in the current system.

The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) called for clarity about the details of the deal that may be negotiated as a last roll of the dice at the Fisheries Council—possibly the last deal of its kind to be struck with the EU. He also spoke about the potential for inshore fishing, although I would argue that that could be done under a willing Government whether or not the UK retains its EU membership. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as always, spoke up for his constituents and raised some specific questions for the Minister, who will be very busy in his reply; I had better be as brief as possible, so that there is time for those questions to be answered.

I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his helpful clarification of the circumstances surrounding the Fisheries Jurisdiction Bill. He also raised the issue of future deals for pelagic species and asked what the Government will do about the growing crisis in the availability of fishing crews, the resulting restrictions and their impact on safety.

It has been noted that the variety of our fleets and the differentiation around the shores and across species make it difficult to describe the industry as a single entity. Each part of it has different priorities. Scotland’s creel fisher-folk, for example, tell us that their product has to get to market alive, so one of the biggest threats to their continued profitability is congestion at border control. The industry could die along with the catch if the M26 becomes a lorry park. Those concerns have to be sorted out in advance of Brexit day.

Access to the EU market is essential for Scottish fleets, which should not be in a less advantageous situation than any other part of the UK. We will be losing access advantages as it is, since we will no longer have automatic barrier-free access to the world’s biggest marketplace in the world’s most affluent continent. There are something like 1,800 shellfish boats in the Scottish fleets; it is a significant source of employment offshore and has significant onshore economic impact.

The concerns of pelagic and whitefish fleets may be slightly different but they, too, require open markets. Around three quarters of the fish and seafood landed is exported, while around two thirds of the fish and seafood we eat is imported. Trade with the EU is essential for the fishing industry. We should probably see whether there is some kind of organisation that we can join that would allow us free access to those markets and keep food imports at a reasonable price—if only we could think of one.

There is a cruelty for our fishing fleets in the fact that they will be trapped in the CFP after we leave the EU and will therefore still have to comply with the rules after we have lost the ability to influence them. So much of what we heard before the referendum was simply untrue, but that is one of the cruellest tricks of all.

A host of other questions about Brexit and fishing are still unanswered, not the least of which is how the European maritime and fisheries fund will be replaced. The development of the fishing industries around these islands may be hampered if we do not have a replacement ready to go. The improvements to the boats, including health and safety improvements, that such schemes fund are important, but so are the shore-based improvements, and the environmental spend is of incalculable value.

We also need to know about access to the labour market for the industry. Like agriculture, the work of onshore fisheries in Scotland depends to a large extent on EU migrant workers, so closing us off from them will damage the profitability of the industry. I know that some Members of Parliament are dead set on ending freedom of movement, but the argument is about what to replace it with.

Some have argued that we should look at the Australian system; if I can don my outback hat for a while, I reckon that there is a new Australian scheme that might just fit the bill. The Australian Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs says that his Government

“is working to improve our immigration program to better match the needs of specific locations”.

The Northern Territory and south-west Victoria will have immigration schemes that allow in agricultural workers and hospitality workers to service the industries that desperately need them. The schemes, known as designated area migration agreements, will allow permanent residency in those areas, provided that people are willing to remain there for at least three years. I suggest that such a scheme would be helpful to the food production industries in Scotland and should be considered by any Government who value the contribution that those industries make.

We may or may not be leaving the EU soon, and we may or may not be getting a vote on it at some point, but it is high time we had a serious chat about how we want to protect our fishing communities and how we enhance them.

10:37

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I thank my neighbour from the far south-west, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), for introducing the debate so well.

I join in the tributes to all those fishers who have lost their lives since our last annual fisheries debate. Since I was elected last year, we in Plymouth have lost two trawlers at sea, with a death on each boat. I pay tribute to all those who risk their lives in the most dangerous peacetime activity in Britain to catch the fish that we have on our dinner plates. I also pay tribute to those who keep our fishers safe and supported: the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, HM Coastguard, the Fishermen’s Mission, the Royal Navy and a group that is so often overlooked—the family and friends of fishers, who provide the support network, encouragement and understanding, and without whom the industry would not work.

I speak not only as shadow Fisheries Minister, but as an MP who represents Plymouth—a proud and historic coastal community with 1,000 jobs in fishing, both in catching and in processing. We have not said much about processing today, but it is a vital part of our fishing industry.

[Melanie Onn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the processing sector, which employs approximately 5,000 people in my constituency and is intrinsically linked to the catching sector. It should not be forgotten in these debates.

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The question we need to ask about processing is where the fish will come from in the future. We need to ensure that fish can be imported and exported with the added value that comes from processing, creating more processing jobs in the UK rather than putting the jobs we have at risk.

Fishing was the poster child of the leave campaign. It is one of the few industries in the entire UK—if not the only industry—that could be better on day one of Brexit than before it, but only if tariff-free access and frictionless trade can be achieved, in terms of making sure that we can export to our important export markets. I am no fan of the common fisheries policy—that has been briefly discussed here—and it needs to change and reform, but whether we are in it, or without it, we need to make sure that our fishing is more sustainable, both economically and environmentally, for UK fishers.

There are big challenges for fishing, which have been discussed today. The Fisheries Bill currently in Committee smacks of legislation that has been hurried out to reach the exit deadline. It needs many amendments. The hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) spoke passionately about the advisory council and dispute resolution mechanisms, and I am grateful for that. I can see why the Whips kept him off the Fisheries Bill Committee, because, sadly, the Conservatives on the Committee voted down an amendment on the dispute resolution mechanism yesterday. More lobbying of the Minister to encourage him to bring back amendments at Lords stages will be gratefully received.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have seen that fisheries is a fraught sector, particularly with devolved Administrations now potentially having to come to a common arrangement. Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that in Committee yesterday both the Scottish National party and the Tories voted down or abstained on the crucial amendment on having a dispute reconciliation measure?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I think it is best to create a dispute resolution mechanism before there is a dispute. We should have such a principle in the Fisheries Bill and I hope the Minister will reflect on that as the Bill progresses through its various stages.

Big promises were made to fishing by the Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—a key Brexiteer—during the referendum. They have not been matched by delivery. There is an inherent risk behind many speeches from hon. Members here: the fear is that fishing will be further betrayed in the withdrawal agreement and what follows after. We only have to look at the promises made by Ministers, right up until they U-turned, on removing fishing from the transition period, to find good evidence on why fishing has every right to be concerned about the promises it is receiving at the moment.

I fear that decisions above the Fishing Minister’s pay grade will betray fishing further as the negotiation continues. I wish him the best of luck in steeling the nerve of those people further up the Government food chain, to make sure that fishing is not further betrayed. Labour has tabled a significant number of amendments to the Fisheries Bill to make real the promises from the leave campaign and seize the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to start afresh and create truly world-class, sustainable fisheries, following our exit from the CFP.

I turn briefly to the issue of quota, which a number of hon. Members have mentioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), the hon. Member for St Ives and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Under the existing system, ownership of quota has become increasingly consolidated in the hands of a few.

[Mrs Murray]

I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will move on to fixed quota allocations; before he does, I hope he will acknowledge that those allocations were introduced under a previous Labour Fisheries Minister. Another mess also created under the same Minister is the reason why the under-10-metre fleet finds itself in the position it does today. I will name the Fisheries Minister at the time—it was Elliot Morley.

[Luke Pollard]

I am always grateful for interventions from my neighbour. I suggest she reads the memo from the Fisheries Minister in Committee yesterday that said that this is about looking forwards, not back. Frankly, there are enough reasons to say that fishing was screwed over by a Conservative Government; I do not think it is appropriate to go into—

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

Order. You cannot really use such language.

[Luke Pollard]

Okay, I withdraw that—I beg your pardon, Sir Henry. Fishing may have been betrayed by Conservative Governments in the past. Let us look forward, not back.

Labour wants smaller boats to be given a greater share of quota after Brexit. Small boats are the backbone of our fishing industry. They are the small and medium-sized enterprises of the sector. If this were any other sector, we would be talking about SMEs and multinationals, but we do not do that in fishing—we simply do not apply that phraseology. If we did, I think the tone of the debate around our fishing sector would be very different. Let us back the SMEs in the fishing sector. Let us make sure that the small-scale fleet, which generally uses low-impact gear, has a better environmental impact and, importantly, employs more people, gets a greater share of quota: 6% of quota and 49% of the workforce at the moment is not an equitable share.

In addition, we also need to make sure that more fish is landed in UK ports. Labour wants a requirement that at least 50% of fish caught under a British quota is landed in British ports, supporting the coastal communities—be they in the far south-west, the east coast or up to Scotland—and making sure that we can get the additional jobs that come with landing, processing and selling that fish, whether for consumption in the UK or for export. We want to make sure that we have more of it. It is a travesty that, at the moment, so much fish caught under a UK quota is exported immediately to foreign countries and not landed. We need to preserve that economic link.

I want to spend a moment on marine safety; we have an opportunity to talk more about that. Fishing is the most dangerous peacetime activity in the UK. We need to make sure that in any redistribution or reallocation of quota that may come from leaving the European Union, high standards of marine safety are embedded in every single quota allocation. That is precisely why we need to do more to make sure that EU and UK fishers obey the same high safety levels. Sadly, that is again something that the Minister decided to vote against in Committee yesterday.

We also need to do more to spread the best practice we already have. In Plymouth, a lifejacket scheme gives fishers better equipped lifejackets, to enable them to do manual handling in front, with a personal locator beacon. When someone goes overboard and the personal locator beacon is activated, it takes the “search” out of search and rescue. That is really important, and will help save lives when boats capsize or when people go over the side. When the worst happens, it will help with the retrieval of a body so that the family can bury that fisher. We need to be aware of just how dangerous fishing is. The Minister and I have had lots of conversations about the PLB and the lifejacket scheme and I will continue to have conversations with the Department for Transport to make sure that it happens.

I echo the comments from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who was passionate and correct in the view that this debate should be held in Government time. He heard me make that point yesterday, and he made it with much more force than I did in Committee. There is cross-party agreement that this annual debate should be held in Government time and in the main Chamber to give it the prominence and importance that it deserves—not only to our coastal communities, but to our politics. In many cases, fishing is about politics and identity just as much as it is about our coastal communities.

There is a great opportunity to create a better system for fishing—more economically and environmentally sustainable, safer for those people who are fishing, and adapted to the changing nature of our marine environment, especially with the effects of climate change. It is an opportunity that we cannot afford to miss. I pledge to the Minister that if he wants to work constructively, in a co-operative, cross-party way to improve the Fisheries Bill, which needs improving, the Opposition stand ready.

[Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his dynamic speech. The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) has indicated to me that she does not want time for a wind-up speech, so that leaves the Minister with 12 minutes. I call the Minister.

10:48

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

Thank you, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on introducing our annual fisheries debate.

A number of us in this room spent a full day in Committee yesterday debating the Fisheries Bill. Immediately after this debate, at 11 o’clock, I am giving evidence on fisheries to the Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. This afternoon, at half-past two, I am giving evidence on fisheries to the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and tomorrow we have another day of debate on the Bill. So it is very much a diet of fish for me this week, and rightly so. For our fishing industry, this is a critical time of year, when fishing opportunities are set.

Our fishing, aquaculture and processing industries are worth around £1.5 billion a year to our economy. They employ 33,000 people and have incredible significance to many of our coastal communities, not least, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) said, those where much of our processing is done.

Fishing is also, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) pointed out, one of the most dangerous occupations in the country. The risks that fishermen take to put food on our table are something that we must always acknowledge. I am sad to say that, during 2018, six fishermen from this country lost their lives in the course of their work. I am sure we all send our condolences to the families involved.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport has campaigned on safety issues for a long time, alongside his constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall, who herself was affected by a personal tragedy in this area. Partly due to my hon. Friend’s lobbying, there was an announcement in this year’s Budget that a new fund would be created to invest in safety equipment to improve the safety of our fishing vessels. That is an important step forward, but we must remain constantly vigilant.

The focus of today’s debate is predominantly on the December Agriculture and Fisheries Council, which is taking place next week, and that is what I want to focus most of my comments on, although I recognise that it is taking place in a wider context. This is the last December Council for which the UK will be a member of the European Union. There is a live debate about the nature of the withdrawal agreement and any implementation period as we depart from the European Union. As I mentioned earlier, the Fisheries Bill is going through Parliament at the moment. The Committee debate began yesterday, and we have another day ahead of us tomorrow. The Bill sets out all the powers the Government need in order to take back control of our exclusive economic zone, to license foreign vessels, to prohibit them from entering our waters to fish in the absence of a licence, and to set fishing opportunities and quotas. As we leave the European Union, we will become an independent coastal state again. We will represent ourselves in negotiations with our neighbours, including the Faroes, Iceland, Norway and the rest of the European Union.

I return to this year’s annual negotiations. As a number of hon. Members pointed out, this year, in most of our waters, the position is undoubtedly more challenging as far as the science is concerned—in the North sea, in particular. The EU-Norway deal has now concluded, but the science was very challenging on a number of key stocks. There have been some significant reductions in the EU-Norway deal, with whiting down by 22%, cod down by 33% and haddock down by 31%. It is important to recognise that, over the past three years, there have been significant rises in those stocks, as the science was positive. Just as we will increase the fishing opportunities when the science allows it, we must be willing to take the difficult decision to reduce fishing opportunities when the science demands it.

It is not all bad news. There has been an increase in saithe, which is up by 18%, and plaice, which is up by 11%. The proposal for anglerfish in the North sea is plus 25%, western hake is plus 27%, and megrim in the wider area is up by 47%. There are some positive notes this year, but the overall background is challenging.

This year’s Council will be dominated by one issue: the problem of choke species, which I want to spend most of my comments reflecting on. We are in the final year of the introduction of the landing obligation. That means that, next year, every species must be covered by the landing obligation. That presents major challenges for parts of our fleet, notably cod in the Celtic sea, for which the recommendation is for a zero total allowable catch; west of Scotland cod and whiting; and Irish sea whiting, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned.

The problem we have had with the landing obligation is that, although progress has been made, lots of species have been put on and the working groups have identified survivability exemptions and other approaches, the most difficult issues of all have been left till last, for understandable reasons. We are now confronted with those difficult decisions. There have been a number of problems with the roll-out of the landing obligation. First, the original plan was to have interspecies flexibility, so if someone ran out of quota for one stock, they could use another. In practice, that can be done only when species are within safe biological limits. Paradoxically, when people most need to use interspecies flexibility, they are least able to because of that requirement.

Secondly, although the working groups have made progress, not every member state is as enthusiastic about this approach as we are. We have not made as much progress as we would have liked. For instance, the UK argued that we should have cameras on boats. Other member states frustrated that, which has made it difficult to get reliable information about the discard uplift.

Finally, the discard uplift in the quotas for the species under the landing obligation has continued to be allocated along relative stability lines, and that has been a major problem for us. The discard uplift has not been allocated to the sections of the fleet that had the greatest problem with discards; it has been allocated along relative stability lines. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall pointed out, relative stability gives the UK a very unfair share of fishing opportunities, and means that the problem of choke species is particularly acute for some of our fleet.

The UK Government set out in our White Paper and the Bill a new approach to tackling the issue of the landing obligation and discards, with the idea of the creation of a national reserve of quota that would underpin a system in which we would charge a super-levy on over-quota stocks and fish that vessels would land. There would be the maximum possible financial disincentive on fishermen to avoid those stocks, but if they could not avoid them, there would be a means that allowed them to land that catch, subject to a levy.

In around March or April this year, we recognised that the working groups were not going to make sufficient progress in identifying solutions to the problem of choke. I met Commissioner Vella in July, and we set out some early proposals, and officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been working with Commission officials ever since. The Commission has now proposed something akin to the British idea set out in our Bill. It calls it a “Union pool”, and it is similar to our national reserve idea. It is modelled along British thinking and will create a pool of quota that can be used to support a bycatch provision on problematic stocks, particularly those with zero TACs.

[Mrs Murray]

Will access to that pool be shared equally, or will it be on the lines of relative stability?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend will understand that that is a live discussion. Some countries believe that it should still be along the lines of relative stability. We do not believe it should be, since that compounds the problem.

The alternative solution is to put more stocks on what is called the prohibited list. People are not allowed to target or catch them, but if they accidently catch them, they can be discarded. For understandable reasons, the Commission is reluctant to do that. It would be preferable to find an alternative solution using bycatch provision.

I turn now to the points raised by other hon. Members. A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and the hon. Members for Strangford and for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), raised the issue of non-European economic area labour, which is important to crew some of these vessels. They will understand that that is an issue for the Home Office, so if they are talking to Home Office Ministers, they are talking to the right people. I undertake to talk to my ministerial colleagues in the Home Office again after this debate to see whether we can make some progress on this issue.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Will the Minister take from this debate our strength of feeling? When he speaks to his ministerial colleagues, will he advocate on behalf of those of us who desperately need this law changed?

[George Eustice]

As I said, I undertake to talk to my ministerial colleagues about that.

The hon. Member for Great Grimsby made the important point that, although we are leaving the European Union, we will still have annual fisheries negotiations with all our neighbours, just as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes do now. We will want to maintain good relations, and will rejoin the regional fisheries management organisations as an independent coastal state. I know that trade is very important for her constituency, but there is often a misunderstanding here. Although Iceland and Norway are in the EEA, the EEA agreement itself does not cover fisheries trade. Fisheries is outside the EEA trade agreement, but there are a number of separate preferential free trade agreements and what are called autonomous tariff rate quotas to allow tariff-free fish from Iceland and Norway, and even from the Barents sea and places such as Russia, to enter the UK. We are confident that we will be able to roll those preferential trade agreements forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) raised the important issue of bass. We have led the discussions on it for a number of years. Last year, we argued against the overly restrictive bycatch provision for trawlers, and for some provision for the recreational sector. We believe that the science has moved our way on that, and we will be arguing that again. The idea of an advisory committee is interesting. We already work with the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation, and we are looking at whether we can involve the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities in some of our thinking ahead of the December Council.

Finally, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised the issue of the EU-Faroes deal. I can tell him that when we leave the EU, it will be a UK-Faroes deal, and we will not have the problem of British interests being traded away for other EU countries’ interests.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the UK fishing industry.

Blue Belt Programme: South Sandwich Islands

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

09:15

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government’s blue belt programme and the South Sandwich islands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. Oceans cover about 71% of the earth’s surface, and around 90% of the earth’s biosphere. They contain about a quarter of a million different known species—and likely vastly more, given that so little of our oceans has been properly explored or understood. Today, I will speak about the tragedy of what is happening to our oceans and about what we need to do to protect them.

There was a time when our oceans were absolutely brimming with life. In 1497, the explorer John Cabot complained that his ship’s progress had been hampered by the sheer volume of cod off the coast of Newfoundland. He wrote a message to his sponsor, King Henry VII, in which he said that his men

“took so many fish that this kingdom will no longer have need of Iceland, from which country there is an immense trade in the fish”.

As we now know, industrial fishing quickly put an end to that. In 1968, the registered catch was 800,000 tonnes; by 1994, the catch was just 1,700 tonnes. In Victorian England, one could have seen large pods of orcas and blue whales off the coast of Cornwall. Professor Callum Roberts has reminded us that in 1836, a shoal of sardines extended, in a single compact body, from Fowey to Land’s End—a distance of around 100 miles. He notes that today, people pay serious money to travel thousands of miles to witness such scenes.

Today, we face an unprecedented loss of species in our oceans, comparable to the mass extinctions of past millennia. A year ago, the Zoological Society of London and the World Wide Fund for Nature issued a report stating that there is only half the amount of wildlife in the sea today as there was in 1970, just a few years before I was born. Between 70% and 80% of the world’s marine fish stocks have either been fully exploited, overexploited, depleted or are recovering from depletion. Of the 17 largest fisheries in the world, 15 are now so heavily depleted that future catches cannot be guaranteed.

A scientific paper published in Nature reports that we have lost 90% of the world’s big predatory fish, such as tunas and sharks. Only 5% of coral reefs are considered pristine. Despite serving as breeding grounds for 85% of commercial fish, a third of the world’s mangroves have been destroyed since 1990. That annihilation is happening across the world, and is not only an unforgivable biodiversity tragedy, but a human tragedy.

About 200 million people depend directly on the fishing industry for their livelihoods. For more than 1 billion people, fish is the primary source of protein. If the fishing industry collapses, the effects will be disastrous, especially for the world’s poorest people. One has only to look at what happened in Somalia a couple of decades ago: years of overfishing—mostly by vast foreign fleets—decimated the coastal economy when fish stocks ran out. Legal fishing gave way to piracy, and millions were plunged into poverty, with criminality taking over.

There are numerous causes of this loss and numerous things that we need to do to put things right, but the biggest—and the focus of the debate—is simply protection. Marine protected areas represent a broad spectrum, with everything from absolute no-take zones to areas open only to sustainable fishing. We know that they work because we can literally measure the results of protection.

When commercial fishing in the Atlantic ocean and North sea had to be stopped during world war two, there was an immediate spike in fish populations. In New Zealand’s Leigh marine reserve, common predatory fish are now six times more abundant in the reserve than outside, while in its Tāwharanui marine reserve, there are 60% more species in the reserve than out. Spain has suffered massively from overfishing, but catches close to the Tabarca marine reserve were 85% higher than elsewhere after just six years of protection. The list goes on, all around the world.

There is a level of agreement about the scale of the problem, but the response—an international commitment to protect 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020—is far below what is needed. To make matters much worse, we are nowhere near achieving that. The British Government get it: we have committed to pushing for the protection of 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, and despite being a relatively small nation we are in a good position to take the lead. We are, after all, custodians of the fifth largest marine estate in the world, thanks to our extensive overseas territories, which contain, incidentally, over 94% of the UK’s unique biodiversity. They are scattered across the world and home to countless rare and threatened species.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

In the context of our overseas territories, Blue Belt is an incredibly ambitious policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that we will be judged on its success only in terms of how we support different marine protections around different archipelagos and islands? Ascension Island is a key one: people are waiting to see whether the Government are willing to pledge the means to ensure that the marine protection area there is a success, so that we can have confidence in what we are doing globally.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his intervention, and I agree with him 100%. I put on the record my thanks to him and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who led the campaign in Parliament and can take a lot of credit for the Government’s current position.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Zac Goldsmith]

May I ask my hon. Friend to hold off for a second? I know what he is going to ask me.

The overseas territories are enormously important breeding grounds for endangered turtles, a third of the world’s albatrosses, a quarter of the world’s penguins, and the world’s largest coral atoll. In what remains to this day, I think, the biggest conservation commitment ever made by any Government ever, our Government pledged to protect over 4 million square kilometres across those overseas territories by 2020. Altogether, that is an area bigger than India. That commitment makes us world leaders in ocean protection, and it is hard to think of a better illustration of global Britain.

[James Gray]

I remind the House that, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I visited South Georgia at the expense of the Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands last year.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the Government’s announcement this morning that, partly as a result of his pressure, they are to extend the no-take boundaries around South Georgia from 12 to 31 miles; that they will extend the marine protected area around the whole of the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands maritime zone, meaning that 173,000 square kilometres will now be entirely protected from commercial fishing; and that they intend to close the South Sandwich Islands trench region—the most important bit—to all commercial fisheries? I hope he welcomes that announcement.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Of course, I hugely welcome that announcement. I will come to that in a few moments, but my speech will first canter through some of the overseas territories and some of the work that we are doing and need to do. The move that my hon. Friend referred to puts to rest a lot of the arguments against full protection, but I will come to that, and we will no doubt have an argument in due course.

I have described a great commitment of which we can be proud, but alone it is not enough. We need to make good on it, properly, and we need go further. Before I go into detail on the Blue Belt, I hope that the Minister will confirm that funding for the Blue Belt will be assured beyond 2020. It stands at £4.8 million per year and given what we get for that, it is spectacularly good value for money.

I want to look more broadly at the actual Blue Belt commitments. In some areas where we have made promises, we have delivered spectacularly. The Pitcairn islands in the Pacific ocean, for example, are surrounded by the most pristine marine environment anywhere on earth. It is just magnificent that the Government have permanently closed those waters, which cover around 840,000 square kilometres, to commercial fishing. It is one of the largest protected areas in the world.

Tristan da Cunha, a tiny island in the south Atlantic, has waters with vast populations of seals, southern right whales and blue sharks, as well as being home to great numbers of seabirds and rockhopper penguins. The Government have committed to protecting the full 750,000 sq km of Tristan’s waters by 2020. I hope that the Minister will confirm that we will make good on that commitment and that we will help the tiny local population by protecting the area from illegal fishing.

In 2016, the Government committed to a marine protected area of 450,000 sq km around St Helena in the south Atlantic ocean. It is an area bigger than Germany and has more than 40 endemic species, including whale sharks, turtles and humpback whales. The aspiration is to develop a sustainable one-by-one—one hook to catch one fish at a time—tuna fishery in its own marine protected area. At this stage, however, St Helena has yet to ban industrial long-lining from its waters. The Government clearly need to work with the local population to put that right, as a matter of urgency.

Ascension Island, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) mentioned, has 450,000 sq km of ocean and the second-largest green turtle breeding population in the Atlantic. It is a hotspot for sharks, tuna and swordfish. The Government are committed to protecting at least 50% of the area by 2019, but nothing stops them from going further and protecting the whole area. I understand that the island’s Council is itself minded to back 100% protection, but they are looking for assurances from the Government that they will not then be saddled with the costs of satellite monitoring for effective enforcement. They calculate, incidentally, that it would be cheaper to protect the whole area, rather than half, so that should not be a barrier. I hope that the Minister will address that point.

Viewers of the extraordinary “Blue Planet II” series will know that the greatest gift that the Government can give the oceans lies further south in, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) has just referenced, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. That is why the title of this debate names the area specifically. Those tiny, uninhabited islands are a near-pristine global biodiversity hotspot. A full quarter of the global population of penguins live here, alongside recovering populations of whales and seals, and unique marine habitats.

The local Government designated the whole 1 million sq km around the islands as an MPA in 2012. However, although the fisheries around South Georgia are without doubt managed to a high standard, until this morning only 2% of the total waters were fully protected. I understand from the news today that that area has been increased from 2% to 23%, which is fantastic news, but the remaining 77% is still technically open to fishing, and that could easily change. There is a huge groundswell of opinion among scientists, non-governmental organisations and colleagues in this House behind the campaign fully to protect the waters around the South Sandwich Islands in particular, which is about 500,000 sq km, roughly half of the whole MPA.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. The designation of those waters is an important step, but does he agree that we should not confuse designation with protection, and that we should encourage the Government to be bolder in protecting more of our fragile ocean environment, especially where the UK has involvement?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I very much take the hon. Gentleman’s point; in fact, he takes the words out of my mouth.

The remaining half of the waters—not the 500,000 sq km that need full protection—would still be open to well-managed fisheries. Colleagues will have seen the case for protection powerfully made by a broad coalition in an open letter to the Foreign Secretary. It was published, I think, in the Telegraph last week, and went wild on social media. That is a genuine win-win proposal. The South Sandwich Islands have not been fished commercially in 25 years, so no fishing at all would be displaced. Upgrading the existing MPA to give full protection can be achieved within existing budgets and existing legislation. Politically, it would demonstrate the UK’s willingness to lead by example.

[James Gray]

My hon. Friend is most generous in giving way. The point he makes is that there has been no commercial fishing in this area for 25 years. However, there is no prospect that there will be in the next 25 years, so what he is proposing and campaigning for is tokenistic in the extreme. Will he not simply take this opportunity to welcome the fact that the Government have now protected the krill fisheries for an extra two months, banned HFO—heavy fuel oil—vessels from the area and taken a variety of other environmental steps to protect it in the way that he wants? Merely calling for more and more protection in a tokenistic and campaigning way achieves nothing but the alienation of local people.

[Zac Goldsmith]

To suggest that we should not protect an area because it has not yet been destroyed is madness; the same argument could equally have been used against pretty much any one of the world’s nature reserves, including the national parks that are a source of pride in this country. The fact that the area has not been exploited and that an industry has not yet been able to develop there is precisely why it needs protection. Were a fishing industry to emerge and develop in that area, the prospect of removing it would become inconceivable—vastly expensive, hugely disruptive and politically difficult —and so not happen. Because the area has not been fished and is pretty much pristine, it requires the protection for which the campaigners are rightly asking.

Politically, as I said, such a move would demonstrate the UK’s willingness to lead by example, but I would go further than that. If we are not willing to protect that pristine, unfished, global biodiversity gem, how could anyone take seriously our commitment to support the protection of 30% of the world’s oceans? One cannot be achieved without committing to the other. Despite great leadership on that issue, the Foreign Office seems to have hit the buffers somewhat. Those involved, on the inside and on the outside, are, frankly, scratching their heads. Whatever the block, I strongly urge Ministers to be decisive, to be bold and just to get on with it.

11:15

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for securing this debate. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee and a well-regarded champion of the recent illegal wildlife trade conference, he takes a close interest in conservation and the environment.

The UK has long understood that, as custodians of the world’s fifth largest marine estate, we and our overseas territories have a responsibility—indeed, a duty—to manage and protect our marine environment. The general public are increasingly aware of the importance of caring for our oceans, in many cases thanks to last year’s excellent “Blue Planet II” series, and understandably they are demanding action. I am therefore grateful for this opportunity to update the House on developments in respect of the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands marine protected area and on wider progress on the Blue Belt initiative.

This morning, I was delighted to welcome the announcement by the Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands of a suite of environmental enhancements, including additional marine protected area measures. The announced protections are based on the recommendations of the first five-year review of the territory’s MPA, which has recently concluded. That review was conducted by a panel which included scientists, as well as representatives from the fishing and tourism industries, and environmental groups. The panel’s conclusions were made public on 7 November. It found that the current MPA is achieving its objectives, while also making a series of recommendations further to strengthen protection of the territory’s waters.

Based on those recommendations and other recent scientific work, the Commissioner today announced an expansion of the MPA to cover the territory’s entire maritime zone; an extension of the seasonal closure of the krill fishery, to provide further protection for breeding wildlife; an increase of the marine areas fully closed to commercial fishing activities, to up to 23% of the maritime zone; and the banning of all commercial mineral resource extraction activities, along with prohibitions on the transport of heavy fuel oil, in line with the restrictions that apply in Antarctic waters. The measures are based on precautionary scientific advice and take into account the UK’s rights and responsibilities under the convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, known as CCAMLR. Taken together, the measures will help to ensure that the UK’s stewardship of the islands remains exemplary.

We welcome the engagement that we have had over the past year with many who have an interest in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, in particular those environmental organisations, including WWF—the World Wide Fund for Nature—and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which have supported scientific work in the territory. We do, however, recognise that some may continue to press us to go further.

As I explained to the House in a similar debate at about this time last year, although on the face of it a simple proposal to close much of that area to all commercial fishing might seem to be a complete no-brainer—not least because there has been no intensive commercial fishing around the South Sandwich Islands for more than 25 years—a variety of scientific and diplomatic factors are in play, all of which need to be considered carefully. Furthermore, the recent MPA review did not reach consensus on whether a full no-take marine reserve around the South Sandwich Islands would deliver any conservation benefits.

Of course, the commissioner’s announcement today is not the end of the story. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands continue to change dramatically as a result of regional climate change. In partnership with the commissioner’s team and the Government’s Blue Belt programme, scientists will undertake further studies in the new year.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The Minister mentioned the diplomatic barriers that still exist. I wonder whether he will elaborate on that. In the light of today’s news about the protection of up to 23% of the area, it seems that the arguments against full protection—displacement activity, dealing with neighbouring states and so on—are exactly the same as those against protecting 23%. Will he elaborate on what those barriers are?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No, I think they become more complicated. I ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that we genuinely would do absolutely everything we could, but we have to look at the diplomatic consequences of sovereignty claims, or whatever one calls them, which complicate doing straightforward things unilaterally. I will say a little more about that in the context of CCAMLR in a second.

To continue what I was saying about the Blue Belt programme, that work will further inform the management of what is a unique and precious territory, as well as contributing to an international krill survey project to gather data to inform international discussions about the future distribution of the krill fishery at CCAMLR.

[Richard Benyon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

Yes, although I am about to answer my right hon. Friend’s point about Ascension.

[Richard Benyon]

I am very grateful. Will the Minister give me an assurance that he will push back at scientists to ensure that they embrace the latest scientific understanding of the power of krill to sequester carbon? That may require them to change their modelling. A really high biomass of krill has a fantastic ability to lock up carbon on the seabed. I hope he pushes scientific advisers to ensure that they understand and embrace that emerging scientific understanding.

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I think I am known in the Foreign Office for challenging officials very robustly, and on the issue of science I undertake to do exactly that. There is no point in using old science if there is newer, better-informed science available. We really want to set the highest possible scientific standards. In return, I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts that where there is a scientific conclusion, that is what should guide us.

I would like to take this opportunity briefly to update the House on other recent progress through the wider Blue Belt programme. As many colleagues who take a close interest in the programme will be aware, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said, the UK has to date declared marine protected areas across around 3 million sq km—more than 40%—of British waters. I am pleased to confirm that we remain on course to increase that to 4 million sq km, or around 60% of our waters, by 2020. I hope the House agrees that that will be a remarkable achievement.

As for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, designation of protected areas is not the end of the story. Our overseas territories are working closely with our two main Blue Belt delivery partners—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the Marine Management Organisation—to ensure that each marine protection regime is well designed, well managed, monitored and enforced.

Members may have seen the Blue Belt programme annual update for 2017-18, copies of which were placed in the Libraries of both Houses in July. I will highlight a couple of examples of work that demonstrate the UK’s commitment to the marine protection of our overseas territories. First, the Government’s National Maritime Information Centre provides technical support to monitor and enforce protected areas around our territories, which in turn supports the global fight against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Secondly, a number of scientific expeditions have been undertaken around the overseas territories to assess biodiversity. That is crucial to ensure that we protect the right areas and the most vulnerable species or habitats.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) asked about Ascension. A commitment was made in 2016 to designate a no-take MPA across half of Ascension’s waters, and considerable work has been undertaken in the territory to identify the best location for the MPA based on robust scientific understanding of those waters. It is for the Ascension Island Government to consider the options for an MPA based on the evidence available, and they are currently undertaking a consultation on a range of options, one of which may include designating Ascension as an entire maritime area. In respect of Tristan da Cunha, I can confirm that it is committed to designating marine measures across its maritime zone by 2020. We should all be pleased that so many parliamentary colleagues have recognised and engaged with the ambitious policy direction we have set through the Blue Belt programme.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I am trying to resist intervening too much, but before we move on from Ascension, my understanding is that the Island Council is willing to go for 100% protection but is looking for some kind of assurance from the British Government that it will not be lumbered with the costs. Has my right hon. Friend looked at that, and is he willing to give that assurance?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolutely clear answer, because I have not engaged with Ascension on the issue of costs nor, as a Foreign Office Minister, can I make the sort of funding promises he asked for a moment ago. However, I undertake to look into that and to consult him personally to see whether the issue of costs can be properly addressed and understood in order to introduce the maximum possible certainty to reach the objectives we all share.

The announcement today by the Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is further testament to our commitment to ensuring that the UK remains a world leader on marine protection. Simply banning all fishing activity might seem a simple and obvious conservation solution, but I ask the House to appreciate that the reality is a bit more complicated. The Government will continue to work on the basis of science and evidence to deliver tangible marine protection to contribute to the health of the global ocean, while also taking into account the specific circumstances and needs of each of our overseas territories. I hope that all of us in the House from all parties can work together to do our best for the marine environment.

Question put and agreed to.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

NHS Reorganisation

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Gapes in the Chair]

14:30

[Faisal Rashid (Warrington South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered NHS reorganisation.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. It is my pleasure to open this debate on our NHS as we near the end of the year marking its 70th birthday. In debating its reorganisation, we should not lose sight of what a great credit the NHS and its staff are to our country. Its foundation represents arguably the greatest achievement of this House. It is for precisely that reason that its reorganisation matters so greatly.

Let me set the context. Eight years of cuts and the biggest financial squeeze in its history have pushed the NHS to the brink. On all key performance measures, it is struggling to keep up with demand—A&E performance hit a record low this year, more than 4 million people are stuck on a waiting list, and cancer targets are repeatedly missed. In a speech last year, the chief executive of NHS England warned:

“On the current funding outlook, the NHS waiting list will rise to 5 million people by 2021. That is an extra 1 million people on the waiting list. One in 10 of us waiting for an operation. The highest number ever.”

As the NHS is pressurised to do more with less, it is imperative that Parliament properly scrutinises the ongoing process of its reorganisation. We should not allow the Government’s shambolic handling of the Brexit negotiations to distract us from reforms that are critical to the livelihoods of millions in this country.

I acknowledge that this subject is wide-ranging and complex, so I intend to focus on a few key issues: clinical commissioning groups; sustainability and transformation plans and partnerships; integrated care partnerships; health and social care integration; and healthcare infrastructure.

Let me start with the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and CCGs. Six years on from the coalition Government’s top-down reorganisation of the NHS, it is clear that that initiative has been as much of a disaster as Labour warned it would be. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) rightly described those reforms as having put in place

“a siloed, market-based approach that created statutory barriers to integration.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2018; Vol. 646, c. 176WH.]

The 2012 Act removed regional health planning by abolishing strategic health authorities and creating a complex and fragmented system of clinical commissioning groups. Strategic health authorities helped co-ordinate the provision of healthcare across an area. Subsequent NHS reorganisations have often felt like partial attempts to reverse the damage done by the 2012 Act. It is therefore unsurprising that little effort has been made to keep the public informed of those changes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He touches on the reorganisation way back in 2012. Clinical commissioning groups were created, but they are not accountable to the public—we have problems trying to find out what their budgets are and so forth. We have the same problem with NHS England, which is another very difficult organisation to deal with. As a result of all this reorganisation, we have organisations that are not really accountable to the public, and the public do not get their voices heard.

My hon. Friend touched on staff salaries. If we worked it out, we would probably find that they have had an 8% real-terms cut in wages over the past seven or eight years, on top of which they have to pay car parking charges for the privilege of serving the public. Does he agree that that cannot be right?

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I just request that interventions are not long speeches?

[Faisal Rashid]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I totally agree with him, and I will come to that point later.

The Health Secretary has not even put out a press release about his most recent set of NHS reforms. I wonder when that will happen. Despite not being locally accountable, CCGs hold more public money than local authorities. That lack of accountability is particularly concerning given the large sums CCGs handle and the potential for vested interests to benefit in ways that do not best serve local populations. For example, although GPs acting as both commissioners and providers of care are allowed to sit on local NHS boards, elected and accountable local officials are not. It is alarming that current arrangements allow for such potentially significant conflicts of interest while resisting local democratic oversight.

I turn to sustainability and transformation partnerships. Since the 2012 Act, we have seen the launch of 44 STPs, covering all aspects of NHS spending in England. That process has been characterised by Government secrecy, with little or no engagement with staff, patients, unions or the public before the publication of plans. Despite being asked by the Government to deliver changes to local health services, STPs were given no statutory status, and their meetings are held in private. In the majority of cases, councils have not been included at all, and a number have passed motions or issued statements condemning the process. Under this Government, changes have been initiated with no proper consultation or engagement locally with the public, patients or staff. Without accountability to local democracy, we cannot ensure that health and care systems are relevant to the people and places they are intended to serve.

STPs’ lack of accountability is even more significant given their role in administering spending reductions. Analysis by the Nuffield Trust found that some STPs are targeting up to 30% reductions in areas of hospital activity, including out-patient care, A&E attendances and emergency in-patient care, over the next four years. Those reductions are being planned in the face of steady growth in all areas of hospital activity. Too often, such initiatives encourage short-term savings, to the long-term detriment and overall cost of the NHS.

We should not forget that hard-working frontline staff bear the brunt of these pressures. It is sadly unsurprising that hospitals report growing shortages of doctors, nurses, midwives and therapists, while these bureaucratic bodies flourish.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is quite right. One of the things that would help, particularly among women, is reintroducing the education maintenance allowance so we can bring forward student nurses and so forth. I will give a very quick example—I know you have been a bit lenient, Mr Gapes. In Coventry, a certain facility is starting to be moved to Birmingham. That is 16 miles away, so people are going to have to travel quite a distance. We still have difficulties getting through to NHS England, which arbitrarily comes along and says, “This is going to happen.” It looks as though it might happen unless we can find some alternative. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is no way to run a national health service?

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should not make lengthy speeches in interventions. I would be grateful if all Members bear that in mind in future. I will not be very kind if I get the sense that we are getting three or four speeches from one Member.

[Faisal Rashid]

Thank you, Mr Gapes. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree with him to some extent, but I think his microphone was not working, and it was very difficult to hear what he was saying. That needs to be looked at.

The Warrington and Cheshire STP is completely unworkable. It has the second largest footprint of the 44 STPs, covering 2.5 million people, 12 CCGs and 20 NHS provider organisations. There are so many bodies involved that the STP has been almost impossible to co-ordinate. It required £755 million in capital funding to be deliverable. Against a backdrop of cuts to NHS capital budgets it is unsurprising that the STP has made little progress.

Integrated care providers represent the latest iteration of the changes. Although ICPs could drastically change health and social care provision if adopted, their implementation is taking place without a vote or a debate. The details setting out what an ICP will do were published during the summer recess, with very little publicity. An ICP can be awarded a contract to deliver a general practice for up to 10 years. Significantly, these contracts can also be awarded to private companies. One of the criteria used to assess bids will be

“whether they are able to deliver value for money,”

moving away from an emphasis on quality and choice. Does the Minister believe that these changes should be made without parliamentary consent?

Mr Gapes, forgive me for using these confusing and seemingly never-ending abbreviations. The communication of the changes has been another major flaw in the process. Indeed, I echo the criticisms in the seventh report of the Health and Social Care Committee, published earlier this year, which noted:

“Understanding of these changes has been hampered by poor communication and a confusing acronym spaghetti of changing titles and terminology, poorly understood even by those working within the system. This has fuelled a climate of suspicion about the underlying purpose of the proposals and missed opportunities to build goodwill for the co-design of local systems that work more effectively in the best interests of those who depend on services.”

This unnecessary use of abbreviations and complex terminology has shut out the public and excluded them from the debate over the future of the NHS. The Government have a clear a responsibility to make the debate around NHS reorganisation far more accountable and accessible to the public.

Moving on to health and social care integration, there is broad consensus that if the NHS is to maintain levels of service provision while making the efficiency gains demanded of it, the integration of services across health and social care is vital. Demands on the NHS are becoming increasingly complex, and long-term integrated care has the potential to transform the lives of millions of patients, as well as improving the patient experience. It has huge potential to save money by cutting down on costly emergency hospital admissions and delayed discharges. However, a recent report on health and social care funding by the Institute of Fiscal Studies revealed:

“Social care is facing high growth in demand pressures, which are projected to rise by around £18 billion by 2033-34, at an annual rate of 3.9%.”

This is not something that can be done on the cheap.

For patients, the lack of integration of health and social care can be a maddening experience. I am sure many Members have heard complaints from constituents about having to constantly repeat their story to any number of different health and social care professionals. In my constituency, a community-led healthcare non-governmental organisation passed on the following patient comment, which sums up the problem well:

“When I get on a plane, there is a lounge, passport control, security, air traffic controllers—lots of separate organisations. But what I experience is a trip from A to B. In health and social care what most people experience is A to Z, B to Z etc. having to repeat their stories each time.”

This confusion is the outcome to be expected from the unnecessary complexity and fragmentation that has characterised NHS reorganisation for several years. The fear is that the next NHS reorganisation will not take into account or optimise the 80% of individuals’ wellbeing impacted by the wider determinants of health—housing, employment and connectedness to the local community.

In my constituency, Warrington Together offers a potential way forward as a locally appropriate, collaborative model of care. Its rationale is a return to the principles of the NHS when it was established in 1948: a single taxpayer-funded organisation working to a single integrated plan; promoting healthy lifestyles; utilising doctors and hospitals, as well as community care, social care and mental healthcare; and striving to keep an entire population well in the most efficient way possible, with enhanced stewardship by those who are locally democratically elected.

Warrington Together offers the opportunity to stimulate a social movement to ensure that changes to healthcare are more accountable to the local population. It has established a third sector health and social care alliance, which is an umbrella group made up of 12 local voluntary health and care providers, who can act with one voice and be contracted as a single entity. That will enable a broad range of providers to come together, offering such diverse care as housing and home repairs, mental health support, and links to local leisure and cultural opportunities. While that is not without its challenges, it represents something we should try to achieve on a national scale: involving local stakeholders to provide integrated health and social care services.

My last topic is healthcare infrastructure. NHS reorganisations need to be informed by infrastructure needs. Buildings need to be more efficient and cost-effective. It is estimated that one third of GP surgeries are conversions of former Victorian terraces, 1960s bungalows or former offices. They are often unfit for purpose and cause significant waste. Innovative and modern infrastructure helps to reduce energy and utilities costs to our NHS, while also protecting our environment. The less money we spend on the maintenance of outdated NHS infrastructure, the more money we can spend on long-term care.

I have a number of questions for the Minister to answer. How can he justify the creation of ICPs without a parliamentary vote or debate? Does he acknowledge that ICPs are moving away from an emphasis on quality and choice by allowing bids to be assessed based on whether they are able to deliver value for money? How can he explain the Government’s decision to keep accountable, elected local officials out of the NHS’s decision-making process? Without accountability to local democracy, how can he ensure that health and social care systems are relevant to the people and places they are intended to serve? Will he now acknowledge that the Health and Social Care Act 2012 has been a disaster for the NHS, creating a fragmented and overcomplicated system that fails to meet patients’ needs?

The 2012 reforms have been likened by one commentator to

“a football team reorganised in such a way that the defenders, midfielders and forwards have to contract formally with one another for a certain number of tackles, saves, passes and goals, according to a general plan laid out by the manager, even though all the money comes from the same source: the club, and ultimately the fans. To make things more complicated, on match days, fans are encouraged to swap their tickets for another game, at another stadium, with other teams.”

Is that not an effective summary of these reforms? Finally, does the Minister agree that the unnecessary use of abbreviations and complex terminology has functioned to shut out the public and exclude them from the debate over the future of the NHS?

14:51

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes; I love saying that, particularly to our current Chair. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) for securing this important debate.

I am here today to put on record the wild west of the NHS in south-west London, which will be well known to the Minister. It is a branch of the NHS that has spent the past two decades desperately trying to close the A&E and maternity unit at St Helier hospital on the border of my constituency and move those services to leafy, wealthy Belmont in Sutton. I will describe the geography for any hon. Members unfamiliar with my constituency. St Helier hospital is based in the deprived area of Rose Hill. Further south is the Royal Marsden in the wealthy area of Belmont, and seven miles west is Epsom hospital. The local CCGs are proposing to move all their acute services to just one of those sites.

This is about accountability. Over the past 20 years a staggering £50 million has been wasted on almost identical consultations to reach the obvious conclusion: acute health services must be placed in the area where people are most deprived and most in need, and have the greatest health issues. They must be placed at St Helier hospital’s current site. It does not matter how many brands or names the local NHS gives these proposals or how many marketing consultants are hired. Moving these health services would be catastrophic for my constituents, and catastrophic for south-west London.

What my local NHS fails to consider is this: if St Helier hospital loses acute services, my constituents will not turn to Belmont. The Minister will know Lavender, Cricket Green, Figges Marsh and Mitcham town centre. They will turn north to St George’s or east to Croydon, both hospitals that are already under extraordinary pressure. I told the Prime Minister only today of the case of my constituent who had to queue outside St George’s hospital last Monday because the A&E was simply full. Two weeks ago, St George’s was on black alert. It had no beds. The managers had to cancel all meetings and walk around wards, attempting to get people discharged. Those pressures exist even before the winter bad weather starts and before the flu epidemic that we are anticipating.

I could not possibly have emphasised any more strongly to my local NHS that its statistics and suggestions that people will move from London and parts of my constituency to Belmont are simply not going to happen. In all the years I have been fighting this, nobody in the NHS has ever said anything publicly to support my view, until the week before last. I could not believe it when the chair of St George’s NHS trust wrote a letter that argued:

“There is no formal requirement to take account of the impact”

of its proposals on other providers.

Let me make this clear. Moving acute hospital services from St Helier to Sutton could bring St George’s hospital to the point of collapse, yet those consulting on these proposals were not even taking the inevitable impact on other hospitals into account. Is there a code of guidance on consultation in the NHS? It does not seem that people in south-west London have read it. Take last year, when the same consultation was run, this time by the hospital trust itself, and was called “public engagement”. To the public, the trust portrays a neutral stance and says a suitable site will be selected across south-west London for its services. To the stakeholders in Sutton, it confesses its desire to move the services to their wealthy area. To me, it pretends that the consultation will genuinely seek the views of the public, before it happens to ignore the fact that the consultation receives six times as many negative responses as positive ones.

I was not surprised, given that—this is hard to believe—Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals Trust delivered the consultation document to most parts of Sutton and most parts of Epsom, but not a single street in my constituency; and that is called a consultation. I ask the Minister whether he thinks it is appropriate for an NHS body to run a consultation or an engagement and simply exclude part of the catchment area. Better to deliver no leaflets at all than not to include everybody.

Fast-forward to the latest attempt, where flawed consultation documents are created so that boxes can be ticked and the process can move along more and more quickly. The latest versions argue that Belmont is the deprived area locally, but, staggeringly, the same documents suggest that Pollards Hill is outside the catchment area for the Epsom and St Helier trust—something that will come as news to Wide Way, the largest GP surgery in Pollards Hill, which sends 35% of its patients to St Helier hospital. The trust claims to be neutral about sites, but when I secured £267 million from the Department of Health and the Treasury under both the Labour Government and the coalition Government to rebuild St Helier, guess what happened? The local NHS sent the money back; it did not want to use it.

It seems that every step forward comes up with a new consultation involving closed meetings that unswervingly fails to take account of health inequalities, which I understand is a legal requirement for the NHS. The trust ignores access to the site, public transport and percentage of car ownership, and we make no progress. For me, the last 20 years as the MP for Mitcham and Morden has been like being in the film “Groundhog Day”. Every month there is something, and we can absolutely rely on the fact that every July some bit of the south-west London NHS will want to come up with a consultation to move acute services from St Helier hospital. I simply want to put a stop to it. I want the staff at St Helier to know they have a future, and I want my constituents not to be worried about how they will access an A&E.

15:00

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) for bringing the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). The Minister will not be able to answer all my questions because, as everyone knows, health is devolved to Northern Ireland. However, I will illustrate the issues with NHS reorganisation with some stories from the Province. The Minister has a close parliamentary aide from Northern Ireland, so he knows a wee bit about Northern Ireland.

I thank the House of Commons Library for the help it always gives us. Sometimes its information is enormously helpful, and today is one of those days. I have listened with great interest to the contributions so far; it is clear that, no matter the make-up of the constituency—whether Strangford in Northern Ireland, Mitcham and Morden, Warrington South or constituencies in Glasgow, Cardiff or wherever—there are issues. The NHS is struggling UK-wide, and either the pressure goes or its ability to treat will go. We are caught betwixt those two.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to spending £20 billion extra on the NHS, which is a credit to them. My constituency is on the seaside, and lots of people head that way to retire; I suspect things are the same in many constituencies. Our elderly population is growing, and the future demand on healthcare will be enormous. That is why the £20 billion that the Government have set aside is so helpful—because it gives a golden opportunity to plan ahead. The hon. Member for Warrington South was clear about where that should go.

The Library briefing—I am sure that the Minister has had chance to read it; I know that other Members have—contains six simple lessons from the Nuffield Trust, which are very helpful.

“Lesson 1: Avoid the temptations of a grand plan”.

This refers to the complex and heterogeneous nature of healthcare. We all know that it is complex; that is the very nature of healthcare. There are no one-size-fits-all policies that can address the issues. There has to be more than that.

“Lesson 2: Listen to the public—and don’t pretend you will if you won’t”.

As elected representatives, we know how these things work. When constituents come to us and tell us a problem, we listen intently and respond accordingly. This debate will hopefully be an occasion when we can do just that.

“Lesson 3: Don’t treat the workforce as an afterthought”.

It is very important that the workforce are part of a focused reorganisation plan. With the input of the workforce, there is a way forward.

“Lesson 4: Make sure the funding follows the plan”.

If funding commitments are made, they should be in there.

“Lesson 5: Don’t overrate structural reorganisation”.

In other words, it will not be sufficient to add more to the system that is operating on its own without building that structure up.

“Lesson 6: You need a plan your staff can follow”.

Create a policy and strategy that staff can get behind and support. The best way of doing that is to make sure that staff are involved in the creation of the plan, with staff values reflected in targets. All those things are vastly important, and I know that the Minister, who is a compassionate man and understands the issues well, will be able to respond even to the very generic terms that I put that in.

For Hansard and for the record, I will highlight an issue that I know is important across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: GP out-of-hours services. I emphasise the importance of that service, but we have particular problems with it in my constituency of Strangford. Part of any strategy or plan for NHS reorganisation should look at that.

My local health board is the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust—clearly, not the responsibility of the Minister—which covers my entire constituency. On selected days just last month, the GP out-of-hours service in the main town in my constituency, Newtownards, had to close because it was understaffed, and there are particular reasons for that. People could either follow the advice and go to the nearest South Eastern Trust facility in Downpatrick, some 40 minutes away from Ards—for those who dare to live in Portavogie in the Ards peninsula, not that far from me, it is an hour and 20 minutes—or they could go to the A&E department, which was standing room only. The choice puts massive undue burden on an already drowning service.

I suggest to the Minister—as I have suggested at home; I think it would be helpful—that, whenever GPs commit themselves to operating an out-of-hours service, there may need to be another method of addressing the issues of those who use the service. For instance, why not have a staff nurse to treat minor ailments, taking pressure off the GPs? There are ways of doing things. There does not always have to be a GP there. GPs are predominantly overburdened; they certainly are in my constituency, and I suspect they are everywhere else as well.

I will give the example of my parliamentary aide from just last week, which I believe, unfortunately, is the tip of the iceberg. Her daughter, who has just turned three, is treated in an asthma clinic. She had an extremely high temperature that would not come down to the normal range and which had been going on for nearly two weeks. Her little body fought so hard to control the infection that it was going through that her breathing rate was double what it should have been. The out-of-hours service was rung, and four hours later the call was returned—a long time when the mother and family are getting panicky. The child was lifted out of sleep and brought to a waiting room full of other children who were equally unwell.

Had the service not been able to sound out her lungs, she would have had to travel to the Ulster Hospital, which she ultimately had to do the following week, as her ear infection burst an ear drum. Unfortunately, she is one of many. My aide met doctors who were harassed—not because they were nasty people, but because of their workload—but doing the best they could. When she asked whether there is insufficient funding to pay for out-of-hours care she was told that there is insufficient desire. How do we inspire doctors to be part of the out-of-hours service, which can only function with GPs who want to be part of it?

The new remuneration system came into operation in Northern Ireland in 2003. Although the system was designed to give GP practices much more flexibility on how they deliver services, allowing them to choose how to organise patient care and rewarding them for the quality of that care, the introduction of the new general medical services contract also allowed GPs to opt out of providing out-of-hours services, leaving the system essentially on its knees.

The fact is that the A&E in the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald simply cannot cope without the service. The fact is that nursing homes that rely on GPs coming out to drivers into patients who are in agony and pain, or to call time of death, need the service, as do parents who need someone to sound out the chest of their asthmatic child without being subjected to a four-hour wait in a room with ill, injured and drunk people in the middle of a cold winter’s night.

The service is vital. I read a report in July this year that referred to Wales as having similar circumstances and similar difficulties with their GP service. I am interested to know whether the shadow Minister or the Minister are aware of similar circumstances across the UK mainland. I suspect any MP in touch with their constituents, as we all are, will be able to replicate the stories that I am telling.

I very much respect GPs and the hard work that they do and their right to a social life. No longer do we expect the village doctor to be on call every day and night, but we need them to be available. There are no longer enforceable contracts, and I believe that, in any new NHS reorganisation or strategy, we must find another way of operating the out-of-hours service that gives the care that our constituents want at the times that they need it, which is usually out-of-hours or whenever they are under pressure.

I spoke very recently to a recently retired GP. He had been doing the night shift four nights a week, but realised that that was too much and pulled out. Perhaps if he had been asked to do only one or two nights, he would have stayed. Too much has been asked of too few people. We need to ensure that funding and people are available.

I know he will be mortified, but I am going to name one local GP, because he is a very popular and well liked GP in my constituency. Dr Doyle has his own practice and can be found a lot more than is right, and than is probably his duty, in the out-of-hours surgery. He makes time to help his patients by writing support letters for personal independence payment and employment and support allowance applications and he genuinely cares. I am not saying that others do not care; I am picking out this man as a representative of what happens. I look at Dr Doyle and wonder how much longer he and others like him can possibly continue. We need to spread the burden through the area.

I would urge the Health and Social Care Committee here to look at what is happening with the out-of-hours service, see the good that it does and perhaps look at a different way in which the out-of-hours provision could work. The Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, on which I serve as one of the members from my party, is doing inquiries into many things, and one of them is health. People from Northern Ireland with a knowledge of and interest in health are coming here to make presentations to the Committee. And one thing that crops up is the out-of-hours service.

The question is how we adjust to the demands on the health service for the future. I started my comments by saying how much I genuinely welcome the £20 billion that the Government have set aside. We will get some of that through the Barnett consequential, so we are very pleased, but I see the needs in my constituency among the elderly population. I am also very keen that there should be early diagnosis and that preventive steps should be taken in delivering a health service for the future. If we do that, we will be doing the right thing. We must not just react all the time. Let us have a strategy that looks forward and aims to prevent things happening.

I am a type 2 diabetic, and many in the House are, as it turns out. Our Prime Minister is a type 1 diabetic. We all live with our particular ailments. But how much better would it have been if I had known about my condition earlier. I suspect that I was a diabetic for perhaps a year before I was diagnosed as one. I did not know at the time what the issue was. It was only when I went for a check-up with a doctor that I suddenly realised when he told me what was wrong. That makes me wonder whether there are steps that we can take for education, awareness and prevention. That is what we should be doing.

The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee will come to a conclusion in our inquiry on the health service in Northern Ireland, but I will conclude my speech today with this point for the Minister. The problems that I have referred to are specific in some cases to Northern Ireland and to my constituency in particular, but I believe that problems exist UK-wide and therefore that the response must be UK-wide as well.

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. I think that there will be a vote imminently. If so, we will break for 15 minutes and get back as quickly as possible.

15:13

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Gapes. I am sure hon. Members will be keen to return for the remainder of my speech, however long that turns out to be. It is of course a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid) on securing this extremely important debate. It is also very timely as we eagerly await the NHS long-term plan. He made a powerful case about the weaknesses in the Government’s approach and the disgraceful lack of parliamentary oversight of very significant changes to local and national services. I agree that the creation of the NHS was one of the great achievements of this House and this country.

My hon. Friend was right in his analysis of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. He highlighted his concern about accountability in CCGs and the potential for conflicts of interest in them. He also highlighted the lack of transparency that has characterised the STP process since its inception, and he summed up the benefits, from the patient’s perspective, of good integration —of course, no one wants to have to repeat their story on multiple occasions.

My hon. Friend talked about the challenges that the NHS faces with its infrastructure. He will know that those challenges have been exacerbated by the continual capital raids on budgets. His analogy about a football team was amusing—sadly, my own team appears to be taking things rather too seriously at the moment—but it did sum up a lot of the confusion and the illogical approach that we have to healthcare in this country. He was of course right to say that the hard-working staff of the NHS bear the brunt of these many pressures. He also made the point that many of the changes that we have been talking about have not been made in the most open way.

We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She followed up her question to the Prime Minister with a much more detailed, and devastating, critique of the proposals that affect her constituency. I was staggered to hear that £50 million has been spent on consultation so far. It was also disturbing to hear how bad things are at her accident and emergency department now, before we enter the real depths of winter. I was staggered to hear about the approach to consultation there. I am sure the Minister will want to address that. [Interruption.]

[Mike Gapes (in the Chair)]

Order. We will break for 15 minutes, I hope, and come back as soon as possible.

15:15

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

15:38

On resuming—

[Justin Madders]

Before we were interrupted by important business in the Chamber, I was referring to contributions from other hon. Members. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) gave his perspective from Northern Ireland, and set out clearly what a proper consultation should look like—a standard that, as we have heard, is not really being reached by the NHS at the moment. He also raised issues with the GP out-of-hours service. That is slightly beyond the scope of the debate, but he is right to say that the issue covers the whole United Kingdom. Indeed, recently there have been numerous newspaper reports about people having to wait for many weeks to get a GP appointment.

Looking at current NHS performance, it is clear that, on all key performance measures, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South said, the NHS is struggling to keep up with demand. A&E performance is at a record low this year. More than 4 million people are stuck on waiting lists, and cancer targets are being repeatedly missed. This has led to the Government effectively giving up on trying to meet the NHS’s constitutional targets. As my hon. Friend said earlier, waiting lists for operations are likely to hit 5 million people within the next three years. While the eight years of a financial plan that has failed to keep up with demand have clearly been a driver of that failure, it is also clear that the 2012 top-down reorganisation has exacerbated the issues that the NHS faces.

We have been left with a fragmented, marketised system, which prevents the kind of transformation and integration of services that we would all like to see. At a time when everyone is calling for various parts of the health and social care sector to work together, we remain bound by legislation. As my hon. Friend said, it is this legislation that enforces a siloed, market-based approach, which imposes statutory barriers to integration.

Against this backdrop we have seen a whole series of acronyms encapsulating a range of reorganisations to health services, including STPs, ACOs, ACSs, ICPs, ICSs and so on—all part of what the Health and Social Care Committee has described as a culture of

“changing titles and terminology, poorly understood even by those working within the system.”

It is all clearly an attempt by NHS leadership to reverse the impact of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 by any means that do not require primary legislation or parliamentary oversight. These reforms could have wide-ranging impacts, from causing walk-in centres, cottage hospitals, maternity centres and A&Es to relocate or close altogether, to introducing a new form of 10-year contract, which raises the spectre of private companies once again running our local health services.

I know the Government are not particularly fond at the moment of testing the will of the House, but something as fundamental as transforming our most treasured asset clearly should not be taking place without parliamentary consent. Ministers and NHS leaders are tiptoeing around the 2012 Act, but if we are to have meaningful proposals and an effective integration process, we need an admission that that legislation has had its day. To all intents and purposes, the 2012 Act is no more; it has expired and gone to meet its maker. Yet the Government refuse to acknowledge that central fact.

The initial STP process was imposed from the top and was based around 44 geographical areas that were determined very quickly without recourse to the public. Although some of the areas that emerged after that initial consideration had well-established networks of co-operation, in others a vast and unwieldy network of commissioners and providers with completely different approaches was put together at very short notice. The only beneficiaries of that process seem to be the private consultants who were drafted in to complete these hastily arranged plans. Professor Chris Ham has pointed out that

“most STPs got to the finishing line of October 2016, submitted their plans and breathed a huge sigh of relief. No further work has been done on those STPs.”

Despite the fact that plans were designed to cover the period from October 2016 to March 2021, NHS England and NHS Improvement said in a letter to local leaders last month that sustainability and transformation partnerships and integrated care systems will be expected to develop and agree their plans during the first half of 2019-20. Will the Minister update us as to how many of the 44 STPs developed as part of this process have, as NHS Providers puts it, had no further work done? What was the cost of developing those plans? Can the Minister justify forcing the entire health and social care sector to stop what it was doing and embark again on a hasty and expensive process to come up with new five-year plans, only to be asked to do the same again a few years later? In the few local areas that have proceeded to the next stages of integration, there is understandable concern among patients and staff about precisely what that will mean.

The accountable care organisation—now rebranded as integrated care provider—process has the potential to radically alter the entire health and social care landscape, but, again, it is continuing without any parliamentary legislation. One of the primary concerns about that new model is that it would be compulsory to advertise the contracts to the market, and commissioners are forbidden from discriminating between NHS and non-NHS bidders. Bids can be made by a group of organisations, so an NHS trust or a group of GPs could partner with a private company. Previous high-profile attempts to do this kind of thing in Staffordshire and Cambridge collapsed spectacularly with millions of pounds wasted. As my hon. Friend said, it is also deeply worrying that one of the criteria used to assess bids will be whether they are able to deliver value for money. That marks a significant change to the status quo, and one that I do not believe should be countenanced without new legislation.

I have heard Ministers speak on several occasions to assure those of us who have concerns that this will not see mass privatisation. However, during the debate on integration in September, the previous Health Minister, now the latest Brexit Secretary, was asked four times by Conservative, Scottish National party and Labour Members to expressly rule out new organisations being run by the private sector. He failed to do so on every occasion he was asked. Is the Minister now prepared to give that kind of assurance, and if not, why not?

It is also less clear what will happen in the event that an ICP ends up in deficit, particularly if a private sector organisation or a charity has won the contract. While the consultation document sets out that efforts will be made to ensure that ICPs are financially viable, the same assurances have been offered about the existing configurations, and almost half of all NHS providers were in deficit last year. That has led us to the disastrous situation where, according to the 2017-18 accounts published by NHS Improvement, NHS providers owed the Department of Health and Social Care more than £11 billion, up from £8.1 billion in the previous year. That sharp increase was a result of bail-outs given to trusts that ran into deficit as a result of underfunding. Borrowing from the Secretary of State now exceeds private finance initiative liabilities. In 2016-17, £1.3 billion was repaid from trusts to the Department, of which £161 million was interest. Can the Minister set out what will happen if an ICP reaches financial deficit or collapses?

One thing that is clear from the draft ICP contract is that if the annual budgets provided are not sufficient to deliver the current levels of service, the ICP will be responsible for “managing changes in demand.” While there are merits in a system that incentivises keeping people well, there is a clear danger that demand will be managed by rationing access to treatment. Will the Minister rule out unilateral rationing of services by ICPs if they cannot keep to their budgets? What safeguards are in place to prevent further rationing of services, and who will be accountable in the event that patients want to challenge such a situation? It is far from clear who will ultimately make these decisions and who will be accountable for them. Where the split between the legal commissioner and provider is technically maintained, it is impossible to see in practice how an ICP would not be taking on core commissioning functions.

All this raises the spectre of a new postcode lottery, where patient experiences are uneven depending on who was contracted by an unaccountable panel of commissioners. The whole approach is farcical, and none of this has come before the House for what could be described as a meaningful vote. Experts from across the health and social care sector, and even the chief executive of NHS England, have all acknowledged not only the desirability, but the inevitability of new legislation. Will the Minister commit as part of the NHS long-term plan to set out in full the direction of travel for NHS reorganisation, the Government’s objectives, the criteria that will be used to determine when those objectives have been achieved, and a timeline for the necessary primary legislation?

15:47

[The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid). I am pleased that he secured this debate, and I agree with him that the NHS is a great credit to our country. I know that the Opposition spokesman will have heard me say yesterday—I will repeat it—that the Government and I, as Minister for Health, greatly value the staff who work in the NHS. It is our absolute intention to ensure that they recognise that and that we continue to show that.

I want to start with a few facts, because having listened to what the hon. Member for Warrington South described, I think there are other things that are worth pointing out. There are 11,000 more nurses in the NHS than there were in 2010. There are 18,200 more doctors than in 2010. Almost nine out of 10 patients are seen within four hours in an emergency department. We are committed to 5,000 training places for doctors in general practice—this year saw 10% more than we aimed to achieve. Of course, this is the highest level of funding that the NHS has had in its 70 years. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other issues, as did the Opposition spokesman, and I will try to respond to those in my speech.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a contribution. I have immense respect for her. Anyone who knows her knows that she always argues her case passionately and stands up for her constituents, and she did that again today. She and I have occasionally shared joint endeavours on St Helier Hospital. I think we both agree that there is a substantial case for keeping the acute services there. I think we would both agree—I say this in a constituency capacity—that the infrastructure needs upgrading, and I think we have had that discussion. She rightly points that we have had another consultation this year. As a Minister, I say that we expect any significant service changes to be subject to exactly the full public consultation she has described, if it is going to happen, and that the proposals must meet the Government’s four reconfiguration tests, which are support from GP commissioners; strengthened engagement with the public; clarity on the clinical evidence; and clarity and consistency with patients’ choice. She says that there have been rounds of consultations, as I certainly saw when I was on the council—I think she was already a Member of Parliament then—under Governments of all colours over the past 20 years.

It is the same with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I have had the pleasure of taking interventions from him in several debates. He is always a powerful advocate for his constituents. I listened carefully to his point about out-of-hours care, which may have been slightly out of the scope of the debate. Yesterday, I had the chance to visit the North Middlesex University Hospital. Some of its work on the integration of out-of-hours care and triaging in A&E moves along the lines that he discussed. I have seen that several times.

To address the crux of the debate, between 2016 and 2036, the UK population is expected to increase from 65.6 million to 71.8 million, which is a growth rate of about 10% in 20 years. In the same period, the number of people aged 75 and over is expected to grow by 64% from 5.3 million to 9 million. Those figures are clearly something to celebrate, showing that the NHS is doing exactly what we want it to, but they mean that more will need to be done to make sure that those years are quality years.

For the NHS to continue to deliver high-quality care in the next 20 years, as it has done for the last 70 years, we need to look at new models of care that promote more joined-up care across the NHS and social care. In the past few years, the Government have supported a number of pilots at local and national levels to test new models of care that bring together the NHS, local authorities and wider public services to develop new ways of ensuring that services are delivered in a more joined-up way. Those areas have seen some improvements in access to services, patient experience and moderating demand for acute services.

It is time for the NHS to move beyond those pilots and embrace wholesale transformational changes across the whole system in every part of the country. It is therefore developing a 10-year plan for its future, which is underpinned by a five-year funding offer. To support the NHS in delivering for patients across the country, the Government announced a new five-year budget settlement for the NHS, in which funding will grow on average by 3.4% each year to 2023-24. The hon. Member for Strangford, who has just left the Chamber, welcomed the fact that that means the NHS budget will increase by more than £20 billion compared with today, underpinning the 10-year plan to guarantee the future of the NHS.

The hon. Member for Warrington South remarked on sustainability and transformation partnerships, and commented on his own local STP. The Government are fully committed to NHS England’s vision of STPs transforming how care is delivered and putting the system on a sustainable footing for the future. We will back STPs where they are clinically led and locally supported.

The hon. Gentleman questioned some aspects of local democracy. Each partnership has to set out agreed priorities and say how they are going to be delivered, and have a strategic priority to work with partners in local authorities. The Cheshire and Merseyside STP is making some progress in building those relationships, but he is right to acknowledge—I acknowledge it as well—that it is an extremely large and diverse area.

Clearly, the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) will recognise that there are now nine local footprints, including Warrington Together. The idea is that they will develop some of the integration suggestions and plans, and the consultation with local authorities to which the hon. Member for Warrington South referred. The STP brings local areas together to tackle the challenges, and I think he would acknowledge that it makes sense to do that across a bigger area, so the smaller areas build into the larger area.

Last week, the Government announced that they were supporting the Cheshire and Merseyside STP with £11 million in capital spending for improving emergency department capacity at the St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals and for a 12-bed, tier-4 child and adolescent mental health services unit at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston challenged me on STPs, so I will say that, in their more mature form, they are integrated care systems that promote collaboration between NHS bodies, local government and local communities. The 10-year plan will set out how they will spread the integrated care models that have been developed and tested through the whole vanguard programme.

There was also a challenge about what were formerly known as accountable care organisations and are now called integrated care providers, with several questions about that. At a small number of sites, commissioners are looking at how contractual models can support more integrated care. To support that, NHS England has developed the draft integrated care provider contract which, if introduced, will give the NHS the option of having a single lead provider that is responsible for primary, community and hospital services, with the aim of integrating services across traditional silos.

If NHS England chooses to introduce a contract for the ICPs, Parliament will have a chance to debate the regulations. I recognise that the regulations are subject to the negative procedure, so there is not an automatic debate, but as the hon. Member for Warrington South will have spotted, in those circumstances, if Parliament decides, there will be an opportunity to have that debate. NHS England has recently concluded the public consultation on the draft ICP contract and we expect a response in due course.

I want to touch on the premise that the ICP contract is privatisation. It is completely misleading to suggest that an integrated provider model is a step towards privatising the health service. The NHS will always offer free healthcare at the point of use—that is not just the Government’s view. I am sure that the Library briefing that the hon. Member for Strangford challenged me to read notes the evidence from the Health and Social Care Committee, whose Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), said that the evidence received by the inquiry into integrated care—the report was published in July 2018—was that ICPs

“and other efforts to integrate health…and social care, will not extend the scope of NHS privatisation and may effectively do the opposite.”

That is quite powerful and I hope that the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Warrington South take note.

[Justin Madders]

I know what the Select Committee said; I am interested in what the Government are saying. Is the Minister ruling out any private provision from ICPs?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am not ruling out private providers from bidding, but it has been made clear, and I say again, that we expect any ICP contract to be won by NHS bodies. As I said, the evidence to the Select Committee inquiry tends to support that that is our view and that is what is likely to happen.

The Government have made it clear that the change is not about reorganising the NHS from the centre or adding more layers to an already complex system. As the Prime Minister reiterated in her speech in June, the Government should learn the lessons of the past and not try to impose change on the NHS. To achieve that, we firmly believe that any changes to the model of care for patients need to be locally led, informed by knowledge of the population and the population need, and supported by clinicians on ground.

That is why we have asked local leaders in STPs and integrated care systems to create five-year plans detailing how they will improve local services for patients and achieve financial sustainability. Of course, this is something that we may want, but it cannot just be wished into being, which is why the Government are supporting the NHS with £20 billion of additional funding.

Local plans will build on the work of the last three years to develop new ways of delivering services and enhance collective efforts to use that additional funding to improve people’s health and wellbeing. It is essential that that process proceeds in a spirit of genuine partnership and that all local partners, including local government, are fully involved from the outset.

For any significant system reconfiguration, we expect all parts of the system to be talking to the public regularly; it is vital that the public shape the future of their local services. That relates directly to the point that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden made earlier. To make it absolutely clear, no changes will take place without public consultation and engagement.

After all, the aim of integrating services is not an end in itself; it is to improve the patient experience and quality of care, so it is essential that the views of the public should be at the heart of local plans. Integrated care means a health and care system built around people’s needs, whereby physical, mental and social care needs can be addressed together, and patients should feel as if their care is being provided by one organisation.

Integration also gives us the means to avert ill health, preventing unnecessary hospital visits and supporting patients to have happier, healthier lives into old age, and taking the pressure off NHS staff. For example, in Thanet, the Margate Task Force is an integrated service that brings staff from 16 different agencies together in a single “street-level” team.

In conclusion, integrated care provides the best opportunity to ensure that the NHS continues to deliver the highest level of quality services to people and to meet the demands of the 21st century. The Government have supported the NHS to implement the five-year forward view and to develop new integrated ways of working to meet those demands. It is now time to drive those initiatives and spread them across the whole country. That is why we are committed to those plans and it is why we have committed to increase the NHS budget, to support the national move towards integrating care.

16:02

[Faisal Rashid]

First, I thank all the Members who took part in this very important debate: my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders); and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I also thank the Minister for giving some reassurances and the answers to some of my questions.

I will make a couple of points. I have heard time after time that there are more doctors and 11,000 more nurses than there were in 2010. Clearly, the demand has been even greater, which is why there are still shortages. We really need to invest in more doctors and more nurses, to cope with the demand for them, which is quite significantly higher than the numbers from 2010 to 2018 that the Minister cited. The numbers do not really make sense. The Minister also mentioned value for money. He said that there was no privatisation as such, but he is not ruling it out. At the same time, if value for money is the criterion, one will definitely think that privatisation will happen.

In conclusion, the NHS is a very precious institution for all of us; the Minister agreed with me about that. I urge him to look very carefully at reorganisation and to get everybody involved. Let us work together to make it happen for the people of this country in the long term.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered NHS reorganisation.

HMY Iolaire

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Graham Stringer in the Chair]

16:04

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 100th anniversary of the HMY Iolaire disaster.

It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I am grateful to the House authorities for this opportunity to speak about the Iolaire and to pay our respects to the many men who lost their lives while they were returning to their home island of Lewis and Harris on Hogmanay 1918. Tragically, in the early hours of 1919, they lost their lives just a stone’s throw from their native island. I am also grateful to Poppyscotland for the creation of a badge that a number of us are wearing in Westminster Hall today: it has a poppy to mark the war and a bell to mark the Iolaire.

The Iolaire was the worst peacetime disaster at sea for the UK since the sinking of the Titanic and the worst peacetime loss in Scottish or British waters in all the 20th century; only the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987 and the Piper Alpha oilrig disaster a year later come close in scale to what happened with the Iolaire. What compounded the tragedy was that the appalling loss of life fell almost exclusively on the one small, defined population of Lewis and Harris, as John MacLeod noted in his excellent book, “When I Heard the Bell: The Loss of the Iolaire”, which was published in 2009.

About 284 men sailed on the Iolaire and it now seems that 201 of them were lost, following research for the excellent book by Malcolm Macdonald, “The Darkest Dawn”, which was published this year; the public inquiry of February 1919 had recorded 205 deaths. Regardless of the actual number, about 70% of the passengers and crew lost their lives that night, 20 yards from shore. Many bodies were never recovered and only 79 men survived.

Of course, what adds to the feelings of injustice, grief, annoyance and poignancy, in the mix of emotions that the Iolaire still conjures to this day, was that many of the men on board had already been through the grimmest of years in the grimmest of global conflicts. Indeed, only a year earlier one man on the Iolaire had survived the Halifax bay explosion in Nova Scotia. He came out of the war, only to lose his life at the doorstep of his own island. The 201 men who lost their lives had been fortunate to escape the horror of world war one, but tragically they lost their lives as they arrived home.

Lewis and Harris had already suffered badly in the war, losing many of its sons, fathers and husbands. Of a population of 29,000, 6,172 were in the service of the Crown: 3,500 were in the Royal Navy; and, interestingly, about 560 men from Lewis were serving the Crown in the forces of Canada.

The loyal Lewis roll of honour described the catastrophe as the crowning sorrow for Lewis from world war one. Reprinted on that roll of honour is the following:

“At 1.55am on 1st January 1919, a naval yacht carrying sailors home on leave ran aground on rocks near the village of Holm, a mere 20 yards from the shore of the Isle of Lewis and less than a mile from the safe harbour of Stornoway. HMY Iolaire was crowded with 280 men, mostly naval reservists returning to the safety and comfort of their homes after the horrors of the Great War. On this dark night of winter, a force ten gale was blowing from the south, hard onto the shore, and there was a heavy sea running. Men drowned as they jumped or slid into the sea from the pitching decks, were flung back into the angry foam from lifeboats awash and overloaded, were dashed against jagged rocks, or managed to swim and crawl ashore, only to die before they could reach shelter or aid. By the time the first New Year’s Day of peacetime dawned, 201 men had lost their lives, 181 of them on the very shores of the island they called home.

No one now alive in Lewis can ever forget the 1st of January 1919, and future generations will speak of it as the blackest day in the history of the island, for on it 200 of our bravest and best perished on the very threshold of their home under the most tragic of circumstances. The terrible disaster at Holm on New Years morning has plunged every home and every heart in Lewis into grief unutterable.”

I will come on to that unutterableness later. The roll continues:

“Language cannot express the desolation, the despair which this awful catastrophe has inflicted. One thinks of the wide circle of blood relations affected by the loss of even one of these gallant lads, and imagination sees these circles multiplied by the number of the dead, overlapping and overlapping each other till the whole island—every hearth and home in it—is shrouded in deepest gloom. All the island’s war losses in the past four cruel years—although these number fully four times the death roll of New Year’s Day morning—are not comparable to this unspeakable calamity. The black tragedy has not a redeeming feature.”

That was written by William Grant, the founder of the Stornoway Gazette, in January 1919, when the memory was of course very alive to the tragedy and its magnitude.

The Iolaire had come over specially from Stornoway to Kyle of Lochalsh to take men home for New Year. The admiralty had given English and Welsh servicemen a break for Christmas, and the Scots the new year, as was the developed custom and, indeed, the want at the time. The admiralty had known that there would be a bottleneck problem at Kyle to get the men across the Minch to Stornoway. The merchant seaman, Captain Colin Cameron, master of the MacBrayne mailboat, Sheila, knew that it could not accommodate all the extra naval reservists along with soldiers and passengers safely across the Minch, and he pressed, quite correctly, for a way to relieve the pressure of sheer numbers on the Sheila, and hence the Admiralty sent the Iolaire to Kyle. It was not a great start. When she arrived in Kyle at 4 pm, a miscalculation between the bridge and the engine room meant she hit the pier and sustained damage to 10 feet of her gunnel. That was a very inauspicious start.

For those who were to board that night, the journey to Kyle of Lochalsh involved crowded and slow railway journeys from Glasgow, first north to Inverness and then west through Dingwall to Kyle, with stoppages. The Glasgow to Kyle journey took about 13 and a half hours, arriving at Kyle at 6.15 pm on Hogmanay 1918. Many of those on board the Iolaire that night had travelled up from the south of England and had come through London before they went up to Glasgow and onwards with their cousins, neighbours, comrades and fellow islanders.

The second part of the train that had taken 13 and a half hours arrived at 7 o’clock, 45 minutes later, and the Iolaire set sail at 7.30 pm, with naval personnel from Lewis. Soldiers from Lewis who wanted to get on the Iolaire had been ordered off. They wanted to get on because friends, cousins and neighbours had been on it. It is worth pointing out, on the circle of overlap mentioned in the 1919 writing, that those who were the friends, cousins and neighbours could be the same person, such is the nice interlinked happenstance that islands tend to have. That is true to this day and it was certainly true in 1919.

As I have noted, at 1.55 am on New Year’s Day 1919, the Iolaire ran aground on the rocks at Holm—the Beasts of Holm. The weather had been blowing force eight to 10 on the shore, when she struck the rocks and listed to starboard at a 35° angle. Many of those on board thought she had hit a mine and about 50 to 60 jumped off or slid into the sea. From then on, she was hit by waves, strongly and regularly. Concern about the Iolaire’s course had been spotted by a nearby fishing boat that was sailing the route as well, the Spider. Given the time of year, alcohol was of course suspected, and disputed. What is not in dispute is the loss of life. There is so much to say and it is impossible to do it justice, other than to remember, be aware and think well of those people who lost their lives 100 years ago.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

We are all delighted that the hon. Gentleman has secured this debate. Another thing that is not disputed is that John Macleod, who was my great-grand-uncle, swam ashore with a rope and probably managed to save 40 people’s lives. The real sadness is that so many people who got ashore never managed to get to a home, because nobody was expecting the ship to arrive. The misery for the families the next day—finding dead bodies on the beach—was just so total.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am grateful for that intervention. I was just going to come on to John Finlay Macleod; I had not realised he was the great-grand-uncle of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and I thank him for pointing that out.

Those who lost their lives might be people we may meet ourselves someday, depending on what happens after this life. Of the 79 who survived, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, 40 owe their lives to fellow crewman and passenger, experienced seaman and Royal Naval reservist, John Finlay MacLeod, from Port of Ness, who swam ashore with a rope after a couple of attempts. He was swept out at one point. Four followed behind him on the small rope he swam with, the heaving line, but they had the presence of mind to use that line to pull a six-inch hawser, and a further 35 were able to follow. The actions of the hon. Gentleman’s great-grand-uncle saved 40 of the 79 who survived. It was quite a remarkable achievement, although it is sad to note that some were swept off the rope or sucked off the rope by the swell, and lost their lives.

John Finlay MacLeod was said to be a very daring man and, for the lives he saved, many were glad he was. There were many other heroes that night, and it is impossible in the time available to do them any measure of justice. It is worth pondering the effects of the Iolaire on the island of Lewis and Harris, the third largest of the British Isles after the island of Britain and the island of Ireland. The excellent book by Malcolm Macdonald breaks it down into areas of Lewis, because it is a big island. In the parish of Barvas, Ness lost 23 men. It is striking as we look through the names that there are still people—friends of mine—who have much the same names, from those areas: John MacDonald, Murdo Campbell, John MacLeod, Angus MacDonald, Angus Morrison, Donald Morrison, Donald MacLeod, John Murray and Roderick Morrison. These names are as familiar today as they were then in that area.

The parish of Barvas—Borve to Shawbost—lost 28 men. Uig parish in the east lost nine men; in Uig parish in the west, 14 were lost. In Stornoway parish, North Tolsta, 11 men were lost; in Stornoway parish, Back to Tong, nine men were lost. In Lochs parish, North Lochs, 21 men were lost; in Lochs parish, Kinloch, four men were lost; in Lochs parish, Pairc, eight men were lost. In Stornoway parish, Point, 39 men were lost. In Stornoway borough and district, eight men were lost. On the Isle of Harris, four men were lost; and on the Isle of Scalpay, one man was lost—Finlay Morrison, Fionnlagh Dhomhnaill Fhionnlaigh. One of the things that should be noted in the excellent book is the patronymics of these people, which help people reading it today to know who their relations were. Finally, in the rest of the United Kingdom, 18 men were lost; they were the crew of the Iolaire, who perished.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

It is important that we remember those who were lost. Although the numbers do not seem huge, my hon. Friend will know from living in those islands that the numbers he has read out are almost an entire generation of young men. The devastation of those left behind is hard for us to comprehend. Being from a military family myself, I know the excitement that the families would have when sailors were returning from sea. To have those hopes dashed—the families left behind must have suffered a double blow, following the horrors of the first world war.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The numbers are a huge percentage of the able-bodied men in the area, and of the able-bodied men who had survived a global catastrophe. That made it doubly difficult.

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful speech about the unspeakable tragedy that happened to Lewis and Harris. I say it is unspeakable, but he is speaking very powerfully about this terrible tragedy. Perhaps it is hopeful that at the centenary we are able to speak and to teach the nation about the impact it had on that island community. It is the duty of this Parliament to safeguard the special cultural and historical interest of those island communities in our country, and to make sure that they are at the heart of our nation’s interests and are protected in the future.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I am very grateful indeed to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that aspect. We have to remember the culture and the background that these guys came from: they were raised in difficult circumstances, in peat-smoke-filled rooms in small, dark houses. There were no amenities such as running water and electricity. They were a generation that had worked hard, and their parents had to work hard to raise them.

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

I compliment the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I pay tribute to the memory of those who lost their lives in the Iolaire disaster, and to the islanders themselves, who secured a memorial at Holm in 1958, 39 years after the tragedy. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would explain to those gathered here how those islands recovered from the loss of a generation of young men, who gave so much during the first world war only to lose their lives a mile from the safety of their own homes.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point. They are tending to become a little lengthy, and I intend to call the Minister in a minute.

10:09

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:31

On resuming—

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

To resume where we left off, I was asked a question by the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) about how people recovered. From the Iolaire, 67 women were left widowed and 209 children had lost fathers. A women I met in her mid-90s who was known as Mòr Bhrù—her name was Marion MacLeod, née Smith—was asked by the author John MacLeod what her mother had said of that night years after it had happened. He wrote:

“‘We never spoke of it,’ says Mòr calmly. ‘I never once asked her.’”

That indicates the silence of which the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) spoke. The tragedy of the Iolaire in many ways is the pain and the silence, and people not wanting to relive that awful moment.

In finishing, I want to highlight a couple of things. This Friday, I will be in Stornoway in the Nicolson Institute for a dìleab event. It is a memory in song and poetry to the loss of the Iolaire and the men who were on it. It is worth highlighting that in Sheshader and Point, a former principal teacher of English—he was in the Nicolson Institute when I was there; he was also a principal teacher of rugby, incidentally—and local resident Mike Shailes are making a point of marking the Iolaire by going round and putting stones and marks in the 10 houses. There were 10 men from Sheshader on the Iolaire and all 10 drowned that day. The village had already lost 10 in world war one. There were 300 people living in Sheshader and Point. There are now 120. Incidentally, six were lost in world war two. The two people I mentioned have gone around and marked the ruins and houses where people lived. That is a commendable effort of memory.

Finally, I asked in my office yesterday whether anyone had a relative involved in the Iolaire. One of my staff, Cathy Macinnes, said that her uncle Malcolm MacLeod—Calum Mhurachaidh Phadraig Choinnich—was 18 when he was lost. Thinking back, I knew Cathy’s father quite well. He was active in the Scottish National party when I was not and was working for the BBC. It is notable that because of Malcolm’s young age, his family, like those of every other young servicemen who died, did not receive any war gratuity or compensation from the Ministry of Defence at the time. Times were hard and people were lost, but sometimes things were compounded further.

We do remember them. We think of them, and we think of the long shadow they have cast over Lewis in particular and Harris. All of us who have come into contact with or lived in Lewis have known about the Iolaire and what it caused. We cannot do it justice here, but we can remember them and think well of their lives and of them.

16:36

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)]

It is a real pleasure to respond to this debate from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)—I hope I pronounced that right. It is a poignant reminder, given what else is happening around the Palace today, of the extraordinary events that took place 100 years ago and how we should reflect on them.

In the past month or so, I think we all paused to pay gratitude to what a nation did 100 years ago. An entire nation stepped forward to defend our values and our way of life beyond our shores. It began and confirmed a trend for our nation to step forward in defence of the international standard of liberty and to make our mark and help influence the world around us as a force for good. In reflecting on what happened 100 years ago, we can get lost in the sheer scale of the event. The third battle of Ypres took place on what is now the location of Tyne Cot cemetery. In a period of just 100 days, there were 500,000 casualties—so many individuals, each of them with a name and a family. Many of them did not return.

What happened 100 years ago on the other side of new year and its impact— particularly as it took place after the war itself—are so tragic. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising the matter so that we can reflect on the bravery of those returning home from service in the armed forces.

As the hon. Gentleman has touched on, His Majesty’s Yacht the Iolaire was so close to getting home those who had served. I will go through, as he has, some of the tragic events that took place on 1 January 1919. Just seven weeks after the end of the first world war, hundreds of servicemen from the highlands and islands of Scotland arrived on trains at the Kyle of Lochalsh. They were going home for the first new year of peace. HMY Iolaire set off expecting to arrive. In the early hours of new year’s day, as she approached Stornoway harbour, she foundered on the infamous rocks, the Beasts of Holm, within half a mile of Stornoway pier, where relatives were eagerly waiting to welcome their loved ones home from the war.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the numbers have now been updated. In all, 201 of the 284 men—mostly maritime reservists—onboard the Iolaire were lost. I join him and others in paying tribute to all those who tragically lost their lives that night. Of them, 174 were men from the Isle of Lewis who tragically drowned literally within sight of their home. A further seven were from the Isle of Harris. A further 18 crew and two passengers were also lost. The loss widowed 67 women, and at least 209 children lost their fathers. The loss of the ship is considered to be Britain’s worst peacetime disaster at sea since the sinking of the Titanic in 1912, and the worst peacetime loss in British waters in the 20th century. No comparable event has fallen exclusively on one small population.

While a third of the bodies of those lost were never recovered, others were washed up on the shoreline and found by their families. The village of Leurbost, for example, with 51 houses, lost 32 men in the war with a further 11 lost on the Iolaire. There were 25 sets of brothers on board, and only one set survived without a loss. Although the first world war affected all communities, this was a devastating blow to the island community. The sailors had come through a global conflict, only to be washed up dead on their own island shore. There are so many deeply personal tragedies and stories to tell that I cannot recount them all.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) for securing the debate—I am sorry that I missed the first couple of minutes of what was a powerful speech. I vividly remember first hearing about the Iolaire when I was 27 years old, which tells us something about the gaps in what we teach ourselves about the history of where we come from.

Does the Minister agree that, although the casualties of the Iolaire had survived the horrors of war, they and others who were killed in peacetime activities during a time of war deserve to be remembered in the same way as those who were killed in enemy action? In some cases, they died in the water 20 feet from shore. It was no comfort to their families to know that they died so close to home; the loss was just as great as it was for those who lost loved ones at Ypres, the Somme, or on other battlefields.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point. It is difficult for any of us to place ourselves in the shoes of the families who lost someone in the first world war, or indeed in any conflict. It is extremely painful to have survived a horrific war such as world war one, to be returning home and then to die literally within eyesight of one’s final destination.

I was just touching on the make-up of those who were onboard the vessel itself. Not all the maritime reservists served at sea; some served in the trenches on the western front in the Royal Naval division. Two friends who evaded capture in Holland went on to serve in the Mediterranean together, travelling back home on the Iolaire, only for one of them to be tragically lost.

One story that was particularly pertinent was that of 23-year-old John Macaskill from North Sandwick. His body was washed up by the cemetery wall. His home was on the other side of the cemetery itself, so after four years of conflict—four years of being away—the sea literally brought him home. It is only fitting that, leading up to the centenary of this tragic loss, we are taking the opportunity to remember those who lost their lives within sight of their home, their families and their island communities.

It is important to remember that the loss of the Iolaire is not only a significant matter for the communities on the isles of Lewis and Harris. It is also appropriate that we take the opportunity to highlight this tragic story to the nation. I understand that events to commemorate the loss will be held at the Kyle of Lochalsh and in Stornoway at the Iolaire memorial overlooking the site of the disaster, and a service will be held at sea, near the Beasts of Holm.

The Ministry of Defence has agreed to a significant level of naval support for those events in the form of the attendance of the flag officer of Scotland and Northern Ireland, a guard of honour and the Royal Marine band contingent. That is commensurate with the support given to other first world war commemorations in recent years. The Royal Marines band service and a Royal Navy guard will formally attend the commemoration ceremonies. The naval personnel selected to deliver that support will represent the finest traditions of the Royal Navy, ensuring that we pay due respect to those sailors who did not return home.

I recognise the significance of the loss of the Iolaire to the island communities, and I thank all those involved in the considerable work that has been undertaken to raise awareness of this tragic loss, and to ensure that there is a fitting commemoration of this centenary event. I thank the Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel for supporting those commemorations over the Christmas and new year period. I also thank the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar for bringing this matter to the attention of the Palace of Westminster and the House of Commons, as we reflect not only on what happened 100 years ago, but on the devastation to his community.

Question put and agreed to.

Thames Water Reservoir at Abingdon

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

13:16

[Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered plans for a Thames Water reservoir at Abingdon.

I am grateful for the opportunity to appear before you, Mr Stringer, and to raise this important subject. Obviously, it is the perfect day for a Conservative MP to open a debate about digging a very large hole.

It may interest Members to learn that, for the last 20 or 25 years, there has been a proposal to build a large reservoir in my constituency. It is known as the Abingdon reservoir, which reflects the name of the constituency of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). However, it would be situated in my constituency, near the villages of Steventon, the Hanneys and Drayton. This is a very large piece of land—probably one of the largest pieces of open land in the south-east of England. There have been various thoughts about what might be built on that land, including, amazingly, an airport and a garden city. However, the reservoir has been the most enduring proposal.

I am neutral about whether the reservoir should be built. On the one hand, I am a nimby, and it would make my life a lot easier if a reservoir was not built in my constituency; on the other hand, I recognise that it is potentially a large and important piece of infrastructure for the south-east of England. One thing that I am firm about is that the reservoir should not go ahead unless the need for it has been properly examined. I was successful the last time construction of the reservoir came close to happening, in 2010. I called for a public inquiry, which we secured, and which rejected the need for a reservoir. For me, it is unarguable that there should be a second public inquiry if Thames Water, which is behind the proposal, comes up with a proposal for a reservoir.

At the moment, Thames Water is developing its statutory water resources management plan, which the regulator requires of water companies to allow them to put forward proposals that will ensure a secure water supply and protect the environment. The reservoir is being presented by Thames Water as a solution for long-term water shortages. I will rehearse some of the arguments for and against the reservoir, and then ask the Minister a number of questions.

I do not think anyone would disagree with Thames Water, or indeed other stakeholders, that there is severe pressure on water resources in the south-east. As I am sure many people in this room who are knowledgeable about this subject know, it is a great irony that we live in quite a rainy country but that we still have great pressure on water resources and do not have as much rainfall as required. Thames Water estimates that by 2045—in another quarter of a century—it will need to find an extra 350 million litres of water per day to supply the population in London and the south-east. It is working with other companies as part of the Water Resources in the South East group to look at the long-term needs of the wider region and the best options for strategic water supply. According to Thames Water, the reservoir option will improve its resilience and that of Affinity Water by creating a regional storage and transfer hub.

Thames Water bases its estimate of the extra 350 million litres a day on a population increase forecast of 2.1 million over the next 25 years, which translates into an extra 1.3 million houses, and on climate change projections—for the avoidance of doubt, I am not a climate change denier, and I accept that climate change will absolutely have an impact on water supply in the south-east. Thames Water forecasts that, by 2050, our summers may be an average of 3° hotter and 18% drier. The Environment Agency’s welcome tightening of regulatory oversight also makes it harder to extract water from rivers and underground sources.

There is perhaps a slight contradiction: on the one hand, there is great concern about a reservoir in my constituency, but on the other hand, my constituency is home to some of the chalk streams of south-east England, including Letcombe brook. I have two little-known facts for hon. Members about chalk streams. One is that 85% of the chalk streams in the world are in the south-east of England, while the other 15% are in Normandy because they are part of the same chalk ridge that was once fused together when we were members of the ice age version of the European Union. My other little-known fact is that somebody who is passionate about chalk streams is the former lead singer of the Undertones, Feargal Sharkey, whom I got to know when he was head of UK Music and I was the Culture Minister responsible for music. I spoke to Feargal this morning and he made a point that I will bring up in my conclusion: a reservoir has not been built in the south-east since 1976.

To make a wider and less reservoir-focused point, there has not been investment in water storage for some 40 years. Increases in housing and population, climate change and tighter environmental regulation will result in average daily consumption per person rising from 1,300 litres to roughly 1,400 in the next few years. I should also say that one of the arguments that came up when a reservoir was debated almost 10 years ago was the desire to see Thames Water do more to tackle leakage. London suffers from having Victorian infrastructure; we lose an enormous amount of water through leakage. I am pleased to see that Thames Water wants to reduce leakage by 15% by 2025 and 50% by 2050, but that will still not be enough to supplant the increase in demand for water.

Thames Water says that it has looked at several options, including water transfer from the River Severn; making more water available from the remaining power station at Didcot, where the coal-fired power station has been closed down; water transfer from the midlands via the Oxford canal; and a reuse scheme at the Deepham sewage works. However, it has reached the conclusion that the reservoir is the best option and that the site in my constituency is the best of the 50 sites it claims to have surveyed.

Obviously, Thames Water wants to emphasise some of the benefits that might come to my constituents, including nature conservation, new natural habitats, opportunities for recreation such as fishing and walking, and the opportunity to reduce abstraction and save our vulnerable chalk streams. It is also keen to lay to rest the accusation that it is undertaking this infrastructure scheme in order, frankly, to line its own pockets. Apparently, any reservoir would be constructed under the same financial arrangements as the Thames sewer, with a separate company and additional money on our bills for some 40 years until the construction cost has been paid off.

My constituents, particularly those local to the site, have certainly not taken Thames Water’s proposals lying down. I pay tribute to Brigadier Nick Thompson, who led the Group Against Reservoir Development in its first battle when there was a public inquiry, and to Derek Stork, who now leads GARD. Given that this is happening in my constituency, I am pleased to say that the average resident has quite a bit of ammo behind them; Derek is the former head of technology at the UK Atomic Energy Authority, so he is no slouch when it comes to looking at the issues with his colleagues.

GARD points out that filling the reservoir would take three years and cause immense damage to the local community, the landscape and archaeology. The reservoir would have walls 25 metres high and would take 30 days to drain in an emergency. Building it would be enormously disruptive to the local community and would take something like 10 years, with all the resulting lorry traffic and disruption.

My constituents have already been affected by the very serious matter of planning blight. For example, many landowners have not modernised their buildings in the past 20 or 30 years; their land is still being used mainly for farmland because the threat of a reservoir has been hanging over them. They require certainty. Last year, a constituent was unable to sell their home, and I had to bring Thames Water to the table to purchase it. Many others who live near the site find that it is having an impact on their house prices and the opportunity to sell, and some of them face negative equity.

What concerns my constituents is not just the building disruption, but whether the case has genuinely been made. They have taken on some of Thames Water’s assumptions: they think that its population forecast and usage projections per person are unrealistically high and, although they are certainly not climate change deniers, they challenge its forecast of the impact of climate change on water availability. The data shows that water availability in London has increased over the past 70 years by about 200 litres a day. My constituents are not necessarily making the case that there should never be a reservoir, but they certainly do not believe that one is needed now; in fact, they argue that if there is ever a case for one, it will not be needed until at least 2100.

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

Given what the right hon. Gentleman says about the degradation of the river system, especially the chalk rivers, the clock is ticking and there is an imminent crisis, as Feargal Sharkey would say. I do not want to bring the debate back to Europe, but it is 45 years since we have been in Europe and 42 years since we built a reservoir. Does the right hon. Gentleman not conclude that the clock is ticking for us to save our river system in the south of England, especially the chalk stream system?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. Obviously I am focusing on the specific proposal for a reservoir, but there is a lot more to say about managing water resources in the south-east. GARD is not saying that we should not build any more infrastructure to make more water resources available; it is saying that the Severn transfer option is viable and cheaper, and there is also the possibility of the Teddington abstraction scheme. Thames Water itself acknowledges that water transfer is an option, although it argues that it is not as good an option as a reservoir. It also claims to be looking at the Teddington scheme.

I want to give other hon. Members a chance to make the points that need to be made, but I want to ask the Minister about a number of points. I would be grateful for her insight into what work the Department has done with Thames Water to assess not just its proposal for a reservoir but its overall water resources management plan. Will she assure me and my constituents that, as this journey continues, Thames Water, her Department and other stakeholders, such as the Environment Agency, will fully involve my constituents in their deliberations and consultations? I hope she will support me, my constituents and Oxfordshire County Council in calling for a public inquiry to ensure this process is conducted in an open and proper manner.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion by making the following points. When I sat firmly on the fence about the reservoir a decade ago, I must confess that I was not entirely confident that a public inquiry would lead to the reservoir being dismissed. I was pleasantly surprised that the inquiry concluded that a reservoir was unnecessary. It is sometimes easy to dismiss local campaign groups as nimbys or as people who will find almost any way to stop any kind of development near where they live, but, as it turned out, the campaign group defeated Thames Water in a sort of David and Goliath battle with the power of its arguments. The planning inspector found that Thames Water had not made its arguments effectively. I do not think that a lot has changed since 2010 or that the alternative options have been explored fully, and they need to be.

On the point the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) made about chalk streams and the environment, I have one other element of frustration, and it is partly directed at the Minister—her post, as opposed to her personally, because she is obviously a very good friend of mine. It seems slightly odd that Thames Water, a private company, is being left, to a certain extent, to its own devices to come up with a solution to a potential water crisis in the south-east over the next 10 or 20 years. It would be much better if this whole debate were led by the Government. They should say, “This is the need over the next 25 years. This is our best guess—made on all the available expertise, in a dispassionate fashion. These are the best ways to combat water shortage. They are about not just tackling leakage and more efficient home use, with water meters and the like, but realistic infrastructure that provides the best access to water resources with the minimum disruption to communities.”

I am delighted, at what I think is still quite an early stage in this process, to have had the opportunity to raise these issues at the highest level.

17:02

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) for securing this debate on an incredibly important local issue. Like him, I have had much correspondence from my constituents about it. Although the proposed reservoir lies in his constituency, my constituents— in and around south Abingdon, in particular—are understandably very interested in these proposals, and I hope to raise their concerns today.

I absolutely recognise the need to ensure a safe, secure water supply for the future, but as a local MP it is also my job to stand up and speak out on behalf of my constituents, who have justified worries about these proposals. Given the large size of the scheme, we have to make sure we take them with us if needed.

As has already been mentioned, we have been here before. In 2010, the community campaigners, led by GARD and supported by my Liberal Democrat colleagues, were successful in their campaign to the Planning Inspectorate, which determined that there was “no immediate need” for a reservoir on this scale. We have gone into the future since then, but not that far into the future. As the right hon. Gentleman asked at the end of his speech, what has changed so materially in those eight years?

I thank GARD for its longstanding campaign, hard work and tenacity. In many ways, it has brought the band back together to fight this again. I also thank Councillors Catherine and Richard Webber, who have been keeping me updated and involved in the fight.

In 2010, the project was the subject of a public inquiry, which found that Thames Water’s plan was not fit for purpose, as it had not properly evaluated the alternative options. That is critical. What has changed? The proposal is now 50% bigger. It is the size of Heathrow airport, and will hold 150 million tonnes of water. It has also been moved forward: the intention is to build it by 2037. This is not just the same campaign run again; it is a campaign looking at a proposal that is even bigger and therefore requires even more scrutiny than the first time round.

The objections in my postbag and email inbox have focused on whether there is a need for the reservoir at all, the plans themselves and—this is where the right hon. Gentleman and I are absolutely on the same page—the need for the public to have their say on the proposals. I will take each of those in turn.

On the need for the reservoir, I shall not build on the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, although I thank him for educating me about the lesser-known facts about chalk streams. I dare say I did not know that. Every day is a learning day, so I thank him very much. I am keen for this debate to be a chance to raise residents’ concerns. I will start with my colleague, Debby Hallett, councillor for Botley and Sunningwall and deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats. She said that she would like to see the priority being given to fixing leaks elsewhere in the system. She speaks to residents, and they are all concerned that the water is not even for our area.

That is echoed by another resident, who wrote to me ahead of this debate. I said in a tweet and on my Facebook group, “What do you think? We are raising this today.” She said:

“The water from the reservoir is not, in any case, for use within the area supplied by Thames Water, but is to be sold elsewhere for the profit of Thames Water. It will be paid for by the customers of Thames Water but they will not benefit from it.”

There is disquiet that the bill payers will be the ones funding the new reservoir, which will become a major asset on Thames Water’s balance sheet. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his clarification about the nature of the company that might be set up. There is concern about who will pay, at least in monetary terms, and not least for building the thing in the first place. Many questioned the need for the development at all, and put forward alternatives including installing more desalination plants along the Thames, transferring raw water from the River Severn to the Thames, reducing water consumption, and addressing leakage.

The National Infrastructure Commission’s recent “Preparing for a drier future” report states that strategic inter-regional water transfers are needed, but water companies are failing to plan for them properly. As I understand it, Thames Water has pushed back the option of a Severn-Thames transfer until 2080, which is a very, very long way away and, frankly, ignores the current problems. Instead, it says that a reservoir is cheaper than a transfer, which is counter to what the National Infrastructure Commission said. There needs to be some joined-up thinking.

On the issue of leaks, is Thames Water doing enough elsewhere in the system, and are its targets for tackling leakages ambitious enough? One of GARD’s central arguments is that Thames Water, after discussions with Ofwat, will reduce its leakage by half by 2045, and has revised its population projections. The campaigners suggest that those two actions remove the need for the reservoir in the immediate term—that was the reason why it was rejected by the 2010 inquiry. They were surprised to see the proposal re-emerge with the earlier delivery date of 2037.

My first question to the Minister is: has the Department made an assessment of Thames Water’s plans, proposals and forecasts? If not, will she commit to doing so? Have there been any independent analyses of the costs to Thames Water of rectifying leakages and saving water loss in that way? Unfortunately, residents simply do not trust Thames Water on this issue, so we need some independence in the assessments. We need an evidence base on which to build the case to the public—not just about leakages, but about the whole thing: negatives and positives.

I did not receive only negatives in my inbox; some were a little optimistic. Rachel in Abingdon wrote to me to say that she

“supports the reservoir for future generations”,

and that she does not want the decision to keep being put off, but would rather just get on with it. She also made the very good point that developers—a lot of housing development is happening in Oxfordshire at the moment—need to look at greater use of grey water for the likes of toilet flushing. Has the Minister discussed that with colleagues in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government? As ever, cross-departmental working could help to solve the wider issues.

Rachel says that if the reservoir does go ahead,

“we need to make sure that Thames Water builds this reservoir with amenities and leisure, and not just an inaccessible reservoir.”

I completely agree with her, and it could well be a great opportunity for our area. I say that with an element of caution however, because of my experience of the £100 million Oxford flood alleviation scheme. We were promised leisure facilities such as a cycle path that would go all the way through and which, I am sorry to say, was omitted from the final plans. I therefore remain gently sceptical about some of the promises that might be made at this stage. As that is also in the Minister’s brief, will she continue to encourage Oxfordshire County Council and the Environment Agency to think again about that cycle path, which we had been promised at the outset of the plans?

That brings me to the plans and the sheer scale of the reservoir, which is going to be the size of Heathrow. If one took a map of the reservoir and overlaid it on a map of Abingdon, it covers it. That is extraordinarily large, and one of the biggest reasons why residents have raised concerns. Sharron wrote on my Facebook page to say she was concerned that this would not be a valley-type reservoir that could enhance the area and provide leisure and tourism facilities. Instead, she was worried that the design would end up like “a massive tank” and the

“tallest structure in the vale”.

We all love Didcot power station—don’t get me wrong. Big structures in our area can be a cause of love, but having said that, if the reservoir is as Sharron described, it would be a blight on what is otherwise an incredibly beautiful landscape.

The environment is equally important. Many residents who contacted me were seriously concerned about the displacement of species. As the RSPB parliamentary species champion for the skylark, it would be remiss of me not to raise concerns about the potential impact of the proposals on many bird species, including the skylark. David, who is involved with Abingdon Naturalists Society, says that he is particularly concerned about the destruction of an

“undisturbed area of countryside that presently hosts breeding curlew, lapwing, grey partridge, skylark, all of which are red listed species.”

Other terrestrial wildlife might also be eliminated.

Richard Harding, a trustee of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, says:

“It will obviously have severe consequences to the environment and communities in Oxfordshire. The loss and damages to land, resources, heritage and communities would be substantial. The proposed area of flooding is a massive, hugely significant multi-period historical and archaeological landscape—the reality of what is there has not been grasped.”

That brings me to flooding which, I hope the Minister is aware, is a major concern for residents of the area. There were huge floods in Abingdon not very long ago. Marion wrote to me to ask for a second public inquiry into the proposals. She also raised the increased risk of flooding, particularly on the south Abingdon flood-relief land. Can the Minister indicate what assessments have been carried out on how the plans might affect the flood plain? There are schemes in place, but from what I understand, they were conceived after the first reservoir had been rejected. Do they now include space for the new reservoir?

My primary concern is to make sure that residents are heard. In Oxfordshire, where there is massive development going on everywhere, there are countless examples of residents from all over feeling that their voices have not been heard, not least on the elephantine Oxford to Cambridge expressway, from which they have felt totally frozen out. That is the main reason why we feel that we need a public inquiry now. I raised that with the Department and the response that I received from the Minister’s private secretary stated that

“it would not be appropriate for the Government to direct Thames Water to carry out further consultation on its water resources management plan”

until it responds to its latest consultation.

Will the Minister, as previous Governments have done, commit to insisting on a public inquiry on what will be a massive infrastructure project for our area?

We must be clear—local Liberal Democrats and I are absolutely clear—that we will fight for people to be able to have their say. People in Oxfordshire are reasonable; they will listen to the evidence. As my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Wantage, said, people simply want to know that the proposal is the only option left and that all others have been looked at. I believe that the residents of Abingdon and elsewhere would listen to evidence, but we need a public inquiry to ensure that we have all the facts to hand before we make any decisions.

17:15

[Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

I was not going to speak this afternoon; I came to listen. There is a little bit of time left so I will say a few words, but I will not take up too much of Conservative Members’ time: they obviously have urgent meetings on the Estate to get to over the next couple of hours, as their party disintegrates.

The two speeches that have been made were very thoughtful and contained nuanced arguments about the case for and concerns about the reservoir. I came to listen because, although this is primarily a local matter, it throws up a lot of issues about ways in which we can achieve new water; the supply, distribution and quality of new homes; the role of the water companies themselves; and patterns of regulation—to name but a few.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) on securing the debate. I know something about it because of my interest in chalk streams. As I understand it, Thames Water announced its new plans to start construction on the reservoir in 2025. I totally understand the local concerns that have been registered about the proposal, because it was rejected in 2010 at the public inquiry. There is a general concern that, to satisfy growth in London and the south of England—another consultation is ongoing—the Thames Water plan for the reservoir suggests a storage and distribution hub for the south-east.

Objectively, it seems clear that we need new water and new infrastructure, including reservoirs. I accept, however, that there are other suggestions for bringing new water into the stressed south-east, including transfers from Wales and the River Severn, or water re-use and desalination. There are a whole number of other proposed remedies.

One point I want to flag up that has been mentioned in the debate but which is often overlooked in the case for any new supportive water infrastructure, is the degradation of the river systems in England—specifically, of the chalk streams. As the right hon. Member for Wantage mentioned in his speech, England has a unique concentration of chalk streams—160 of the 210 that exist globally—and they are disproportionately in the south of England. Yet they are in an appalling state; no water is moving in many of them and there is no flow. More generally, I recently saw data that estimated that only 14% of the rivers across England are considered to have reached good ecological standards. At the same time, demand for water, especially through new house building in the south of England, has dramatically increased.

Those two apparently separate issues are intrinsically related. A policy failure to provide new water means that our water companies extract water from our rivers, which cannot cope and subsequently die. At the same time, excess sewage is discharged into the rivers by those same companies, further undermining their quality and sustainability. Time and again, the water companies have been fined, but they take the hit—there are notorious cases of discharge by Thames Water. In effect, they free-ride their ecological responsibilities.

The situation has to be sorted out via public policy making because, as a consequence of all this, it has been 42 years since we have built a reservoir. The right hon. Gentleman, when introducing the debate, intimated that he was moving closer to Labour’s policy on water ownership and frustrations with the current system. Responsibility lies with a number of different authorities: the Environment Agency, the National Rivers Authority, the Government and the subject of today’s debate, Thames Water.

I repeat that I do not want to stray into local planning consultations, and I respect the contributions to the debate so far, which have made powerful cases, but an overall case needs to be made on consumer demand and preserving our unique English river systems, especially in the south of England: new infrastructure is needed. That does not mean that I am in the pocket of the water companies, but consequential environmental issues are involved, and the clock is ticking. New build, or the start of the build, in 2025 is being talked about, but any cursory look at the English river system tells us that we need urgent action now.

17:20

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) on securing this debate, which is a superb opportunity to talk about how the voices of local residents must be heard when addressing the genuine water crisis that the UK faces. He mentioned that we live in a damp country, and indeed we do, but according to the Environment Agency, we are actually in the lower quartile globally of available water resources per capita, which means that we need to value every drop—much more than we do at the moment.

Climate change is real and happening to us here in Britain. No single measure can tackle it, but no single measure of water policy is mitigating it. That is why we need a number of separate buckets of action, including: action on leakage, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), to lower the amount of lost water, including the 30% lost on customers’ properties, not just on the public network; a focus on reducing per-person water usage from the national average of about 130 litres a day—some people use considerably more—and increasing grey water use, which was mentioned earlier and could contribute to that; building and supporting the construction of more water transfers; and the Severn option, which is important in this context. On that, we should focus on the use of canals as an option, instead of a big pipe, and the date that was mentioned, 2080, seems far too far away.

Other actions include a necessary look at how to build more water storage in areas of water stress. Although as a nation we have not built any new reservoirs, we have certainly provided additional water storage, sometimes using quarries and mines—nothing on the size and scale envisaged at Abingdon. Only then, at the very end of the scale, should we look at water desalinisation, which itself has a huge climate change effect.

The right hon. Member for Wantage talked about population change. When looking into the future, it is important for us to take a best guess at how many people will be using water. The latest statistics show that the south-east of England will have 4.1 million more people by 2045. To put that in a currency that we might all understand in this place, an additional 54 MPs would be required to represent that population. By 2080, that could be an extra 10 million, or 133 more MPs—heaven help us all! That will put pressure on an already water-stressed region.

With climate change, we have to recognise that we will not only have problems of water shortage at certain times of the year—we will also have problems with too much water at other times of the year. That issue was mentioned earlier in the debate.

I have to admit that I was not an expert in chalk rivers or streams before today, but I feel that I have learned an awful lot. The issue of over-abstraction from our watercourses and rivers is of importance because as our communities become more water-stressed and as the pressure to reduce per-capita consumption is applied, the temptation, sadly, is to abstract still more water from our precious river environments. We need to avoid that, to ensure that we preserve those fragile and precious natural wildlife habitats, whether of aquatic life, birds or mammals.

Before I was elected, I advised people on how to build controversial buildings, mainly skyscrapers and football stadiums. The same principle applies to reservoirs: the case must be clearly set out right from the start. To be honest, I do not think that Thames Water has put the argument for the Abingdon reservoir that well, and it needs to do better. Increasing supply, of course, has to be done alongside demand management, which also needs a conversation with water bill payers. If there is to be such huge investment, however—a carbon-intensive investment—the case must be put clearly.

The right hon. Gentleman said that it is important to be neutral in this debate, and that is how the Opposition come to it. We think, however, that a number of principles should apply in this case as we go forward, especially as the decision might well be taken out of the hands of local councillors and made at the national level through the NSIP—nationally significant infrastructure project—process. That is why genuine consultation and the voice of local people must be heard much more in the debate than perhaps it has been to date.

We need to ensure that the concerns about the new reservoir involve not only the size and scale but the construction, and the impact of that over many years, as well as the impact of many years of operation. Thames Water needs to make proposals, focused by genuine and intensive consultation. Such consultation should not just ask, “What do you think of our plans?”, but involve genuine engagement that listens to affected communities.

There is also a challenge for Government to look at what resources we need. At present, the water resource plan of each company sits as an island apart from the areas alongside. There is a clear case for joining up those plans into a national water resource plan so that we can understand the impacts, especially if we are to have more water transfer into areas of greater water stress. We need to understand the national picture.

I hope that Thames Water is listening to this carefully. If it is to make the case for the Abingdon reservoir, it needs to do so clearly, engaging local people and taking them with it. At the moment, my concern is that that conversation is not as full and as thorough as it could be.

17:25

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to respond to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who secured the debate, and to the other Members who contributed.

Water is essential for everything we do. It is also essential for a healthy environment and a prosperous economy. A reliable water supply is taken for granted but, despite its reputation for rain, which has been mentioned many times, England risks water shortages, in particular in certain areas. Climate change and increasing population, especially in the drier south and east, as well as the need to protect the environment—including chalk streams—bring further challenges. A water company’s job is to take account of those factors and to provide a reliable supply of safe drinking water. The Government and the water regulator’s job is to check that they are doing that effectively.

Thames Water supplies water to about 10 million household customers and 215,000 businesses in London and across the Thames valley. Its existing plan shows a one-in-four chance over the next 25 years that large numbers of households and businesses will have water supplies cut off for extended periods because of drought. That is a lower protection than most other water companies provide. We must expect Thames Water to act on customers’ need for a more resilient supply, to manage other pressures of a growing population and changing climate, and to protect the environment that we treasure and on which we rely.

Thames Water has engaged with regulators, stakeholders and customers throughout the development of its draft water resources management plan. In February 2018, Thames Water published its draft plan for consultation, which explains how the company plans to provide a secure and sustainable supply of water for its customers for the next 80 years, from 2020 to 2100. In October and November this year, Thames Water provided a further opportunity for comment on the changes and revisions made to the draft plan as a result of the first consultation. That further consultation closed on 28 November. Thames Water sought stakeholder and customer views on its draft plan through a variety of channels, including public meetings, an online survey and written submissions.

I hope that my right hon. Friend appreciates that, as Thames Water has just completed its consultation process on the draft plan, it is now preparing its statement of response to the consultation, which the Environment Agency will assess in due course. It will provide advice to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the new year. That process is ongoing, so officials and Ministers at DEFRA have not yet had the opportunity to consider the advice from the Environment Agency. As such, the Government cannot comment on any proposals suggested through the water resources management plan process.

The Government and the water regulator issue detailed guidance to water companies that sets out the Government’s expectations that companies should: first, take a long-term strategic approach to protecting and enhancing resilient water supplies; secondly, consider every option to meet future public water supply needs; thirdly, protect and enhance our environment and act collaboratively; and, fourthly, promote efficient water use and reduce leakage.

If a water company forecasts a water supply deficit, it should appraise all the options available to it and should justify its preferred solution in its water resources management plan. The Environment Agency and Ofwat are both statutory consultees to the water resources management plans. As I mentioned, the Environment Agency will also advise the Secretary of State on the draft plan. As part of its current price review, Ofwat has set out clear measures to ensure that the proposals companies bring forward, and the costs of delivering them, are subject to appropriate scrutiny to protect customers’ interests in the long term.

In the business plan that Thames Water submitted to Ofwat, it proposed costs for work to develop the reservoir proposals further, rather than the infrastructure costs themselves. If the proposals go forward, the infrastructure costs will come forward in future plans, which will be scrutinised, possibly at the price review in 2024 if construction were to start in 2025 or 2026. In the plans as they stand, the reservoir is expected to come online for use in 2037. I hope hon. Members have been assured that there are processes in place to assess whether water company plans are robust.

Leakage and other options were mentioned. The National Infrastructure Commission estimates that by 2050, around an additional 3.5 billion litres of water per day will be required to maintain current levels of resilience to drought in England. At least a third of that—1 billion litres—needs to come from new infrastructure, and the other two thirds from water efficiency and leakage reduction. To put that in context, 3.5 billion litres per day is almost enough water to fill Wembley stadium every day. Thames Water’s proposed reservoir would provide about 300 million litres per day.

The Government recognise that to meet our future water needs, we require a twin-track approach that combines demand reduction, including leakage reduction, with long-term investment in supply infrastructure. With respect to leakage, the Government have made their view clear and the industry has responded. The water companies’ business plans are on track to meet Ofwat’s challenge to reduce leaks by at least 15% by 2025. Over the long term, the industry has committed to working to an ambitious target to reduce leaks by 50% by 2050. We will hold it to account on that.

The need for new infrastructure is set out in the draft national policy statement for water resources infrastructure, which was recently laid under the Planning Act 2008. That statement sets out that, alongside demand reduction and tackling leakage, a mix of water infrastructure schemes will be required to meet our future water supply needs, including reservoirs, water transfers, desalination and reuse. The statement applies to nationally significant infrastructure projects, and I expect that the proposed Abingdon scheme would qualify as such a project.

I assure my right hon. Friend that extensive pre-application consultation and engagement will need to be undertaken by applicants using the Planning Act 2008 regime. Members of the public can participate in the examination process by registering their interest, thus ensuring that local views can be heard. I think it is fair to say that the planning process will be different from last time, because in the past month Parliament has voted in favour of a new process for infrastructure projects that are deemed nationally significant. Consideration of a development consent order application at a public inquiry would start on the basis that the most appropriate option for meeting water supply needs had been selected through the resource management plans. As I pointed out, Ofwat will also scrutinise the proposed costs for the full project if they come forward in future plans.

Hon. Members asked whether the water would be used just for the Thames Water area. It is fair to say that Thames Water has been working with Water Resources in the South East—an alliance of the six south-east water companies—to ensure that a more collaborative approach is taken to water resources planning, and its reservoir proposals would benefit other companies in the south-east. The Government and regulators expect water companies to collaborate at a regional level with other companies and sectors to produce plans that work for that region. That allows water companies to consider the most efficient and economically, socially and environmentally beneficial solution for the whole region, allowing customers, business, society and the environment to benefit from economies of scale. We expect such collaboration to be reflected in companies’ water resources management plans.

The preferred programme that Thames Water has set out for full consultation includes water transfers. I believe considerations will be made for desalination, and there are elements of water trading, with things such as Didcot power station. I understand that Thames Water considered more than 50 sites for a new large reservoir and considered that only one of those sites was viable. As I said, other water companies may be involved. It has been brought to my attention that Affinity Water is considering and working alongside Thames Water on this matter.

On demand reduction, targets are already set for water companies. I hope hon. Members are aware that planning regulations require a target of 125 litres per day for new developments, but councils can, in planning permissions, reduce that to 110 litres per day if the development is in a water-stressed area.

On the flood alleviation scheme in Oxford, I say gently to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) that I recognise that people would like additional cycle paths and so on, but if the costs of the scheme have gone up, it is fundamental that taxpayers’ money needs to be spent on delivering the scheme. I am conscious that there may be other opportunities to develop the additional benefits to which she referred.

The good Feargal Sharkey is a friend of many people in Parliament. He used to be chief executive of UK Music, but now pushes passionately for chalk streams, to which the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) in particular referred. He also mentioned the pollution challenges at Thames Water. He will be aware that Thames Water received a record fine after being prosecuted by the Environment Agency. This is exactly the kind of project we need to reduce the pressure on other sources of water. Although I am conscious of the scale of this reservoir, it appears at least to be a viable option. However, it needs to be considered carefully.

I appreciate that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) raised a number of issues. I hope that I have been able to cover Members’ key questions. Overall, I really hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage sees that there are transparent and robust processes in place to ensure that water companies continue to provide reliable water supplies efficiently and economically, and that any plans that are put forward will be scrutinised appropriately and decided on objectively.

17:37

[Mr Vaizey]

I am grateful for the chance to wind up the debate. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to the points I made and to those made by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and by our guest star, the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas). I am not getting a rise out of him. That is very annoying. He is staring at me. I am being affectionate here.

This is the second time I have raised this very important issue in the House. I raised it last month in a Statutory Instrument Committee, and I will continue to raise it with Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am glad to see that the Department has such a comprehensive overview.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered plans for a Thames Water reservoir at Abingdon.

17:38

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Written Statements

Wednesday 12 December 2018

Competitiveness Council

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Chris Skidmore)]

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for State for the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) has made the following statement:

The Competitiveness Council took place on 29 and 30 November. The UK was represented by the right hon. Lord Henley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, on day 1 (internal market and industry); and by Katrina Williams, deputy permanent representative to the EU, on day 2 (research and space).

Day 1 (Internal Market and Industry)

The Council agreed a general approach on the platform-to-business regulation and to entering into inter-institutional negotiations with the European Parliament; these are anticipated to begin later this month. The UK welcomed the evidence-based approach taken by the Council; we consider that the compromise text meets the demand from business users for transparency without stifling development and innovation of online platforms. Others indicated that they could support the general approach but had hoped for more ambition for further regulation. Other member states urged the presidency to uphold the Commission’s light-touch approach in talks with the Parliament, with some underlining that it was too soon to consider stricter rules. The UK joined the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Latvia and Poland in signing a joint statement to the minutes expressing reservations about new provisions for public enforcement.

The Council adopted a partial general approach on the single market programme. The UK noted that, while it generally supported the programme’s aims, it retained a parliamentary scrutiny reserve over this dossier and therefore abstained. The Council also adopted a general approach on the general safety of vehicles regulation.

The Council adopted conclusions on “A Future EU Industrial Policy Strategy”. The Commission highlighted the link to its long-term strategy on climate, published on 28 November.

Commission Vice-President Katainen presented the Commission’s recent communication on the future of the single market. He urged member states to adopt outstanding legislation in the remaining months of this legislature. Some member states noted a recently published report on trade in services as evidence of the persistent barriers in this area. Member states also noted the potential of digitalisation and cross-border data flows to boost the competitiveness of EU services and manufacturing. The UK noted the important economic links that would continue between the UK and EU after the UK’s exit, and the shared challenges we face, particularly around digitalisation. Other member states highlighted the role of social, environmental, regional and transport policy in the functioning of the single market.

Ministers received information on the recently agreed changes to the state aid enabling regulation, and on the negotiations on supplementary protection certificates for medicinal products where the UK advocated maintaining the scope of the original Commission proposal. The Council noted the annual report of the SME envoy network and received information from the incoming Romanian presidency about its priorities.

Day 2 (Research and Space)

The Council began with a progress report and an exchange of views on the regulation establishing the space programme of the Union. The discussion focused on governance, and in particular on the importance of clearly defined roles and responsibilities for all actors involved in delivering the programme. Access to space and how to maximise the competitiveness of the European space sector were also discussed.

The Council agreed on the conclusions on the governance of the European research area. The Council then discussed the Horizon Europe package—the framework programme for research and innovation 2021-27. The debate centred on four outstanding issues: the overall structure of the programme; return grants for Skłodowska-Curie actions; capping for partnership budgets; and the European Innovation Council. The Austrian presidency redrafted the regulation text following member states’ interventions and the UK was content with the final version. The Council then agreed a partial general approach for the framework programme and its rules for participation and dissemination. The Austrian presidency also presented a progress report on the specific programme implementing Horizon Europe.

During any other business the Austrian presidency provided information on the conference “Evolution of Europe’s space activities: Long-term perspective” held in Graz, 5 and 6 November 2018. The Romanian delegation then concluded the Council by outlining the work programme of the incoming presidency.

[HCWS1171]

NHS Overseas Charging Regulations Review 2017

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Health (Stephen Hammond)]

On 16 November 2017, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) announced to the House that my Department would be conducting a review into the impact of amendments made to the NHS charging regulations in 2017, with particular regard to any impact on vulnerable groups and those with protected characteristics.

The review is now complete, and the evidence received demonstrated that there is no significant evidence that the 2017 amendment regulations have led to overseas visitors being deterred from treatment or that the changes have had an impact on public health.

I am pleased that the review has shown that the 2017 amendment regulations are largely working in the way they were intended. These changes were, amongst other things, made to enshrine in law that overseas visitors not eligible for free care must pay for any non-urgent treatment upfront, to help reduce the need to chase up charges, and to remove the anomaly whereby the healthcare setting or provider type could determine whether services would be charged for or not.

Some case studies presented did reveal that there is more to do to ensure some groups of vulnerable overseas visitors understand their entitlements and treatment options, and that providers of NHS care consider fully when a patient can be reasonably expected to leave the UK before deciding if treatment should be safely withheld if payment is not provided.

We will continue to work to ensure that these issues are addressed, so that the charging regulations are implemented in as fair a way as possible. We will improve information and support for NHS staff and patients and work with stakeholders and interest groups to ensure that key messages and safeguards are understood by all.

To ensure clinicians, NHS and community care staff fully understand our guidance and how it should be implemented in practice, we will revise and relaunch our focused e-learning training programme, and work with NHS Improvement’s support teams to promote it. This will ensure that all relevant aspects of overseas visitors’ personal circumstances are taken into consideration when clinicians decide whether treatment is immediately necessary.

To combat any misconceptions around how the cost recovery regulations affect access to care, the Department and NHS Improvement will continue the close partnership with community groups and stakeholders representing vulnerable individuals to develop user-friendly, culturally-appropriate guidance, and ensure this reaches those who may be impacted by this policy.

Finally, we will continue to work closely with NHS Improvement and frontline staff to keep the impact of the regulations and these further actions under very close review, and to provide additional support and guidance to organisations implementing the regulations in different settings in the best interests of patients.

[HCWS1174]

EU Internal Security Fund: Opt-in Decision

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The Government have decided not to opt in (under the UK’s JHA opt-in protocol) to a proposal establishing an internal security fund (2021-27). The intended fund would not come into operation until the start of the next multiannual financial framework (2021), after the UK has exited the European Union and after the currently envisaged end of the proposed implementation period. As such, the UK would not be able to benefit from the fund as a member state.

In addition, the UK did not opt in to the previous iteration of the ISF as it provided no benefits to the UK beyond our own domestic capabilities. There is no evidence that this situation has changed, and that the ISF would remain a poor fit for UK policing needs. The benefits are unlikely to outweigh the cost of UK participation, and there was therefore no practical reason to opt in.

Until the UK leaves the EU it remains a full member, and the Government will continue to consider the application of the UK’s opt-in to EU legislation in the area of Justice and Home Affairs on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting our civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.

[HCWS1173]

Police Custody: Deaths and Serious Incidents Review

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

On 30 October 2017, the right hon. Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC’s independent review of deaths and serious incidents in police custody was published, alongside the Government’s substantive response.

As part of their response, the Government commissioned the Ministerial Council on Deaths in Custody to play a leading role in considering Dame Elish’s most complex recommendations. Today, as co-chair of the Ministerial Board on Deaths In Custody—alongside Jackie Doyle-Price MP and Rory Stewart OBE MP—I report on the progress made in delivering this work programme.

We have made good progress in addressing Dame Elish’s recommendations, although, of course, there remains more to do. First, we have focused on support for families, which includes work on the provision of legal aid for bereaved families, making inquests more sympathetic to their needs and improving the information available immediately after an incident. Secondly, we have worked to ensure that organisations are held to account when a death in police custody occurs. We have reformed the Independent Office for Police Conduct to strengthen its independence and improve the timeliness of its investigations, and we have introduced reforms to strengthen the police discipline regime. Thirdly, and above all, we are committed to preventing deaths in police custody. We have significantly restricted the use of police stations as places of safety, the National Police Chiefs’ Council is driving progress in national training and assessing the health of detainees, and the Government are investing record levels in mental health, among other measures.

Every death in police custody is a tragedy. The impact is devastating on their loved ones. Dame Elish’s report has been a catalyst for change, and in my role as co-chair of the Ministerial Board on Deaths in Custody, I am determined that we sustain momentum in addressing the difficult issues at hand.

We will deliver a year two work programme which will continue to prioritise preventing deaths in police custody and in the tragic instances that they do occur, holding organisations to account and improving support for families.

I would like to thank Dame Elish again for her far-reaching contribution to this important issue, and Deborah Coles, who advised Dame Elish’s review, for her continued passion to enact change. Most importantly, I would like to thank the families who contributed to Dame Elish’s review and who continue to share their experiences so that we can learn from them.

I am placing a copy of our progress update in the Library of the House and on www.gov.uk.

[HCWS1172]

Anti-corruption Strategy

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)]

Today, I am publishing the first annual update on the UK anti-corruption strategy 2017 to 2022. The Government committed to providing an annual written update to Parliament on progress. The UK anti-corruption strategy provides a framework to guide Government anti-corruption policies and actions and this update highlights the action we have taken since its launch in 2017. It details the significant progress we have made, including actions taken to meet the commitments that were due by the end of 2018.

The UK has a good track record in combatting corruption. We are ranked as jointly the eighth least corrupt country by Transparency International and, last week, we received the highest ever ranking from the Financial Action Task Force for our efforts against money-laundering and counter-terrorism. We recognise, however, that there is more to do. Corruption undermines confidence in our institutions, threatens our security and damages our business interests, making it harder for our companies to compete internationally. This is why we have committed at least £48 million over the next 18 months for the serious and organised crime strategy, which consists of a package of capabilities to tackle economic crime and illicit finance, including the launch of the national economic crime centre. In addition, the £45 million prosperity fund global anti-corruption programme, approved in October 2018, will work with partner Governments to promote inclusive sustainable growth and increase global prosperity through tackling corruption. The Government will continue to combat corruption and to promote integrity and transparency at home and overseas, working with international allies and at international forums to raise standards and to promote collective action.

A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House and will be available on the gov.uk website.

[HCWS1170]

Grand Committee

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

Wednesday 12 December 2018

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, I must remind you that, if there is a Division in the House, we will adjourn for 10 minutes. It seems highly unlikely.

Bank Recovery and Resolution and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Considered in Grand Committee

15:45

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 and the Bank Recovery and Resolution and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, Her Majesty’s Treasury is in the process of laying statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in order to deliver a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the event of a no-deal scenario. The two SIs being debated in this group are part of this programme and will fix deficiencies in UK law relating to the UK’s prudential regime, which ensures that financial institutions hold sufficient capital and appropriately measure and manage their risks, and also relating to the UK’s bank resolution regime, which ensures that the UK authorities have the necessary tools to manage the failure of a bank, investment firm or building society in an orderly way. The approach taken in these SIs aligns with that of other SIs being laid and debated under the withdrawal Act by maintaining existing legislation at the point of exit to provide continuity but amending it where necessary to ensure that it works effectively in a no-deal scenario.

The first statutory instrument being considered today concerns the capital requirements framework, which aims to prevent the failure of financial institutions by setting prudential rules that apply to banks, investment firms and building societies. These rules are currently set through the EU capital requirements regulation and the EU capital requirements directive. The second statutory instrument relates to the bank recovery and resolution directive, which sets out the requirements that ensure that firms’ failures can be managed in an orderly way, avoiding the need for costly public bailouts. In a no-deal scenario, the UK would be outside the European Economic Area and outside the EU financial services framework. To ensure that the legislation continues to operate effectively in the UK once the UK has left the EU, these SIs will make amendments to retained EU law in relation to the capital requirements regulation and the bank recovery and resolution directive so that the legislation will continue to function effectively in a no-deal scenario.

I note that, in line with the general approach taken to the onshoring of EU legislation, both statutory instruments will transfer a number of functions currently within the remit of EU authorities, particularly the European Banking Authority and the European Securities and Markets Authority, to relevant UK bodies. These functions, such as the development of detailed technical rules on certain provisions of the regulations, will now be carried out by appropriate UK bodies: the Financial Conduct Authority, the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Bank of England. For example, the responsibility for binding technical standards under the bank resolution and recovery regime is being transferred to the Bank of England, given that it is the UK’s resolution authority. The PRA and FCA have extensive experience in setting firm-specific rules for international firms, and are therefore the most appropriate domestic institutions to take on these functions from the European supervisory authorities. The regulators are undertaking public consultations on the changes that they propose to make to binding technical standards.

These statutory instruments further confer regulation-making powers on the Treasury to replace delegated powers that were previously conferred on the European Commission, in line with the approach taken in other Treasury legislation.

The draft capital requirements regulations 2018 make changes primarily to the retained EU capital requirements regulation but also to certain domestic secondary legislation implementing the EU capital requirements directive. First, they introduce changes to the group consolidation regime. When the UK leaves the EU, we will also leave the EU supervisory regime. This means that we will need to limit the geographical scope of the capital and liquidity consolidation rules to the UK, rather than on an EU-wide basis as currently. This will introduce a new layer of liquidity consolidation in the UK, though it will not affect the application of consolidated capital requirements, which are currently calculated at the member state level.

Secondly, the draft regulations remove preferential capital treatment currently available for exposures to certain EU institutions and assets, including sovereign debt. The EU capital requirements regulation currently applies a zero-risk weighting to certain categories of EU assets such as sovereign debt. This means that firms do not have to hold capital for their exposure to such assets and are therefore incentivised to invest in them. In line with our general cross-government approach, it is our policy not to grant the EU unilateral preferential treatment in the absence of an assessment of equivalence after exit day. We will therefore end the preferential capital treatment for EU assets currently subject to the zero-risk weighting.

Finally, the draft regulations introduce changes meaning that UK regulators will no longer have to obtain approval from EU institutions before using macroprudential tools to address systemic risks, including in a financial crisis. This is appropriate given the UK would be a third country and will need the UK regulators to be able exercise macroprudential functions effectively in times of financial stress.

I turn now to the bank recovery and resolution statutory instrument, which amends the Banking Act 2009 and related domestic and retained EU legislation by making the following principal amendments. First, the draft regulations amend the scope of the UK’s third-country resolution recognition framework to include EEA-led resolutions. This ensures that, in a no-deal scenario, the same approach will be followed for both EEA and third countries in recognising third-country resolution actions.

Secondly, this statutory instrument removes deficient references requiring UK regulators to follow the specific operational and procedural mechanisms set out in the BRRD to co-operate with the EEA authorities. The removal of these references will not, however, prevent UK regulators from co-operating with their EEA counterparts after exit. UK regulators will remain able to share information with EEA authorities in the same way as they currently do with authorities in third countries such as the United States. Additionally, the UK will continue to participate in international crisis management groups which enhance co-operation between home and host authorities of systemically important banks.

Finally, the draft regulations address deficient cross-references to the BRRD in UK legislation and ensure that delegated regulations retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act continue to be in a workable form following exit.

To summarise, the Government believe that these statutory instruments are needed to ensure that the regulatory regime applying to banks, building societies and investment firms works effectively if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

My Lords, before the debate begins, it may be helpful if I explain that the rather quaint little hats sitting on the ends of some of the microphones are an indication that they are not working.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

Thank you. On the assumption that I do not have a little hat on my microphone, I should say that when I read through these two sets of draft regulations and their Explanatory Memoranda, they were a depressing reminder of the consequences of leaving the EU with no Brexit deal in place.

The regulations allow the Treasury and relevant regulators to take steps to ensure that, in the event of no deal, the UK has a functioning financial services regulatory regime, can protect consumers and ensure financial stability. At the heart of that stability are the prudential standards developed in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, measuring and mitigating risk through maintaining adequate capital reserves and establishing an effective recovery and resolution framework. No one who can recall the vivid fear of a financial meltdown in 2008 can fail to understand the importance of a robust system of prudential regulation. The capital adequacy and resolution regime for banks and other financial institutions was the subject of considerable debate and scrutiny post 2008.

These SIs make amendments to certain aspects of the capital requirements regulation, to ensure that it continues to operate effectively after Brexit day, and to certain other statutory instruments that implement the capital requirements directive. Key changes for when the UK leaves the EU include: amending the geographical scope of supervisory consolidation of capital and liquidity reporting processes to restrict it to the UK; transferring functions from the European supervisory authorities to the UK regulators; transferring responsibility for all binding technical standards from those European authorities to the UK regulators; and macroprudential measures that ensure that the tools available to national regulators in the event of systemic risk, for example an asset bubble, remain available to the UK regulators.

The draft SI which addresses the onshoring of the bank recovery and resolution framework post Brexit aims to ensure that the UK special resolution regime is,

“legally and practically workable on a standalone basis”,

when the UK leaves the EU. The draft regulations also make further provisions on contractual recognition of bail-in, with new Bank of England powers to make technical standards on requirements for recognition. The Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority and the FCA are expected to consult on changes to their rules affected by these regulations, and the special resolution regime code of practice will be updated. These are matters of significance that will have to be addressed with urgency.

Obviously, if the UK were to crash out of the EU with no deal, I would certainly want the Treasury and regulators to take action to protect the UK’s financial stability. Any Government faced with a no-deal exit will have to firefight and move quickly to protect the national interest. Those would be exceptional times. However, it is 12 December 2018, and we are due to leave on 29 March 2019. Ignoring Christmas, that gives us about 12 weeks to introduce measures to ensure continuing confidence in the UK financial services regulatory regime. Delivering such a challenge in such a tight timetable requires a great deal of assurance.

I therefore want to ask the Minister four questions. Will the Treasury, the PRA and the FCA have sufficient staffing resources with the necessary level of skill and expertise to deliver what is needed by 29 March? The Bank of England, the FCA and the PRA will update their rules and relevant binding technical standards to mirror the changes introduced by these SIs and consult on their proposed changes. Is there sufficient time to identify and make all the necessary changes required by 29 March, as well as fit in the promised consultation? What happens if there is not sufficient time? Finally, under these regulations, to what extent will the PRA and the FCA have the authority to weaken the binding technical standards currently required to be met by firms to a standard below those currently applied?

16:00

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, probably few if any other people would stand up and say that CRD IV is their favourite piece of legislation, but for a variety of reasons it is my favourite. I do not mean to alarm the Minister or his officials by that, because we seem to have stuck within the rules of onshoring and the transfer of powers in the way with which we are now familiar. However, inevitably that process opens the door to future changes without it having to return to Parliament, as is the case in the EU, because a lot can be done via the interpretation of binding technical standards—if not immediately then at the next stage. It is not entirely clear from the explanation and from what is set out in the Explanatory Memorandum whether the binding technical standards will essentially just replicate what we have at the moment or whether they will make additional policy changes; that is, is it going to stay entirely within the “no policy change” of the withdrawal Act, or will changes be made simultaneously or subsequently?

For now, I want to concentrate on two points of personal interest. The first is the change to what counts as zero-risk weighted sovereign debt. This has long been a pet subject of mine and now it has become mainstream—in particular, that zero-risk weighting is actually inappropriate for eurozone sovereign debt because the European Central Bank cannot print money, although it has done a pretty good approximation of that in recent years. It would be interesting to explore a little more the effect of moving the zero-risk weighting from non-UK sovereign debt, given that sovereign debt is the main tier 1 liquid asset for banks. Will that mean that there is an incentive to reduce diversification in liquid assets?

More generally, how are banks currently dealing with sovereign debt in their risk calculations? The international banks most likely to have other EU sovereign debt can, and probably should, be using internal models to calculate risk rather than rely on the standard model and therefore the zero-risk weight. However, when I looked at this a while ago, the risk allocated in that way seemed to be pretty minimal, and I wonder whether that is still the case. Will minimal risk in the internal models be affected once the near-zero justification has gone? Also in the past some large banks have availed themselves of permanent partial use as a standard model under Articles 149 and 150 of the CRR, the reasoning being that it would otherwise be rather complicated due to holding a lot of different sovereign assets. Of course, Articles 149 and 150 will now apply only to UK sovereign debt, so what will happen there? Can the Minister also advise whether any UK banks are still using Article 150?

The second point I want to raise out of interest is the country-by-country reporting which comes from Article 89 of the directive and has the distinction of being enshrined in the EU withdrawal agreement as part of the BEPS commitments. The particular matter I want to highlight is that the onshoring has replaced the reference to the EU directive 2006/43/EC on statutory audits and annual accounts with the words:

“International Standards on Auditing (United Kingdom and Ireland) issued by the Financial Reporting Council Limited or a predecessor body”.


Frankly, I wish that it had not done that. At present, we have both the Kingman inquiry into the future of the FRC and the Competition and Markets Authority inquiry into audit, which encompasses the FRC and standards matters. I would expect a certain amount of criticism of the way in which the standards as applied in the UK under the FRC have not measured up to the company law of either the UK or the EU. So is that a future-proof amendment, given that the inquiry reports possibly as soon as next week?

On bank recovery and resolution, I am very happy to see the FSB key attributes referenced as a default. I spent quite a lot of time in Brussels having to wave those around during negotiations when things were going in slightly the wrong direction from time to time. As a practical matter, does the Minister consider that there is a substantial difference caused by being in only the international crisis management groups of a bank rather than in the full EU resolution procedures? I repeat my references to what the BTS are going to be doing, given the reference in paragraphs 7.19 and 7.20 in the Explanatory Memorandum. Does that suggest two lots of consultation, or is it just the same lot?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting these two instruments. I cannot but agree with the early paragraphs of the Explanatory Memorandum—which is the same in all these Explanatory Memorandums—that, essentially, if these instruments end up being used, it will be in a no-deal scenario, which would be disastrous for the United Kingdom.

Having had an original career in aviation, I intellectually accept that it is right and proper to prepare for all credible scenarios. That is what we are doing today, and we will do it in the usual polite way about another 40 times between now and the end of March. But, today of all days, one has a feeling that the no-deal scenario has crept a little closer, and I have almost a sense of being asked to dig my own grave against the possibility that extreme Brexiteers will win the day and we will end up in a no-deal situation.

The European Union (Withdrawal) Act highly limits what we are doing here, and I hope that the constraints of that Act are being fully respected. We are not here, frankly, to debate the merits of the instrument; we are here to debate whether it stops within the agreed constraints, which are rehearsed in many places. Perhaps the strongest sentence is in paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:

“These SIs are not intended to make policy changes, other than to reflect the UK’s new position outside the EU, and to smooth the transition to this situation”.


The process called for by the Act, in a sense, divides into two. The first part of the process, which is true of all the things we discuss today, is to reassign responsibilities—in other words to recognise that appropriate authorities are necessary for the business of the various Acts to work and they have to be moved from EU institutions into UK institutions. The second is to make policy changes within the strict limitations of the sentence that I just read out.

Discharging our narrow duty to ensure that the Government have stuck to the rules is very difficult to achieve. In theory, we could go through each SI, line by line, regulation by regulation and Act by Act to see if that is possible. I recognise that the wisdom of the noble Baroness allows her at least in part to do that, but I am afraid that with our available resources that is not possible. A poor second to that is to skim the document and look at its structure and the language that it uses.

Let me take the bank recovery and resolution SI first. It looks as though the reassignment of responsibility has been discharged because, in page after page, one finds that it takes a responsibility from an EU institution and moves it to a UK institution. However, the area that I am particularly concerned about is where the instrument uses entirely new language, because it seems to me that, where there is entirely new language, I have no way of knowing whether policy variations have accidentally arisen. Therefore, I am very surprised to see areas of entirely new language, because I would have assumed that the object of the exercise is to take rules presently in place and translate them into English law.

The most dramatic example of that is on pages 41 and 42 of the bank recovery and resolution SI, where there are two pages of fresh language that talk about the recovery plan that institutions must put in place. Now, I assume that the requirements for that plan are already effectively enacted at this time. Why, then, is it not written over—or whatever the right term is—or why is it not referenced back into the law as it exists today, so that we can see that there is no change in policy? I ask that question to see whether there is any new thinking buried in the text, and I would value an assurance from the Minister that there is good reason why those parts of the instrument are written in fresh language, as opposed to being cross-referenced to language that already exists.

In the second SI, on capital requirements, there is a clear policy change, which is there because the situation demands it. The change, as has already been spoken about, is the recognition of EEA countries as not being of zero risk and hence requiring a capital buffer. In a no-deal scenario, after 29 March such sovereign debt will have to be assigned a risk factor. Surely this will put UK banks at a commercial disadvantage. It is no good to give as an excuse, as is done in the impact assessment—and it was great to see an impact assessment, by the way, so I must put that on record—that most institutions will use the “internal ratings based” approach. While assigning risk to EEA loans is not mandatory with the IRB banks, if they do not take account of the fact that, for other purposes, such assets will be recognised as having some degree of risk, one would hope that this would be challenged by the regulators. Does the Minister agree with that analysis? Why did the impact assessment not look at some way of maintaining the status quo? For instance, it might have contained a statement that the sovereign debt of EEA countries would be treated as zero risk, or it could have included an order-making power for the Treasury to define individual countries as having zero risk.

16:15

[Lord Bates]

I thank noble Lords for bringing their considerable expertise to bear on the important regulations before us. I will address some of the points raised.

First, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether there is sufficient time for the regulators to put the consultation in place. I am confident that regulators are making adequate preparations and effectively allocating resources ahead of March 2019. They have been actively participating in a wide range of groups developing these technical and regulatory rules. They have also chaired a number of committees and task forces, and have considerable experience in implementing EU legislation. This means that the responsibilities of EU bodies can be reassigned effectively and efficiently, providing firms, funds and their customers with confidence. Since October, regulators have begun consulting, and I am confident that they will complete their consultations ahead of exit day. The noble Baroness also asked whether the regulators have adequate resourcing for a no-deal scenario. I repeat my confidence that the regulators are making adequate preparations and have the resources and expertise to ensure that this happens.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, also asked whether the capital requirements regulation statutory instrument will decrease the level of accountability for the Prudential Regulation Authority or the Financial Conduct Authority. Although certain functions, such as the mandate to develop binding technical standards, are being transferred to the regulators from EU authorities, such functions are currently carried out not by the Commission or the UK Government but by agencies with specific expertise in setting and calibrating firm-specific macroprudential rules. The Treasury will work closely with regulators in the development of binding technical standards; those standards will also be subject to consultation, ensuring that key stakeholders’ views are taken into account. Regulators will not be able to make significant policy changes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked whether there is a substantial difference in being in only the crisis management groups. Nothing in the SI will change the UK’s ability to co-operate with third countries on planning for executing the resolution of cross-border banks. The majority of the work takes place in international crisis management groups designed to facilitate international co-operation through bodies such as the G20. Of course, we are a key part of the financial stability group’s work on key priorities. There is an existing robust framework in UK law for resolution co-operation with third countries, such as the United States.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, spoke a great deal about the loss of zero-risk weighting on EU debt calculation. It could seem as if that were a new policy. When we leave the EU, the EU will treat us as a third country, without any special arrangements to treat the UK differently. The UK Government have said that we will also treat the EU as a third country; we are therefore being consistent with other SIs that have been passed through your Lordships’ House. Since sovereign debt already attracts a very low risk weight, the change in capital requirements should not be significant. None the less, we have discussed the risks associated with the loss of zero-risk weighting on EU sovereign debt for the industry, and we understand that the issue will affect only a small number of firms. The exact impact cannot be estimated because firms will change their capital holdings and restructure.

We are also developing broad transitional powers for the regulators that will allow them to phase in new requirements gradually. The regulators are already consulting on a proposal to delay all changes to risk weights. This would eliminate any cliff-edge risks and give firms additional time to prepare for these changes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about the reference to a predecessor body in the statutory instrument. This was inserted to ensure that we have a consistent approach across every file being onshored. The wording is drawn from existing UK statutes, such as the Payment Services Regulations 2012.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked whether the SIs make policy changes. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, they are not intended to make policy changes other than to reflect the UK’s new position outside the European Union if we leave in March 2019 in a no-deal scenario.

The noble Lord also asked whether UK firms would be disadvantaged by the changes in risk weights. I made detailed reference to that in my previous answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, but since sovereign debt already attracts a very low risk weight, the change in capital requirements should not be significant. As I mentioned, regulators are consulting on a proposal to delay all changes to risk weights, which would eliminate a potential cliff edge.

The noble Lord then drew the Committee’s attention to page 41 of the BRR SI and asked whether the relevant section existed beforehand and, if so, why it was not cross-referenced. The insertion of Schedule A1, on page 41 of the SI, addresses deficiencies stemming from the UK’s departure from the EU and does not bring about any policy changes. In particular, it corrects a reference in the Bank Recovery and Resolution Order 2014 to the requirements of the directive with regard to resolution plans. This will not be appropriate after exit day as the directive will not have the force of law in the UK. To ensure that such information can still be referenced, we are bringing this content into UK law. The schedule uses text from the relevant sections of the directive but with some minor additional fixes, as is allowed under the EU withdrawal Act, to take account of the UK’s exit from the EU. For example, references to “central banks” will be replaced by references to the UK’s central bank, the Bank of England.

I will of course review the official record of our debate today to see whether there are any questions which I have not answered. I thank noble Lords again for their contributions.

Motions agreed.

Payment Accounts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:22

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Payment Accounts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, as in the previous debate, this statutory instrument is part of the Treasury’s legislative programme which aims to ensure that there continues to be a functioning UK legislative and regulatory regime for financial services in the unlikely event that the UK leaves with neither a deal nor an implementation period.

The statutory instrument will fix deficiencies in UK law in the Payment Accounts Regulations to ensure that they continue to operate effectively post exit. The payment accounts directive had three main objectives: first, to improve the transparency and comparability of fees related to payment accounts; secondly, to facilitate the switching of those accounts; and, thirdly, to ensure access to payment accounts with basic features. The Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 transposed the directive into UK law.

Many noble Lords will be familiar with payment accounts, as they are the day-to-day bank or building society accounts that we use to hold funds, to make and receive payments, and to withdraw and deposit cash. In the UK, the most common form of payment account is a current account.

In a no-deal scenario, the UK would be outside the European Economic Area and the EU’s legal, supervisory and financial regulatory framework. The Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 therefore need to be updated to reflect this to ensure that the provisions work appropriately in a no-deal scenario.

The draft regulations are concerned mostly with removing references to the EU. Therefore, the impact on customers and businesses will be minimal. However, I will go into more detail on three changes to which it may be helpful to draw the Committee’s attention.

The first is that this draft instrument transfers the responsibility for making technical standards for customer documents setting out fees and charges associated with a payment account from the European Banking Association to the Financial Conduct Authority.

Secondly, the draft instrument removes the requirement for payment service providers to facilitate the cross-border opening of payment accounts. This means that payment service providers will no longer be required to provide certain information relating to a customer’s payment account—for example, direct debits or closing balance—or transfer a balance to an EU payment service provider when the customer wants to switch from a UK payment account to an EU payment account. Repealing this provision does not affect the ability of UK customers to open payment accounts abroad.

Lastly, the SI makes changes to the regulations governing payment accounts with basic features, which are more commonly known as basic bank accounts in the UK. For those who may not be familiar with this financial inclusion product, a basic bank account is a fee-free bank account, with no overdraft facility but which otherwise has the same features as a standard current account. The nine largest current account providers in the UK must offer these accounts to those who are unbanked in the UK or who are ineligible for a standard current account.

As the UK will no longer be a member of the EU’s single market for financial services after exit day, the instrument removes the requirement on the nine providers to offer these products to customers resident in the EU or to offer EU currency services on any basic bank account as standard. It will therefore be at their discretion whether to continue to offer basic bank accounts to customers resident in the EU after exit day or keep existing accounts of EU residents open.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was concerned that, should the nine providers choose to make use of these changes and close the basic bank accounts of customers resident in the EU, customers would be placed into financial difficulty as a result. I assure the Committee that this is unlikely to be the case because the nine providers must give customers at least two months’ notice in writing if they plan to close the account, which should give customers adequate notice to open another account.

Furthermore, a customer’s right to a basic bank account is EU-wide, so these customers should be able to open a basic bank account in the member state in which they reside. The nine providers have also signed a 2014 agreement with the Treasury that makes clear that basic bank accounts are designed to help the less affluent and most vulnerable in our society. The Government therefore expect that providers will have due regard to the spirit of this agreement when making any changes to its basic bank account policy.

In summary, this Government believe that the proposed legislation is necessary to ensure that the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 will continue to function appropriately if the UK leaves the EU without a deal or an implementation period. Most importantly, this means that fee-free basic bank accounts, which are a key financial inclusion product, remain available and robustly regulated to customers legally resident in the UK who are unbanked or ineligible for other payment accounts. I hope this introduction will have been helpful to noble Lords, and I commend the regulations to the House.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, this SI is part of the series providing contingency planning for the no-deal Brexit scenario. The Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 established a right of access to a basic bank account with basic features for customers legally resident in the EU, which were fee-free for services in sterling, with EU currency services provided at a reasonable fee. The Explanatory Memorandum advises that this SI seeks to ensure that those regulations operate effectively in the UK in the event of no deal and continue to deliver the existing three main objectives of, first, transparency and comparability of fees on day-to-day payment transactions such as cash deposits, withdrawal and card payments; secondly, the facilitation of account-switching; and, thirdly, ensuring access to accounts with basic features for EU residents. Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum set out what I have just described.

16:30

However, it is difficult to see how this SI can deliver those three objectives, given that the draft regulations specifically do not only remove references to EU bodies and replace them with UK authorities, they also remove the requirements on banks and payment account providers to facilitate the cross-border opening of accounts. It also gives discretion to UK payment account providers as to whether to continue to offer basic bank accounts to customers legally resident in the EU, or indeed whether to keep existing basic bank accounts open. It changes the residency criteria for customers who will be assured access to a basic bank account, restricting them to UK residency and excluding UK citizens who are legally resident in the EU who may hold or wish to hold a basic bank account with a UK provider. It removes the requirement to offer at reasonable charge non-sterling and EU currency services to customers with bank accounts with basic features, including for customers resident in the UK. Where a customer wants to switch from their UK bank account to an EU account, this SI removes the requirement on banks and payment providers to facilitate such cross-border account opening by, for example, providing information on direct debits or transferring a balance when switching. When one reads the list of things that these draft regulations allow for, it is difficult to see how the assertion in paragraph 2.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum that the intention is to continue the objectives of the original regulations can be met.

I do not believe that all of these changes are necessary to correct deficiencies in the retained EU law in a no-deal situation. Why, after we leave the EU, is it necessary for a UK citizen who may be resident in another EU state and who currently holds a basic bank account with a UK provider to find that the UK provider is to be given the discretion to close their account? I do not believe that such a measure is necessary to ensure that the Payment Accounts Regulations operate effectively if we leave the EU with no deal. The Government’s view is that the impact of these regulations on customers will be minimal, but as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee observed in its November 2018 report:

“We have been told that a UK citizen who is legally resident in the EU may hold a basic bank account with a UK provider, and that under this instrument a UK provider will be allowed to close their account”.

A few hundred account holders may be described as minimal impact, but it may be anything but minimal to the account holders affected who, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee observes,

“may well face a good deal of inconvenience if they find that their designated provider chooses to close their account”.

They may find it difficult to secure a basic bank account from another provider.

The response of the Treasury to the committee’s concerns, that an affected customer should be able to get a basic bank account with an EU-based provider—an argument which has been deployed today by the Minister—was qualified by subsequent information provided. I shall quote from the committee again:

“The effect of leaving the EU on a UK customer’s right to a basic bank account in an EU Member State will depend on how that State has implemented the Directive. If a Member State has specified in its local law that eligibility is based on EU residency … a UK customer legally resident in the UK would no longer be automatically eligible for a basic bank account within the EU, once the UK has left the EU”.

If the UK provider decides to cancel their basic bank account, the idea that they can get a basic bank account in another EU state that they are living in may not apply. They may be left without access to a basic bank account. It may well cause difficulties for UK citizens who may have their basic account closed at the discretion of the provider or the bank, as they will be allowed to do under these regulations. Two months’ notice may not be sufficient to get them out of difficulty, and mitigating any problems by trying to get a basic bank account in another EU state may not be possible because they will not be categorised as an EU citizen.

I come back to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s point and ask the Minister for reassurance that these regulations will not be allowed to cause financial difficulty to those affected. It may be a few hundred people, but I do not believe it is necessary for these regulations to subject them to financial difficulty by allowing their UK bank to cancel their basic bank account.

Can I also ask the Minister whether it would be possible to introduce a provision, in the event that we leave the EU without a deal, so that if a bank decides to exercise its discretion and close an existing customer’s bank account, where that customer is a UK citizen it must notify the FCA so it can monitor the impact of the amendment to these regulations?

Finally, can I ask the Minister for an assurance that under these regulations there will be no weakening of the disclosure of information to customers from banks and payment account providers on matters such as fees and charges, and any other matter on which there are currently disclosure requirements to the customer?

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for his introduction and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for drawing attention to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s Sub-Committee A, on which I sit, so I do not have to do it. With the state of my voice, that is welcome.

The issue of note here is that an obligation to service non-UK residents is removed. Many of these will probably be UK nationals and will probably come to the UK sometimes, even though they are resident elsewhere. I am sure that this will be an inconvenience and that is greatly regretted. In the interests of saying that this is not being reciprocated, there has been a lack of generosity of spirit in this statutory instrument. Can the Minister confirm whether there would be any supervisory pressure, under “know your client” provisions, for these accounts to be closed? Will supervisors make it more awkward and put pressure on the banks so that closure is de facto the most likely event?

I also remind the Committee that one of the purposes of this legislation was to ensure that basic bank accounts could be opened in advance for people who were moving around for the purposes of work. Otherwise, you get into a Catch-22 situation where you cannot get a permanent place of residence until you have a bank account and you cannot get a bank account until you have a permanent place of residence. While I was an MEP, I got this in my postbag. Indeed, one of my own children had this problem. We were constantly having to intervene to get these things sorted. If we want to encourage talent and still allow it to come to the UK, why make it awkward? I am sure that those who come for big and well-paid jobs may find that they can open accounts, but what about the more ordinary person? I think that, actually, this is a very bad measure.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting this instrument. When I first read the Explanatory Memorandum, I thought it was good and it convinced me that, broadly speaking, the instrument was doing its job. Then my noble friend Lady Drake decided to share her speech with me and I realised that perhaps I had not fully understood it, but by this point in the proceedings, the Minister had enough questions to answer anyway without me inventing any more.

The point that has come out of the last two speeches is important. The Government often conclude that an impact is minimal because it affects quite a small number of people. The problem with that attitude is that for the people it affects, it affects them 100%. If you cannot get a basic bank account, that is pretty close to catastrophic in the modern world, so I hope that the Minister will have good answers to my noble friend’s points.

My question is one that runs through many of these SIs—the lack of formal consultation. The consultation paragraph states that there has been discussion with “relevant stakeholders”. One has an uncomfortable feeling that the relevant stakeholders are in fact the financial institutions themselves and not the key relevant stakeholders—the consumers. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us who the relevant stakeholders were and whether they included consumer representatives, and, if not, why not?

[Lord Bates]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions. They rightly focused on basic bank accounts and the impact on people who are potentially vulnerable. I will try to offer some reassurance.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked about the consultation. The Treasury engaged with UK Finance, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator to ensure awareness of these changes. The Treasury published the draft instrument and Explanatory Note on 31 October. We also notified leading consumer groups after the publication of the draft instrument to ensure awareness of these changes. We have not received any questions since publication. That may well change as a result of noble Lords’ comments today.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Bowles, asked how many consumers and basic bank accounts will be affected by the changes. Customers legally resident in the UK, whether UK citizens or otherwise, who hold a basic bank account at one of the nine designated providers will not be affected, as the SI ensures that the nine providers must continue to offer these to qualifying customers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked specifically about the impact of the SI on consumers. The impact on the majority of holders of payment accounts in the UK will be minimal. Basic bank account customers may experience a reduction in service as their providers are no longer required to give them access to, for instance, non-sterling EU transactions, although they may still choose to do so if they wish. It will be at the discretion of the providers whether they continue to offer new basic bank accounts or keep existing ones open for customers resident in the EU. We expect that that will affect very few. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that it may have an impact on those people and I will try to give some reassurance in that respect.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked why it was necessary for the SI to remove the EU residency requirement. Maintaining that obligation on the nine basic bank account providers would be inappropriate in a no-deal scenario when the UK will no longer be part of the EU single market for financial services. She also asked what happened to UK expats who live in the EU and whether they could open new basic bank accounts. Eligibility for basic bank accounts is dependent on residency, not citizenship, so that would be a matter for the member state and the laws that apply there.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, requested an assurance that residents will not be in financial difficulty. The spirit of the 2014 agreement, to which I referred in the previous debate, is to provide for the most vulnerable in society. The Government expect banks to honour that agreement in making any changes. The noble Baroness also asked whether the statutory instrument prevents the cross-border opening of accounts. The changes in this statutory instrument only remove the requirement for firms to provide certain support to customers who wish to switch their payment account from the UK to the EU. They do not affect a UK customer opening an account in the EU.

16:45

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about the consultation and whether banks will close the bank accounts of UK expatriates. The decision to offer a standard UK bank account to a non-UK resident is, and will continue to be, a commercial decision for firms. Financial services firms will continue to provide a range of products that reflect customers’ needs. If a customer’s account is a basic bank account, firms must give at least two months’ notice of closure, which should provide adequate time to open another account. The FCA has been clear that customers do not need to do anything yet and that firms will be in touch with customers should any changes to their products take place in the event of a no-deal exit.

I hope that my assurances and answers have been helpful to the Committee. Again, I will review the Official Report of the Committee’s proceedings to check whether there are any gaps or I have missed anything. If so, I will write to noble Lords. Failing that, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Humane Trapping Standards Regulations 2019

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:47

Moved by

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Humane Trapping Standards Regulations 2019.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the regulations amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to implement trap welfare requirements contained in the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards—AIHTS—in Great Britain. The EU is a party to the agreement, but there is no implementing legislation at the EU level. Under EU law, the UK is therefore obliged to implement the welfare standards directly.

Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3254/91, commonly known as the Leghold Trap Regulation, prohibits the introduction into the EU of wild-sourced pelts and manufactured goods incorporating such pelts originating in countries that catch animals using leghold traps or trapping methods that do not meet international humane trapping standards. In 1997, the EU concluded two international agreements—the agreement with Canada and Russia and an agreed minute with the USA—to establish humane trapping standards and facilitate trade between the parties in wild-sourced pelts and manufactured goods incorporating such pelts.

The agreement requires that: the UK establish appropriate processes for testing and certifying traps in accordance with the humaneness standards and procedures set out in the agreement; manufacturers identify certified traps and provide instructions for their appropriate setting, safe operation and maintenance; and trappers be trained in the humane, safe and effective use of trapping methods. In the UK, the trapping standards apply to five species: badger, beaver, stoat, pine marten and otter. Of these, only the stoat is regularly and widely trapped in the UK; it is also the only species for which lethal traps are commonly used.

A UK-wide consultation on implementation of the agreement took place in March and April 2018. While stakeholders were broadly supportive of welfare improvements, most trap users opposed the implementation of the agreement because they believed that there would not be sufficient numbers of compliant stoat traps available in time. In response to these concerns, the Government agreed to delay implementation specifically in relation to stoats for a further year, until 1 April 2020. This is a pragmatic step that provides a clear signal to manufacturers and trap users that they must transition to compliant traps for stoats, while recognising that they will need time to do so.

Implementation will impact primarily on those who sell, manufacture, import or use stoat traps in the UK, as most stoat traps will need replacing. The total cost on business is calculated to be £1.2 million. We have existing legal mechanisms in place for regulating the use of traps. The agreement simply improves the standards with which traps must comply before they can be used, and extends the scope of existing trap offences to two additional species; namely, stoats and beavers.

Implementation does not require the introduction of new offences or penalties, and the existing licensing mechanism would allow compliant traps to be used. Licences are already required to trap all UK species covered by the agreement, except for stoats and beavers, and we propose that the trapping of stoats using compliant traps should be permitted under a general licence. This will result in negligible costs to the licensing authority and will provide the least burdensome approach for trappers.

The Government are committed to the highest standards of animal welfare. As the Prime Minister has set out, we will make the United Kingdom a world leader in the care and protection of animals as we leave the EU. This agreement contains minimum trap humaneness standards and rigorous trap-testing procedures, creating an internationally recognised benchmark for trap welfare. It is important that we implement these standards in Great Britain. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument so comprehensively, and for her time in providing a briefing. I note that the only animals covered by this SI are stoats and that badgers, beavers, pine martens and otters are excluded.

It is reassuring that in Part 3 of the SI, under the amendment of the Pests Act 1954, leghold traps are not permitted and have been banned for some considerable time, as the Minister said. The EU prohibits the use of leghold traps and bans the introduction into the EU of pelts from countries which catch animals by means of leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet international human—humane, sorry—trapping standards. It is essential that these standards are maintained in the UK once we have left the EU. I am encouraged that the Government consider that reliance on the spring trap approval system for the purposes of implementing Article 2 should be made more transparent, and that to improve clarity, the regulations amend Section 8 of the Pests Act 1954 and Section 50 of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act 1948 to make it clear that the Secretary of State and the devolved Minister would not approve or authorise the use of a leghold trap.

However, paragraph 6.7 of the Explanatory Notes indicates:

“In exceptional circumstances, the use of non-AIHTS compliant traps is possible under Article 10 of the Agreement … on a case by case basis”.


This case-by-case basis is allowed by means of a licence. As the Minister said, the agreement covers the EU, Canada and the Russian Federation, and a total of 19 species, only five of which occur in the wild in the UK.

Existing stoat traps do not meet the AIHTS and the Government are proposing that they will not implement the more humane traps until April 2020. This is too far away; the regulations could be implemented much sooner. Consultation has been ongoing for some considerable time, starting with several years of informal consultation with key users, followed by, as the Minister said, a UK-wide six-week public consultation, which ended on 30 April this year.

As has been said, stakeholders were broadly supportive of welfare improvements but opposed the agreement because gamekeepers and trappers did not believe that the compliant traps would be sufficiently available in time. There was also general disagreement with welfare groups over the perception that the agreement facilitated the wider use of traps and the international trade in fur.

Had the Government begun the implementation as soon as the consultation in April this year closed, with a view to starting in January 2019, there would have been time for the industry to ensure that it had a sufficient supply of compliant traps for gamekeepers and trappers. It is simply not acceptable to allow non-compliant traps to be used for a further 15 months, causing unnecessary suffering to stoats. I am not in any way defending the stoat, which is a pest and eats both eggs and young birds that have been bred for shooting, but it is important that they are dispatched in a way that causes minimum suffering. While there is a cost to gamekeepers of changing their traps to comply with the legislation, it should be borne by those engaged in the shoots.

Paragraph 14.1 of the Explanatory Notes indicates that monitoring and compliance will be done by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. I fear this is extremely unlikely. Police budgets, much like those of local government, have been systematically slashed over several years to the point where the police prioritise crimes against the person and property. It is simply not feasible to expect our overstretched police forces to monitor and ensure gamekeepers’ compliance with the legislation.

Defra has indicated that a list of traps certified as meeting the new standards will be publicly available on GOV.UK. When is this likely to happen? Given that monitoring of the new agreement is likely to be minimal at best, the sooner the standards are publicly available, the sooner gamekeepers and trappers can begin the process of changing over.

There is no mention in the Explanatory Memorandum of who the licensing authority will be, which it states will incur negligible costs. Who issues such licences? Do they cover a specified area of land? Are they limited to a certain number of stoats or are they unlimited?

I also note that new Section 16 (3ZD)(e) of the Act indicates that an authority in another country or territory designated for the purposes of the international trapping standards agreement could be a certifying authority. Can the Minister throw some light on exactly what this means? I look forward to her response to my questions.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. Of course, anything which improves animal welfare and protects animals from inhumane and cruel trapping is to be welcomed. However, I have some concerns about the Government’s implementation of the EU agreement on human—humane—trapping standards. When I first read the SI, I thought that it said “human trapping standards”, which I thought was the badgers’ revenge, but that is beside the point. There are some points of detail that I would like clarified.

First, all EU member states were obliged to implement the requirements of the AIHTS. The deadline for implementation was 22 July 2016. Can the Minister explain why the UK missed that original deadline? She will be aware that, a month before that deadline passed, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the EU. However, until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK will remain a full member of the EU and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. Why are the Government only now implementing the regulations, over two years after the deadline and just months before the UK’s departure from the EU?

Secondly, the Minister will be aware that many animal welfare organisations opposed the implementation of the agreement because they thought it would facilitate the wider use of traps and the international trade in fur. What steps are being taken to ensure that all fur imported from other countries in the EU—as well as Canada, Russia and the USA, which signed up to the new agreement—will meet these supposedly more humane trapping standards to which they have signed up? Have all the other EU countries bound by this agreement introduced the ban into their domestic legislation? If any have not done so, should we be refusing to allow fur imports from those countries?

17:00

Fur farming was banned in the UK in 2000, as the Minister knows, but since then it is estimated that Britain has imported animal fur worth more than £650 million from foreign fur farms. The UK imported almost £75 million worth of fur last year alone. Already, two separate petitions with more than 500,000 signatures have urged the Government to act on this. If we leave the EU, will the Government use the opportunity to widen the ban on fur farming to include imports from those EU countries where it remains legal?

I have a number of questions arising from the Explanatory Notes, which I hope the Minister can clarify. I want to ask about the origin of the 19 species that are covered by the agreement. I do not quite understand how the list was put together. Why are foxes not covered when foxes are often subject to inhumane trapping in the wild? Is a European badger the same as a UK badger, and are UK badgers protected under these new restrictions, given that they risk being trapped and killed inhumanely by farmers, who, as we know, often blame them for the spread of TB?

I also want to ask about the modified traps being proposed. There is a lot of detail in the Explanatory Notes about the difference between the old and new stoat traps, both of which are described as lethal traps. In what way are the new traps an improvement, and indeed more humane, than the old traps? How is the stoat expected to die in the new trap? Can the Minister justify how that can be on a humane basis? How can it be justified that individuals constructing and using their own traps and snares can be approved even if they do not meet humane standards? Is this not just an invitation for people to use botched and cruel home-made traps to avoid the new restrictions?

The summary evidence provided addresses the issue of training. It says the AIHTS requires that,

“trappers are trained in the humane, safe and effective use of trapping methods”,

but goes on to say that reading the manufacturers’ instructions on the trap when purchased is sufficient training. Does the Minister really think that reading the instructions on the box can be described as training? Surely there should be a greater requirement for approval and certification, given that traps are potentially lethal for wildlife, as well as a hazard for unwary walkers in the countryside. I look forward to her response on these issues.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones, for their contributions. It was my pleasure to meet both of them beforehand so I had some sight of some of the questions that would arise, but not all of them. I can cover some of the issues now, but I know that I will have to write on at least one of them. I will probably write to both noble Baronesses but I am afraid that particularly the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, went over my head.

The species included in the standards are the ones most commonly trapped for their pelts. There are numerous regulations around trapping and snaring and so forth, but we are focused solely today on those species that are predominantly trapped for their pelts, which is why this agreement was reached in the first place. That is where the 19 species come from. Foxes are not included because they are not commonly trapped for their pelts. Foxes are usually controlled for other reasons, such as pest control. Only a small number of those 19 species exist in this country, which is why the regulations we are talking about today cover those species.

I was asked about the two different types of badger, which may have to go into my letter. Actually, I have a response. The European badger is the same as the UK badger. They are protected. It is very rare that a licence would be granted for those badgers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned leghold traps. They are banned—they have been banned since 1950—so we will obviously make sure that we do not have those sorts of traps in this country.

The non-compliant element—Article 10 of the agreement—is an issue that both noble Baronesses raised and deserves more focus. In exceptional circumstances the use of non-AIHTS-compliant traps is possible. It permits derogations to be granted only on a case-by-case basis. We do not expect that to happen often, and only if they are not applied in a manner that would undermine the objectives of the agreement. Indeed, if we were to agree a derogation, we would have to notify the agreement’s joint management committee, so it is quite a serious issue. An example of where we might grant a derogation would be where no certified live-capture trap design was available and one needed to be tested, or someone wanted a trap design to be considered for certification for a particular species.

Related to that, the noble Baronesses mentioned home-made traps. Again, that is not something that we expect will be particularly common, but it might occur. However, those home-made traps will have to meet the same standards as other traps. They will need to be certified by the relevant competent authority.

I will partly take the point about timing on the chin. There has been a delay in implementing this. When these standards first came into play, it was not clear whether or not the EU would make legislation around this area. When we realised that the EU was not going to do that, a number of legislative options were available to us, and we considered them all. Then there were various breaks in Parliament, as noble Lords will know. Also, within that time there has been research into compliant stoat traps and an evaluation of how the stoat is finally dispatched. We certainly wanted to examine all the research and evidence. We needed to speak to the stakeholders, but it is not our intention to overregulate the countryside and to force people into changes that they simply cannot make because the traps are not available. Therefore, we felt that the year’s grace was appropriate.

The spring trap regulations come into force in January so obviously they will be available. We aim to get a list of the traps, which will be updated as new traps are certified, on to the GOV.UK website as soon as possible thereafter.

On the licensing authority, there are two types of licences for trapping. The general licence is for people involved in low-risk activities such as conservation and the welfare of protected species. Those people need nothing more than a general licence, but if they have that licence obviously they must meet the conditions and comply with the terms of the relevant licence and therefore the law. The class licence is for activities that require a specific skill or experience to avoid any risk to the environment or the welfare of the protected species. A number of concerns were raised today around that area.

Again, you do not have to apply for a class licence. However, to act under the authority of a class licence, you must first register with the licensing authority to show that you have the required skill. Of course, that can be enforced—people can check that you have the required skill to operate a class licence. In England, the licensing authority is Natural England; in Scotland, it is Scottish Natural Heritage; and in Wales, it is Natural Resources Wales. They already issue these licences in other regards and we do not expect there to be a significant increase when it comes to extending these to stoats.

Moving on to fur, this SI is not about all fur; it is about trapped fur. The regulations within the EU extend to all different types of imported fur. It is expected that importers comply with those regulations but that is beyond the regulations we are talking about today. The noble Baroness also mentioned fur farms, which we have banned in this country. Certainly, as we leave the EU, an opportunity will arise for us to consider any further action that we may wish to take. Obviously, I would not dream of making a commitment at the Dispatch Box today.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I asked whether all the other countries in the EU have implemented this domestic legislation, as obviously that will affect whether we accept imports from them.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

Yes, I believe they have, as have Canada, Russia and the US. I think we are slightly behind the curve on this one.

I would like to cover the issue raised by the noble Baroness about how stoats die. I knew that she was going to bring that up so I had a little look. These traps are more humane because the time to death is shorter and the force of the death action is stronger. These lethal traps most commonly use the power of a coiled spring, which asserts a striking force on the trapped animals, usually on their heads. It is usually administered by a strike bar that crushes the head. Prior to that, the animal has stepped on a plate in order for that action to happen. Some other modern traps use new technology, such as carbon dioxide or electricity, to dispatch the animal; furthermore, they might use captive bolts or impalers. I would like to get across to noble Lords today that modern lethal traps are effective within seconds. The animals will not be left languishing for many minutes while death occurs—that is one of the reasons why we feel that these regulations are so important. While stoats may not always be our friends, the traps dispatch them in a friendly fashion.

Finally, the noble Baroness discussed training. I do not want to overregulate the countryside on this one. The people who will be subject to these regulations are already gamekeepers and trappers—they know how traps work. All we are asking is that the manufacturers provide instructions that allow a gamekeeper to understand what the trap does and how it works. Many of the traps are species-specific and there will be different requirements for where you put the trap, such as in a tunnel, and all sorts of different things. In our view, it is sufficient for the manufacturers to provide instructions. They will be available at the time of purchase, as well as online. The instructions must be available for the life of the trap, and these traps last quite a long time. We have spoken to the manufacturers and the retailers and they are happy to provide this information. Of course, we will make sure that they do when we certify their traps for inclusion in the list.

I think that brings us to the end of this statutory instrument. It is an important one in terms of improving our animal welfare and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Amendment) Order 2018

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:15

Moved by

[Baroness Manzoor]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Amendment) Order 2018.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, this order was laid before both Houses on 5 November 2018. It adds Transport for Greater Manchester to the list of bodies that can apply to the courts for a civil injunction to address anti-social behaviour. It may assist the Committee if I give some background and context to the order.

The Government introduced the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to provide the police, local authorities and other local agencies with a range of powers to enable them to effectively tackle and prevent anti-social and nuisance behaviour. These powers include a civil injunction which can be issued by the courts against any person aged 10 years or over whose behaviour has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. An injunction can include prohibitions to stop the perpetrator behaving anti-socially and positive requirements to get them to address the underlying causes of their behaviour. At present, the bodies which are able to apply to the court for an injunction are as follows: the police, including British Transport Police; local councils and housing providers; Transport for London; the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales; NHS Protect and the West Midlands Combined Authority.

The draft order before us today amends the 2014 Act to add Transport for Greater Manchester to the list of bodies which can apply to the courts for an injunction under Section 5 of the Act. This change follows a request from the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, and will help ensure that Transport for Greater Manchester can take swift action to address anti-social behaviour taking place on Manchester’s transport network.

Transport for Greater Manchester is the passenger transport executive body responsible for the co-ordination and management of public transport across the 10 districts that make up the county of Greater Manchester. Transport for Greater Manchester owns the Metrolink tram system that runs through seven of the 10 districts that make up the county of Greater Manchester. It also owns and operates a total of 22 bus stations and provides a range of other bus services. The number of passenger journeys made using the Metrolink network in 2017 was 40 million. On its bus services in 2017, there were a total of 196 million passenger journeys.

Transport for Greater Manchester reports challenges with anti-social behaviour across its transport network. In April 2015, to address concerns about anti-social behaviour, it established the TravelSafe Partnership with Greater Manchester Police and with support from transport operators. The TravelSafe Partnership provides a dedicated team of police officers, special constables and security staff who regularly patrol the region’s transport network to reduce anti-social behaviour and provide high visibility reassurance to passengers and staff. Despite taking steps to reduce anti-social behaviour on the transport network across Greater Manchester, it remains a challenge. The most recent statistics show that in 2017-18 there were a total of 1,692 incidents of anti-social behaviour, which included incidents of intimidating, threatening and abusive behaviour towards passengers and staff.

Transport for Greater Manchester would now like to go a step further in keeping its passengers and staff safe by applying for civil injunctions direct from the courts, which currently it cannot do. The Government believe that the Mayor of Greater Manchester and Transport for Greater Manchester have put forward a strong case for this change, which will also bring their powers in this area into line with those of comparable bodies such as Transport for London. The Government recognise that anti-social behaviour can have a negative and debilitating impact on victims. It is right that the Government therefore do all they can to assist organisations such as Transport for Greater Manchester to take direct action against anti-social individuals on their transport systems, so that they can protect the public. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I do not think I will be able to speak for very long. I thank the Minister for explaining the order. As she has explained, a civil injunction can be taken out against those causing others harassment, alarm or distress, and the order adds Transport for Greater Manchester to those able to apply directly to the courts for these injunctions, as Transport for London can. Clearly, if the West Midlands and London have this ability, there is no reason that Greater Manchester should not have it as well.

However, perhaps the Minister can explain to the Committee how the injunctions are used in practice. How are they enforced once they are granted? How effective have they been in London, where they have been available to Transport for London for some time? How many times have they been used, and to what effect? I have tried to find out. I consulted the chair of the Transport Committee of the London Assembly and she did not know of any issues around the granting of these injunctions, but it would be useful to know whether this is an effective measure, based on experience in other areas that have had these injunctions for some time.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

I am happy to support the order. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked a pertinent question, which we would like to hear the answer to, about the experience of using these orders elsewhere. But giving the transport authority in Manchester the powers that they have in the West Midlands and here in London is certainly a good thing. As the Minister said, the Mayor of Greater Manchester has applied for these and made a strong case, and the Government have listened to that. I am happy to support the order and I have no questions for the Minister.

[Baroness Manzoor]

I thank both noble Lords for their support of this important SI. I am sorry to hear that the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is going, but perhaps not as sorry as I should be, since it means that he did not have the opportunity to ask too many detailed questions.

The noble Lord asked about the evidence base in relation to London. I do not have the information to hand but I do know that the order allows the organisations to go to court to get a civil injunction against an individual for anti-social behaviour. If they are an adult, they could be put in prison. For children over the age of 10 who misbehave, the order can put in place various deterrents to further reduce misbehaviour on trains. But I will see if we have anything specifically on London. I am not getting a nod from the Box. I do not have that detail, so I will have to write to the noble Lord in relation to London. I do not think that we collate that data centrally. We meet various agencies on a regular basis and the reports are that the injunctions are being used to good effect. That is all I can say at the moment.

If I can get more detail—there is no inspiration behind me either—then at least the fact that the London mayor has applied for these orders says that they can be used to try to reduce the detriment being caused by anti-social behaviour on the transport system. With that, and with the Committee’s support, I ask noble Lords to agree the Motion.

Motion agreed.

Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

17:26

Moved by

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, in proposing these regulations, I want to explain that they are made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make necessary arrangements for the UK Blood Safety and Quality Regulations. This statutory instrument will correct deficiencies in those regulations so that the UK is prepared if we leave the EU without a deal on 29 March 2019.

Current regulations set out the safety and quality requirements that cover all the steps in the blood transfusion process, from donation, collection, testing, processing and storage to distribution. The short shelf life of these products means that an uninterrupted process of donation and processing is needed to ensure that the UK has a safe and continuous supply of blood and blood components. As a responsible Government, we have been preparing for all scenarios, including the unwanted but potential outcome that we leave the EU without a deal in March 2019. This instrument will ensure that the regulatory regime in relation to blood safety and quality continues to function effectively after exit day in that scenario. It is vital to make these legislative changes to provide a functioning statute book that allows for the continued donation and processing of blood and blood components such as plasma and platelets to facilitate a wide range of essential and often life-saving treatments.

In moving these regulations, I want to be clear that they are limited to the necessary technical amendments to ensure that the legislation is operative on EU exit day. No policy changes are made through these regulations and we do not have any intention of making any at this point.

The main changes that the instrument will introduce are as follows. It transfers relevant Commission powers contained in the EU blood directives to the Secretary of State in relation to England and to the devolved Ministers in relation to the devolved areas. In addition, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the relevant devolved Ministers, make regulations on their behalf. This will enable future updates to the blood safety and quality legislation to respond to emerging threats, changing safety and quality standards and technological advances. It contains modifications to how the annex to the blood directive should be read post Brexit. This is necessary to ensure that the requirements set out in the annex, which are referred to in our domestic legislation, continue to apply and function properly post exit. It also makes minor changes to amend EU-related references or EU obligations that will no longer be appropriate or will be redundant once the UK has left the EU.

Blood is a devolved policy area, so I am pleased to say that we have obtained the devolved legislatures’ consent to the provisions contained in this draft instrument. I beg to move.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. Given the state of the Brexit negotiations, deals and other matters that are going on in Parliament at the moment, it is probably just as well that we have this before us. However, I have to say, as I said to the Minister about the previous instrument we discussed, that it was there in case we crash out of the EU. This is really quite a waste of all our time and Parliament should not have to do this.

The regulations seem to be very straightforward. They will: amend or omit references to EU/EEA member states and third countries; omit provisions relating to EU obligations that will no longer be relevant to the UK; transfer relevant Commission powers under the EU blood directive to the Secretary of State in relation to England and the devolved Ministers in relation to the devolved areas, as detailed in paragraphs 7.12 to 7.15; and, as the noble Lord said, modify how the annex to Commission Directive 2005/62/EC is to be read after exit.

17:30

I have a couple of questions about assurances. I am pleased to learn from the Minister that no new policies are being created here; that is entirely appropriate. I would like to know whether any changes are being effectively communicated to the agencies that store blood—UK blood establishments, hospital blood banks and the manufacturers of blood products—in a timely manner. What assurances can the Government give to patients with rare diseases who receive imported blood and blood components? Of course, we know that the safety of those products is vital. Can the Government give an assurance that these changes will not affect the safety and quality of the supply of blood and blood components in the UK, as our current standards will be maintained? Lastly, when will this change come into force?

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we should not be having to do this. If Parliament was clear that it would not sanction a no-deal Brexit, we would not need to do so. My concern is that if we leave the EU, no longer will there be an obligation on the Secretary of State to communicate with the blood regulatory authorities in EU member states. Obviously, I welcome the fact that blood establishments and blood banks will need to ensure that blood and blood components from the UK continue to conform to the current EU testing requirements, as well as meet the equivalent quality and safety standards implemented by the UK Blood Safety and Quality Regulations 2005. However, I noticed that the Minister said, “for the moment, anyway”, when he mentioned that fact. It concerns me a bit that future Governments could change those standards. I hope that they would not want to change them for the worse in an attempt to sell a lot of blood products to countries with lower standards than us.

As a resident of Wales, I was pleased to hear that the devolved Administrations were engaged in consultation on the changes included in this instrument, which has been adapted to incorporate the changes and comments that they have proposed. That is fine, but I am concerned that in extremis, if there were to be difficulty in getting supplies in a timely way, the devolved Administrations would have to use products chosen by Westminster. I bring that up because this morning I heard about a parallel situation from some clinicians in Wales. They told me that they import quite a lot of hip joints, but the hip joints chosen for use in Wales are different from the hip joints chosen for use in England. They said that the NHS in Wales understands that if there was a problem of supply, it would have to use the hip joints chosen by England because they would be the only ones that it could get. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether the same situation would apply to blood products.

I know that the UK is largely self-sufficient in the supply of blood and blood components. Occasionally, we export rare frozen red blood cells in small quantities and import about 6.5% of our plasma units from the EU every year. In this context, I am concerned that regulation 16A of the 2005 regulations is being omitted from this SI. The regulation requires the maintenance of the communication of serious adverse events or reactions between the Secretary of State and the other blood regulatory authorities in EU member states. However, once the UK leaves the EU, obviously it will not be an EU member state and therefore no longer will there be an obligation on the Secretary of State to communicate with the blood regulatory authorities in the EU member states, nor them with us.

In the light of problems that we have had with blood products in the past—for example, blood contaminated with HIV and hepatitis C—what arrangements will be put in place to ensure that in the future we will communicate with the remaining 27 EU countries and that we will hear from them in relation to our work over here if any adverse situations arise with blood and blood products? We are still dealing with the fallout from blood products that were contaminated with HIV and hepatitis C. People have suffered for many years and I know that they are still trying to get the compensation that they feel they deserve. I hope the Minister is able to reassure me about both of those two elements.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I thank both noble Baronesses for their questions. I do not quite agree that this is a waste of time; after all Parliament voted both for a referendum and for a withdrawal Act, so we have to prepare for every eventuality even when we hope that they will not happen. This SI is particularly important for the continuity of this important medical product.

To deal with the questions posed by the noble Baronesses, communication with agencies is absolutely happening. It is being co-coordinated by NHS blood and transport—sorry, I always say “blood and transport” because it transports the blood; I mean NHS Blood and Transplant—as well as the relevant agencies in the devolved Administrations. We know that sometimes relationships between the DAs and Westminster can be strained, but I think it is fair to characterise them as being positive and co-operative on this and other health-related issues. We are making sure that all agencies are involved in that process, with central co-ordination and collaboration and consent from the DAs.

Regarding reassurance for people with rare diseases in respect of imports, the whole point here is that we would be operating to the same standards as the EU. In a no-deal scenario, we would also be accepting, as it were, the regulatory standards and approvals of the EU to ensure that such products were not impeded on their way into our country. As the Committee will know, a range of activities are going on to ensure continuity of supply through the borders.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, there is nothing untoward about my comment that there is no policy change at this moment. The critical point here is that under the Bill we are limited to technical changes to address flaws in the legislation that emerge as a result of technical flaws moving from one situation to another. Of course any future Government can change policy; I cannot bind the hands of any Government of any kind in future years. However, I can tell noble Lords that we have no intention of watering down the standards, so please be reassured on that point.

On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about when this would happen, in a no-deal scenario it would happen from 30 March 2019, so it would be from day one onwards.

I turn to the remaining issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. In Wales we effectively have a single market in blood products—that is one way of putting it—all working to agreed standards. From that point of view, there is no difference in the products that are used in different domains. I understand her point about hip replacements but I am not sure that it is an exact analogy. Of course the beauty of devolution is that we have choice and experimentation.

Lastly, on the important point about communications with the EU, the reason why that has been removed is that it is a reciprocal obligation. Obviously it is illogical to have a reciprocal obligation that can be fulfilled only by one side.

[Baroness Walmsley]

I accept that, of course, but what I want to know is what is going to be put in its place.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

Indeed. In a no-deal situation, if we picked up the kinds of concerns she has described, we have very good pharmacovigilance and other monitoring systems in this country. We would communicate that information with our European neighbours and we would hope and expect them to do that in return. However, of course we have no way of obliging them to do so in a no-deal scenario. We are absolutely committed to communicating with them not only about blood products but about all medicinal products and devices; that is our moral obligation. In a deal scenario, we would share that information anyway by dint of being part of a common regulatory authority. That is also true of the implementation period and it is our stated ambition in the White Paper for the period afterwards. I can reassure the noble Baroness that it is our intention to continue with the communication. Although, in part because of the phase we have reached in the negotiations, it is not possible to confirm that in a no-deal scenario there would be a bilateral or multilateral arrangement around communications, I am confident that all sides would want that because it is to no one’s benefit not to share the information. I am sure that that would happen.

I hope that I have provided answers to the pertinent questions put to me by the noble Baronesses and commend the regulations.

Motion agreed.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2018

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Remedial) Order 2018

Considered in Grand Committee

17:41

Moved by

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2018 and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Remedial) Order 2018.

Relevant document: 14th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, by way of background, parental orders are an important mechanism that transfer the legal parenthood of a child born through a surrogacy arrangement from the surrogate and her partner, if she has one, to the intended parents. The effect of such an order is that the child born to the surrogate is treated in law as the child of the applicants for the parental order and that any parental rights of the surrogate and her partner are extinguished. This confers legal certainty of parenthood, parental responsibility and decision-making on behalf of the child to the intended parents. As noble Lords will be well aware, parental orders were introduced for married heterosexual couples only as part of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. This was extended by the 2008 Act to same-sex couples, civil partners and couples in long-term relationships where the relevant criteria were satisfied.

I am sure we all agree that surrogacy has an important role to play in our society, helping to create much-wanted families where that might otherwise not be possible. It enables the provision of an altruistic gift to people who are not able to have a child themselves and can help people to have their own genetically related children. The UK Government recognise the value of this in the 21st century, where family structures, attitudes and lifestyles are increasingly diverse. We have also recognised that the existing legislative framework has not kept pace with this social change and have therefore asked the Law Commission to review all surrogacy-related law and make proposals for improvement as part of a three-year project.

In the meantime, a more immediate piece of legal reform needs to be addressed. As noble Lords know, in 2015 there was a legal challenge by a father who had a child through a surrogacy arrangement in the USA who could not apply for a parental order because he was single. The High Court found that the Act was in breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights combined with Article 8. In May 2016, the court made a declaration of incompatibility. The declaration related to the lack of any provision enabling a person in the position of the applicant, who was not in a long-term relationship, to apply for a parental order. The Government of the day made a commitment to rectify the incompatibility by means of a remedial order made under the power in Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The order inserts a new Section 54A into the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 to provide for and set out the criteria for parental order applications from one applicant. The new section largely mirrors Section 54 of the 2008 Act, which provides for applications from couples.

17:45

The Joint Committee on Human Rights considered a proposal for a draft remedial order in February, and the Government amended the order in the light of its report. The JCHR is now content with the order. It should be noted that the scrutiny process of the JCHR is rigorous and includes two separate stages lasting 60 sitting days, where the committee seeks evidence from all interested parties, takes expert views and makes recommendations.

The second draft instrument replaces the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010 in consequence of the changes made to the legislation by the remedial order. The purpose of these regulations is to set the legal framework for parental orders. They do this by making provision for matters such as the legal status of a person who is the subject of a parental order, how the Parental Order Register functions and the factors that a court must take into account when considering an application for a parental order. The regulations operate by applying, with modifications, adoption legislation to parental orders.

As an example, the regulations will ensure that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration of the court when considering whether to grant a parental order. This emphasises the value of the child’s interests and is in line with the approach in adoption cases. In England and Wales, the welfare checklist, as set out in the Adoption and Children Act 2002, is applied, with modifications, to parental orders. This supports the family courts in specifying the matters they should take into account when considering, for example, the particular needs of the child.

I hope that I have given a thorough introduction to the content and purpose of the instruments and I hope they will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, forgive me for a brief intervention. I do not have any problems at all with the basic notion of what is in front of us. It is possible that I was the first person to do a surrogacy agreement using IVF, so I have a certain amount of background in this rather murky subject.

One thing that slightly concerns me is the issue of paternity or maternity genetically, because we now have a situation where children can normally trace their genetic parent. That is on the birth certificate. Here we have a slightly odd situation. For example, particularly with a gay or lesbian couple, or where someone has not only had their uterus but their ovaries removed, someone may end up receiving a donor egg which is then implanted into the surrogate mother after fertilisation. So an embryo could be put into a surrogate mother who is happy with that, but it is not genetically her embryo.

I am just trying to raise the issue of clarity. Given that Parliament in its wisdom decided that people should be able to trace their genetic mothers, someone who had given an egg in that situation could suddenly be presented with a child they did not know they had, even though their own treatment had failed 20 years or earlier. When the Minister wraps this up, can he provide some clarity on what would happen, because there is human rights issue both ways here?

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate in the way that he did and giving the background to the instruments before us today. I should declare that I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Surrogacy. I have a long-standing interest, fuelled by many a night sitting listening to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, as we went through various bits of legislation but principally by the work done by Surrogacy UK in 2016 when it produced a report. There was a debate in December of that year. Baroness Warnock was no longer a Member of your Lordships’ House, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was. Those of us who had been involved in legislation on this matter from the beginning in the 1980s accepted that the overall legislative framework we now have is not really fit for purpose, not least because of the many scientific advances that have happened in the intervening years. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, observed in that debate in 2016, there are now many more ways in which families, as well as children, are created.

The Minister was right that the original stimulus for the legislation was the case of a man who in 2015 had a child by surrogacy abroad, brought the child back and found that the child’s status was incompatible with our law at the time, which stated that parental orders could be made only in respect of a couple. That was two and a half years ago. In the meantime, others have found themselves in similar limbo. The courts have had to make what are essentially temporary orders. Those orders are above all for the welfare of a child: a child is being cared for by somebody who is not their legal parent and has no legal responsibility for them. We should not lose sight of that.

This measure is a welcome step forward which offers a degree of certainty not only to individual parents or intended parents who find themselves in this position but to the children. I am pleased that the Law Commission is now undertaking an extensive review of the legislation. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Surrogacy is conducting its own hearings on the matter. For just a small all-party group, the hearings have been extremely interesting. We have had a huge number of people give evidence, some with very conflicting views. I think that we will end up with an interesting report that feeds into that work. My guess is that the Law Commission will take about two years to produce a report.

My reason for mentioning all that is that time ticks by for individuals as we debate these matters. I do not suggest for a moment that we should do anything in a rush, but, at the same time, it is incumbent on us to deal with some matters urgently, because to do so is in the interest of individuals.

There are some ways in which a single person applying for a parental order will be still be left outside these remedial orders. I understand that a case is before the courts at the moment of a woman whose relationship with the biological father of a child has broken down. She is now in the position of being a single person who has no biological relationship with the child but nevertheless wishes to have parental responsibility. Another tragic case is before the courts in which one member of a couple has died subsequent to the fertilisation process having taken place.

However long the Law Commission takes to do its work, which it should do extensively and thoroughly, I think that we will continue over the years to have a small number of cases that are intensely important both for intended parents and for children. It is therefore likely that we will find ourselves back in this House making more revisions of regulations of this kind before we get the comprehensive review of surrogacy law that we need so that practitioners, medics, intended parents and children all have a better understanding of where we should be legally in this day and age.

[Viscount Craigavon (CB)]

My Lords, I will say a few words, partly reflecting what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said. I spoke on this subject in her debate some time ago.

We should be extremely grateful to the Law Commission for taking on this, in my opinion, very difficult and rather controversial work. Only an organisation like that is going to bring this to some sort of conclusion, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, it will take considerable time, and understandably so—we do not want to hurry it. However, one or two problems are going to slip through the net before it reaches its conclusion. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned particular problems and some of them might be resolved, as she said, by further orders but some will still be in difficulties because some women simply do not have the time to spare in their reproductive cycles to wait for these problems to be solved.

There is another example, similar to what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, was saying. In rather rare cases of cancer, the treatment disallows women from being able to be genetically connected to the child who is being born. That is another example where we might be in difficulties over the long time period we have. I very much welcome these regulations, and I hope the department will keep an eye on difficult cases that come up. We will be looking after them as well.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, on this occasion I thought I would let the experts go first—it is called delegation. Like all other noble Lords, I welcome these regulations. I think it is my first experience of a remedial order. As a bit of an anorak in these matters, with 20 years in your Lordships’ House, it is very exciting when you find yourself with a parliamentary procedure that you have not come across before. It is also interesting that the remedial order has then led to the statutory instrument that flows from it. We have also made all the right authorities happy.

I welcome the fact that the Law Commission is reviewing surrogacy. It is a three-year project, so the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is right in what she said. In the time that I have been involved in doing health work in your Lordships’ House, every year or so we come back to some or other tweak, which is either down to medical science having advanced or, as my noble friend Lord Winston has said, technology having advanced. When my noble friend was speaking, I was reflecting on the fact that you can use the myheritage.com website to track down your genetic relatives from all over the world. If they are there, they will pop up. I suspect that will happen—not that we can legislate for that—and I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is right when she says that we will probably be back before the Law Commission has finished its work and certainly before the results of its work have been considered by the Government—whichever Government it is by then—brought forward and put into legislation.

18:00

We know from the past that Parliament has to consider this sort of legislation very carefully indeed. We know that we are not looking at a short timeframe for the review of the surrogacy laws that needs to be undertaken. The Minister needs to assure us that the department will be keeping a watchful eye on this, because I think we might need to come back and deal with particular issues that we have not even imagined right now. I support these orders.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. One of the great joys of working in this House is that we are privileged to have access to such expertise, be it scientific, policy or legislative. We have had a very good, if short, debate in which there were some interesting questions which I shall try to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, made a point about tracing the genetic parents in the case of a donated gamete. I shall read out what it says in my pack to make sure that I get the wording right and then I am going to make an addendum which I think is also correct.

If a child is conceived via an HFEA-licensed clinic with donor gametes, it may be able to access information about the donor in line with the responsibility of the clinic to provide information under the HFE Act, but this would depend on the parents informing the child of the circumstances of their birth. Of course, that would be so that the child was aware that they could ask, but at the point at which they became aware, via their parents or anyone else, they would then have a right to that information. I think the point the noble Lord made was that however the line goes to the genetic forebear, the child would have the right to pursue it. Of course, it would rely on the child being aware of the circumstances of their birth and so on, and we cannot force that on somebody, but they would be able to trace it.

[Lord Winston]

Does that mean that the birth certificate would be like a normal birth certificate under those circumstances?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

Yes, because the court retains a copy of the original birth certificate. I am going to need to clarify this because it is tricky and there is a danger if I try to describe it now. I do not want to do that. I think the noble Lord is asking for clarification, but I am going to need to write to him, if he will accept that, to clarify the situation.

[Baroness Barker]

I hope I am going to be helpful. If I am right, I think that at the point at which a parental order is given, a new birth certificate is issued. That rather mirrors the procedure under adoption, which is the same. The point is that a child always has the right to find out their genetic history but they may not know the means of their birth. From all the things that I have listened to in this House, that makes them probably like a good 40% of people who were not adopted or the result of fertilisation but who have a different father from the one they thought they had; I do listen.

[Lord Winston]

I do not want to delay things, but surrogacy is a special situation because the child is developed in another uterus, so there are epigenetic factors which may act on that child’s development. We are now beginning to understand—for example, from the study that I am involved with in Singapore—that things which happen when the baby is in utero can affect cognitive development and other sorts of development later in life. It is therefore slightly different from a normal donated gamete in a usual IVF setting or simple artificial insemination. That is why I wondered whether there will be clarity about the exact nature of the bearing mother as opposed to the genetic mother, because that seems to be important. Is that recorded on the certificate?

[Baroness Barker]

I am glad that over the years I have had to do my homework because I am now going to be in debates with the noble Lord, Lord Winston. I think that the issue is covered by the licensing of the clinics which are under an obligation to maintain a record if they are HFEA-licensed in this country. I believe that in certain jurisdictions abroad to which people go for surrogacy, notably California and Canada, clinics are similarly required to meet certain standards of record-keeping.

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

That is absolutely right. It is fantastic to be able to bow to the wisdom of noble Lords. In effect, although this is a rather inadequate way of describing it, there is a paper trail of whether it is the surrogate parent—the original genetic donor, if there is one, that is different from the parent who subsequently gets the parental order—when that is done through licensed clinics. The child has a pre-existing right to pursue that information and they are able to do so, if they want to, when they become aware of the circumstances of their birth. I think I have got that right. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is nodding, which means I can be confident.

I congratulate the noble Baroness on her tenacity in pursuing this issue and I congratulate other noble Lords as well. It has taken longer than it should have done to make this remedial order; I can only reflect on how much has happened in the last two and half years, which may be some of the reason behind that. The department is very aware of the need to watch this space. There are court cases going on. Clearly it would be inappropriate for me to comment specifically on them but, as the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, pointed out, thorny and difficult cases will continue to emerge and we need to deal with them as they arise if they have policy implications. We also need to ensure that we keep up the impetus through the Law Commission review, which I understand will be two years of inquiry and then a year of drafting legislation. That is why it will take three years; these things have a natural pace to them. The critical point is that at the end of the process, the Government—as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out, whoever is in government at that point—should then be in a position to take that legislation forward. One would hope that if the Law Commission has done its work, that is something on which there is a pre-existing consensus and we can all move forward.

I am incredibly grateful to noble Lords for their wisdom and sagacity. This has been a very high-quality debate. I will provide the specific clarification to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and circulate it to other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I thank them once again for their contributions.

Motions agreed.

Committee adjourned at 6.07 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 12 December 2018

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Retirement of a Member: Lord Lester of Herne Hill

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:07

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement with effect from today of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I acknowledge the noble Lord’s service to the House. I should add that, pursuant to the decision of the House on 15 November, the Privileges and Conduct Committee has further considered the conduct of the noble Lord and has today published a further report on that subject. Noble Lords will have the opportunity to consider the report on the afternoon of Monday 17 December.

Housing: Serviced Plots

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:08

Asked by

[Lord Naseby]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government with what organisations they have been working to ensure provision of serviced plots for self- and custom-built homes in order to meet social and other housing needs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, self and custom build can play a crucial role, as part of wider measures, in securing greater housing market diversity and delivering the homes people want. We are working with local authorities in meeting their legislative obligations and with industry, including the National Custom & Self Build Association and the Right to Build Task Force, to ensure provision of serviced plots. The home building fund and the community housing fund support SME builders and community groups including those promoting self and custom build.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware that his Answer is enormously encouraging? Nevertheless, it is the situation, is it not, that across most of Europe self-build constitutes a huge proportion of the housing market? Now that we have the opportunity, with the progress that has been made by Her Majesty’s Government on moving towards the target of 300,000 homes, can we really make sure this time, on the basis of the policies my noble friend has just mentioned, that it actually happens and that the thousands of couples who want to build their own home will have the opportunity to do so?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for that support. It is true that this is an important and growing sector. We were perhaps a little late coming to this: the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 gave an injection to this area, but there are more than 30,000 people on the register to which I referred and there is growing interest in this area.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Can the noble Lord tell the House what work the Government are doing to ensure greater access to mortgage finance for those individuals who want to build their own home? Can he also tell the House what role he sees for the co-operative sector in developing self and custom build housing?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the noble Lord has put his finger on a difficulty, which is access to the mortgage market. We are well aware of the difficulty and we are working with building societies and with a couple of banks—Virgin Money does good work in this area and the Co-operative is also interested. We are certainly very open to encouraging access to finance via the co-operative movement and the Co-operative Bank. The noble Lord is right that it is an important area and one where we need to focus our attention.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, we need this alternative stream of new homes because otherwise we are totally reliant on a handful of very large volume housebuilders which consistently let us down in terms of quantity, quality, affordability and design. This is a really important new stream of extra housing, but we are awaiting guidance from the Government for local authorities on their planning obligations. This is a little overdue. Will the Minister tell us when we might expect to see it published?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord. He was the noble Lord, as so often, who piloted the very important legislation I referred to through this House. We expect the guidance he is referring to early in the new year.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Will the Minister take the opportunity to visit the “sweat equity” project in Toxteth, Liverpool, an interfaith initiative which was set up originally by Habitat for Humanity? More than 30 properties were built on that site where the sweat, the labour of the people involved in helping to build the properties, included single parents and people who would never have had the opportunity to become homeowners otherwise. They have now got homes in inner-city Liverpool. It is a wonderful initiative and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to see it.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much indeed for the invitation. I am very keen to visit. I am due to go to the north-west for some faith visits, and I will see if I can visit on that occasion.

[Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)]

My Lords, picking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will the Minister give consideration to the Government encouraging local authorities to enter the mortgage market again? Back in the 1980s, some 15% of all mortgages nationally were given out through local authorities. That proved a viable and sensible way of encouraging low-income home ownership.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, we are very keen and willing to look at any area that opens up finance for this sector, so I certainly do not rule that out. We are, as I say, actively pursuing this matter with building societies and with banks, and they are responding, but I will take the noble Lord’s suggestion back, if I may.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, what advice would the Minister give to someone threatened with eviction from their home just off Whitehall?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

Stick at it, and she will be there tomorrow.

Animal Welfare Standards

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:13

Asked by

[Lord Trees]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether their recent trade deal to supply 50,000 lambs killed without stunning to Saudi Arabia is consistent with their commitment to maintain animal welfare standards after Brexit.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the Government encourage the highest standards of welfare at slaughter, and have been clear that they will not water down their high animal welfare standards in the furtherance of trade. The agreement with Saudi Arabia was on the terms of the health certification for animal products and lifts a 20-year ban on lamb exports. It is not a trade deal per se. All slaughter of animals for export—whether stun or non-stun—must strictly comply with EU and UK rules on animal welfare.

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Answer. As she knows, for many years New Zealand has exported millions of sheep carcasses to the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, from animals that have all been stunned before slaughter, and that have all been halal certified. Will the Government undertake to halt further halal exports until our welfare and farming organisations, our regulatory authorities and, most importantly, the appropriate UK halal authorities have reached agreement to follow procedures similar to the New Zealand model? Given that, our farmers could then export with confidence, and the international halal community could be reassured that it is getting meat that meets its requirements.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, New Zealand has very different procedures from those of the UK. New Zealand allows non-stunned slaughter only for poultry and, in that case, for just 5,000 birds a year. The issues around this are very complex. The Government would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter, but derogations have existed for Muslim and Jewish communities since the 1930s. However, the Government are well aware of research into stunning techniques, in particular for cattle and sheep, which may be helpful in reducing the amount of non-stunned slaughter. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to ensure that we have the highest standards of animal welfare, while ensuring freedom of religious expression.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I have protested about the killing of any animal without pre-stunning for more years now than I care to remember, and I am not going to stop protesting now. May I ask my noble friend not to allow the departure of animals from this country without pre-stunning?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I hope that my noble friend will continue protesting, and I am sure that many other noble Lords will continue to do so, but we are governed by the regulations of both the EU—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My noble friends should wait. European Council Regulation 1099/2009 protects the animals at the time of killing. However, the UK has stricter national rules through WATOK, the welfare of animals at time of killing regulations. These provide for the types of stunning that can be carried out, but also set out precisely what must happen if an animal is to be slaughtered without stunning. It is part of the slaughter process, but we slaughter 13.3 million sheep a year, and the vast majority are stunned before slaughter.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the UK has moved a long way forward in ensuring that animals are stunned prior to slaughter, as has been indicated. Animal welfare is, rightly, an essential ingredient of our culture, both pre and post Brexit. It is therefore incomprehensible that the contract to supply 50,000 lamb carcasses to Saudi Arabia allows for their slaughter without pre-stunning. Other EU countries that allow non-stunned slaughter have measures in place to ensure that that meat is for the domestic market only. I cannot see what possible justification there can be for allowing non-stunned slaughter for export to Saudi Arabia, and I hope that the Minister will work to reverse that.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I would like to be clear that there is no contract for 50,000 sheep to go to Saudi Arabia. I am not entirely sure where that comes from. An export health certificate has been issued in the case of Saudi Arabia, but it has not been used, so not a single lamb has left the country, whether stunned or non-stunned. On the point the noble Baroness raised, we have our regulations within our nation, which allow both stunning and non-stunning within very strict parameters. It is for the benefit of our sheep farmers, mostly in the north of England, Wales and Scotland, that they are able to sell their sheep where they like, within the regulations.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Does the Minister not appreciate that there is no international body for certifying halal? That is why, in New Zealand, the halal authority agrees to pre-stunning. She cannot hide behind the EU, because the EU allows into Europe all the New Zealand lamb—and all of it that comes to the UK is halal, without exception. If the EU allows that in, we cannot then use the EU rules to stop our own people here deciding that we will have a halal authority which still gives the certification but allows for pre-stunning. That is the root cause of the problem: Defra should make sure that there is a halal body prepared to do that in this country, otherwise we simply would not allow the exports.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Lord is right. There is no one national authority that certifies halal meat, and to a certain extent that is part of the problem. We have one halal authority which will certify only stunned meat, one that does only non-stunned meat and one that does both. The crux of this issue is that the Government, stakeholders and religious authorities need to start working together more closely to look at the research around stunning, which has come on in leaps and bounds in terms of recoverability from stunning and therefore whether it falls within religious guidelines. We have committed to do that and we will continue to do so.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, for many years Sikhs and other communities have been concerned about the provision of a halal-only option in many schools. We are advised that it is the prerogative of the local authority. It is impossible for individuals to keep complaining. Does the Minister agree that the default position must be the provision of non-halal food, and that it is up to other religious communities if they want something different?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Lord makes a very strong point. It is the case that it is up to schools whether they provide halal meat. Many schools that have a significant proportion of pupils who are Muslims will supply halal meat, but they might be able to accommodate pupils of other faiths within their food provision. I reassure noble Lords that major retailers have supplier requirements that all meat on supermarket shelves is stunned before slaughter.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am a fellow of the British Veterinary Association and a regular visitor to auction marts in the north of England. Does the Minister agree that the general problem is that there is meat being sold in this country as normal meat which is actually halal meat being passed off as normal meat? This is an urgent issue that has to be addressed by the Government. Will my noble friend explain to the House how the Government propose to address it?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I have just mentioned the actions that have already been taken by the major retailers, but the Government are well aware of public concern around meat slaughtered in accordance with religious beliefs and we believe that we need to look at labelling and improve it where we can. We believe that if we can give consumers the information they require, they can make an informed choice. The Government have committed to a review of food labelling once our future partnership with the EU is clear.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as an Orthodox Jew. I think the Government are to be congratulated on their sensitivity to the various religious minorities that carry out their practices in this country. The Minister mentioned the problem that stunning is not by any means absolute. We see clear evidence that some animals are wounded with current levels of stunning, and more research is needed. At a time when there is very great distrust between different communities, I hope that the Minister will agree that we need to reflect on the need to have harmony in those communities at the present moment.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I completely appreciate the comments made by the noble Lord. That is why this is such a very complex issue. We must understand that there are religious sensitivities around this, but I am also pleased to know that research is moving on in leaps and bounds and that in certain circumstances it will be the case that some stunned meat will be certified as halal in future.

Brexit: People’s Vote

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:23

Asked by

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they have received on a People’s Vote on Brexit.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have been clear that we will not hold a second referendum. A clear majority of the electorate voted to leave the European Union in the people’s vote held in 2016. We must respect both the will of the British people and the democratic process which delivered that result.

[Lord Dykes (CB)]

My Lords, a people’s vote would have no direct connection to the previous referendum—it is a separate matter entirely. Will the Minister undertake to make sure that the Government, led by either the present incumbent or whoever succeeds her over the next short period, concentrate on examining the incredible number of messages that are coming in to all government departments, including the Minister’s, from people who were leave voters saying that they are now minded to consider changing their minds, bearing in mind the changed circumstances?

[Lord Callanan]

The short answer to the noble Lord’s question is no. I do not know where he gets his figures from about the incredible number of messages, because I certainly have not seen any.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, 48 messages were sent about Mrs May and were able to lead straightaway to an election, so other votes are now awaited. We need votes in the other House on the withdrawal deal and a vote on this Government for their mishandling of Brexit, the NHS waiting lists, the universal credit shambles and much else besides. Will the Minister perhaps undertake to this House to advise Mrs May that the correct way forward for a Prime Minister who has lost control of the Cabinet, the Commons and the country is to call a general election?

[Lord Callanan]

I am sure that the Prime Minister will be very grateful for the noble Baroness’s advice. If I get the opportunity, I will, of course, pass on her fond regards.

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, referendums are often described as democratic, but they are not what we usually mean by democratic in this country, where we have a system of representative parliamentary democracy. The effect of having a referendum is to undermine that system because it changes Members of Parliament from being representatives to delegates. Will the Minister look at the situation in the Netherlands, where the Government are considering banning referendums altogether?

[Lord Callanan]

I understand the point that my noble friend is making and I realise that this view is widely shared. I must point out, however, that the referendum was agreed to, authorised and voted for by this Parliament. We agreed to ask the people what their verdict was on the European Union.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister was very clear that there would not be a general election in 2017. The Prime Minister and the members of her Cabinet who were dispatched last Friday and even on Monday morning were very clear that there was going to be a vote on the withdrawal agreement on Tuesday evening in the House of Commons. There was not such a vote. Therefore, how certain is the Minister that the Prime Minister will not change her mind and allow a people’s vote, assuming that she survives this evening?

[Lord Callanan]

Very certain, is the answer to the noble Baroness’s question. As she well knows, to hold a referendum—as with the previous referendum—the Government would need to introduce legislation, and we are not going to do that.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, in his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, the Minister said that he had seen no representations from anybody on the subject of this Question. On the face of it, it feels a little unlikely that neither he nor any of his colleagues in government have seen any such representations. Can he confirm that and, if it is not strictly true, will he research just how many representations have been received and then write to me?

[Lord Callanan]

I was answering the noble Lord truthfully on what representations I had seen, which is what he asked me. I will certainly go back and check with the department, but I receive a lot of correspondence both publicly and privately and I do not recall seeing any such representations. This is not to say that there have not been any letters in the department—there may have been one or two, but I certainly have not seen any on my private email.

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, would the Minister agree with the African sentiment that when two elephants fight, the grass gets hurt? Is it now time to look for reconciliation as a nation and move forward? Is it now time to stop point-scoring and actually listen to one another with a sense of humility, humbleness and kindness and to have more civil discourse? Otherwise, elephants are fighting and the grass is getting hurt.

[Lord Callanan]

As on so many things, the most reverend Primate makes important points that we should all take careful heed of.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that the referendum of June 2016 divided this country more bitterly than anything else in living memory? What is the point of exacerbating that division by having another referendum for which there is clearly no groundswell of public opinion? As someone who deeply regrets the result of the referendum of 2016, I endorse, as I hope will my noble friend, the most reverend Primate’s plea for reconciliation.

[Lord Callanan]

My noble friend is absolutely correct. There are many arguments against a second referendum, but I think the most powerful one is that it would not necessarily solve anything.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said that a majority of the electorate had voted to leave the European Union. If I recall correctly, 37% voted to leave, 33% voted to remain and 30% did not vote at all. Ministers go around saying that 52% of the British people voted to leave the European Union—I heard Jeremy Hunt say that on TV the other day. Last time I looked, the population of the UK was about 65 million, and we keep getting told that 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union. That is about one in four. Does the Minister not agree that Ministers should be a little more precise in their language?

[Lord Callanan]

I am happy to agree with the noble Baroness that in the referendum, of the people who voted, the majority voted to leave.

Interserve: Provision of Public Services

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Question

15:31

Asked by

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Interserve’s financial situation and the impact this may have on the provision of public services.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the funding arrangements of Interserve are the responsibility of the company and its directors. The Cabinet Office has regular discussions with the company’s management and monitors the financial health of all government strategic suppliers. The company successfully raised new debt facilities earlier this year and plans further restructuring to strengthen its balance sheet and financial robustness.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, but the monitoring does not seem to work, because this is happening too many times. As well as infrastructure, Interserve does welfare to work, probation, home care and hospital work—all important services—yet because of its financial structure, like many other public service companies, it has become a speculative vehicle for hedge funds and private equity. How will the Government rectify that? Will they give it more work to keep it afloat or sink it by taking the work away? How will they ensure that these essential services continue?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

As I said, the Government are in regular contact with Interserve to monitor its performance. Not only does the Cabinet Office have overall responsibility for monitoring the health of the company, but individual government departments that have contracts with Interserve have a dialogue with it about those specific contracts. The noble Lord may have seen the statement which the Cabinet Office issued a few days ago:

“The Cabinet Office has expressed full support for the work the company is doing to implement”,


its “long-term recovery plan”. It is worth making the point that Interserve is very different from Carillion. Interserve is now taking the action that Carillion ought to have taken—to restructure its balance sheet and improve its robustness—and, unlike Carillion, it does not need new money. It needs to turn debt into equity. It is not accurate to make a direct comparison between the two companies.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in a meeting in the Cabinet Office in the spring, I specifically asked David Lidington about Interserve. Since then, there have been a number of warning signals. Ministers may be talking to Interserve, but are they talking to the companies that support Interserve by delivering its services to people? If they did, they would hear from Rudi Klein, the chief executive of the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group, who is advising its members not to work for Interserve. The Minister’s response seems very relaxed in the light of what is actually going on. What contingencies are the Government taking in the event that Interserve is unable to deliver services?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

On the first point, I made inquiries to Interserve about the suppliers: 90% are paid within 60 days or less. The Government have now insisted that, where they place new contracts with suppliers, there is a contingency plan to take effect if and when that contract runs into difficulties. Interserve, along with four other companies, is piloting this new arrangement, which was introduced post the problems with Carillion.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the real problems is that more than 20% of government procurement now goes to a small number of strategic suppliers, a figure that has doubled since 2013? The top three suppliers are all having financial problems. After Carillion, a new system was introduced, which I think the Minister was referring to; rather surreally, it is called “living wills”. Has this been completed for Interserve—he mentioned a pilot—and can he reassure the House that no new contracts will be offered to Interserve until such time as the miracle of the new company emerges, and that public services delivered by Interserve will be continued without the cost penalty of £148 million which occurred after Carillion?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord is quite right. On 19 November, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a speech to the BSA outlining new arrangements. The noble Lord referred to some of them; we prefer to call them resolution plans rather than living wills. We have recently announced plans for all suppliers to draw up resolution plans in the unlikely event of a business failure, to ensure continuity of services and, where necessary, to enable another provider or the Government themselves to step in. Interserve has volunteered to lead the way as one of the first suppliers to design one of these resolution plans.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, in view of the substantial difficulties that major outsourcers are now going through, do the Government have a view on the minimum number of major outsourcing companies they need to maintain a competitive market for government outsourcing of public services?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The noble Lord raises a good point. We want to promote a healthy and diverse marketplace for public services so that not only the Government but local authorities and, indeed, the private sector can access these companies. For that to happen, we need to ensure that the existing ones have a robust financial regime. We are also trying to break down some of the very large contracts into smaller items so that smaller suppliers, who cannot bid for the major contracts, can bid for contracts that have been disaggregated. I hope this in turn will help to build up the marketplace that both he and I want.

Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:37

Motion

Moved by

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I express my gratitude to all noble Lords for their interest in the Bill. I want particularly to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton, Lady Walmsley and Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Knight of Weymouth. Extended thanks must also go to my honourable friends in the other place, Jo Churchill, who introduced this Bill, and Peter Bone, its recent sponsor. My life was made a great deal easier during the passage of the Bill by the excellent work of the Bill team, and the continual assistance of the Minister, my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, along with that of the Department of Health and Social Care. Before I sit down, I must also mention and thank the current National Data Guardian, Dame Fiona Caldicott, who has contributed so much to work in this area. I beg to move.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, I join my noble friend briefly in congratulating all those involved in the passage of the Bill. I also extend my thanks to her for her sterling work in raising this issue. The Government strongly support the passage of this Bill and we hope it will achieve Royal Assent swiftly. With the permission of the House, I need to clarify an important point raised at Second Reading on demographic data. I have laid a letter on this subject before the House as a more extended account.

The role of the National Data Guardian is, first and foremost, about good practice in supporting organisations and individuals who process health and adult social care data. The Bill is drafted widely to allow the NDG to issue guidance about the processing of health and adult social care data. This should be interpreted broadly and would allow for the NDG to produce guidance on issues that impact on the processing of health and adult social care data. This would include, for example, good practice in security standards for storing health and adult social care data. This is an example of where guidance is not strictly focussed on health and social data itself, but about the processes and issues that could impact it. Almost anything that should be taken into account when processing health and adult social care data—or which broadly has the potential to impact, affect or influence that processing—would fall within the scope of that definition. With that clarification, I hope we will be able to move forward and that noble Lords will support this Bill. I once again thank my noble friend and congratulate her on her sterling effort.

15:40

Bill passed.

Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Third Reading

15:40

Bill passed.

Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill

Order of Commitment discharged: House of Lords
Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment Discharged

15:41

Moved by

[Lord Best]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill, and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

Off-site Manufacture for Construction (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:41

Moved by

[Lord Patel]

That this House takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Off-site manufacture for construction: Building for change (2nd Report, HL Paper 169).

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open this debate on the Science and Technology Committee inquiry, Off-site Manufacture for Construction: Building for Change. I should begin with some important thank yous: to our committee clerk, Donna Davidson; to our policy analyst, Dr Daniel Rathbone; and to our committee assistant Cerise Burnett-Stuart. All of them, as always, worked hard throughout the inquiry. I should also like to thank, most sincerely, our specialist adviser, Mike Putnam. His experience and expertise were much appreciated. On behalf of the committee, I also thank Laing O’Rourke for arranging for some members of the committee to visit its facilities to view aspects of digital construction.

I thank all the committee members, not hesitatingly at all, for their diligence and support. I mention particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mair, who persuaded us to conduct this inquiry. I know he will speak at some length about several of the issues involved and on the key aspects of our inquiry, which allows me to make my contribution shorter. I will do so by summarising the key findings of the report, allowing others to speak in more detail. I thank all the noble Lords taking part in this debate today, and I am delighted to see that some non-members of the committee have put their names down to speak, including the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who has vast experience in construction in this area.

I also thank the Minister, for personally attending to give oral evidence to the committee, and the subsequent government response. It is not a frequent occurrence that the Government find inquiry reports agreeable. I am pleased that the Government agreed with much that we recommended. My colleagues and I will therefore no doubt focus in the debate on those aspects where the Government were less in agreement. I hope the Minister will find appropriate and agreeable answers today.

The findings of our inquiry are covered in six chapters. We make 10 key recommendations and reach several conclusions. I will attempt to summarise some of these. In their response, the Government recognised the construction sector’s contribution to the economy and to employment. It contributes over £138 billion of gross value to the economy and employs over 3.1 million workers. However, despite its importance, the sector fails to match the productivity improvements seen in other sectors of the economy. Labour productivity, for instance, is nearly a fifth lower in the construction industry than in other sectors. We believe that, if implemented, our inquiry findings and recommendations will go some way to improving the performance of the construction sector.

The combined effects of the problems characterising the construction sector mean that it cannot meet the needs of housing and will struggle to meet the needs of infrastructure. Off-site manufacture for construction can help it meet those needs. Off-site manufacture has several tangible benefits, including better-quality buildings, fewer labourers, increased productivity, the opportunity to create more regional jobs and better building safety, to list but a few. Those all make a compelling case for the wider use of off-site manufacture for construction.

Despite those obvious benefits, the uptake of off-site manufacture is limited, and that will need to change. For change to occur, the regulatory, financial and commercial environments that currently operate in the sector need to be addressed, and action is needed not only from the sector but from the Government. I acknowledge that the Government have made a start, particularly in their publication of the construction sector deal, and this is a very important step forward. I hope that the Minister will agree that, for it to succeed, the Government and the Construction Leadership Council will need to work together, and a key component of that should be the development of a clear forward plan, including timelines and indicators of performance management. Can the Minister say when this might happen and who will lead on it?

I very much welcome the Government’s announcement of presumption in favour of off-site manufacture and their investment in digital design for building and manufacture. We look forward to plans for its implementation. Again, perhaps the Minister can say more about when this might be implemented.

To meet the current housing shortage, the Government have set ambitious targets for housebuilding and have announced investment in the construction sector deal. Can the Minister specify what conditions they will attach to this investment to drive the use of off-site manufacture for construction? The Government have several levers they can use to optimise this. Although we recognise that they are taking some action, in Chapter 6 we outline further steps that they can take, including developing and publishing a series of key performance indicators against which the success of “presumption in favour”, which the Government have now said they will commit to, can be assessed. What plans do they have to do this?

Much of the evidence we received suggested a construction sector that is fragmented and lacking in trust. This a reflection of current business models and traditional ways of managing finance and cash flow. The Construction Leadership Council has an important role in providing resources and leadership to overcome this. We welcome the Government’s commitment to changing the public sector procurement model to procure for whole-life value rather than up-front costs. This, together with presumption in favour of off-site manufacture, is an important signal to the industry. The Science and Technology Committee will follow future developments with interest and may well revisit the situation with a follow-up inquiry to track the Government’s record in fulfilling their commitments. In the meantime, I beg to move.

15:49

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare an interest, as noted in the register: I am a property developer with several ongoing housebuilding projects.

I welcome the report from the Science and Technology Committee. Off-site manufacturing is likely to be more economic, efficient, safe and automatable than traditional ways of building houses. Indeed, it ought to be the obvious thing to do. So I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the chairman of the committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for guiding us to choose this as a subject for our committee.

I used to manufacture London black taxis and was once told that each taxi off the production line was different from the last. That was not a compliment. It is important to communicate clearly that factory-made construction does not mean identical houses. On a car production line, you can change the colour of the paint and a whole lot more. Cars built to thousands of different specifications can come off the same production line. It is the same with houses. The major differences are often in the finishes rather than the underlying structure.

Noble Lords may remember the 1962 song “Little Boxes” by Malvina Reynolds and may be extremely grateful that I choose not to sing it for them—unlike David Templeman, a Member of the Western Australia Parliament, who can be seen on YouTube singing a Christmas song to his colleagues in Parliament. I remind them that the song satirises the growth of suburbia, with houses, or little boxes, of different colours,

“all made out of ticky tacky”,

which all looked the same. Noble Lords remember it.

There is a similar perception—only exacerbated by the move to off-site construction—of new-build housing in the UK now. We know this to be false and must make a more positive case for the wide range of products, styles, finishes, colours and results of modern housebuilding. Many Japanese houses are now built in this way. In fact, they are built on the foundations of the houses they replace. The buyers can pick a house from a catalogue, to the specification they want, and the whole process does not take too long to complete.

While it is important to stress that off-site does not mean uniform, we should also recognise that buyers of new houses are often different from buyers of houses generally. Those buying new houses are usually younger, often couples, and a lot of the time are buying because they are starting a family. They are often moving from a rented flat to a new house—a typical and lovely story. The demand of different buyers is similar: they are looking for their first home, something affordable, suitable for starting a family and a little more pleasing than the flat from which they are moving. If the demand is similar, it is unsurprising that the supply is similar.

Some of the concerns and worries about this, as mentioned by my right honourable friend in the other place, Oliver Letwin, are a little confusing. It is like grumbling about all the products across Marks & Spencer shops being similar. Of course they are: they are directed at a target market. It is the same at Lidl or Aldi. Their product ranges are similar because they are trying to sell products to similar markets.

The government response to this report maps out how they are already working to achieve many of the recommendations in it. But while a lot of it is welcome, there are also some areas that I would no doubt find laudable were I able to fully understand them. The trouble with the Government’s response is that, while the English may be elegant, hidden in the language is the possibility that they will achieve absolutely nothing. No doubt we should be pleased that this form of construction is included in the industrial strategy and the sector deal, but if we come back in future and nothing has happened, my noble friend and his department can still claim that as a triumph.

In the meantime, some practical steps can be taken to help drive the use of and improvement in off-site manufacturing. Specifically, the Government themselves could actually start buying these materials for their own projects. For instance, we were given evidence that prison building projects, though they may be the leader here, could make even more use of off-site manufacturing, as could nurses’ accommodation. The Department for International Development could use the methods for building projects overseas, ensuring that the manufacturing process is done here, with a “Made in the UK” stamp. Committing to that would certainly mean we could benchmark success. Does the Minister agree that the Government themselves using off-site manufacturing much more widely by the end of this Parliament would mean we could judge his department as a success or a failure?

Financing is an important issue that the committee examined in some detail. Of course, cash-flow patterns for a factory are different from those for a housing site. Off-site construction parts from a factory are paid for when they leave the factory, just like a car— except that in the car industry, stocking finance is a well-established financial services product.

Such finance is not so easy to obtain in the housebuilding industry. No doubt it will be available in 20 years’ time, when off-site manufacturing is more routine. That point was made in the report. The issue at present with this process is that we are probably in the dip of the so-called valley of death of innovation, and we are waiting to move back up the curve to the point where it works as a successful business model. Other countries, such as Japan and Germany, have already come up past that dip. While we negotiate helpful sector deals, we should also caution against too much intervention, too much bureaucracy and too many complex funding streams and quangos to administer it all. We should instead keep government action as practical as possible, and look to examples overseas of how best to let the industry thrive.

As I have said throughout, I welcome the developments in and potential uses of off-site manufacturing, the committee’s report mapping out a path to adopting it, and the Government’s willingness to adopt the proposals of that report. But there is something that we have not addressed, which unfortunately renders a lot of the good intentions, and even the good actions, somewhat futile. That is our restrictive planning system—one of the main reasons why we do not build enough houses. That is the reason why off-site manufacturing is not allowed to take off as we would like.

The planning system at the moment discourages any building from happening. It also discourages the use of building techniques that would make off-site manufacturing the game-changer it could be. One of the great advantages of off-site manufacturing is its flexibility. For instance, it would theoretically be easy to alter plans in order to change from a 3-bedroom building to a 4-bedroom building in the pre-construction phase. But our planning system would never allow that flexibility. Even on a planning-approved site, that kind of change would require a whole host of negotiations—on education, road traffic and more.

We have to build 300,000 homes a year. We must meet that challenge, and one of the best ways to do that is through the roaring success of off-site manufacturing. Again, I welcome the committee’s hard work in mapping out how this can happen.

15:57

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest as chancellor of Cranfield University, which is involved in off-site construction, and as chairman of the Woodland Trust, of which you will hear more anon. The construction sector in the UK is a big thing, and will see an investment of £600 billion over the next decade, including £44 billion for housing. The sector has low productivity, and lags behind other major industrial sectors in this country in productivity improvement. It faces some major challenges: the dash for housing and a lack of skills, which will only get worse with Brexit—as, indeed, everything appears to do.

The construction sector is at a crossroads. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, which worked on this report, I welcome the opportunity of this important debate. I thank my noble friend Lord Patel for his chairmanship, and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for his impressive expertise, charmingly and modestly offered.

Off-site construction offers a major contribution to thinking about and delivering a revolution in the construction sector. Our report defines what we mean by off-site construction: I am sure all readers of it are now fully conversant with the difference between volumetric and panelised construction. Indeed, off-site construction is not a new phenomenon. Prefabricated buildings of many sorts have been around since the time of the original prefabs, and many self-build and individual-build houses have depended substantially on prefabricated elements.

We now have an opportunity not only for the UK to maintain its position at the forefront of off-site manufacturing globally, in the commercial and high-rise residential sectors, but to gain major benefits in the low-rise residential sector, where the UK currently lags behind. Our report outlined the benefits of off-site construction. A recent National House-Building Council report showed that the construction industry companies currently involved in off-site construction were most motivated by a number of factors: first, improved quality in what they could offer; secondly, efficiency and productivity; and, thirdly, accelerated delivery, with shorter end-to-end construction times and considerably shorter times on-site.

Labour and skill shortages were another driver. There is an aging workforce and the impending risks to the labour market of Brexit—and it appears that the Brexit labour market applies to Prime Ministers at the moment as well. Thirty-five per cent of construction workers in London currently come from outside the UK, with the majority of them being EU workers.

Let me highlight another two benefits that the companies involved did not particularly draw to our attention. The first is the reduction in construction waste. When I was chief executive of the Environment Agency, I was appalled that 30% of construction materials delivered on to conventional sites left as waste without ever being used. That was not a great contribution to productivity or the circular economy. The second benefit concerns health and safety. It is estimated that off-site construction could reduce work-related health and safety impacts by 80%.

The Government’s response to our report was pretty positive. It is encouraging to see how a range of investment and other measures are being put in place to help bring about this construction revolution. That seems to be envisaged in the construction sector deal and I urge the Construction Leadership Council, in leading that deal, to see this as a medium to long-term effort, not a quick fix.

The then co-chair of the Construction Leadership Council, Andrew Wolstenholme, gave evidence and was exceptionally visionary in this respect. He described the fundamental change in culture and approach that needs to be achieved in the sector and outlined a comprehensive road map for doing that. I have rarely been so impressed by the clarity of thought in how to achieve sustained change in a major sector and it bears re-reading by everyone involved in change programmes of any kind. I commend it to the Minister.

There have been previous spurts in the off-site construction market, the last of which stalled with the recession in 2008. Governments are not particularly good at keeping a consistent course over a number of years longer than the electoral cycle—though one can ponder at the moment on how long the electoral cycle is—so the role of the Construction Leadership Council is fundamental in keeping the implementation and change effort going until the job is done. Will the Minister comment on the need for sustained long-term leadership and ongoing support for the Construction Leadership Council?

The Government have some key roles, and I welcome the scale and range of initiatives and investments that they have outlined in their response to our report and subsequently. The Government have a unique opportunity in driving this through the presumption in favour of off-site construction, but they need, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, to monitor that presumption, and compliance with it, and not to take no for an answer. Ultimately, I would like the scope of the presumption in favour of off-site construction to be expanded to all government departments and public authorities. Will the Minister comment on that too? The Government also need, through Homes England, to influence the procurement of off-site construction by housing associations and local authorities.

Of great importance are measures to ensure the pipeline of projects so that the security of supply can be assured and confidence promoted in the investment market and among planners. Management of the development of the market is important. The risk of success is that the market might overheat and outrun manufacturing capacity, resulting in disruption in delivery and extension of lead times. This would significantly adversely influence clients, architects, design engineers and contractors just at the time when we need them all to be enthusiastic adopters of off-site construction thinking.

On the labour and skills market challenge, I commend the work on apprenticeships and T-levels. Of particular importance will be the retraining of the existing workforce. The skills required are significantly different from those currently deployed, with scarce digital skills particularly important and, potentially, in the future, in short supply and great demand. I have discussed the construction workforce position with my 80 year-old brickie, who told me firmly that there will always be a requirement for his skills as long as brick-built houses still stand up. He is not thinking of retiring yet. However, the transition is not a simple one and a mix of new and traditional skills will be required for as long as our existing building stock endures.

Let me end with one last opportunity that off-site construction can offer. This was the point at which my interest declaration as chairman of the Woodland Trust becomes material. Part of the construction industry already recognises the value of wood in off-site construction. For example, Legal & General and Swan Housing Association have both invested in factories for off-site construction using cross-laminated timber. CLT can be used for a variety of housing projects, from terraced homes to apartment blocks. Wood as a building material has many virtues, including fine aesthetic qualities and its sustainable nature, but by far the biggest driver needs to be its role as a carbon store in combatting climate change.

In its most recent report, the International Panel on Climate Change has sombrely shown that we have only 12 years, if we are to keep the global average temperature rise to under 1.5 degrees. Society must move away from fossil fuels completely, but must also undo some of the damage already done. One of the ways of doing this on a large scale is to plant more trees. Planting a tree locks in carbon and reduces CO₂ in the atmosphere. If that tree is then felled and processed 40, 60 or 70 years later and embodied in a building for a further 100 years, its carbon reduction impact is extended mightily.

The UK Committee on Climate Change called for a 9% increase in tree cover in this country. The Government gave a manifesto commitment to plant 11 million trees in the lifetime of this Parliament—though who knows what that will be. The climate change committee has clearly laid out that meeting that commitment would require planting 74 million trees a year, not 11 million trees over five years. I look forward to debating this with the Government as part of the forthcoming consultation on the England tree strategy. I commend the virtues of wood to the off-site construction market, both intrinsically as a material and for its undoubted contribution to climate change reduction. I hope our architects, designers, construction companies and housebuilders will “embrace their inner tree”, benefit from using more wood in off-site construction and help drive the planting of more trees. I hope the Minister will support my call.

16:07

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the excellent speeches so far. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the committee for producing an excellent report: it is wide-ranging, has a set of very balanced and sound recommendations and is founded on sound, solid analysis of the situation. We need to reflect on the fact that the construction industry is the most important and strategic of all the industries in this country. We sometimes talk about aerospace or the car industry being strategic, but the fact of the matter is you can buy cars or aeroplanes from somewhere else. You cannot buy new factories from somewhere else—or new houses or hospitals, for that matter. If the Government want to see a booming economy and solid, well-supported social services, it always comes back to something that has to be provided by the construction industry. That is reflected, to some extent at least, in the Government’s response to the report and their action in establishing the construction sector deal and strategy. I will come to that in a moment.

However, it is not just a question of maintaining an industry and improving it marginally; it is being given a much bigger job. Getting housing up to 300,000 units a year by 2020 is a formidable task, when we are struggling to reach 200,000. That involves a huge expansion of capacity. One could say the same about the health service, major infrastructure projects and a whole range of things. The report went to the Select Committee in the other place, which received details saying the industry would need to expand its capacity by 35% over the next 10 years. That is a huge challenge and, no doubt, the Government will want to engage with the industry in delivering it.

At the same time, there are 70,000 retirements each year from the workforce, and only about 30,000 to 40,000 people are being recruited into the industry from within the United Kingdom. Until now, that gap has been filled at all levels of the industry by the recruitment of workers from overseas—from architects, engineers and other professional workers to the skilled workers on-site. At the time the referendum was held, there were 200,000 EU 27 workers in the construction industry. It is a signal of the direction of travel that there are now, according to the ONS, only 156,000—in other words, a drop of 40,000 in that migrant pool of workers in the construction industry.

With the workload increasing and the labour force availability decreasing, there are clearly some major pressures and challenges. It could well be that off-site building, modern methods of construction—there are about five different ways of expressing it—can certainly contribute a great deal towards filling that gap.

However, there are other problems. It has already been mentioned that the report identifies a skills gap as well as a personpower or manpower gap. The problem is that, in a fragmented industry with a very large number of single-person or two- or three-person small-scale subcontractors, their capacity to provide training is somewhat limited. I think the report has let the Minister off quite gently on the ineffectiveness of the levy and on the current way in which apprenticeships are supported in the construction industry. I hope we can return to it in a more considered way on another occasion.

The Government’s response says that they have now approved 50 apprenticeship modules. That is intended to deliver 25,000 new apprentices into the construction industry by 2020. So 25,000 new apprentices are going in when the workforce is shrinking at 20,000 a year from retirements and another 20,000 a year from the reduction in EU migrants. It is not nearly enough. The Minister has approved 50 modules. How many more are stuck in the in tray, with the levy unspent, because it is just not possible for firms to get apprenticeships started?

Reference has been made to the T-levels, but I notice that the figures are pretty meagre. Courses in the construction sector are planned to start in 2020, and the response boasts—I think I can use that word—that there will be 1,000 people taking them up. Well, that is an extra 1,000 apprentices added to the workforce in 2022. It is a drop in the ocean. The Select Committee report also mentions that the type of skills needed is expanding in the construction industry; the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made the point about digital skills.

There is no doubt at all that taking manufacture off-site and putting it under cover provides opportunities and possibilities which are difficult to provide in the traditional industrial model that we have in the construction industry. That is good. But the report says that, to do that, it is essential to have a consistent pipeline of investment and of building. The problem is that, although we have a National Infrastructure Commission and an infrastructure development authority, the reality is that, rather than a pipeline, we have some sort of tangled-up hosepipe. Every time somebody is ready to spray the water on the flowerbeds, someone else steps on the pipe and no water comes out. You look down the pipe to see what has happened to the water, then someone turns it back on again and you get sprayed. That is what the industry feels like as far as consistent investment goes. I hope the Government will be prepared to say something about how they will do some countercyclical investment, particularly in housing, to make sure that that consistent pipeline is there.

The report also mentions research and development. The figures are awful because the Government think the industry spends £370 billion a year. They have obviously captured more than the report, which refers to £138 billion a year. Whatever the number is, the figure the Government have produced for the amount of R&D tax credits given by HMRC is £45 million. For the smaller figure that represents 0.04% of turnover going into research and development. The Government’s comment in their response to the Select Committee is that this,

“is low compared to some other sectors”.

I have no idea which other sector could manage to get less than 0.04%, but maybe the Minister has some information. Quite clearly it should be 2% to 3%—it should be a significant number. That really will be important if we are to move to a new model off-site.

What is the machinery for delivering this and to knock down the barriers? The construction sector deal is a very good step forward. We have certainly welcomed it. We believe it is an essential way for the Government to interpose in this. The way to deliver it is through the Construction Leadership Council. That is how things are mediated between the Government and the industry. I think it is something of a phantom body. There is a lot of “will do” this and “will do” that, rather than “have done” this and “have done” that. What actual spend has there been to date on the strategy? We are a quarter of the way through the time period. How far are we through the spending period? The noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about cycles and election cycles. The current election cycle could do with having a stabiliser fitted to it, but leaving that point aside we need to know and understand what the Government intend to be the rate at which the strategy will develop. When will that first annual report be published? As the Select Committee asked, when and what is the timeline for that?

Many other vital points appear in the report, but in my last couple of minutes I will raise important issues that could do with more emphasis. Only 9% of the construction industry workforce are women. Off-site provides a chance to reset the image of construction and the environment in which construction is carried out to be far more appealing to those who are not attracted to the industry. I hope the Government and the Construction Leadership Council will work together to change the perception and the reality.

I have to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young—it is not just about getting the quantity right; we have to get the quality right. Some 93% of new homes handed over to their new owners last year were reported as having defects. The fact is that existing standards are not complied with and they are too low. Sustainability and durability are not taken seriously by the current construction industry—put it up, walk away. We have to have a model that understands that it is a whole-life process, with whole-life costing and sustainability. I was pleased to see that there will be some evaluation projects for sustainable homes, paid for out of the strategy, but we should immediately move to put zero-carbon homes standards in place. I do not think that there is any excuse for putting it into the long grass any longer—just do it.

Overall, this is an excellent report. It highlights that a huge amount of work has to be done if we are to create a fit-for-purpose industry with the capacity and skills to build a long-term, sustainable environment and infrastructure to serve the whole country. I look forward to hearing that the Minister recognises that, without that, practically all the other policy aspirations the Government have, whether housing, health, education or economic growth, will not happen without a viable, strong construction industry.

16:19

[Lord Mair (CB)]

My Lords, it has been a privilege to be a member of the Select Committee undertaking this inquiry under the expert chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Patel. I declare the following interests: I am head of the Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction—CSIC—at Cambridge University, and until a few weeks ago I was president of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I am also an adviser to the construction company Laing O’Rourke.

I draw attention to key words in the title of our Committee’s report Off-site manufacture for construction: Building for change. Building for change is so important and so badly needed. I shall first provide some background. The UK construction industry contributes more than £100 billion annually to the economy. It is vital to solving some of the pressing problems facing us. There is a lack of affordable housing. We have ageing infrastructure that needs replacing or increasing in capacity. However, the construction industry suffers from poor productivity. New technologies, such as off-site manufacture, could considerably improve the productivity of the construction industry. In November 2017 the Government announced the construction sector deal as part of their Industrial Strategy White Paper. This aims to transform the productivity of the sector, focusing on the building of houses, schools, hospitals and major transport projects.

A key innovation contained in the sector deal is the development and commercialisation of off-site manufacturing technologies, which have the potential to transform the construction industry. This is particularly significant for housing: to address the housing crisis at least 300,000 new homes are needed annually for the foreseeable future. Off-site manufacture can lead to lower costs and faster delivery, as well as increased quality. There are preconceptions about what has in the past been referred to as pre-fab construction; these need to be dispelled. As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, off-site does not mean uniform, nor does it in any way mean shoddy—at least nowadays. Bringing a manufacturing mindset to the design and construction of infrastructure, especially buildings, offers huge opportunities for harnessing the benefits of standardisation and factory manufacture without hampering architectural ambition. There is a need for new thinking at all levels: from clients, through to architects and engineering design consultants, contractors and the supply chain.

Our inquiry explored whether off-site manufacturing of buildings and infrastructure, or the components thereof, could improve productivity in the construction sector. We examined the potential benefits and drawbacks of the wider uptake of off-site manufacture, as well as how government policy, particularly around public procurement, might need to change to facilitate it. We also considered what actions the construction sector could take to drive the further use of off-site techniques. We explored not only the unrealised opportunities for off-site manufacture in construction but, more importantly, the barriers to its uptake. At the outset of our inquiry we found it useful to clarify what is meant by off-site manufacture for construction. Broadly there are two main groups. In the first, components of a building are manufactured off site then brought together on site—such as columns, floor slabs and beams. This includes pre-cast concrete, which is applicable to high-rise buildings and other infrastructure. In the second, buildings can be manufactured volumetrically, or in modules: whole segments of the buildings are manufactured and assembled off site, then the completed modules are fitted together on site. This is especially relevant to housing.

Our inquiry concluded that there are clear and tangible benefits for construction from off-site manufacture which make a compelling case for its widespread use. These include: better quality buildings and infrastructure; enhanced client experience; fewer labourers and hence increased productivity; the creation of more regional jobs; improved health and safety for workers; improved sustainability of buildings and infrastructure; and reduced disruption to the local community during construction.

In July of this year, as we were finalising our report, the Government published the details of the construction sector deal. Our committee was pleased to see that off-site manufacturing was one of the deal’s three strategic areas of focus: digital, manufacture and performance. I shall refer to the importance of digital and performance later.

The evidence we received in our inquiry revealed a strong case for the use of off-site manufacture for construction, but its use today is by no means widespread. What are the barriers? Why has off-site manufacture not been more widely adopted? The principal barrier has been the fragmentation and lack of collaboration in the construction industry. This fragmentation makes it difficult for all parties—clients, designers and contractors—to be involved from the beginning of a project. Lack of trust, and therefore a lack of collaboration, and attitudes to risk are cultural within the whole sector. This often leads to disputes which are all too often part and parcel of the construction industry.

It was clear to our committee that the construction sector needs to build trust and partnerships so that companies can work together to improve the uptake of off-site manufacture. We welcomed initiatives such as the Construction Leadership Council and the Infrastructure Client Group’s Project 13.

Project 13, published by the Institution of Civil Engineers in May 2018, is an extremely important industry-led initiative. It will improve the way high-performing infrastructure is delivered and managed. It seeks to establish a new approach within the construction sector, based on enterprise, not on traditional transactional arrangements. The most significant changes in an enterprise structure, as opposed to a transactional structure, are that the owner is central and leads the enterprise, defining long-term value; contractors, suppliers and advisers have direct relationships with the owner; and an integrator actively engages and integrates all tiers of the market. Most importantly, in an enterprise model the key contractors, suppliers, owner, adviser and integrator all work as one team to optimise value. All parties—client, architect, engineering designer and contractors—must be involved from the beginning of a project, rather than, as so often at present, the contractors only being involved at a late stage when the project has already been pre-determined, fixed and designed, with all the risk being transferred to the contractors. A key element of a successful enterprise model is risk sharing as opposed to risk transfer.

Following these principles, our report recommends that designers, contractors and suppliers must all have early involvement in a project if off-site manufacture is to be successful. This requires a change in business models in the whole sector and among clients—both private and public sector—as well as far greater collaboration. There is a need for a client’s professional team or advisers to adopt a different approach, as outlined by the Infrastructure Client Group’s Project 13, to enable off-site manufacture. Our report welcomed moves in the construction sector deal to improve the sustainability of new business models such as this.

The Government and the wider public sector are by far the biggest clients of the construction sector. The Government therefore have a key role in encouraging and facilitating the uptake of off-site manufacture.

I welcome the Government’s response to our committee’s recommendation regarding new business models for the construction sector. It is encouraging that the Government are very supportive of the initiative taken by the Infrastructure Client Group in developing Project 13: a new approach to commissioning and delivering infrastructure and construction projects.

The Government have also recognised the importance of funding research and development. The construction sector typically spends very little on R&D—the spend is much too low, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, has already noted, and lower than in any other sector. One of the welcome aims of the construction sector deal is to increase spending on R&D. Alongside the initial sector deal announcement, the Government announced a £170 million investment in the transforming construction programme, as part of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund. Innovate UK estimates that this government investment will leverage around £250 million of match funding from the industry through its contribution to funding R&D projects. We all welcome this important initiative.

Our committee recommended that a portion of Government funding for R&D in the construction sector should focus on detailed performance data for the lifetime of buildings and infrastructure. This will provide an important evidence base for improving future designs, thereby achieving significant economies. By measuring the performance we can establish the degree of overdesign of much of our infrastructure; only by doing so will real advances be made. The Government’s positive response to this recommendation confirmed their support for optimising whole-life performance of buildings and infrastructure, which is part of the transforming construction programme. This approach will also combine the rapid advances in the digital revolution with major developments in innovative sensor technologies, many of them made recently by the engineering department of the Cambridge Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction. These have already been deployed successfully on over 100 construction sites. Industry should aim to routinely equip new components manufactured in the factory with fibre-optic and wireless sensors. These will deliver vital digital data on the performance of infrastructure, during construction and throughout its life.

In summary, our inquiry found that there is a compelling case for off-site manufacture in construction. The Government’s overall response to our report and recommendations has been very positive, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We highlighted that in the Autumn Budget of 2017, the Government announced the very welcome “presumption in favour” of off-site manufacture by 2019 across five departments responsible for the construction of buildings and infrastructure: the departments for transport, health, education, defence and the Ministry of Justice. Our committee strongly supported this direction of travel.

As stated by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, we recommended that the Government develop and publish a series of key performance indicators against which the success of the presumption in favour can be assessed. We also recommended that where the presumption in favour is set aside and a project goes ahead that does not use off-site manufacture, the Government should publish a statement explaining why it has not been used and justifying that decision. The Government’s response to these two recommendations appears to be somewhat lukewarm, although they did state their intention to review the position on an ongoing basis. In the light of the Government’s otherwise enthusiastic response to our report, will the Minister clarify how the presumption in favour will be given more teeth? This could have a very important influence on the uptake of off-site manufacture, a well-proven innovation that has enormous potential to transform the construction industry.

16:34

[Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Con)]

My Lords, as a member of your Lordships Select Committee on Science and Technology, I must begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his skilful chairmanship. I also thank the committee’s officials and special adviser for their thorough and efficient work. I should also mention that it was the noble Lord, Lord Mair, who encouraged us to pursue this theme and write our report, so it is a pleasure to follow him this afternoon.

Certainly it is clear that the construction sector has not delivered the same level of productivity as other sectors of the economy in recent years. On average since 1997, labour productivity in the construction industry has consistently been around 21% lower than in the wider economy, and there are certainly indications that the Government may find it difficult to achieve their target of building 300,000 houses per year by 2020.

The focus of the committee’s report is on off-site manufacture for construction, which implies factory production for the components produced and offers the hope of a smaller on-site workforce for their installation and much less on-site wastage and disruption. It is fair to say that the committee was greatly impressed by the benefits off-site manufacture and felt that the claims of its advocates were in most cases well justified, but we had a much harder time trying to work out why the model is not more widely adopted.

The benefits accrue largely from economies of scale, where the factory-made components can be delivered to a range of sites. Skilful planning can introduce variety and avoid the impression of sameness and monotony that many of your Lordships will remember in the prefabs of the immediate post-war period. In general the Government have been alert to the merits of off-site manufacture and ambitious in their construction sector deal, whose objectives were announced in November 2017 in the Government’s Industrial Strategy White Paper. They included a 33% reduction in the costs of construction, a 50% reduction in the time taken from beginning to end of new build and a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the environment. These same targets had been set out four years earlier in the Government’s Construction 2025 strategy. The Government indeed published their construction deal in July 2018 setting out three strategy areas to meet these objectives. They were digital techniques to be used in all phases of design, off-site manufacturing technologies and whole-life asset performance.

Our report was published on 19 July this year, and the Government’s response, which was in general welcoming, was promptly published on 14 September. There is no doubt that the Government are well aware of the merits of off-site manufacture and well disposed towards it, but there is a very real question as to whether that is enough. At present, as the report makes clear in paragraph 107, the up-front finance required to set up off-site manufacture appears greater than the finance required for conventional construction. The Government’s response is positive:

“Where gaps are identified, the Government will work with stakeholders to address these, to ensure that the industry has access to the finance that it needs to expand its off-site manufacture capacity”,


but is that enough? It is perhaps a shade vague.

It is clear that constructors and housebuilders which fall into the category of small and medium-sized enterprises—that is, they employ fewer than 250 persons —are not in a good position to employ off-site manufacture, usually being too small to do so on their own. It will take a considerable disruption in the low-rise residential construction sector in the United Kingdom to bring it to adopt off-site manufacture. Currently, we were told that in that respect the UK is,

“substantially behind Scandinavia, North America and Japan”.

However, we were told that such a disruption in the construction sector is,

“most likely to come from overseas, and perhaps from China”.

Those observations are covered in paragraphs 58 and 59. That is perhaps a shade disquieting.

As we have heard, in his November 2017 Budget, the Chancellor announced a presumption in favour of off-site construction across suitable capital programmes where it certainly represents value for money. The committee’s report lays considerable weight on that presumption and emphasises the need to ensure a consistent pipeline of projects. Without this, the industry will not have the confidence to invest substantially in off-site manufacture.

There is, of course, very much more that could be said. It is fair to say that the committee was unanimous about the merits of off-site manufacture for construction. The Government have been consistently forward-thinking in their construction sector deal, but they will need a consistent policy in procurement where public projects are concerned if the promised benefits are to be secured.

16:40

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel and his committee on a very thorough benchmarking report. The House will know of my interest as a practising chartered surveyor, which also involves the construction sector. I have also had the privilege of serving on an ad hoc parliamentary committee on government policy for the built environment, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain. The House will also know of some of my activities in the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, will know, have considerably informed my views on many of the things that have already been raised.

I draw on some 40 years’ involvement in various parts of the construction cycle but remain, I am afraid, very much at the muddy-boot level, although I begin to feel my age as I weekly shin up and down scaffolding on construction sites. I distinguish straightaway the existing bulk of traditional construction that forms our existing building stock and concentrate, as the committee does, on new build and where we go from here. I have witnessed, over my professional life, the growing use of component standardisation and off-site assembly, as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, so eloquently put it. I have also visited manufacturing facilities where entire floors of houses, which could be stacked on top of each other, were produced. I do not know how they moved them down the road, but that was another story.

Among the physical limitations of prefabrication is the size of components that can be conveniently transported to sites. However, in the realms of moving to robotics and 3D printing, who knows where we might be in a relatively short time in respect of distributed fabrication of components? The committee rightly referred to the limitations in current construction practices and the different approaches that would be needed, from design to completion, for procuring buildings with substantial off-site content. While many of them—hotels, some municipal buildings, schools, student accommodation and so on—are becoming, as we speak, early candidates for this type of work, the low-rise residential housing sector has been flagged up as a potential sticking point. This is mainly because changes in style, layout and space might place standardisation in the way of customisation, particularly, post-occupation adaption. I shall say more about that in a minute, although I believe that many of these points are perceptions rather than reality, and that, fundamentally, we are on to a good thing here and we should go with it.

There will always be a market for the one-off self-build of conventional construction. Needless to say, we have plenty of conventional construction already in place, but we will progressively get to a degree of standardisation of components, which can be arranged in multiple different ways to achieve a wide range of different designs and styles. I do not absolve current traditional methods of constructing dwellings from some significant criticisms of monotony and sameness. So let us not compare the bad bits too much. If we can get innovative design and exterior appearance into off-site construction, we will start to overcome some of the prejudices that sit against this particular form of creating buildings.

We must not forget that many of our best-loved residential street scenes are partly the result of standardisation of design and the way in which things have been put together. That has not prevented a degree of customisation by successive owners, who, as we know, love to tinker with their houses. We have retail superstores devoted to catering for their every need in that respect.

However, there are some key considerations to all this. First, a dwelling is not just a commodity; it is also a home on which occupiers may rightly wish to stamp their own mark as an expression of character and aspiration. Exhaustive design risks denying that, which has consequences for value and personal commitment to a very important investment asset—someone’s own home. We should not forget that. Where changes by owners take place, they can cause significant damage to the building’s performance. I think of the many cases I have come across over many years of puncturing of vapour barriers or cutting away structural elements to accommodate alterations.

Longevity of what we produce must be part of the deal. The fact that a new building might have a constructional life of 50 years instead of 200 is a criticism I have heard levied against modern construction. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to that. We should regard that very critically, because savings made today on cost-cutting merely bring forward costs for tomorrow. I wonder whether there might not be a different way of making a cost comparison—for instance, by using something that was not money-based but an energy accounting method. Along the line, with our discounts and jam today versus jam tomorrow, we have led ourselves astray. Durability is vital, and buildings need to be constructed with future maintenance costs in mind. That to some extent governs the choice of components and materials.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Excellence in the Built Environment, in its 2016 report, More Homes, Fewer Complaints, made a number of recommendations, of which better supervision of on-site works was one. Off-site construction might deal with some of these issues, but by no means all. I have a particular bugbear, which is premature component obsolescence, with its obvious implication for future downstream costs simply because the production run of whatever it was has ceased a long time since. I think of the recessed low-energy light syndrome, where the starter unit and the electronics do not outlast the first set of bulbs. That is a fundamental failure and we should not allow it.

Hypothecation of components to a particular manufacturer or product line also brings its own risk. What do you do later when you need to repair something or replace an element? Composite elements manufactured off site and then put together need to be repairable. That means having some system with capacity to create them. The more elaborate and all-encompassing the off-site component in terms of its engineering content, the more that matters. I shall give a particular example, if I may.

A couple of years ago, I was called to inspect a zero-energy home constructed of composite panels made of insulation material between a sandwich of some sort of particleboard. It had an external cement render in what appeared to be a single coat with no joins and looked very smart. You could not fault the design but, somewhere along the line, the outlet for the roof drainage leaked. Lo and behold, the leakage was directly above some of the composite panels; these proceeded to rot as part of their component—namely timber—was biodegradable. To get them out, special panels had to be ordered. This was done under a building warranty; had it been a few years later, there would have been no such warranty. This sort of thing brings our construction industry into a degree of disrepute.

I recall that, many years ago, something related to timber-framing caught the wrong side of the television press. Noble Lords will remember: it was a celebrated case in which timber-frame panels were stacked on site but not protected or prevented from getting damp or maltreated. This nearly brought down the company in question; it caused mortgage lenders to refuse to lend against modern timber-framed structures for several years thereafter and caused significant disruption to a perfectly good and legitimate method of construction. We need to make sure that we have future-proofed as many of these things as we can. On-site techniques will have to change, not least in handling. As I said, bad news affects perception in a much more potent way than the actual defect probably warrants. That is information for you, and it is getting worse.

I see the process of off-site construction as part of a journey. It will become an increasingly significant component of everything we do. I welcome the Government’s response to this. I should like to reinforce what has been said about fragmentation, contract and payment arrangements—all the other things raised by the Farmer report.

I make a plea: construction and engineering is not seen by young people as a career they might like to go for; we ought to reverse that situation—construction and engineering is a fabulous career path. I draw attention also to the fact that very few young women are attracted to this sector; that is another waste of resources.

I finish by repeating my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his committee on an excellent job of work, and express my appreciation to the Government for their very positive response.

16:52

[Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)]

My Lords, some clear themes have already emerged from the discussion of this report in the remarks of noble Lords who have spoken, so I can be brief. Before adding a few thoughts, I will say how good it is to have Members of the House with personal experience of the construction industry participating in this debate. I thank our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for the way in which he guided our deliberations. We also had excellent support from our clerks.

In our discussions, members of the committee had the sense that we were tackling something very immediate in its nature and in the issues that it presented, but also something with very long-range consequences. We are pleased that the response of the Government, who have a key role to play, has been gratifyingly positive. But, as with so many things in life, it is the implementation of the proposed strategy—in this case for a construction centre—that counts. Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, will tell us just how far things have got to date. We need to know that a beginning has been made on the sector deal.

One of the striking things about the construction industry, as other noble Lords have remarked, is that it is very big. It represents 8% of GDP and 10% of employment, and these are big figures. It is twice the size of the car industry, but its image, of course, is very different. I think noble Lords have commented on image, which is on the whole rather negative. Sometimes you can get an undeserved image, but I fear that in this case it has to be regarded as related at least to a large part of reality. The construction industry does have a reputation for late delivery, variable quality and low margins. That, on the other hand, hides some of its outstanding attributes. The quality of British architecture and engineering, and the much more positive record in the construction of large projects and high-rise buildings, tends to get obscured by this more general negative reputation.

Low-rise construction, on the other hand, and general building, is a different story. It is badly capitalised and characterised by lack of leadership, the workforce is in decline—as other noble Lords have mentioned—and there are more leaving the industry than entering it. That problem is undoubtedly already, I fear, being deepened by Brexit. It is an industry with an inadequate skills base, insufficient opportunities for training, a fragmented structure, slow and unreliable supply chains and a cyclical work pattern. All these things add up to that conclusion. In short, it is old-fashioned and underperforming. As other noble Lords remarked, it lacks appeal for young people to make a career in it. That is something we need, obviously, to change.

In such a situation, it is not surprising that the construction industry is not in a position to respond to the challenges of the housing crisis. This is not the place to discuss the housing crisis, which is a very big topic and which has built up over many decades and has several roots, including planning delays and other factors that certainly go well beyond the scope of the construction industry to deal with and remedy by itself. This has to be a national effort, involving the Government in a central role. The lagging rate of build that we are experiencing, which aggravates that crisis, is part of a fundamental problem. We are not going to achieve, or the Government are not going to achieve, the aim of 300,000 houses a year in the absence of major improvement. Without change in the profitability of the industry, its outlook will remain very mediocre. This dim outlook for both industry and customer need not be the case. We have the opportunity to make a major change, and that was what the committee focused on.

We paid an interesting visit to Laing O’Rourke’s manufacturing site. It gave us an idea of the industrial changes that could transform the industry and its prospects, including energy-efficient modules produced off site which could be assembled on site in different formations. The point has been made, and I think it is an important one, that off-site manufacture does not mean boring buildings. It can actually mean rather more attractive buildings, because the modules can be assembled in different ways and you can produce something that is less uniform than a lot of the construction that is done on site. It also provides the potential for significantly higher quality and build for the same price, more reliable delivery, less risk to the health and safety of the workforce, and much higher productivity overall. So it is a very good prospect.

However, the outcome can be achieved, as other noble Lords have remarked, only by a changed relationship between the client and the builder—in other words, a different business model. To operate fast on site, detailed planning has to take place at a much earlier stage of the contract. Much of the expenditure which would take place in the traditional model only at later stages, when you come to the fix, have to occur much earlier. Thus, significant flows of cash also need to take place at an earlier stage, with obvious implications for both client finance as well as the builders. That applies whether it is public or private sector activity. Certainly we need to move to a way in which, when we look at the whole question of costs, we are looking at value and whole-life costs as an important part of the cost implications.

The challenge lies in how we get from where we are now to where we need to be to achieve the goals that the Government have in mind. They want to see a 30% increase in the speed of construction, a 25% reduction in costs and an increase in energy efficiency. I am sure that we all endorse those goals, but they are very ambitious and imply a revolution in construction. It is a question not only of how we build but of important ancillary issues such as the provision of adequate finance to underpin the structural changes and a much more highly trained and productive workforce. That in turn implies the provision of training and apprenticeships, which is currently lacking. The point has been made by other noble Lords and it is of fundamental importance. We also need to see greater innovation both in the construction process and in design. Standardisation has also been mentioned as an important factor. Those are the kinds of things that bring talent into the industry, encourage women to participate, and change the face and the perceptions of the construction industry over time.

Much hangs on the ability of the joint government/industry Construction Leadership Council network to work successfully towards the reforms that we want to see, including the ancillary things that I have mentioned, as well as the availability of capital and mortgage finance, and the releasing of land from stifling planning procedures. This is a very broad canvas that one has to operate on to get the results that we would all like to see. Therefore, I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies, he will say something about these contextual factors, which have the potential to enable the industry to move forward and whose absence will constitute blockages.

As has been said by other noble Lords, a number of central government departments that have significant building programmes have committed themselves to a presumption in favour of modern construction methods. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what this commitment is intended to mean in practice—how much weight “presumption” will bear, what tangible changes we can expect as a result of it and how its attainment will be monitored. Another noble Lord mentioned monitoring. That is how we can really assess whether anything is happening, and it would be very helpful if the Minister would commit to reporting to Parliament on progress.

If government departments act on the leverage that they have at their disposal, not only will that be in the immediate public interest but it will also, frankly, be in the long-term interests of the industry. When I talk about government, it is not just central government that has to be involved; local government is a big sponsor and purchaser of construction generally, and in particular of housing, and they have to be on the same wavelength. This needs to be an all-government effort.

Bringing the construction industry into the 21st century, if I can put it in that way, is a big, although not impossible, joint task. It requires us to get down to the last. It also requires—this is the sense of our recommendations and has been endorsed by what has been said in the House already—a partnership of trust and determination between government and industry across a wide range of issues, and, as other noble Lords have also said, that partnership needs to be able to survive changes of administration and personalities.

17:03

[Lord Broers (CB)]

My Lords, I too compliment the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the Science and Technology Select Committee on their report. It clearly describes the benefits of off-site manufacture and the degree to which it has been adopted by our construction industry. It goes on to make comprehensive and sensible recommendations about how we might make greater use of off-site manufacturing, all of which I strongly support.

I was pleased and not surprised to find from the report that we are internationally competitive in the high-rise sector of construction and I was disappointed, but again not surprised, that we lag behind in the low-rise residential sector, although there are signs of improvement. Paragraph 58 quotes Ann Bentley of Rider Levett Bucknall as saying that in the low-rise residential sector we were,

“substantially behind Scandinavia, North America and Japan”.

That is my experience. This field of engineering is far from my own as I am a microelectronics engineer, but I have followed it with interest because of its potential for improving the quality, speed and cost of construction. I was not surprised that we were leaders in the high-rise sector, as in general we have a high reputation internationally for large construction projects. In the low-rise residential sector, our building techniques have seemed slow and old-fashioned compared with what I experienced in the USA many years ago.

I lived in the USA from 1965 until 1984. In 1974, I designed a weekend home in Jamestown, Rhode Island, using templates provided by a company specialising in what were called modular homes. I did not carry out a detailed architectural design, of course, but I was able to determine the size, shape and layout of the rooms, provided they were rectangular, and the height of the ceilings and whether they were sloping or horizontal, and could determine where the appliances and bathroom fittings were. A few weeks later, a large truck with a team of four or five construction workers arrived, and within two days the house appeared, complete with its roof. Within another couple of days, the windows, doors and roof shingles were in place. All the wall units, doors, windows, roof trusses and flooring had been precisely manufactured in a factory. Of course, the foundation had to be completed beforehand and the finishing of the house inside took a local builder several months. This was 44 years ago, and the house remains in good order and has required almost no maintenance. I was not a pioneer in doing this, as my friends in the US had told me even back then that this was the way to proceed if I did not want a fully custom-designed house. Modular homes had a reputation for being lower cost, stronger and of higher quality. So it appears we have been behind for quite a long time.

The lack of adoption of off-site manufacturing seems to be the result of the fragmentation of the UK construction industry, as mentioned by many speakers, and the separation of design and engineering. This separation has damaged all branches of engineering but is especially serious in the construction industry. It appears that oversight of the construction industry is spread over a number of government departments, including BEIS, the Department for Transport and the Treasury. The Building Research Establishment has reportedly characterised the number of public sector bodies with an interest in construction as “a completely fragmented mess”.

As outlined so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, there is hope that the new sector deal for manufacturing may help sort out this mess. Let us hope so. It may also ensure that the skills we need to innovate in the application of off-site manufacturing are available—this was also mentioned by many other speakers.

I emphasise that there are many other areas where off-site manufacturing is important and the safest and most environmentally friendly way to proceed. I am thinking in particular about small modular nuclear reactors—a pet subject of mine—which we have discussed a great deal over the last few years but on which the Government have regrettably been unable to make up their mind. It should be possible to build these reactors off-site, thereby ensuring quality and reducing cost. The Minister, answering an Oral Question on nuclear power from the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, mentioned on Monday that the nuclear sector deal outlines a new framework designed to encourage industry to bring viable small-reactor propositions to the marketplace. I ask the Minister whether there is a timetable for evaluating these propositions. The Government’s procrastination on this matter has already seriously eroded any lead we might have had with these reactors through Rolls-Royce’s experience with them in Trident submarines. It is important that we proceed as soon as we can to actually build an SMR and realise the benefit that they may be manufactured off-site.

17:09

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an extensive debate and for that we should thank the support team that helped draw up the report, and the characteristic leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Mair, but I think we missed a trick. Clearly we should have co-opted the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Stunell on to the committee before we wrote the report. As their contributions have shown, they have a lot to add to the debate.

It may come as a surprise to your Lordships but I was trusted with the task of talking to the media when we launched this report. I had low expectations of interest, which was completely wrong—there was huge interest among the building media and trade. While I was giving those briefings, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, was hosting a reception at the Institution of Civil Engineers, and there was a fantastic turnout from across the industry. It is clear that there is a strong energy around this issue. And no wonder.

The sector deal says that we have to double capacity to meet the infrastructure and housing needs for the country and, as others have said, that we are already lagging behind in productivity. At the same time, we face a labour shortage, with an ageing population and people leaving the industry due to the Brexit drain. Clearly, energy is focused on this area because off-site manufacturing holds the prospect of increasing productivity, reducing or changing labour demands, improving the quality and efficiency of buildings, and removing some of the environmental impacts. So, all other things being equal, why are we not doing it? That is the question we are debating today.

There are barriers. As the chairman and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said, the take-up is limited. At the heart of this are the commercial relationships within the industry itself. With architects, clients, designers, contractors, subcontractors, and subcontractors to the subcontractors, it is an extraordinarily fragmented industry, and one that has survived with that fragmented nature for a very long time. To change the way we build we have to change the culture of the industry. But this is an industry that has resisted cultural change better than most, and so it is no mean challenge. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, pointed to one way that this might happen: money. If the prospect of profitability is dangled, perhaps it will encourage change.

As a number of noble Lords mentioned, there is a huge skills deficit, and it is only going to get worse. At the same time, the image of the industry remains one of dirt, muck, difficulty and very male. Through off-site manufacturing there is a great opportunity to create another, digital world for the future employees in this industry. That will attract people from different areas of the community, with different sorts of brains, and of course women and those from underrepresented communities. That will itself change the culture, because currently, its people are monocultural.

At the heart of this is the Government’s commitment to the presumption of off-site manufacturing through the sector deal, which we welcome. However, as was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, what does that mean? We need to understand what it will mean in practice. Will the Government go along with the report and publish key performance indicators and score performance against those? What will happen if the presumption of using OSM is not met? How will the reasons for not manufacturing off site be reported? We recommended that the Government, through Homes England, should put pressure on housing associations and local authorities to also have that presumption. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us a little more about that. There is an answer in the response but it seems relatively lukewarm.

There are a couple of other minor matters relating to the report. I will not comment on the small modular reactors, but the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, introduced the issue of planning, which was not covered. I beg to disagree with his wisdom. There are, of course, planning issues, but his argument would hold much more water if the main developers were not sitting on such huge land banks. That discredits that argument. If they were not more interested in building higher-priced houses close to green belts rather than on brownfield land, it might be more convincing. There is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that they control supply in order to control the price. So planning is an issue, but that argument does not work when we look at what the major housebuilders are actually doing.

That is why the Government—or at least, the public sector—as a housebuilder will be the driving force to deliver the 300,000 houses that the Government have set themselves as a target. That will not be achieved through private sector builders alone. The Government have a role but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, rightly said, local authorities and housing associations will become extremely important. I hope that more local authorities will be driving the public sector housing agenda, and we need to know that the Government will be working with those organisations to promote that agenda. If the Minister would let us know what conversations Her Majesty’s Government are having with housing associations and local authorities on this issue, that would be enormously helpful.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on the issue of cash and cash flow. The Government do, in part, respond to our point on that. They mention the British Business Bank, and say that they will work with it. Well, I work with my noble friend Lord Stunell, but he does not necessarily do what I want him to do. What does “work with” mean? What will the Government instruct, or ask, the British Business Bank to do, and how will they help to make sure that it does it?

Several speakers, not least the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and my noble friend Lord Stunell, talked about the quality of build and the through-life of buildings—the whole life approach. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also spoke about that. The whole life approach is central to the benefit that can be derived from off-site manufacture.

One issue that has not been raised is the response to the Hackitt review. As well as the environmental performance, the safety performance of multioccupied housing is central to the Hackitt recommendations. Part of the idea is to treat a multioccupancy building as a system, which can happen when it is handed over to the tenants and the owners only if it is built as a system in the first place. Building a building as a system is much easier using the sort of techniques that we talk about in the report. Not only can environmental performance be enhanced, but the safety performance of buildings can be assured through this approach. The delivery of what I think we all agree is a beneficial way of doing things is at the heart of this, and it involves many different actors. It involves government, and it is important for government not just to say the words but to demonstrate, through how it measures and how it enforces some of its measurement, what is going on.

It is important for the industry to work together, and the role of the leadership council has been mentioned several times. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister how the Government, who are part of the leadership council, will support that council. It has a big job to do here, and this is not its only job; it has a number of other things to do. I have worked in leadership councils for other industries, and it is a tough job to bring any industry together—but to bring this one together is even tougher. What are the Government going to do to help the leadership council deliver what it needs to deliver? Relationships will have to change, and they will do that only if people want to change. How are the Government going to help people to want to change?

17:20

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest: my wife is a senior lawyer whose specialism is in construction. We have been so busy in the past few weeks that I have not had a chance to discuss with her anything in this report, so anything I say is entirely my fault and she must not be blamed for it.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for introducing the report, which he did in his usual style and picked up the key points. The committee has obviously worked extremely hard. It has been a harmonious and interesting group and its members have been able to turn that enthusiasm and interest into good-quality speeches today. A number of them have been able to add to and embellish their contributions by bringing in their specialist subjects. I had forgotten about the local interest of the noble Lord, Lord Broers, in nuclear power and I cannot wait for the forthcoming Question. I shall have to follow my noble friend Lady Young and look harder for my inner tree the next time I am under stress in relation to these issues.

Joking apart, this is an interesting report of which the House can be proud. It is an example of the kind of activity that goes on—day in, day out—in your Lordships’ House but rarely sees the light of day in the way we all want it to do. The report is obviously based on substantial evidence collection. Anybody who is anybody in the construction world seems to have appeared—either in person or in writing—in front of the committee. It is clear that it has hit a particular moment in the thinking, debate and discussion in the public sphere around this area, which has encouraged the Government to give their support. I have done a number of committee reports over the years but I do not think I have read a government response that has been as broadly supportive of what the committee has reported, even though, as the noble Lord said, it does not go quite as far as you think it is going. The words are warm but the actions do not quite match up to where the committee would want.

Construction is an interesting area because, as a number of noble Lords have said, it is a key sector of the economy. It is often used by Chancellors of the Exchequer as a way of signalling whether the economy is going forward or is in a contracting phase. It has a direct relationship to employment so it is important in its own right. As others have said, it has a long value chain right across the country so, in a sense, by looking at construction you are also looking at the way in which Britain operates.

It is good that construction has been selected to be a key part of the industrial strategy. It has all the right hallmarks in volume, size and how it operates. However, it suffers in many ways, although that is not its own fault because it is at the cusp of what might happen to many sectors of our economy during the fourth industrial revolution. Will it benefit from the digital revolution or is it going to suffer? Is it going to use the digital revolution to create innovations in productivity and change the way it works? Is it going to rethink its approach to investment cycles? Other noble Lords have mentioned these points.

Construction is also interesting because it reflects much of what we call the British disease in what we do—appalling productivity despite hard work and long hours; short-term investment cycles; no big strong companies being built out of family companies and developing into publicly quoted companies; terrible R&D; and underskilling throughout. As has been mentioned, it is not a diverse environment; it is not investing in itself; and profit-taking is far too obvious and far too often. The relative number of SMEs, particularly at the bottom of the chain, is too great for the overall system and that leads to problems in innovation. It is a problem area at a macro level. I have mentioned diversity but we must not forget the recent blacklisting saga. It is not carbon neutral and it does not have an effective way of communicating to government about what it does—or, at least, until recently, there were no authoritative voices.

However, there are pluses. Despite considerable efforts by the department and by the Government more generally, the Construction Industry Training Board is a model of the kind of things that can go on in British industry and it should be praised for having survived and doing good work. Interestingly, the department for the construction industry—I hope the Minister will confirm this when he comes to respond—was one of the few to have a tsar for a number of years. This started the department thinking about what was necessary to create the particular recommendations we have seen today.

There are some good things, but there are quite a lot of bad things. The good news is that the report deals very clearly with a lot of issues that needed to be addressed and in a way that should provide a template for future results. I only have a few points on the main report, as people have talked so well about the individual recommendations. For reasons relating to my general argument, I would like to pause for a second on the safety issue, which was raised by a number of people.

This industry cannot be proud of its work on safety in the past, but it has improved and what has been proposed here—this change of culture and operations—may bring a better safety record. That is interesting because, as we have learned in recent weeks and months, health and safety is a British example of approaching problems of public interest that have not been susceptible to a top-down approach. The precautionary principle which infuses all our health and safety work—with the regulator placing more emphasis on analysing the harms and working with the industry to build a sustainable, resilient solution—is the way forward on many of our regulatory issues. This has been done well here and I hope it does not lose out as a result of the change in culture and practice we have been talking about. We should never forget the dangers omnipresent in construction activity.

On the supply side, the report does a good job by raising the issue of how the new technologies, approach and arrangements will work in terms of consumer satisfaction, and wants the Government to move further in what they are doing here. Mortgages are the obvious part of that, but insurance is also an issue. The report generated a response from the Government about the Farmer group, which reports to the Housing Minister in another department, but which is also part of the workstreams affected by the Minister’s response. I hope he will be able to say more about that. The whole question about developing housing will not work unless there is finance to support those who wish to move. The group started in December 2017, so it has had a year. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update on where that is going when he comes to respond, because it seems absolutely crucial.

In the same vein, the housing shortage issue—which the report picks up well in paragraph 55—can be resolved only if the Government think about the finance required for development more generally. The £3 billion homebuilding fund is obviously a way forward, but it is a sort of elephant in the room, because the number is so extraordinarily large and the methods by which it will be achieved are so difficult to understand. I hope the department will not give up on this. Again, the Minister cannot speak to this departmental responsibility, but I hope he will take the message from the report back to his colleagues in government. The presumption in favour and the idea that all this will pull together to create the right road will not work unless financing is provided at the appropriate time to feed the machine when it gets going.

There are several good recommendations in paragraphs 80 and 81 onwards, and later in the report, about the skills revolution required, how the leadership of the Construction Leadership Council should be approached, the good work done in apprenticeship standards and the move towards T-levels, and the hope this will also read across to digital skills. As others have said, this is fine, but we have been here before. Good advice and ideas from industries often do not see the light of day because they flow into the different departments providing support, such as the Department for Education, and then never seem to happen. I hope the Minister can say more about where we are with that, and how we will get some purchase with it.

Relating to the apprenticeship scheme, a number of people mentioned the problem of the particularity of the industry. This is not unique to construction; the same problem appears in other industries which have lots of small companies and very few big companies, because the money taken from the larger companies does not naturally flow within the sector. The Government will need to think quite hard about this when they respond. The history of the Construction Industry Training Board, as I understand it, has been one of trying to work with the industry as it found it to create the sort of skills and training courses that worked for that industry. Simply bolting on a pan-industry apprenticeship scheme may not be the right solution here. As in the audio-visual industry—where there are very few apprentices because they are not the particular need of that industry—the Government need to be smarter on their feet and better able to respond to the way in which the industry is signalling it wants the money that has been taken out to be paid back in training. The same issue is raised here.

There is much in the report about the need for better industry co-ordination, and the response from industry has already been quite good. The need for measurable targets, for a systematic approach to looking at that and for the publication of results is crucial. I hope there will be more on that. There are good, soft words, but no real direction as to where it is going, and how the Government might use the measurement of these important indicators.

On the second side of that same coin of industry co-ordination, how on earth are we going to educate clients to be better users of the industry in its new formulation? I am sure that everyone in this House has been a client at some stage in a large project in a business capacity, and has realised how difficult it is to try and get the communication, dialogue and debate that will result in a good product. Part of that is because we, as ordinary individuals, come into this so rarely. Because we are not trained for it, we do not have the skills and exercise. This has particular bite in relation to the Government, who are a huge procurer of buildings and spend enormous sums of money every year. Up until recently, the skill set required to run and manage a big project was never present, and rarely bought in. Of course, any learning that did take place was lost because people move quickly on to other jobs and practices. I am glad to hear from senior colleagues in the Civil Service that there have been some very substantial changes in the quality of skills in people brought into the Civil Service to do this work properly. I would be grateful if the Minister could reflect on that when he responds, because it is a necessary condition.

The last thing I want to cover concerns productivity. The issues here have again been well analysed in the report, and—in terms of what it is—the government response is good. But it does not yet provide the answer to the productivity puzzle that we are trying to solve. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said, it may be a question of trying to ensure that waste is reduced; that better value-for-money measures are put in place; and that skills and training are raised. But there needs to be another piece of work done by the Government to try and indicate how they see the productivity puzzle being resolved, and to make sure that all concerned buy into it in a way which will be effective.

My concluding feeling about this report, although it is not an area in which I am in any sense an expert, is that there is enough here to give real hope that we have within our grasp a solution to some of the problems we have been confronting in the construction industry. The Government’s adoption of a presumption in favour of off-site building is a terrific step forward, but it needs to be really pushed and supported. The Government have a role here; they have to look very seriously at the issues that have been raised, and I hope we will get some words from the Minister on that when he comes to respond.

Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, that is most of the story but not all of it. There are other issues that we need to think about if this will be successful—perhaps another committee, perhaps the Government need to go back to this when doing their return. The planning constraints issue is not resolved by the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others. There is an issue about import substitution; why do we have to import so many of the materials used in construction? Why can we not provide better skill sets, better investment and a better approach to try and make things here? The materials which we are using are part of that whole narrative. If they all need to be brought in from outside—even before Brexit—this would be a terrific chance to do more ourselves.

17:33

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, I join with other speakers, particularly those who were not on the committee, in congratulating the committee on its work. I think this is the second report in two months I have had to respond to from the committee run by the noble Lord, Lord Patel—it sometimes feels like the second report in two weeks, but there it is.

As always, I also congratulate the committee on the extraordinary expertise it brings to its work. Those who serve on it are engineers, or from the medical profession or business, but it also has, in my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, an archaeologist. Given that some people have suggested to me that some of the practices in the construction industry have not changed much since the pyramids, it is possibly appropriate that he is there. Those who are not on the committee brought yet further expertise, but for the two generalists who spoke in the debate—me and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, if I may speak for the noble Lord—listening to the contributions and hearing about what is on offer for this industry and what it should be able to achieve in due course has been very educative.

We welcome the committee’s focus on off-site manufacture for construction and the support it has given to these technologies. The report has come out more or less at the same time as the construction sector deal, soon after the publication of our industrial strategy. I will say a little more about that. When I joined the department I briefly had responsibility for construction. I had the opportunity to see for myself the impact of some of these technologies. For example, I heard about what they could do for Crossrail in building some of the underground at Liverpool Street and other sites, off site, and how these technologies can cut delivery time by half, from 67,000 to 27,000 man hours, delivering time, cost and productivity benefits. Also, major construction projects such as that in London deliver benefits to the regions. My understanding was that some of those stations were being built not in London but in the Midlands. Therefore, whenever people talk about infrastructure gains for London and all that cost going to London, they should remember that such construction techniques benefit other parts of the country.

We believe that technologies such as this should be rapidly commercialised and adopted by the sector. That is an objective the Government are fully committed to. It is at the heart of our strategy for the sector, as set out in the construction sector deal, and I will take this opportunity to set out the Government’s approach.

The construction sector is a vital part of the United Kingdom’s economy. It includes product manufacturing and associated professions, and had a turnover of some £370 billion in 2016. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, had some doubts about our figures, but as I say, we are including product manufacturing and associated professions. I will certainly look at his figures, see how they compare with ours and whether we are comparing eggs with eggs. The sector accounts for around 9% of United Kingdom GDP. It also employs 3.1 million people—9% of the UK workforce.

The sector’s outputs underpin the UK economy through providing the buildings and infrastructure that firms use, as well as providing the homes, schools and hospitals that deliver a high quality of life for our people. It is a sector that can and should make a major contribution to economic growth and prosperity, but it obviously faces a number of challenges that are particularly pronounced. These include demographic change. The whole of society is changing, but it is even more marked in this industry: a third of the construction workforce is aged over 50, and those workers will not be replaced by those entering the workforce. As a great many noble Lords have underlined, as has the report, it also has to improve its productivity: McKinsey estimates its rate of improvement as being less than 50% of the whole economy’s. It is even further behind sectors such as manufacturing. We also have to look at training, but I will say a little more about that later.

To deliver the Government’s infrastructure investment plans and achieve that homebuilding aspiration of 300,000 new homes a year will require the construction sector to modernise and become more productive. We believe that the adoption of techniques such as off-site manufacturing is a key to this, as does the Construction Leadership Council and other industry leaders. In passing, let me say how much I welcome remarks such as those by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and others about the Construction Leadership Council. We will continue to work closely with the council to deliver the sector deal. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that he works closely with the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, but it did mean that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, did exactly what he said. I repeat: we will continue to work closely with the council because we do not want to tell it what to do—we want to work closely with and collaborate with it. It is possible that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, wants to take a more Stalinist approach to these things, but I leave that to his discussions with his noble friend.

The advantages of off-site construction are many and have been rehearsed by several noble Lords. They include digital design processes that enable designs to be refined and new materials and products to be incorporated, and improving energy efficiency and building safety performance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made clear. Health and safety is a problem on the average construction site and here is an opportunity to improve it. There is the chance to improve quality and have fewer defects through building components being produced in a controlled environment, rather than on site. Off-site construction is less labour-intensive and produces less waste, thereby improving productivity, as was made clear. There are benefits for training, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, again made clear, as well as advantages for tree planting, which she emphasised. As for import substitution, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that tree planting is great, and we want to see more wood used, but it takes quite a long time before those trees come on stream. Still, there are many trees that we can make use of in this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, brought up the safety of the buildings themselves. There are benefits that could be addressed, and we want to work towards that. I believe that the Government have already taken action to support that transition by working in partnership with industry through the flagship construction sector deal that we published in July 2018. As always with such a deal, as with the industrial strategy as a whole, it is all very well publishing it—it is all about how you deliver it. Noble Lords were right to stress that we want to be kept informed about progress. I can give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that we will be publishing an annual report on progress. I presume that the next report will be published in July 2019: I give that assurance now and I hope we can stick to that target.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, wanted to know how much we are spending. There is joint investment of £420 million in the transforming construction programme, of which £170 million comes from government and the rest from industry, to drive the development and commercialisation of digital and manufacturing technologies in construction. A key investment from that programme will be £72 million in the core innovation hub, a consortium of the Centre for Digital Built Britain—which the noble Lord, Lord Mair, will know of—the Manufacturing Technology Centre and the Building Research Establishment. That £72 million has already gone out and a further £60 million will be available. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mair, welcomed that expenditure on research. A further £60 million will be available for R&D projects in business and research institutions. The first grants in that field will be announced in January next year.

The sector deal also sets out plans to ensure that those working in the industry are trained in the skills that they will need to support the transition to off-site manufacturing. On training, I can give an assurance that we will work closely with the sector to drive an increased investment in skills development, to adopt a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to recruitment and to equip workers with the skills they will need in the future. That will be achieved through a joint commitment to implement the reforms to the Construction Industry Training Board to make it more strategic and industry led and to enable the sector to make the best use of funding from the apprenticeship levy. The sector deal sets out an industry-led target of increasing the number of apprenticeship starts in the sector to 25,000 by 2020. It is currently at 21,000.

I move on to the question of presumption, particularly the presumption in favour, which was raised by many noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Borwick started off with a certain number of strictures about what the Government were going to do. I will certainly take note of that and pass on those comments, particularly in relation to planning, to colleagues in other departments. He was the first noble Lord to talk about procurement, the work of Government in procurement and the presumption that they would be in favour of using off-site construction. We are taking steps to improve cost effectiveness. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, made clear, in the 2017 Budget the Government agreed that presumption in favour of off-site manufacturing with five departments: the departments for transport, health, education, justice and defence. I would hope, since I think they were mentioned by another noble Lord, that departments such as the Department for International Development will also take that on board, but that will be a matter for them. The important matter is that we have that presumption in favour.

The noble Lord, Lord Mair, asked what teeth there were in that presumption. My noble friend Lady Neville-Jones asked what this presumption meant and how we would ensure it could develop. The presumption means that the five departments will, at every business-case level, test whether the use of these techniques is an option. It also means that, by including off-site in the early stages of planning, the right environment will be created for off-site techniques to succeed. By doing this we will challenge the cultural bias towards traditional construction and send a strong signal to the supply chain that they need to build their capacity and capability.

The presumption is only one part of a wider range of long-term initiatives to increase innovation and productivity in the sector. To help deliver the presumption, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has set up a cross-departmental working group which has started developing a library of standardised components, building the capability of procuring departments and leveraging the Government’s purchasing power by aggregating demand from multiple departments. I hope that that will make a difference but I can add that the Government have issued a call for evidence on the implementation of the presumption to use off-site manufacturing, which will enable all stakeholders to contribute to the development of the presumption. Other issues will be considered in the light of the responses that we receive.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

In the example that my noble friend has just given, in any competition where there is more than one potential supplier and one of them offers a much higher degree of commitment to off-site manufacturing, will the Government choose that contract even if it is more expensive—not outrageously more expensive, but potentially more expensive than something more traditional?

[Lord Henley]

I am not going to give any guarantee, if that example was in a competition, but I will certainly pass it on to colleagues as a matter to consider in such an eventuality. I was trying to stress what the presumption was, what it meant and how we will make use of it.

I also give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that we will continue to work with local authorities and housing associations to ensure that they take these matters on board. I hope that he will be content with the words I use about “working with” and consider that that is the right way to go about it.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. If I may make a pun, it has been genuinely constructive. I think I am the first one to make that pun, which rather surprises me given the 12 speakers, but there it was. It has been constructive, but I hope that the Government have also given sufficient assurances that we wish to be constructive in this. We believe that our commitment to the technologies in this field is one that we can be proud of.

17:52

[Lord Patel]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, as I thank the noble Lords who spoke from the Front Benches opposite. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, took both sides: as a committee member and as a Front-Bench speaker. I thank all noble Lords who took part, particularly those who are not on the committee. Their expertise was obvious. Science and Technology Committee reports often end up being debated by just the committee so it is nice to see that, on this report and the report hitherto, the debate has been joined by other Members of the House.

I come to the response from the Minister. Yes, he gave us a lot of reassurances. That is good. He also indicated one or two other developments that are occurring. That is also good to know. Some of us might have felt that we were probably looking for real and tangible commitments from the Government, rather than reassurances. However, I am encouraged that the report to be published in a year’s time will address all the issues that were highlighted, and I am glad that the Minister at least felt that the debate and the report were constructive in taking forward the issues of off-site construction and the presumption in favour, which was one of our key recommendations. It is good to know that the five government departments will now have to take this forward but I hope we will hear from the Government more commitment to driving this agenda forward if that does not happen, and how that will be done. I thank the Minister, but if he could give further reassurance on a more real commitment in a letter we would welcome it. Again, I thank the Minister and all noble Lords for the debate.

Motion agreed.

Royal Academy of Arts: 250th Anniversary

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

17:54

Asked by

[Lord Cormack]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the founding of the Royal Academy of Arts, and the contribution made by the Academy to the artistic and cultural life of the country.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I have one thing in common: we can both go to bed tonight secure in the knowledge that we will between us have commanded the headlines tomorrow.

It has been a very frustrating period for me recently because I have had to follow what has been going on in your Lordships’ House and in another place from a hospital room. I am delighted to be back and able to introduce a debate, the keynote of which I think can be complete and enthusiastic unanimity. What I seek to do this evening is to draw attention to one of our truly great national institutions as it comes towards the end of a very special year in its history.

The Royal Academy is celebrating 250 years of remarkable contribution to our national life. There is not a Member in your Lordships’ House, nor indeed in the other place, who does not have some cause to be thankful for what the Royal Academy has done in upholding standards, giving opportunities, providing education and providing real continuity through a period from the reign of George III to the reign of Elizabeth II. There are many in your Lordships’ House—I think my noble friend Lord Crathorne will touch on this in more detail later—who have cause to be thankful because when I, together with the late Andrew Faulds, founded the all-party arts and heritage group way back in 1974, one of the very first institutions we visited was the Royal Academy, and we have been welcome ever since. I do not think a single year has gone by without at least a couple of visits to remarkable exhibitions.

The Royal Academy is unique—I use the word properly—in that it is an institution that is run by artists, sculptors and architects for artists, sculptors and architects, and is an institution that has provided stimulus, training and education of the highest order. Its first president was, of course, the great Sir Joshua Reynolds. It all came about because just over 250 years ago the architect William Chambers took a deputation to wait upon the king with a petition signed by some 40-odd artists asking for this institution to be established, and it was. During the 19th century, some of our greatest artists were trained in its schools, including Constable, Turner, Soane and Lawrence. The list is endless and illustrious and it has brought enormous benefit to our nation as a result.

The Royal Academy began not in Burlington House, where it is now, but in Somerset House, which was designed for it. It has provided a series of exhibitions which have stimulated the intellectual life of the nation in a very remarkable way. Of course we all know the summer exhibitions, and this year not only was there an extra large summer exhibition, but there was also an exhibition which displayed some of the treasures that had appeared in exhibitions from 1768 onwards. We know the Royal Academy not just for the summer exhibitions but for the other wonderful exhibitions. It has been a showcase for art of the highest international calibre. I could spend the whole evening, not just the few minutes allocated to me, talking about these things, but I shall just highlight perhaps the first of the great international exhibitions, the Italian exhibition of 1930, which was not without controversy because its most notable visitor was Mussolini. It was, however, an extraordinary exhibition, bringing together works by Donatello, Raphael and all the great Italian artists of the Renaissance. Just five years later, there was a truly remarkable Chinese exhibition.

One could go on and on, but I just want to talk about this year, because at the beginning of this year, we had something quite amazing: the recreation of much of the greatest of the royal collections, the collection of Charles I. Many of those great pictures were dispersed during that period of philistinism, which we know as the Commonwealth and Protectorate. Because of the generosity of loaners and the ingenuity of scholars, however, earlier this year the Charles I exhibition brought together so many of the things that that great connoisseur had collected. It is interesting that Charles I and George IV, who had varying reputations, nevertheless were among the greatest collectors that this country has ever known.

One of the stars of the exhibition earlier this year was that wonderful triple portrait of Charles I by van Dyck, done by the artist for Bernini to create a sculpture, which sadly perished in the fire at Whitehall Palace at the end of the 17th century. I have a particular interest in the triple portrait because I was able to borrow it last year for an exhibition that I arranged in Lincoln. This year we had it in the Royal Academy and it was a link between the two royal collectors, because although it was, of course, painted for Charles I, it was George IV as Prince Regent who rescued it when he went on a buying expedition to Rome in the early years of the 19th century. At the moment there is a very different but spectacular exhibition “Oceania”. Any of your Lordships who have not seen it should certainly go before it closes.

This year, we have seen a fantastic expansion of the Royal Academy to include the Burlington Gardens buildings. They have been visited since May by a million people. That is really quite a remarkable statistic. Again, if your Lordships have not been there, I hope you will go because they have made use of these new galleries and exhibition spaces to display such things as the very best possible and near-contemporary copy of Leonardo da Vinci’s “Last Supper”. Hie thee there if you have not been already.

Of course, all this has been done during the presidency of Christopher Le Brun, a painter—it is very apposite that it should be a painter who is the president this year—and the tenure of Sir Charles Saumarez Smith, who still rejoices in the name of “secretary”. They have added on the words “chief executive”, but I like organisations that still have, as their chief officer, a secretary. He has been a brilliant one and is retiring at the end of this year, justifiably having been knighted, with the thanks of all of those who have regard for the centrality of the Royal Academy as a marvellous institution.

All this has been achieved without government funding. No Governments of any persuasion have provided funding for the Royal Academy. It has been fortunate in receiving legacies and great donations, but it has been industrious in raising money itself. It does, however, benefit from two government contributions. First, no exhibition of great note can be held anywhere these days without government indemnity, and the academy has been a great beneficiary there. Secondly, it has the security of a 999-year lease on a peppercorn rent.

That is wonderful but draws a sharp contrast. As a fellow of one of the learned societies in the courtyard of Burlington House—I am an antiquary, but there are the astronomers, geologists, chemists and Linnaeans —we all have our premises on 10-year renewable leases. It would be a wonderful way to put the crown on the year of celebration if we could be given a degree of parity with the Royal Academy. I just sow the seed and hope that my noble friend will pass it to those who may be in a position to nurture it.

What of the future? I fear I must utter the awful word “Brexit”, because the secretary has indicated to me that there is real concern about the future of the schools and European participation in them after 29 March—or after the transition period. It is important that we take this on board because, as we leave the European Union, we must recognise that some of our greatest national jewels are our great educational and artistic institutions, of which the Royal Academy is one and the courtyard societies are others. It would also help the academy very much if the catalyst scheme of the Heritage Lottery Fund, whereby grants were given to match individual donation, could be reintroduced.

I end as I began—I am told that because of the small number of speakers, to all of whom I am extremely grateful, I can have a couple of minutes of injury time, which is very appropriate having just come out of hospital. The academy is worthy of celebration and applause by all of us and I very much hope that as it moves into its 251st year, it can look forward to a 300th anniversary of equal splendour.

18:07

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, in another place, in 1970, I listened to the fine maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He has kept up that standard over these 48 years. I thank him for obtaining the debate and leading it persuasively tonight. He has been an exemplary stalwart for the arts, culture and heritage in our two Houses.

It is a great privilege to be here at the heart of the British state. Our great sovereign is just down the Mall, the Commons Speaker and the Lord Chancellor are just down the Corridor. Across the road is the Lord Chief Justice in the Supreme Court and the abbey, with its mighty national history and attendant Prelates. The Prime Minister is in Downing Street and the Chief of the Defence Staff is in his Whitehall bunker.

I should like to think that the academy is also part of the warp and woof of our British state. It has earned such a place and, if they were here, notwithstanding their rivalries and disputatious natures, I guess that PRAs Joshua Reynolds, Mr Constable and the great JMW Turner would agree. I think they would like that. The RA can be inspirational and is a great institution.

I have held my Royal Academy friends card for 35 years or more, and have my Tate—Britain, Modern and Liverpool—pass and my National Art pass as well. I greatly appreciated the landmark exhibition of the RA entitled “British Art in the 20th Century”. That was a 1987 exhibition but I found it stimulating and startling. It was highly controversial as far as the art critics were concerned. I recollect the names of Shepherd, Graham-Dixon and Spurling; and Feaver crashed in heavily with his reporting on what had been selected and where it was hung.

This year, we have been greatly connected with the First World War and, four years ago, with its beginnings. From an exhibition that year, I remember to this day Mark Gertler’s terrifying “Merry-Go-Round”, which depicts soldiers and civilians screaming in a kind of pain. It was an instant success; a hit. I recollect CRW Nevinson’s depiction in black, white and grey of a company of soldiers resting; he portrayed the sheer exhaustion of the company of men and, understandably, their no little apprehension. I also recollect Sickert, who depicted Pierrot on Brighton promenade. Interestingly, many of the deckchairs in that painting are empty; the artist is making a point about casualties, and given the wind conditions, you could hear the great guns across the Channel.

In the same exhibition, Paul Nash’s depiction of a sea made up of broken aircraft fuselages is a powerful Second World War image. Another, which I found particularly interesting and rather sad, was Rodrigo Moynihan’s 1943 painting, “Medical Inspection”. A doctor is seated at a table with a group of men with naked torsos who are—I would not say starving, but of poor physique. They are the common man put into uniform, now having taken much of it off and waiting to be inspected. It is a powerful image and in some respects still relates to British society. I also mention Gwen John—is she better than her bombastic brother? In contrast to the images of war, I point out her painting “The Convalescent”, a sad depiction in a gentle, rather weak, palette.

Another great exhibition, bringing great credit to the Royal Academy, was that of Frans Hals. He might have liked Henry Ford, who told us, “You can have any colour you want so long as it is black”. Hals had his black as well: “Regentesses of the Old Men’s Alms House” is a depiction of five elderly ladies—distinguished, prosperous ladies—waiting for death. The catalogue, which I still have, depicts an enlarged hand; we in your Lordships’ House may recognise what is not a youthful hand. Hals was a remarkable man who threw the paint around, but in this instance he was very specific.

I am an enthusiast, not an expert, but I recommend consideration of Poussin. In a great exhibition of his work, there were enormous canvasses from the Louvre. The one that caught my eye, in the biggest gallery, was “The Holy Family on the Steps”. It demonstrates his remarkable palette and how he masters geometry and perspective with no little subtlety; he was a classical painter. He had a truly memorable self-portrait: very powerful, very vain and very assured.

One of the great exhibitions in terms of popularity was very recent—the Hockney. I have never known an exhibition so crowded, and going down the steps into the reception area, what did you hear? It was pleasure. People were thrilled to be there. I remember, however, one very sniffy Daily Telegraph critic who said that Hockney had been a theatre painter. I think that was his way of dismissing Hockney. But surely his Lincolnshire wolds—his depictions of the farmed landscape and those beautiful green trees—have to be admired greatly.

There has been no little controversy at the Royal Academy. One of the great controversies involved a reference to the Moors murders: a large portrait made by the hands of children created a great deal of controversy. But, that is art. I dare say some remember the dinner the Academy gave for the great Sir Winston Churchill, at which the then-president Sir Alfred Munnings laid into modern art. It was not well received at all, but you cannot take from Munnings the credit for his equine portraits. I try to assess as a humble enthusiast.

The Academy places artistic genius before us. It celebrates and encourages British art and culture. Perhaps we are somewhat elitist when we are thronging the galleries of the RA, but one does see parties of children, and there is the trickle-down effect. However, it is expensive. I went to the NPG to see those lovely Gainsborough portraits, and it cost £16. You are not going to travel from Bolton to spend that—and how do you get from Bolton to the NPG? My point is that there is the trickle-down effect, but travel is very costly. In many ways the RA is metropolitan par excellence. I do not see how it could be otherwise. But when you go to such exhibitions now, you hear the voices of people from Europe. Whether that is the consequence of the Channel Tunnel, I am not sure, but it is cosmopolitan, international and successful, and I very much support the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

18:18

[Lord Luce (CB)]

My Lords, it is really most refreshing to take part in a debate where it is almost impossible to disagree with any of the other speakers. I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and listen to him talk about his love of the arts and all the exhibitions he has witnessed. I agree entirely with him that we are talking about a national centre of excellence. In particular I must thank my noble friend Lord Cormack, for that is what he is, for leading this debate of celebration. We are not celebrating a great deal nowadays, but it is a celebration of a remarkable 250 years of history of a great art centre.

I ought to declare an interest as an emeritus trustee. The merits of being an emeritus trustee, of course, is that I have the privilege of being associated with the Royal Academy but with no responsibility whatever. That is a very enjoyable thing to have, and a great luxury. For a moment I want to join my noble friend Lord Cormack, and others, in standing back and just looking at this extraordinary achievement in this national gallery. It is something to celebrate at a time when we as a country are very divided and introspective. This is a really positive achievement to celebrate. As I said, it is a truly national centre of excellence—one that can be enjoyed by all 100,000 friends from all over the country. Throughout those 250 years, it has had the support of monarchs from King George III to Queen Elizabeth II, with the founding principle of promoting the creation, enjoyment and appreciation of visual arts and architecture. It is a national focus for those things. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said, it is in a unique position in the arts world as a centre for artists, sculptors, architects and printmakers.

As we have heard, the last year has seen the most impressive redevelopment that I think the Piccadilly building has ever had, remembering the move from Somerset House to, eventually, Piccadilly in the 19th century. The linking of Burlington House with Burlington Gardens has been quite remarkable. I walked around it again yesterday morning to get myself up to date. To have created 70% extra space in that joint building under the leadership of the architect Sir David Chipperfield has been miraculous, and the range of facilities is also very special. For example, yesterday I saw the remarkable Renzo Piano architecture exhibition in one of the new rooms. There is also the new Benjamin West Lecture Theatre, where I recently heard Sir David Cannadine give a brilliant lecture on Sir Winston Churchill’s qualities as a painter. The variety of learning to be had at the Royal Academy is quite remarkable.

I want to reinforce the remarks that have been made about funding. For five years I had the privilege of being Arts Minister, and here I ought to say that I owe a great deal to my noble friend Lord Cormack for the advice and support that he gave me at that time. During that period I paid my first visit as a Minister to the Royal Academy. Having, for my first several months, been besieged by everyone all over the country for taxpayer support, it was quite extraordinary to arrive at the Royal Academy and to be told that the whole institution was being run without a single penny of taxpayer support, bar of course the indirect support that my noble friend Lord Cormack mentioned of the peppercorn rent and the indemnity for exhibitions. You would expect a Rolls-Royce arts centre to find it easier to raise money from the private sector; nevertheless, to me, it was a remarkable story.

There is a lesson to be learned too from the Royal Academy’s recent achievement of getting nearly £13 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said, there was challenge funding in the past, and I am a great believer in that. In my time as Minister, I was able to prove to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that for every £1 of taxpayers’ money, you could get £5 from the private sector in various ways. That led him to give more taxpayer support to the arts. However, it is the variety of funding that matters. There is the commercial aspect and there are the donations of course—it is a charitable institution—but it was Sir Hugh Casson who, in the 1970s, started Friends of the Royal Academy. There are 100,000 friends from all over the country, which makes it a national institution. All of us take part in it and are interested in it, and we join in the activities.

We have heard all about the significant loan exhibitions of Italian and Chinese art, David Hockney’s art and the exhibition of Charles I’s paintings this year. Unfortunately, “Oceania” has just closed but I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack that it was the most remarkable and highly imaginative exhibition. Very few of us know much about the history of the Pacific Ocean, such as that it has 20,000 islands, but the portrayal of its arts was quite special.

The art school is singularly important. Of course, the Royal Academy provided the first art school 250 years ago—we have heard of all the distinguished artists who have learned there. It is the only three-year postgraduate art course in Europe that is free—for the student, not for the Royal Academy, which supports the school.

I like the story in which the president at the time, Benjamin West, gives Constable encouragement. His painting had just been rejected for display in the academy, and Benjamin West said:

“Don’t be disheartened young man, we shall hear more of you again; you must have loved nature before you could have painted this”.


So there is encouragement for us all—not that I claim to be a Constable. I think that is a wonderful story.

The final thing I will touch on is the uniqueness of the governance system in this institution and its outstanding leadership. The 13-strong Council of Academicians, under the leadership of the president, sets the direction and strategy. I join the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in praising Christopher Le Brun, who has been an outstanding president. Then there is the chief executive or secretary—a good historical description of Sir Charles Saumarez Smith’s job, which has been to direct the work and the implementation of that strategy. He is retiring, of course, and we all wish him well. The chairman of the Royal Academy Development Trust, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Abersoch, is retiring at the same time. He has done an exceptional job of helping to raise funds. Finally, I mention the Burlington appeal board, chaired by Sir Richard Carew Pole, who has worked tirelessly to raise money for the Royal Academy. They have all been outstanding leaders, but without its dedicated staff the place would not have managed such a great achievement. We have a great deal to celebrate on this 250th anniversary. It is an institution that can give great encouragement to the rest of the arts world.

18:27

[Lord Crathorne (Con)]

It is so nice to take part in such a happy occasion. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for winning this debate and making it possible. We are congratulating the Royal Academy, a remarkable institution, on its first 250 years. I would love to talk a little about the Arts and Heritage Group, which was founded by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, in 1974. As he said, one of its first visits was to the Royal Academy, and we have visited every year since. The wonderful secretary, Charles Saumarez Smith, always welcomes us in the morning, and the curator of each show kindly introduces the exhibition, which greatly adds to our knowledge and pleasure. The group has visited the RA on average twice a year over the last 10 years, and has enjoyed some amazing exhibitions.

It was a triumph to get back all the items that Charles I originally purchased and which were then dispersed. It has just won the Apollo Exhibition of the Year award. There were two wonderful Hockney exhibitions in 2012 and 2016; the one in 2012 was the most visited show that year.

In the past 10 years, we have also been to some of the other exhibitions that the Academy has organised, including Van Gogh, Monet and Rubens, and lovely shows such as the modern garden exhibition, which was full of beautiful pictures. We went to an amazing exhibition called “Bronze”. I was so impressed by the enormous bronzes, and I remember thinking of the difficulties involved in bringing it all together—it was quite extraordinary.

Mention has been made of the annual summer exhibition, which has been held every year for the past 250 years. Alongside the 80 academicians—it is worth mentioning that one-third of them are women—who are allowed to put in six pictures, anyone else in the country, or indeed anywhere else, can enter pictures if they wish to. Every year, there are literally thousands of entries from professional and amateur artists. It is a great show, which I always thoroughly enjoy. The selection panel has quite a difficult job. This year, 300,000 people came, which is more than had visited any of the exhibitions since 1907.

My mother exhibited several times in the summer exhibition. With so many pictures to fit in, some have to be hung quite high up, and people like to be hung “on the line”—in other words, at eye level. One of my mother’s paintings was of a model called Zelda. My father received a telegram from my mother which simply said, “Zelda hung on the line”. It was delivered by a policeman, who demanded an explanation.

Another great contribution by the Royal Academy has been its school, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, which now offers a degree course. I always enjoyed visiting the degree shows, trying to spot new talent. In 1971, I was greatly impressed by a student’s work, and I have kept in touch with her ever since. She works very slowly and so has a small output of lovely works. I am glad to say that two of her best works are now in the House of Lords collection, and one is reproduced in the guide to the Palace of Westminster. Her name is Diane Ibbotson. A few years ago, I and the academician Anthony Green, who admired her work, persuaded her to enter a picture to the summer exhibition. It was voted the people’s choice, which was very satisfactory.

The Academy collections are themselves superb. The first gift was from the president, Sir Joshua Reynolds, of his fine and famous self-portrait. The pride of the collection is Michelangelo’s Tondo of 1504, “The Virgin and Child with the Infant St John”—the only marble by Michelangelo in England. It is now on fine display in the new collections gallery, which opened in May this year. As has been mentioned, this gallery has been a major development that has added massively to what the Royal Academy can do and show. Visitors can now walk from Burlington House through these newly opened spaces to Burlington Gardens. It has been a brilliantly successful project, masterminded by Charles Saumarez Smith. It is his lasting legacy, as he leaves the Royal Academy at the end of the month for pastures new.

I end with a big thank you to Charles—now Sir Charles, happily—and the Royal Academy for what, over 250 years, it has given this country for the great benefit of all of us.

18:34

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I express my warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, not just on the superb timing of this debate but on the way in which he introduced this interesting discussion this evening. To avoid repetition of much more erudite and artistically skilled contributors, as an amateur historian I will concentrate on the history—not least because my great-great-great-grandfather was Sir William Chambers. So I want to look at how the Royal Academy came into being. As Members of your Lordships’ House may like to be reminded, Chambers was appointed architectural tutor to the then Prince of Wales in August 1757. The prince became an accomplished architectural draughtsman himself—but, more significantly for this debate, he also became a lifelong admirer and sponsor of his erstwhile tutor.

After 1760, when George ascended to the throne, Chambers enjoyed increasing royal patronage, and the commissions of many of those he encountered at court. As a result his work was wide-ranging, from the design of the state coach for the coronation to the pagoda in Kew Gardens—and of course Somerset House itself. Despite some previous controversy over the abortive “Incorporated Society”, which left the King very dubious about any connection with a new society of artists, Chambers used his special access and influence with him to good effect in November 1768.

The part that Chambers played in those speedy events was acknowledged in the minutes of the general assembly of the Royal Academy that December, as follows:

“That some time towards the latter End of November 1768, Mr Chambers waited upon the King and informed him that many artists of reputation together with himself were very desirous of establishing a Society that should more effectually promote the Arts of Design than any yet established, but that they were sensible their Designs could not be carried into Execution without his majesty’s Patronage, for which they had prevailed upon him to solicit”.


A later minute thanked Chambers,

“for his Active and able Conduct in planning and forming the Royal Academy”.

By 7 December 1768 Chambers was able to take the Instrument of Foundation to the King for his signature and, as we have heard, on 14 December, in Dalton’s Warehouse in Pall Mall, the new Royal Academy held its first meeting and Joshua Reynolds was elected president. Significantly, Chambers was insistent that a painter should be president—although the King had entertained a prejudice against Reynolds—and himself opted to accept the post of treasurer.

Indeed, Chambers drafted the Instrument of Foundation to give the King the prerogative to appoint the treasurer, so that,

“he may have a person in whom he places full confidence, in an office where his interests is concerned”.

A contemporary noted that Reynolds had told him,

“that though he was President, Sir Wm was Viceroy over him”.

In short, it can safely be suggested that Chambers ensured that the new Academy was able to boast the title “Royal” from the very outset. That would also seem to be the conclusion of John Harris, the prime authority on Chambers, with whom I had the great pleasure of working during my time at the RIBA. I am hugely indebted to his scholarship for much of what I know of Chambers and his role in this saga.

As one of the founding fathers of the RA, Chambers can share credit for its initial open attitude to new members. As the excellent Library briefing that we have received for this debate reminds us, of the 36 founding members, four were Italian, one French, one Swiss and one American.

Even more significantly, there were two women founder members. I was especially interested in an item on “Woman’s Hour” last week about those two—Angelica Kauffman and Mary Moser. The programme gave a fascinating description of some of the work of Kauffman, but the contributors admitted that Moser had not had enough attention—so I am going to remedy that just a little.

When we can escape from more contemporary absurdities, my daughter and I are currently examining some of our distinguished ancestor’s personal correspondence in the wonderful archives of the Royal Academy. Some of it we donated ourselves, but the archivist, Mark Pomeroy, and his magnificent team have also made available a great deal more.

Among the former is a delightful letter from Chambers to his favourite daughter Charlotte—our ancestor—written when Mary Moser was staying with the family in the summer of August 1784, in which he reported that Mary had been,

“swimming about ever since you left us til within these four days that she has taken with a strong fit of painting, of which the symptoms set all the family in an uproar; Lindgren flew into long Acre for oils and paints; Thomas to St Giles for pallets and brushes; T to Twickenham for straining frame; Miss Moser, George and the buggy, to Richmond in quest of an ivory knife; My Lady & Lavinia in the Coach to Brentford, in search of blew black; but alas no blew black to be found, and soot supplyd its place. The next difficulty was to find a proper painting room, when fortunately for the furniture of the house, the dark garret which holds the smoked bacon was declared to be the finest light in the world for painting. Miss Moser instantly took possession, converted an Old bed-stead into an easle to paint on, and has remained there ever since hard at work in the midst of Poppys, roses, Carnations, myrtle etc. She does not even come down to dinner, but abstains from everything but stewed pruens all the while she paints”.

Mary Moser was clearly a talented artist but also quite a character and I hope that someone will write something more about her contribution to the early days of the Royal Academy.

I do not know whether Chambers was responsible for nominating her, and perhaps Kauffman as well. However, both came from famous artistic families. What I find most fascinating about their founding membership was that there were no other women members, according to the brief from the Library, for 168 years. So Chambers and his colleagues in the age of enlightenment were a great deal more open minded than their Victorian successors. One up to Chambers and his colleagues.

As a footnote to the question of his connection with the King and the Royal Household, I offer one other scrap of evidence from some of the correspondence that I and my family could not quite bring ourselves to leave with the RA. Sir William wrote to his son-in-law, Captain Charles Haward of the 3rd Foot Guards, as follows:

“Dear Capt


Having had occasion to use the Water Closet after you had been there I found that you spoilt it by throwing down such large pieces of paper as will not pass by and by not knowing how to manage it”—


I shall discreetly omit the full details and the elaborate instructions that follow, but the bit at the end is important. It states that,

“if you should find any difficulty in performing the above manoeuvre, I will send for the King’s Sergeant Plumber to be present at two or three operations”.

If any doubts remain in the minds of your Lordships, surely this is abundant evidence of Sir William’s influence in royal circles and his key role in establishing the Royal Academy in such a prestigious position in our national life from its very birth.

I am sad that the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, is not able to be with us—I am sure we all send our best wishes to him and his daughter—but it is a happy accident that the noble Earl is with us, because he has been a member of the Royal Household in his official technical title since 2015. I think that he will be able to confirm that being in that particular connection is important, as it clearly was in 1768.

Finally, as perhaps befits this particular evening, I turn to the issue of leadership—of the Royal Academy, of course: nothing else. The Library briefing illustrates so well the effective leadership, partnership, between Chambers and Reynolds at the outset of the foundation of this remarkable institution. Whether they were already close friends, I do not know; it is not terribly apparent. Reynolds painted Chambers’ portrait—it is there in the Library brief—and a very good portrait it is; I wish I owned it. In addition to that, Chambers designed a home for Reynolds. The important point is that they worked so well together.

As has already been said, there are two remarkable individuals at the moment, working in a real partnership, who have carried the Royal Academy through its 250th year with huge success—not by any means sitting back on its laurels but looking firmly to the future. The president and the secretary should be congratulated on the positive path they are charting for the immediate future. This, again, is brilliantly set out in the documents from the Library.

As a regular visitor to Burlington House and now to Burlington Gardens—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Luce, about the success of that architectural combination—I am enormously appreciative of what that amazing organisation has provided for the nation. The Royal Academy is not satisfied by what has happened before—it is not resting on its laurels, even for this anniversary—and is obviously determined to detain its leadership role in the culture of our country. I am sure that all your Lordships wish the Academy a very happy birthday and very best wishes for the future.

18:44

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to add my voice—a rather different one from those which preceded me—to this debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who is assiduous in the way he keeps matters of this kind before us and demands our attention on them. I will certainly end my remarks by wishing the Royal Academy many happy returns, but having heard that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has just come out of hospital, I want to wish him happy returns as well. It is very nice to see him here today.

I do not consider myself a philistine—I have visited galleries in Paris, Haiti, St Petersburg, Washington and I do not know where else—but I have never set foot in the Royal Academy so, as I say, I will express a different point of view. To say something constructive, I glory in the fact that an institution of this kind not only exhibits art—we have heard about the summer exhibition—but works as a true academy to promote the appreciation of art and the practice of creating it. It seems important to note that, as well as painters, it includes sculptors, architects and printmakers among its membership, since art is not just painterly skills.

I wanted to be a little better prepared than the fact I have never been to the Royal Academy would suggest, so I did what modern people do: I went on to the website, and found some one, two or three-minute YouTube pieces. I could give a long list, but I particularly enjoyed the little presentation of the “Oceania” exhibition. I have been to Fiji and the South Pacific and saw a lot of native art in situ there. Those pictures were extraordinary in bringing concepts, shapes, colours, contours and experiences into quite a different configuration, challenging us western people and our rather predictable cultural inclinations. Then there was Klimt and Vienna at the end of the 19th century. What a time in Vienna that was; Klimt in particular captured something of its decadence and aesthetics. That video was just one and a half minutes; I could quite easily dilate for more than 10 minutes on it, but I am sure the Minister would not appreciate me doing so.

Then there was Millais and the Pre-Raphaelites—I am very fond of their work—and a very insightful description of what Pre-Raphaelitism sought to achieve. “America after the Fall”—including the painting of those rather po-faced people with a pitchfork, looking the way many people must have felt in the 1930s—indicated how the rural parts of the United States of America are as primitive now as they were when they came into existence in the 18th century, just a few years after the Royal Academy itself. Then there was the video showing Reynolds and Gainsborough in contradistinction. I will make my debut at the Royal Academy when I go to see Bill Viola and Michelangelo’s “Life Death Rebirth”, which seems to capture something I am interested in.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned the composition of the first academicians in 1768. At a time when we are thinking of leaving Europe, it is not a bad thing to be reminded of Italy, Switzerland, Ireland, France and Germany, which all contributed to the original membership. How can art be insular? How can art exist in a vacuum? It cannot. The Royal Academy, which is quintessentially British, was set up to show that not only could France have institutions of this kind, but we could. However, by recognising the riches that came from a wider creative body, this was never done in an insular or inward-looking way. Creative activity knows no borders.

Once upon a time, not long before I took on these duties, I had what in a card game would be called a royal flush. Nobody else has ever done it. I preached, week by week, from John Wesley’s pulpit; I had a canon’s stall at St Paul’s Cathedral; and I sat on these red Benches in your Lordships’ House. If the Royal Academy is unique, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, says, then so am I.

Let me indicate for a moment how these three locales in my own personal history threw up an awareness of the Royal Academy, which I admit I have never visited. The architect who built Wesley’s Chapel was George Dance the Younger. He was one of the original 40 members in 1768. Is that not something? From my bedroom window on City Road, when the leaves—as now—were off the trees, I could just see the grave of William Blake. I am a poetry man—words are my metier—but Blake was an artist too, and a considerable number of his pieces are in the possession of the Royal Academy. He did all of his training—1779 to 1785—at the Royal Academy. I take great delight in that, as well as in his riposte to Joshua Reynolds, who has been highly spoken of by others but who did not command that degree of respect from William Blake. Reynolds wrote:

“The disposition to abstractions, to generalizing and classification, is the great glory of the human mind”,


to which Blake responded:

“To generalize is to be an idiot; to particularize is the alone distinction of merit”.


I go with Blake on that one.

Also at Wesley’s Chapel we have all the stained-glass windows and the finest collection of paintings by Frank Salisbury. He is now out of fashion, but he painted 25 portraits of the House of Windsor, more portraits of Winston Churchill than any other artist, the first portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, and endless numbers of American presidents vying to get into the same kind of frame as our royal family. Frank Salisbury was a student at the Royal Academy. I have had occasion to know and deal with his family. That is Wesley’s Chapel and the Royal Academy.

As for St Paul’s Cathedral, when sitting there listening to Anglican sermons—which I can tell you are not usually as vigorous as Methodist ones—I have had occasion to look around to be inspired by what I see around me. For example, the spandrels of the four evangelists painted by royal academician George Frederic Watts were quite splendid up there, reminding me that, whatever the sermon is doing with the scriptures, the artist has probably got it more accurately and inspiringly. Watts said:

“I paint ideas, not things”.


Then there are those three bowls in the eastern end of St Paul’s Cathedral; the vaults over the quire by William Blake Richmond, again of the Royal Academy; and Byzantine-style mosaics, pieces of glass set not flat on each other but rigorously against each other to catch the light, rough and sparkling—they are truly remarkable, 12 tonnes of cement and 6,750,000 little tesserae of glass. Think of that—we could rather do with that when refurbishing this place. Then there are the red Benches. Sir Charles Barry had shown his paintings in the summer exhibition while still a teenager, and had a great affection for the place for ever after.

The Royal Academy is undoubtedly a place of great distinction, and a great national monument. It is something of which we should all be proud, and anyone who has never set foot in it should be thoroughly ashamed of himself, as indeed I am right now. But, having wished the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, a happy return—it is good to see him back—I want to ask the Government one searching question, which is in the Motion we are supposed be debating: what plans do the Government have to celebrate the 250th anniversary? I am waiting for it. To the Royal Academy I say: ad multos annos. Enjoy yourselves for another quarter of a millennium.

18:55

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I too thank my noble friend Lord Cormack for securing this debate. It has been fascinating, with a journey through various Royal Academy exhibitions given by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, and my noble friend Lord Crathorne. We have been given a fascinating history of the early days of the Royal Academy from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who mentioned the connections with the Royal Household and beyond. I add that my ancestor was also Captain of the Queen’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard just 60 years after the formation of the Royal Academy.

To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, while the Government do not directly have any plans to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Royal Academy of Arts, I believe that it is right, as noble Lords have said, to recognise the academy’s outstanding work and the continuous contribution it has made to our national cultural landscape. Moreover, organisations that we at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport sponsor as arm’s-length bodies have made some impressive contributions to the celebrations. This year, the National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery and the V&A have exhibited work alongside the Royal Academy.

The opportunity to celebrate 250 years of a cultural institution, as mentioned by all noble Lords, is a special one, and there are few that are older. It is unique, too, given the significant impact the Royal Academy has had on society, within both the artistic world and our wider culture. It is a feat for an institution such as the Royal Academy to endure two and a half centuries of change, to weather significant cultural shifts, and to retain and continue to build an engaged audience of art lovers.

Many noble Lords may be familiar with the original intentions of the Royal Academy—to form a society that promoted the art of design. In doing so, it is fair to say that the academicians became arbiters of artistic quality at the time. This is most recognisable through the inimitable summer exhibitions mentioned by many noble Lords, which continue to this day. It cannot be overstated how the Royal Academy influenced the academic practice of art through its school, but also pioneered the notion of public access to culture. But the Royal Academy’s role in the cultural canon has shifted considerably since 1768.

Artists and cultural innovators have always been at the forefront of significant societal change. Arts can offer comfort and bring people together at times of hardship, as noble Lords have said. The Royal Academy remained open throughout both World Wars, proving that art can continue to hold society up through times of adversity.

If we were able to ask the hundreds of thousands of artists who have submitted work for the open competition for the summer exhibition, I have no doubt that they would share with your Lordships a time in their childhood where their creativity was stoked. The Royal Academy’s families programme is a shining example of cultural education, with free events that bring children of all ages into the institution directly. It is vital to communicate that young people are not just welcome but belong in a building with such a rich but at times exclusive history. Now the Royal Academy opens its doors and urges children to explore the possibilities within. I cannot imagine the same approach in 1768, but our understanding of what public access means has transformed completely over 250 years, and so has the Royal Academy.

We must ensure that arts and culture are open to everybody. There are barriers, not just for young people but for a cross-section of society that may not recognise the arts as a place where they belong. This has to change. The Royal Academy’s work to address challenges to access and participation should be applauded. Its families programme also has workshops catering for children with special needs. This shows us that the arts can transform lives and bring new, challenging and exciting voices to society. The Royal Academy has done much in recent years to ensure that its buildings are accessible. Workshops and staff training to support audiences living with dementia are now common, as well as a fantastic arts programme that engages dementia suffers with visual art.

Importantly, as my noble friend Lord Cormack said, the Royal Academy is an independent, privately funded institution. As such, it has displayed financial resilience against challenges not untypical of those facing arts organisations, and this makes its longevity all the more inspiring. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said, we note the work of Sir Hugh Casson PRA, who founded the Friends of the Royal Academy membership scheme in 1977, an innovation that continues to this day with great success. The Government are committed to arts and culture and work with Arts Council England and our sponsored museums. Between 2015 and 2018 the Arts Council invested almost £1.1 billion of public money in the arts, alongside an estimated £700 million of lottery funding, while museums receive £800 million annually from public sources. By investing in arts and culture, we are supporting our communities, our creativity and also our economy.

To turn noble Lords’ attention away from London for a moment, the Government announced £8.5 million for Coventry’s plans to showcase the city as UK City of Culture in 2021. It aims to close the gap in access to high-quality arts and culture by reaching into areas with the lowest levels of opportunity.

While, as I have said, the Government do not directly fund the Royal Academy, we should not, as noble Lords have all said, overlook that its momentous redevelopment project was supported with £12.7 million from the Heritage Lottery Fund. My noble friend Lord Ashton had the privilege of attending the opening, along with my honourable friend in the other place, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Tourism. Indeed, Michael Ellis has a continuing interest in the Royal Academy and in particular enjoyed the Oceania exhibition mentioned by many noble Lords. Ministers have seen for themselves the increase in public space that will continue to provide free exhibitions for all to enjoy. It is my hope, and I am sure one that is shared by the Royal Academy, that this commitment to civic access continues for the next 250 years and beyond.

My noble friend raised a couple of points I want to cover. He brought up the subject of European students coming to Royal Academy schools post Brexit. I can reassure him that the Government will continue to encourage European students to apply for courses at UK postgraduate institutions because we want the best artists in the world to study in the United Kingdom. I look forward to the publication of the Government’s immigration White Paper in the near future. He also referred to the Heritage Lottery Fund catalyst scheme. I was pleased to see his reference to the £12.7 million that the Royal Academy received. Specific funding decisions made by the Heritage Lottery Fund are ultimately for its trustees not the Government, but I am sure we all agree that this was a wise funding decision. A number of noble Lords mentioned the Royal Academy schools. The Royal Academy schools have been at the heart of the Academy since its foundation. As noble Lords have said, today the schools offer the only free three-year postgraduate fine art course in the United Kingdom. It is the oldest art school in Britain and is regarded throughout the world as a centre of excellence. Past students, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, include William Blake, JMW Turner and, of course, John Constable.

This has been an excellent debate. I am afraid I have something to admit to—as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, had to as well—I have never been to the Royal Academy. Perhaps we can go together. In closing, I would like to thank the Royal Academy for its contribution to life in this country, and I wish it much success in the future.

Ivory Bill

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons agreed to.

House adjourned at 7.05 pm.