House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is referring to our proposal to raise the small claims limit for employees’ personal injury claims to £2,000. That change is not only in line with inflation, but will give those affected the opportunity to be heard in an uncomplicated, accessible court, without the need for a lawyer if they so choose.
Gerald Jones
I thank the Minister for that answer. Could she inform the House why the Government are avoiding full parliamentary scrutiny by putting the most damaging part of the Civil Liability Bill, which raises the small claims limit, in a statutory instrument, rather than on the face of the Bill, where it could be properly scrutinised by the House?
Lucy Frazer
The Ministry of Justice always ensures that it brings measures to the House in a way that is appropriate for them. Of course this measure will have scrutiny; statutory instrument procedure involves the scrutiny of the House. This measure will ensure that people can access the courts in an accessible way, without the need to spend excessive amounts of money.
Jo Stevens
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I listened carefully to what the Minister just said, but what guarantee can she give us that the civil procedure rule committee will be able to consider the proposed small claims increase, which covers workplace injuries, independent of Government? Why can we not debate the measure on the Floor of the House?
Lucy Frazer
As we see from the questions raised today, there is an opportunity for Members to make points they wish to make. Our Department is always listening, and there will be scrutiny through the statutory instrument procedure in due course.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Every time I am foolish enough to turn on the television, there are adverts from lawyers offering free advice on workplace injuries. Surely we cannot be in want of any more such advice.
Lucy Frazer
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are here to serve the people, and we are here to serve people who have claims. People can still bring their claims through a very simple process in our courts. I should also mention that the Ministry of Justice has brought forward and is progressing an online system for money claims, which is achieving a great deal of satisfaction among users.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
The Government have rightly exempted vulnerable road users from the proposed changes. However, two colleagues—say, two paramedics or two police officers—who are both injured at work on the roads could be treated quite differently, with one able to get legal advice and pay no cost to get compensation, and one having to fight insurers on their own, simply because one was injured on a motorbike and the other in an ambulance or squad car. Rather than hold working people to different standards, can the Government exempt all people injured in the course of their work?
Lucy Frazer
We are concerned about the injury that is suffered, not the person’s profession. As I said, this measure will help people to access courts. The small claims limit for other money claims is £10,000, not £2,000, and people will still be able to get justice.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
Far too many people on short sentences—almost 35%—struggle to find suitable accommodation. That is why we are now focusing on a pilot in Bristol, Pentonville and Leeds. We not only want to get ex-offenders into accommodation, but are putting £6.4 million into ensuring that they have right kind of support, with up to five hours a week on life skills and financial management skills, and access the right services.
Matt Western
I thank the Minister for his response. A study done by the charity Revolving Doors estimates that there was a 25-fold increase between October 2016 and June 2018 in the number of prisoners sleeping rough who have served less than six months. Does that information embarrass the Government and the Minister?
Rory Stewart
First, I pay tribute to Revolving Doors, which is a very impressive charity. I am afraid those are not the figures we have in the MOJ, but I am very happy to sit down with Revolving Doors and understand how it is arriving as such figures. Broadly speaking, sadly, the level of homelessness among people on short sentences has remained, in our terms, relatively static over the past decade, but I respect Revolving Doors, and I am very happy to look at that evidence with it.
Kerry McCarthy
When prisoners fall on that fine line between being criminals and actually being victims of crime themselves—I am particularly thinking of young people who are caught up in gangs and county lines-type drug dealing—what support is being given to them to make sure that if they are rehoused, they are rehoused away from the scene from their offending, so they are in a safe place and do not get dragged back into gang activity?
Rory Stewart
This is a very good challenge. We can use licence conditions to try to ensure that somebody does not return to the scene of their offending. The problem, as the hon. Lady will be aware, is that we of course have to balance that against the importance of family relationships for rehabilitation. We want to try to locate someone in a place where they will not be tempting into further reoffending, but we do not want to locate them in a place where they lose all contact with family and community.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that it is wrong for local authorities to discriminate against ex-offenders by putting them at the bottom of the queue, sometimes saying they have no local connections—through no fault of their own, if they have been in prison—and that ex-offenders should be treated fairly and equally, along with everyone else?
Rory Stewart
I agree 100%. That has now become easier to enforce through recent legislation, but we continue to work very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. There are local councils that are doing fantastic work in housing ex-offenders, but it is true that ex-offenders can fall through the gaps. In particular, the pilot in Bristol, Pentonville and Leeds is an opportunity to demonstrate how we can work better with local authorities.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I am proud to have become a trustee of Nacro recently. Will the Minister continue to work with me and Nacro to reduce the number of prisoners who are released at the end of the week, which thereby reduces the number of services available to them?
Rory Stewart
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she has done with Nacro. Indeed, we had an excellent hour-long session with Nacro on the issue of Friday releases. We are looking at this, but it is worth bearing it in mind that we cannot simply solve this by releasing people on Thursday. That would mean dealing with everybody who will otherwise come out on Friday, Saturday and Sunday as well, so we would have four times the workload on a Thursday. We are, however, looking for solutions to this problem.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), does the Minister recognise that housing allocation policies often mean it is difficult to remove an offender from an area where they have criminal connections, because they do not have local connections in the area to which it would be sensible to move them? What discussions is his Department having with the MHCLG about housing allocation policies supporting the relocation of those offenders?
Rory Stewart
The answer is that we have two formal mechanisms: we have a taskforce focused on housing and we have a taskforce focused particularly on rough sleeping. In both those scenarios, we are pushing very hard with the MHCLG to resolve many issues, of which that is an important one.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Care after Combat’s mentoring scheme for 360 veterans has achieved a fivefold reduction in reoffending. Quite rightly, we are spending a small amount to save £20 million in the system. What are the Government doing further to support these sorts of mentoring initiatives to tackle both homelessness and reoffending?
Rory Stewart
I pay tribute to Care after Combat, which I have had the opportunity to meet, along with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has responsibility for veterans. There is a great deal of support, particularly that provided by military charities, and I would like to pay tribute to SSAFA—the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—the Royal British Legion and, of course, Help for Heroes, which has done incredible work on the issue of offenders who are also veterans. It is important to understand, however, that the issues faced by veterans are often a subset of the issues faced by many of our offenders, particularly in relation to mental health, addiction, housing and employment. We need to think about them, whether they are veterans or civilians, in a single act.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
The withdrawal agreement will ensure a smooth and orderly departure from the EU on 29 March. It includes an implementation period until the end of 2020, during which existing civil and commercial judicial co-operation will continue. We have also agreed that the cases started before the end of the implementation period will be concluded under existing EU rules, and subsequent judgments in those cases will be enforced.
David Linden
Police Scotland currently benefits from a strong relationship with other EU partners, such as Europol and Eurojust, which is vital for dealing with the cross-border crime that takes place. What assurances can the Minister give me that Police Scotland will continue to have such direct links after Brexit?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about Eurojust and Europol, which are under the direct remit of the Home Office, but we of course work closely with them. I was pleased to see references in the political declaration to mechanisms to ensure that the services and intelligence operations under them will continue.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister will know that the Justice Committee has published two reports that set out some of the key areas that will be put at risk for British legal services, British companies and British citizens if we do not have legal continuity, should we face the regrettable event of a no deal. Is that why, perhaps, the Secretary of State was entirely right to write as he did in the Financial Times the other day?
Lucy Frazer
I know that my hon. Friend, as Chair of the Justice Committee, has done a significant amount of work on this issue, and I have been pleased to respond to a number of debates that raised these important issues. The deal will allow us to continue working closely with the EU, specifically on family matters, which are important to so many citizens. We will continue to press for broader civil jurisdiction arrangements.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Can the Minister confirm that the Brexit talks on co-operation on justice and security have not yet been concluded, and that the limited text on justice and security in the political declaration is not legally binding? Can she give the House her best estimate of how long, were the House to vote for the withdrawal agreement, it would take to conclude the specific Brexit talks on justice and security? One year? Two years?
Lucy Frazer
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the political declaration sets out the framework for the negotiations that will go forward. I would encourage him to read the assessment the Government produced on 28 November on the security partnership, which compares the impact of the criminal justice and law enforcement proposals set out in the political declaration with a no deal scenario.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
At any one time, there are about 5,000 EU nationals in our prisons, yet in the last six years, under the ineffective EU compulsory prisoner transfer agreement, only 217 have been sent back to prison in their own country. Will the Minister ensure that we can deport more EU nationals from our prisons once we leave the European Union?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend makes an important point about prisoner transfer. Since 2010, we have removed more than 44,000 foreign national offenders from our prisons, our immigration removal centres and the community. Of course, the EU prisoner transfer provisions facilitate those arrangements, but we have other measures in place with over 100 other countries to ensure that we can continue prisoner transfers.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The political declaration makes no reference to the Schengen information system database or the European criminal records information system. Both Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland are concerned about that, because both tools are fundamental to fighting and investigating crime. Can the Minister confirm that Scotland will lose access to these measures after Brexit?
Lucy Frazer
As I mentioned, the Prime Minister has made it clear that she is seeking to ensure that the measures that underlay them, and the co-operation within them, will continue as far as possible post Brexit.
I should mention, because the hon. and learned Lady often asks about liaison with the Scottish Government, that I spoke to my counterpart, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice on 29 November, and he reiterated to me how pleased he was with our engagement at official level on the negotiations with the EU.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Government have created a Brexit crisis through their rotten deal, which is abhorred by both sides of the House. While the Prime Minister runs scared of democracy and delays the meaningful vote, Cabinet responsibility has broken down, with Ministers pitching their own plan B or even plotting leadership bids. Planning for future judicial collaboration with Europe is suffering as a result. The Justice Committee says the Government are providing “little detail or certainty” about future judicial co-operation. The Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee warns of a “worrying level of complacency”. When will the Secretary of State pay as much attention to dealing with this problem as he does to problems in his own party?
Lucy Frazer
My Department is making a lot of efforts to ensure we have the right deal. We have received £17 million for EU Brexit preparations. We have over 110 full-time employees, including newly recruited employees, working across deal and no deal. I would say, as the Lord Chancellor said in his FT article at the weekend, that the Conservative party is ensuring the future of our country, whereas the leader of the Labour party is just trying to make political points to ensure a general election.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
The Government are simplifying many application processes, making it much easier to initiate proceedings. Once a decision to get divorced has been made, one can now petition for a divorce online. Probate can be applied for online and a money claim can be issued, for up to £10,000, using our online courts process.
Nigel Mills
Will the Minister go a little further and say how she can make it easier for people to participate in proceedings once they have initiated them?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. It is important not only to be able to initiate proceedings easily, but participate in them. Recently, we had early testing of full video hearings held in a tax tribunal, enabling the applicant and the respondent to not have to travel to court or take any time off work. In fact, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs was based in Belfast in those cases and the applicants were elsewhere in the country—and, in one case, in Greece. That small scale evaluation shows that participants found them convenient and easy to understand. They will not be appropriate for every case, but this is technology we need to consider.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The number of litigants in person has shot up. What urgent action is the Ministry of Justice taking to ensure proper representation for people across the board?
Lucy Frazer
Litigants in person do need support through our justice system, which is why, over the past few years, we have spent £6.5 million investing in helping them through the court process. Many of our reforms which form part of our £1 billion programme will make sure that forms are easier, applying to court is easier, getting to court and the whole process is easier for people whether they have a lawyer or not.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline any intentions to review the legal aid process, which currently does not allow middle class families to access legal redress due to a lack of ability to pay bills and thereby pay for legal help and assistance?
Lucy Frazer
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are in the process of an extensive legal aid review, which will look at many aspects and report early in the new year. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I hear the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) burbling from a sedentary position about the spirit of Christmas. I call Mr Barry Sheerman.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, are we really going back to the old days when people used to say that the courts of England were open to everyone, just like the Ritz hotel? The truth is that access to justice in this country is being diminished. The Department’s budget has been cut badly. Indeed, in the area I am very interested in, miscarriages of justice, there is not the money to keep the commission going properly.
Mr Speaker
In my experience the hon. Gentleman is interested in every area of every policy in our public life.
Lucy Frazer
I have now heard that phrase three times in debates I have taken part in. The reason various cuts were made in 2010 was the perilous financial situation that our Parliament found itself in. We in the Department are looking extremely carefully at how we deliver justice for people. We are investing £1 billion in our core reform programme, while ensuring we use taxpayers’ money efficiently and well.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
Recruiting and retaining engaged and motivated staff is critical to making our prisons safer and stopping reoffending. We have spent an additional £100 million to ensure we have thousands of extra prison officers at the frontline, allowing us to run better regimes and improve staff-prisoner relationships. From October 2016 to September 2018, there was a net increase of 4,364 full-time equivalent prison officers. We know that the retention of staff will take more than a one-size-fits-all approach. Specific action is being taken where attrition is most acute.
Christian Matheson
Morale among prison officers is at an all-time low because of low pay, understaffing and soaring violence, and now a retirement age that could go as late as 68. Police officers get the same protection as prison officers, and they are allowed to retire at 60. Why can prison officers not?
Mr Gauke
Of course, a deal was offered to prison officers and rejected a couple of years or so ago, but to come back to the point about morale, it is important that we address violence in prisons. That is why we have increased the number of staff, why we are giving prison officers the tools that they need—for example, PAVA—and why we are determined to ensure that we can turn this increase in violence around.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
It is clear that we have an issue with experienced prison officers leaving the service. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that, in line with best human resources practices, exit interviews are being conducted with staff before they leave so that we can address the issues that are causing them to leave the service?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right to say that that is best practice, and it does happen within the prison service. We are looking at the evidence of the effectiveness of that to ensure that we make best use of it. It is important that we learn from the experiences of prison officers and get their feedback, so that when prison officers do leave, we understand the reasons why.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The independent monitoring board at HMP Birmingham has said that standards have improved as a direct result of the reduction in the prison population and the addition of much needed staff. Already this year, urgent notifications have been issued at Nottingham, Birmingham, Bedford and Exeter prisons. How bad do things have to get before the Government launch a specific plan to re-recruit experienced prison officers who have left the prison system due to the Government’s austerity?
Mr Gauke
I am glad that the hon. Lady acknowledges that progress is being made at Birmingham, and it was right that we stepped in in August last year to turn that prison around. I reiterate that we have increased prison officer numbers very significantly, by 4,364, when our target was to recruit an additional 2,500 prison officers. We achieved that well ahead of schedule, and we have got the numbers increasing. We are seeing some signs of improvements in our prisons—not just at HMP Birmingham—but we need to build on that. It is still the early stages, but we are making progress.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Prison officers in HMP Lewes tell me that the scourge of mobile phones in the prison, which are used to co-ordinate violence and drugs, makes their job much more difficult. Does the Secretary of State therefore welcome the news that the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill, which will block mobile phone signals in prisons, is likely to get Royal Assent this week?
Mr Gauke
I am delighted to do that and to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she put in on that Bill. It is an important step forward. She is right to highlight the problems with mobile phones. As a Government, we are determined to take action to address that, and her work helps us.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
In May, we published the education and employment strategy to create a system where each prisoner is set on a path to employment, with prison education work geared from the outset towards employment on release. We have launched the New Futures Network and appointed a CEO to drive its roll-out. The NFN identifies where skill gaps exist and works with employers to fill them. We are also empowering governors to commission education provision that leads to work. Activity to appoint the new education suppliers who will deliver the curricula that governors have designed is almost complete.
Stephen Metcalfe
My right hon. Friend mentioned the New Futures Network. Will he expand a bit more on how that is achieving employment for offenders upon release?
Mr Gauke
The New Futures Network brokers partnerships between prisons and employers in England and Wales, which help businesses to fill skills gaps and prisoners to find employment on release. The NFN has a central team based in London that works with large national employers. We are also placing employment brokers across England and Wales to work with small and medium-sized enterprises and regional businesses. I am pleased to say that since the publication of the strategy in May, more than 100 new organisations have registered an interest in working with offenders.
Mark Pawsey
I have been working with a constituent who has recently completed a nine-and-a-half-year prison sentence. He has reminded me that in that time, a great deal has moved online—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), referred to initiating legal proceedings online. My constituent says that that places him at a disadvantage when it comes to accessing services and applying for jobs, so what steps are the Department taking to ensure that offenders gain digital skills and retain them?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Digital skills are already taught in many prisons. We are empowering governors to have more control over the curriculum, but we are also determined to ensure that there is some consistency, so from next April our core common curriculum will include ICT, which must be taught in every prison.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a good idea to empower governors to make the right choices for their establishments, either as individuals or in clusters, but does the Department intend to give them a sufficient budget to enable them to do that in a way that will actually make a difference?
Mr Gauke
We want to ensure that the path to employment is set out for every prisoner, that all prisoners have that opportunity to receive the education that they need, and that there is a focus on work. That is a priority for our Department, and I am confident that we can deliver on it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Reoffending rates remain stubbornly high, but in Magilligan prison in my constituency, prisoners reaching the end of their sentence are allowed out under close supervision to work in the community. Does the Secretary of State agree that such action leads to a reduction in reoffending and should be replicated throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr Gauke
That is an excellent point. Workplace release on temporary licence has a key role to play in giving prisoners employment opportunities and easing the transition from prison life to post-prison existence. I am keen to ensure that we do what we can with workplace ROTL, and I should like it to be used more.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
What further action can be taken to encourage more employers to offer such opportunities during the final period of a sentence? That is being done very effectively at Thorn Cross prison in Appleton Thorn, near Warrington.
Mr Gauke
Encouraging employers is very much what the New Futures Network is about. I sense a change of attitude among employers: more and more of them want to do this, because they recognise that there are benefits for them as well as for society as a whole. As I have said, more than 100 employers have signed up to the network, and I encourage those who are following our proceedings closely to do as much as possible on this front.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the disproportionate levels of often undiagnosed special educational needs and disability—especially difficulties with speech and language, dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—in the prison population. What measures has he introduced to ensure that all those prisoners are assessed and then appropriately supported in their education?
Mr Gauke
We are keen to develop specialist education plans when people come into prisons, because that is when we need to identify issues such as those that the hon. Lady has mentioned. However, the really important point that she has raised is the need for us to work across Government. It is not just about what happens in the Prison Service or the Ministry of Justice; we need to co-ordinate with, for instance, the national health service, the Department for Work and Pensions and local authorities. If we are to turn people’s lives around, we need a cross-Government approach. I am pleased that the Reducing Reoffending Board has been established, and that there is a real willingness across Government to make progress.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
Preventing drones from going into prisons is, of course, a huge priority. First, that means working to identify and catch the criminal gangs who are flying them in; secondly, it means electronic measures to interrupt the drones and make it possible to interrogate those people; and, thirdly and most fundamentally, it means protective security. For example, Mr Speaker, if there is a good grille on the window, you cannot stick your hand out of the window and take the drugs from the drone.
Mr Speaker
That is a useful piece of practical advice from the Minister. I am deeply indebted to him.
Vicky Ford
Drug use in prisons frequently fuels serious violence, but those who fly the drones or throw the drugs over the walls often receive little more than a ticking off. What more can be done to dissuade people—especially young people— from such behaviour?
Rory Stewart
I know that my hon. Friend does wonderful work with the prison in her constituency. As she says, we need to take action, and we are taking action. There have been 40 convictions of people using drones, and we have imposed 140 years’-worth of prison sentences. No one should be in any doubt that importing drugs into prisons with a drone is a very serious crime, and I am pleased to say that, thanks to the Department’s work since 2015, we are getting on top of the problem.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned in July and re-emphasised today the importance of jamming equipment in prisons; how many prisons have that equipment?
Rory Stewart
First, that is classified information, but, secondly, the answer is not that many prisons. It is very expensive equipment to use, but we are looking at an electronic fencing technique which has been deployed in Guernsey. We can learn a lot from Guernsey prison: if that electronic fence in Guernsey works, it is a good cheap solution. We would need to check its technical specifications and then we could look at rolling it out.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
Violence in prisons is fundamentally driven by three things: drugs, the conditions in the prison, and relationships between prison officers and prisoners. We are addressing all three. To cut down on drugs, we are putting much more perimeter security in place to make it more difficult to get drugs in. Secondly, we are investing a great deal in decency and cleanliness in prisons. But the most important thing is the training and support for our hard-working prison officers so they can develop the right relationships with prisoners—ones that are strict but also humane—in order to bring proper behaviour management into place.
Colin Clark
Clearly reducing violence in prisons does depend on effective training of prison officers, but what assessment has my hon. Friend made of improvements in the way violent offenders are handled?
Rory Stewart
We repeatedly survey this; we have a specialist team looking at it. We have a long study under the violence reduction strategy, and the real conclusion is that it is about training. It is about what happens at the cell door—about how we develop respectful relationships in the same way that a good teacher would. There are high expectations on prison officers and on prisoners, so that we can have a safe, humane relationship that also has boundaries in place to control behaviour.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
This challenge is absolutely right; we are focusing initially on 10 prisons, as it is difficult to achieve cultural change in 120 prisons simultaneously. The idea is to develop in those 10 prisons the right standard model on drugs, violence and decency, and if we are successful, as I believe we will be by August, to then roll that out across the rest of the estate.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Minister yet again comes to the House all gung-ho, even though he has absolutely no reason to be since safety in our prisons continues to be compromised and they remain in a state of emergency. One such example is HMP Birmingham, one of the most dangerous prisons in the country with conditions there found to be so bad by the prisons inspector that control was taken away from G4S. At the very minimum will the Minister give me assurances, or a guarantee, that this prison will not be returned to the private sector?
Rory Stewart
As I have said on a number of occasions, this is not fundamentally about private and public: there are good private prisons and good public prisons, and there are bad private prisons and bad public prisons. But I will give this assurance: unless G4S can demonstrate that it can take back that prison and run it both well and sustainably, we will not be returning the prison to G4S.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who chairs the all-party group on legal aid and has done a lot of work in this area. We recognise that in some sparsely populated areas it is more difficult to find service providers, but the Legal Aid Agency regularly reviews market capacity to make sure there is adequate provision across the country and moves quickly to fill any gaps that it identifies. At the latest civil legal aid tender, the number of offices providing access to advice increased by 39% for immigration and asylum, by 188% for welfare benefits and by 7% for debt and housing.
Ms Buck
With homelessness up by 70%, with universal credit wreaking absolute havoc on housing costs and with 1 million properties unfit for occupation, why do the new figures reveal that there are 1 million people with no access to a legal aid-provided housing lawyer at all and 15 million people in areas where there is only one provider, raising huge issues of capacity and potentially conflicts of interest? Will the review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, when we finally get to see it, address that issue so that people everywhere in the country can have access to the legal aid services they need?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady is right to identify the fact that dealing with housing issues is important. As at today’s date, there is at least one provider offering housing and debt services in all the 134 procurement areas except for seven, and the Legal Aid Agency is doing what it can to ensure that appropriate services are available in those seven areas. It is due to launch a further tender in areas where there is currently low access to services, and that tender will begin on 17 December.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Across Cornwall, access to a legal aid lawyer for housing and families is particularly difficult. I have raised that matter before. What can the Minister do to create a greater incentive for lawyers to take up that work?
Lucy Frazer
Cornwall is a sparsely populated area and there are difficulties there, but there is always access to the telephone service. It is right that we should look not only at face-to-face advice but at where technology can help to deliver legal advice to people.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Lady makes an important point about ensuring that we have support for those who are most vulnerable, but I would like to make two points on welfare benefits, which she has highlighted. First, the most important outcome for benefit claimants is that the decisions on their claims should be right first time. This avoids the need to go to court at all, and my Department is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure efficient decision making. I have met the Minister twice to ensure that we get those decisions right first time. Secondly, while decisions on welfare claims significantly impact the lives of often vulnerable people, the claims are often not complicated. We are making changes to the tribunal system to ensure that those cases are handled simply, effectively and more quickly.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Lucy Frazer
As I have recognised, there are areas of the country that suffer. The Legal Aid Agency looks at those areas, and re-procurement tender exercises are going out in seven of them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) is seeking to take part in Question 12 or anticipating Question 13.
Mr Speaker
It is the latter. We will get there when we are ready, and we are grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Law Commission of England and Wales says that working people on low incomes are being systematically denied the right to a fair trial because of restrictive legal aid rules. When will the Government act in this shocking and shameful situation?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman will have heard that we are doing a review of legal aid, which will be published early in the new year. I was interested to read the recent Scottish Government report on legal aid, which implements a number of the things that we are already doing, including using technology to help our court processes.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The current Prime Minister unleashed the Home Office’s hostile environment against migrants, and the Windrush scandal shows just how easily people can fall foul of this Government’s complex and cruel immigration rules. It is even tougher for those who have to navigate this hostile environment without legal advice, yet access to legal aid-funded immigration advice has fallen by 68% under the Tories, from 120,000 cases in 2010 to 39,000 cases this year. So do the Government regret scrapping such publicly funded legal advice that can save people from unfair decisions and deportations, and if so, will they reinstate it?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman has not made that offer. The Opposition have made an offer in relation to welfare, but not, I note, in relation to immigration. Let me remind him that people can already get legal advice for asylum and non-asylum cases, and for cases involving detention, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, domestic violence and trafficking. I want to make it clear to the House and to everyone who is listening that people are often not claiming legal aid because they do not believe they are entitled to it, because the Opposition and some others suggest that it is not available.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
Fundamentally, a mobile phone needs to be moved by a person, it is a metal object and it transmits, which means that the three ways of dealing with a mobile telephone are to get intelligence on the organised criminal gangs that are moving them around, to use metal detectors to discover the devices, and to use electronic measures to identify where the devices are located within prisons, to jam the signals and to interrogate the calls.
Dr Offord
It has been reported that Anthony Russell, a contestant on “The X Factor”, used a mobile phone to communicate with a convicted prisoner by FaceTime from the ITV studios, of all places. Will the Minister consider making it a specific criminal offence for anyone knowingly to communicate with someone in the criminal justice system?
Rory Stewart
I am happy to sit down with my hon. Friend. It is absolutely a criminal offence to have a mobile telephone in prison, but the complexities of what my hon. Friend suggests go a long way beyond that. It is certainly not an offence to communicate with a prisoner. In fact, we encourage prisoners to continue family relations, which is important to prevent reoffending and protect the public.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
While we of course do not want prisoners using mobile phones, we are happy for prisoners to watch television. The Minister knows that I am unhappy about his decision to buy televisions from China instead of from Cello in my constituency. Will he look again at the criteria for such public contracts?
Mr Speaker
This is a kind of debate between mobile televisions from another part of the world or mobile televisions from Bishop Auckland.
Rory Stewart
The hon. Lady powerfully represents her constituency’s interests. The issues around procurement are complex, but I will look carefully at the case. However, it is important to bear in mind that we also have a duty to get value for money for the taxpayer and ensure that we are purchasing affordable goods.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con)
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
We are determined to protect debtors from aggressive behaviour by enforcement agents while balancing that against the need for effective enforcement of debts. We launched a public call for evidence on 25 November to help us to understand the extent of the problem, and it is open until 17 January.
Neil O’Brien
A constituent of mine, John Stevens, lost thousands after he was threatened by bailiffs in connection with his son’s debt, which arose through no fault of his own. My constituent was never told his rights, and there was no independent regulator to which he could appeal. Given that 40% of people contacted by bailiffs are threatened or intimidated, will the Minister take action following the call for evidence to right those wrongs?
Lucy Frazer
I am sorry to hear about the experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent and I am happy to discuss the matter further with him. The 2014 reforms require bailiffs to send a letter before they visit to set out where a debtor can go for advice, but we want to ensure that that mechanism and others are working. We are asking that question in our consultation, so I encourage his constituent to tell us more about his experience in our call for evidence.
Rachel Reeves
I welcome the Government’s call for evidence. Since it was launched, the Minister has said that a small number of bailiffs are breaking the law. The truth is that a YouGov poll shows that a third of people contacted by bailiffs in the past year have experienced law breaking, so this is much more than a small problem. Will the Government therefore change the language and see where the evidence takes them, rather than concluding that a minority of bailiffs are behaving in this way?
Lucy Frazer
It is important to gather the evidence, which is what this consultation will do. As the hon. Lady will know, because she asked a question at the previous Justice questions when the Citizens Advice report had just come out, we want to examine the evidence fully, and we are asking for evidence not just from individuals, but from the enforcement agencies themselves. My officials have asked Citizens Advice for a meeting to discuss the content of the report, which identifies a large amount of inappropriate behaviour.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
We do not tolerate violence against our dedicated and hard-working prison officers. We are strengthening frontline officer numbers and rolling out a key worker scheme to improve prisoner-staff relationships and to tackle the causes of violence. We are giving officers the tools they need, such as body-worn cameras and PAVA spray, to respond where incidents do occur.
Andrew Rosindell
The Secretary of State will know that, in the past year, there has been a 20% increase in violent crime against prison officers. Does he agree there is a disparity between prosecutions when members of the public are assaulted and prosecutions when people in the public service are assaulted? Also, is it not correct that an assault against a prison officer is just as bad as an assault against a policeman?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have to take assaults against prison officers very seriously. They are putting their lives on the frontline, and we are working closely with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to make sure that crimes committed in prison are dealt with effectively. There are good examples of work with the police and the CPS, such as at HMP Isis. The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 came into force in November, and it increases the maximum custodial sentence from six months to 12 months for those who assault emergency workers, including prison officers.
Nigel Huddleston
Recent incidents at Long Lartin Prison in my constituency show that more work is still needed on prison officer safety. Can the Secretary of State assure my constituents who work at Long Lartin that the Government do not consider it job done on prison safety and that they will continue to explore further ways to improve prison safety?
Mr Gauke
Indeed, we will continue to find ways of making improvements. I visited Long Lartin in the summer and met a number of my hon. Friend’s constituents who work as prison officers to discuss this issue. The high assault figures are something that we have to address, which is why we have taken the measures I have already outlined. We will continue to focus on bringing down those numbers.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the high number of prisoners with mental health conditions is also a serious problem for prison officers? Will he look into the two separate incidents at Nottingham Prison where, even though my constituents had been independently assessed by psychiatrists as needing to be transferred to secure mental health beds, it took five months for them to be transferred?
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising those cases and I will certainly look at the incidents she mentions. She is right to highlight the importance of addressing mental health issues within prisons. A very large proportion of prisoners have mental health issues and, in answer to an earlier question, I addressed the need to work closely with the NHS and the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that we address such points.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Gauke)
Today the terms of reference for the review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme have been announced. Compensation has long been an important part of the Government’s support for victims of violent crime, and we are determined to ensure that every victim gets the compensation to which they are entitled. The review will look at the scope of the scheme, its eligibility rules, the value and composition of awards and how to provide easier access to compensation. The review will give particular consideration to victims of child sexual abuse and terrorism and look to ensure continued financial sustainability. We have separately announced our intention to remove the pre-1979 same roof rule from the scheme and we will table an amended scheme before Parliament as soon as possible.
Chris Williamson
We know the Government see public services as a cash cow for the private sector, but the privatisation of the probation service has been an abject failure. The contract had to be terminated two years early, despite a £0.5 billion bailout. The privatised service failed to reduce reoffending, so why is the Secretary of State proposing to privatise the service again in 2020? Is this not an example of ideology over plain common sense?
Mr Gauke
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is best placed to lecture on common sense versus ideology.
The reoffending rate has fallen in the time since “Transforming Rehabilitation” and we would like it to fall further. There are issues with how the system is working, which is why we took the entirely pragmatic approach of bringing the contracts to an end and making some important and necessary changes to ensure that we can do more to reduce reoffending.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Further to the Secretary of State’s answer a few moments ago and the tabling today of the written ministerial statement on the review of the overall scheme, let me say that earlier this year we committed to remove the pre-1979 same roof rule more swiftly. In that context, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) in her campaign on this issue. As the Secretary of State has said, we anticipate, subject to the parliamentary timetable, to be able to lay an order as swiftly as possible.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Can the Lord Chancellor assist me in finding out the answer to a question that the Attorney General and the Brexit Secretary have been unable to answer: how much taxpayers’ money did the UK Government spend fighting the litigation that established that the article 50 notice can be unilaterally revoked?
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Edward Argar
It is of course for magistrates to make decisions and they do have the right to overturn recommendations. However, as my hon. Friend says, when making those decisions, they should be in possession of the full facts from the youth offending teams, the police and the CPS. She is right to highlight the importance of information sharing and sharing that information in good time. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), and I continue to work on that.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Government’s ideological experiment of privatising probation has been a calamitous failure. It was such a flawed idea that even this Government have had to cancel the current private contracts, which were costing the public more and more money while leaving them less and less safe. Yet the Government are set to re-tender those contracts back to the private sector. Interserve is currently the largest probation provider, supervising 40,000 offenders, yet it is now in rescue talks, trying not to become the next Carillion. So will the Justice Secretary commit today to ensuring that Interserve is not awarded any of the new private probation contracts?
Mr Gauke
We will award the contracts to those best placed to carry them out. I have to say that the hon. Gentleman’s hostility to the private sector, in all its forms, in all contexts, is not a sensible or pragmatic approach to trying to ensure that we get best value for money for the taxpayer while making improvements to reducing reoffending.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Senior managers at Lloyds-HBOS were found guilty of a scandalous fraud against their own business customers but, thus far, the bank itself has avoided or evaded any corporate sanction. Would my right hon. Friend support the Solicitor General’s efforts to make failure to prevent an economic crime a corporate offence?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend, who campaigns tirelessly on these issues, will be aware that we ran a call for evidence on corporate criminal liability to determine whether the current law is adequate. This is a complex part of the law and consultation responses offered a broad range of views. We are currently analysing those with Departments across Government and we will publish our response in 2019.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the work he does in supporting the work of Nottingham Prison, which is one of the 10 priority prisons. We are therefore bringing scanners into those prisons. We are currently shipping those scanners over, but a range of different types of scanning will be taking place: X-ray scanners used on an intelligence-led basis, which can penetrate through the skin; metal detectors on a more regular basis as people go through; and additional dogs.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Minister responsible for rehabilitation will be aware of the great work that groups such as St Mary Magdalene church in Torquay do with ex-offenders. That work could be enhanced if such groups could use the old Torquay magistrates court, which is still empty. Will he agree to meet me and representatives of the church to discuss how, if they acquired the building, they could make a real difference?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss that matter, and if any other colleagues wish to meet as well, I am sure they will do so.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
The big legislative change that we are trying to introduce, and for which we would very much like to get cross-party support, is a provision to allow us to do proper testing on Spice—an endeavour that is in a private Member’s Bill that is currently trying to make its way through the House. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, Spice is a real problem. It is provoking unbelievably aggressive behaviour and it is extremely bad for people’s health. We can search along the perimeter but yes, we also need to do more in the law.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Citing reputational reasons, one of my local authority employers failed to keep on a member of staff after a probation period because of a spent conviction that was known about. Would public sector employers not get a better reputation if they helped to turn people’s lives around when they want to put something back into society?
Rory Stewart
I could not agree more. One of the best ways to prevent reoffending and therefore protect the public is to help people into employment. Ex-prisoners can be some of the most loyal and hard-working employees one can find. We encourage all employers to take a realistic, pragmatic approach. Many convictions are absolutely irrelevant to the work that the person is doing or to public protection. The best way to protect the public is to provide a job.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
First, let me share our very sincere condolences. It is the most horrifying thing to lose a 22-month-old in that way. Secondly, we are currently consulting on changing the law to have a life sentence for causing death by dangerous driving or by careless driving under the influence. We can do an enormous amount more, both legally and in terms of road safety and driving tests. We must bring down the number of people who are killed. The hon. Gentleman raises a particularly tragic incident, and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Last week, the House passed the Courts and Tribunals (Judiciary and Functions of Staff) Bill, which is an important part of court modernisation. Does the Lord Chancellor accept that there remains a pressing need to introduce the remaining primary legislation necessary to underpin the rest of Sir Michael Briggs’ reforms?
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Rory Stewart
We do an assessment whenever a prisoner comes in. In a prison such as Humber, for example, almost a quarter of the prisoners are currently on some form of drug rehabilitation treatment. Those are very high numbers. Drugs in prison are a big issue: nearly 50% of prisoners have alcohol or drug-related addiction issues. The NHS takes the lead on that; I would be happy to get back to the hon. Lady with the figures.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Will the Minister endorse the excellent work of Youth of Walsall and its campaign “Real Knives, Real Lives”, which seeks to educate young people on the dangers of carrying a knife?
Edward Argar
I welcome any initiative that aims to combat knife crime by educating young people about the potentially devastating impact it can have, not only on victims and their families but on the perpetrators themselves. I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has highlighted and would be happy to learn more about it. We must all do more to tackle serious violence, which is exactly what the Government are doing.
Mr Speaker
In the name of fairness to colleagues, those asking a question should confine themselves to a single short sentence.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. She rightly highlights a very important issue. I work closely with my opposite number in the Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), on tackling domestic abuse. We will be publishing a draft domestic abuse Bill and consultation response shortly. In respect of the hon. Lady’s specific point, I am very happy to meet her and discuss it further.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
With which specific countries are the Government negotiating new compulsory prisoner transfer agreements?
Lucy Frazer
The Government already have agreements with around 100 countries in relation to prisoner transfers.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Lucy Frazer
I think the hon. Lady will have been pleased to see a paragraph in relation to extradition in the future framework.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Ministers will be aware of the very low attainment in reading among prisoners. Is anything being done to try to improve the situation? I understand that the average reading age in a prison is 11.
Rory Stewart
It is a very serious problem. As my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, almost half the prisoners have a reading age of under 11. Perhaps 25% of prisoners have a reading age of six. There is an enormous amount that we can do and that is where the education and employment strategy comes in, which is about making sure that the education is relevant and leads to a job.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
Lucy Frazer
Various changes were made as a result of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we are undertaking a significant review. My Department has met with more than 100 organisations or individuals to discuss the changes that were brought in and my Department will be reporting in the new year.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State commit to implementing the recommendations of the independent Mental Health Act review to reform mental health tribunals and will the Government commit adequate resourcing to the recommendations?
Edward Argar
As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Government have welcomed the independent review of the Mental Health Act and have rightly committed to reform mental health legislation. Some of the review’s recommendations, as she alludes to, have particular implications for civil justice and particular reforms to the Mental Health Tribunal. My Department is working closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to consider the review, its recommendations and implications in detail and we will respond shortly.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Today, it has been confirmed that three quarters of all Welsh female prisoners are serving a custodial sentence of less than six months. There is no women’s centre in Wales, so may I ask the Minister to introduce new funding for a women’s centre in Wales, so that we are able to have different ways of putting women forward, other than custodial sentences, because it is not working?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Something that runs through our female offender strategy is moving away from short sentences to alternative provisions. He highlights a particular issue in the context of Wales. It is something on which I have had discussions with the previous Cabinet Secretary, Alun Davies, and I look forward to meeting his successor in that role to have further discussions.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of those convicted of murder under joint enterprise thought that they would be able to seek appeals of their convictions after the Supreme Court ruling that the law had taken a wrong turn. However, the recent loss of the Laura Mitchell case, the first brought by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, has shown that the appeal bar is impossibly high. What will the Government do about that?
Lucy Frazer
I know that the hon. Lady has campaigned very hard on this. I was very pleased to answer her debate shortly after my appointment. As she knows, the appeal bar is set in relation to all cases, not just in relation to this case, but I am very happy to discuss this issue in a meeting with her.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
It was two years ago that the then Secretary of State for Justice agreed to outlaw the cross-examination of survivors of domestic abuse by the perpetrators of their crime, yet the misery goes on. When will the Government outlaw that?
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Ofsted’s recent annual report yet again raised its concerns about high levels of violence in children’s secure training centres. The use of pain-inducing restraint techniques in youth prisons and right across the secure estate has been found to carry up to a 60% chance of causing serious injury to children. This is Government-sanctioned abuse of children. When is it going to end?
Edward Argar
As the hon. Lady will be aware, we have commissioned an independent review, which is being led by Charlie Taylor. I look forward to receiving his report in due course.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
When we debated legal aid last month, the Minister was expecting to publish the LASPO review before Christmas. It is already eight months late, so will she tell us the date on which it will now be published? Why are we not getting it until next year? What is the reason for the delay?
Lucy Frazer
I am happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s question. I remind him what he said to the Law Society several months ago—that it is important to take time to review this important subject. It is important and, as I have said, we have met over 100 organisations and individuals. We finished our final engagement with organisations at the end of last month and we will publish the review early in the new year.
ONS Decisions: Student Loans
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to make a statement on the ONS decision on the treatment of student fees and maintenance loans in the Government’s accounts, and its implications for the public finances.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
After its review of the treatment of student loans and Government finances, the Office for National Statistics has decided that some of the spending on student loans will be included in the deficit when the money is first lent to students. This is a technical accounting decision by the ONS, whose independence we support and whose diligence we commend. It is for the independent Office for Budget Responsibility to decide how to reflect this decision in future forecasts, but the ONS has made it clear that there is a lot to decide before the numbers are finalised.
This decision does not affect students’ ability to receive or repay loans. They can still get access to money to help with fees and the cost of living, and they will only start repayments when they are earning £25,000. Moreover, this decision does not have any implications for public debt, as the data and forecasts already include the impact of student loans, including repayments.
The Government make decisions on taxes and spending at Budgets, and the OBR judges whether the Government have met their targets. At the recent Budget, the OBR forecast for headroom was higher than the estimate of the impact of the student loans accounting change. The recent Budget also showed that the Government are meeting their fiscal rules with room to spare, and that debt is beginning its first sustained fall in a generation. This Government are committed to keeping taxes low and investing in Britain’s future.
Wes Streeting
I thank the Chief Secretary for that reply.
The Treasury Committee welcomes the ONS decision, which is in line with our recommendations, but this is more than a little embarrassing for the Government. The OBR estimates that yesterday’s decision adds £12 billion to the deficit, but even the OBR’s method of calculating the sum does not appear entirely consistent with the ONS decision. Can the Chief Secretary therefore tell us what the right figure is, or has the Government’s creative accounting become so creative that it has left even the Chief Secretary bamboozled?
Can the Chief Secretary at least tell us what the fiscal impact will be? Will there be any impact on departmental budgets or on the devolved nations? What does it mean for the Government’s predisposition for selling the student loan book for a song? Does that policy still make sense? Indeed, did it ever make any sense? Vice-Chancellors are understandably worried that yesterday’s decision will lead to a reduction in funding available to our universities.
Given that the Chief Secretary says this is effectively a matter of accounting, rather than cash flows, does she agree with Paul Johnson at the Institute for Fiscal Studies that
“IF it was right to aim for zero deficit on old definition THEN it is right to aim for £17bn deficit on new definition”?
Will she confirm that the Government will now revise their fiscal targets in the spring statement, or does she expect students and universities to pay the price for the Government’s accounting trickery and meaningless fiscal targets? Only a matter of weeks ago at the autumn Budget, the Chancellor boasted,
“Fiscal Phil says, ‘Fiscal Rules OK’”—[Official Report, 29 October 2018; Vol. 648, c. 655.]
He looks a bit silly now, doesn’t he?
Where does this leave the Augar review on post-18 education? Can the Chief Secretary assure the House today that the Augar review will focus on further and higher education policy aims first and foremost, and not on how to design a student loans system that is attractive due to its accounting features?
The ONS decision yesterday makes the case for real reform of our higher education system more compelling. Instead of tinkering around the edges, flirting with cuts in fees that would benefit the richest graduates and cuts in places that would only hurt the poorest students, is it not time for real reform: a system that is publicly funded and genuinely free at the point of use?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been very clear in my response that this is fundamentally an accounting decision. It does not affect our decisions on higher education policies. The bodies that we are talking about—the ONS and the OBR—are independent bodies. It is right that the Government do not make decisions on how to treat these figures in our national statistics—they are made by independent bodies, and we fully respect that. The ONS is going to be working out more details. It would therefore be completely wrong for me, outside a fiscal event, to comment on the precise implications for the public finances.
I can reassure Members across the House that we will do the right thing by students, and we have done the right thing by students. We have a record number of students in our universities. We rightly have a system where students contribute to their degrees, which deliver them higher future earnings and greater prospects in later life.
It is a bit of a cheek hearing all this from Labour Members, whose party promised in the 2017 general election that it would write off all the student loan book and then—surprise, surprise—said after the election that it would not any more. I think it is a bit of a joke that Labour Members are coming to this House and trying to give us lectures about student finance.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is right to say that the Treasury Committee covered this in our report to the House published earlier this year, but the Chief Secretary is right to say that the decision does not affect any financial help that students now, or students starting in September or beyond, will get. Does she agree that this is actually a debate about political scrutiny of the deficit, which is an important figure at every fiscal event, and that the change will give a truer picture of what is happening with the deficit?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Treasury Committee, is correct. Ultimately, this is about making sure that our independent bodies are giving us advice about how our public finances should be presented in order to give the best possible picture. That is completely independent from our decisions about what is best for students. The fact is that this decision does not affect cash flows; it affects the presentation of accounts. We should not conflate that with the very right and proper debates we are having about making sure that our students have a finance system that supports them.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
This is not creative accountancy; this is fantasy accounting from the Government. The shadow Chief Secretary talks about Labour’s policy—[Hon. Members: “You’re the shadow Chief Secretary.”] Well, that is not very far away. The Chief Secretary can try to make up Labour’s policies on the hoof. She might make her own up on the hoof, but she should not make up ours on the hoof.
The ONS announcement ends the fiscal illusion that kept student debt off the Government’s books. This is not technical, and it blows a potential £12 billion hole in the Chancellor’s spending plans. At the last Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned the Chancellor that he was gambling with the public finances, and it seems that he has lost the bet: a reckless Chancellor bluffing his way through Budgets in a desperate attempt to keep his party together while the country is led to ruin and uncertainty.
This change raises a number of serious questions that the Minister must now answer, and has not answered. First, what impact will the additional £12 billion have on the Treasury’s ability to meet the fiscal targets that the Government set out most recently? Or will it mean that the Government have to abandon their fiscal rules yet again, for the umpteenth time? Secondly, will the Chief Secretary guarantee—she has not yet—that students and universities will not be adversely affected by this change? Thirdly, can the Government guarantee that no cap on student numbers will be introduced?
Finally, does this not pose a major challenge to the entire system of student finance which the Government have not only maintained but exacerbated with a trebling of fees—a system that creates a mountain of debt, placed first on the backs of students and now on the Government’s books when students are unable to pay? Would it not be better to adopt Labour’s policy of free university education, as set out in our manifesto—a very popular manifesto—and grey book, which invests in the future of our country by investing in the future of our young people, rather than giving billions of pounds of tax cuts to large corporations?
Elizabeth Truss
I find it extraordinary that we are being lectured on debt by a party that wants to add half a trillion pounds to our national debt. As I said in my earlier answer, we would still meet our fiscal targets on both the debt and the deficit with the numbers that the ONS currently estimates, but it is very premature to have this discussion when the ONS has not given the detailed figures.
I am willing to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether we will give a guarantee that this will not affect students—absolutely we will. The Augar review is being conducted on the basis of what is best for students. The fact is that we have one of the best higher education systems in the world, of which we should be rightly proud. We have a record number of students attending university and a record number of students from low-income backgrounds attending university, thanks to our policy.
The hon. Gentleman has to answer this question: is it really right that people who do not go to university and generally earn lower sums of money should subsidise those who do go to university and go on to earn more in later life? We can see the result when that happens—it is what has happened in Scotland. Places end up getting rationed, and higher education ends up not getting enough income.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
The House might be gridlocked on Brexit, but it does not need to be gridlocked on more ambitious reform of the higher education finance system. That is what young people want to see. I urge my right hon. Friend to look at the changes that young people want, which are the introduction of maintenance grants and reform of the student finance system away from student debt and towards a graduate contribution, making it better value for money and more progressive—not less progressive, as Labour suggests—so that young people who get the most financially out of going to university pay the most for the chance to go there.
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend clearly spent a lot of time working on that when she was Education Secretary, and I commend her on her contribution to that debate. I am pleased to welcome to the Front Bench the new Universities Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), who is leading the work on the Augar review. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I am concerned to ensure that we get good value for money and that our universities are properly funded. I am closely involved in supporting the Augar review, as are my colleagues at the Department for Education.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary clearly has not read the UCAS figures, which show that more Scottish young people than ever before are accessing a place in higher education, including more from a deprived background than ever before.
This ruling does not come as any surprise. We already know that England has the highest tuition fees in the industrialised world. It confirms what we have been saying for a long time—this is not saving public money in the long run. This Government remind us regularly of how economically brilliant they are, but we can clearly see that they have been shifting their fiscal responsibilities on to a Government 30 years in the future. The real issue is that these short-term accountancy gains are won off the back of our young people. Average student debt in England is more than £50,000, and continuing to charge fees of more than £9,000 per annum is morally wrong. Since we know that three quarters of student loans will be written off eventually, will the Government follow Scotland’s lead and slash student fees or, better still, abolish them completely?
What assurances can the Chief Secretary give to students trying to pay off debt with spiralling interest rates that the interest on student loans will be capped at a far lower level? For those young people who currently have debts with no possibility of repayment, will this Government do the right thing and write off the portion of debt that will never be repaid, and write it off now?
Elizabeth Truss
The reality is that fewer students from disadvantaged backgrounds as a proportion are going to university in Scotland. The SNP Government have not only failed with the higher education system; they are also getting worse results for literacy and numeracy in primary schools. I suggest that the hon. Lady goes back to her colleagues in Scotland and starts looking at some of the reforms that have taken place across the rest of the UK, to see what could be learned.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Instead of listening to the braying of Labour Members, will my right hon. Friend remind them who first put this money off the books and into this category of spending? This is no different from what happened with Network Rail, when money was spirited into a different account so that it did not appear in the public finances. Will she take this opportunity to say that it is high time we renamed this money and turned to a graduate tax?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is correct; that was done under a previous Labour Government. In fact, that Government also introduced tuition fees, which I supported at the time and continue to support. I probably have more in common with some of the last Labour Government than many Members on the Labour Front Bench today. In those days, the Treasury marked its own homework. We have moved on. We now have the independent OBR, which makes decisions about forecasts, and that is the right approach. We are listening to this accounting advice and will take it on board. It will not affect decisions about how we conduct the Augar review or about student finance.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for indicating that this will have no impact on students, but she has conceded that it will have a fiscal impact. Our young people at the moment are worried about the cost of living, the broader economy and the prospect of getting jobs. They would like to see maintenance grants. Can she put in the Library, when she is aware of it, what the fiscal impact will be on young people and their parents?
Elizabeth Truss
The fiscal impact of the accounting decision—that is what this is; it does not alter the amount of cash going out the door—will come to light at future Budgets, and all these decisions will be taken in the round. As I have said, the Augar review is being conducted independently of that. It is about what is right for students. Of course we look at issues such as cost of living. Other aspects affect cost of living, including housing, and we are building more new homes to make housing more affordable across the board.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is fair that students contribute to their higher education—it is fair to the taxpayer and fair to the student—but what is unfair are the high interest rates. Will the Secretary of State for Education and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury look at the huge interest rates on student loans and see whether something can be done?
Elizabeth Truss
That issue is being considered by the Augar review, which is properly being led by the Secretary of State for Education, who is sitting beside me. From a Treasury perspective, my role is to ensure that we get good value for money from our public finances and that we are fair and transparent in the way we present things. That is what the OBR and the ONS look at.
Mr Speaker
Ah, the key there was a reference to the ONS. It would be helpful if colleagues would frame their questions with reference to the Office for National Statistics, because that is the gravamen of the matter.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
The fact that the ONS has said that student loans will push up the UK’s deficit undoubtedly provides an incentive to reduce fees, but that could create a huge problem for university funding. I hope the Government will take stock and introduce a new system of student finance that does not rely on loans, massive student debt or punitive interest rates, but gives our universities the stable funding they need to thrive.
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Lady is right that we have well-funded, world-leading universities, and we need to make sure that continues.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Perhaps the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) can offer us a reprise of his masterclass on brevity.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given the provenance of this accounting rule, why did the ONS not get on to it earlier?
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
In the short term, will the Treasury review the inflation-busting 6.3% rate, and in the longer term will the Government admit that feeble wage growth is at the bottom of this problem?
Elizabeth Truss
That is a slightly strange question from the hon. Lady, given we have just seen the highest real wage growth for 10 years coming through our economy.[Official Report, 20 December 2018, Vol. 651, c. 6MC.]
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that part of the ONS thinking is based on the fact that the amount someone has to earn before they start to repay has been increased very substantially under this Government, saving hundreds of thousands of students £300 or £400 a year? The effect of that, however, is that less of the money is repaid quickly or, indeed, at all.
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to point out that people do not pay back on their student loan until they are earning £25,000.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
When I went to university 10 years ago, I was the first member of my family to do so, but because I was from a low-income background, I benefited from bursaries, which supported me through education. Unfortunately, Governments in both Edinburgh and London have cut back bursaries over the past decade, meaning that student loan debt in Scotland is £5 billion this year—up from £1.8 billion 10 years ago, which is a 169% increase—and that the individual debt of a student in Scotland has gone from £5,900 a year to £13,000 a year on average. Do the Government not recognise that such an increase is unsustainable and, reflecting the ONS results, that we have to restore a grant system?
Elizabeth Truss
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the results. The fact is that, since 2009, there has been a 68% increase in the number of low-income students going to university.
Mr Speaker
What the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) conveyed to the House was quite extraordinarily interesting, but most of it did suffer from the notable disadvantage that it did not constitute a question. We got to a question mark very belatedly.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The ONS decision actually reminds us that the education of a large number of university students is funded by the taxpayer. That is welcome for those who come from deprived areas and may not earn the £25,000-plus that we would like. Will the Chief Secretary look at fairness across the system, so that people who do not go to university but want to study and train locally can get the skills and opportunities they need?
Elizabeth Truss
Yes, we are looking at that. We are looking across the board at the value for money of Government investment, which is significant in the education system, but also at the impact on individual students.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has confirmed that this makes no change to the national debt, so can she confirm that the ONS decision will not lead to a new round of spending cuts?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been extremely clear that this is fundamentally an accounting decision. It is not about the reality of the fact that Government debt is being brought back over time, one of our key fiscal targets. The amount the ONS is estimating is, in fact, under our other fiscal target for the deficit. We will do the right thing by students in the Augar review.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the ONS decision is based on the fact that these are not loans in the normal sense—an amount people must pay back—but a contribution towards the cost of their education, with the maximum they are required to pay back being based on their income?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is correct. It is a generous system that does support students, particularly those on a low income, but we have instituted the Augar review to look at how the system could be made even better.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
In the light of the ONS decision, can the Chief Secretary tell the House who benefits from the current debt-driven student finance system, because it clearly is not students, taxpayers or the Government?
Elizabeth Truss
There is extremely strong evidence that going to university increases people’s earning power, and there is some very helpful new data—the longitudinal education outcomes data—that shows people how much they can expect to earn by studying particular courses.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What proportion of students are not liable for student loan repayments because they do not meet the income threshold?
Elizabeth Truss
I think that is probably something my hon. Friend should take up with the Department for Education.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The ONS accounting changes will apply to loans issued by the devolved Governments as well as by the UK Government, so will the Chief Secretary clarify whether these changes will in any way constrain the Welsh Government in the implementation of their higher education policy?
Elizabeth Truss
The Welsh Government have the autonomy to pursue their own higher education policy.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The ONS decision will of course play into the Augar review and the future funding of students in higher education, but I do get sick and tired, every time we discuss this, of hearing the words “young people”. Students are not just young people who are studying full-time and aged 18 to 21. Part-time students have always paid their way and they have very little access to support, while the Open University is suffering really badly because of the current system. May we please have a commitment to ensure that the Augar review and the future funding of students takes care of part-time students and puts them on a level playing field?
Elizabeth Truss
That is certainly one of the aspects the review is looking at.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
When will we have the full details of how this fits in with the Government’s fiscal plans—in the spring statement, the spending review or the autumn Budget next year?
Elizabeth Truss
In the spring statement, we would expect to see the revised forecasts. Of course, Government spending plans, which incorporate a huge number of areas and a huge number of Departments, will be announced at the spending review in the Budget.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The ONS has confirmed that this is an accounting trick, which this Government have been happy to use to cover up the true extent of the deficit and the mismanagement of the public finances. If this was in the private sector, the finance director would now be being hauled over the coals. When is the Government’s finance director going to admit that they were wrong, and apologise to both students and the public?
Elizabeth Truss
As I have said, the Government no longer mark their own homework on these issues. It is down to the independent OBR to produce that forecast.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The terms of reference for the Augar review say that
“its recommendations must be consistent with the Government’s fiscal policies to reduce the deficit and have debt falling as a percentage of GDP.”
Is it not absolutely clear that this ONS reclassification reduces the resources available to further and higher education?
Elizabeth Truss
I have been very clear that this decision, which is fundamentally an accounting decision, will not affect the outcome of the review.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This may be an accounting decision, but it clearly does increase the deficit for the Government. With students paying 6.3% interest, 70% of students never paying the full loan back and almost 50% of the loans never paid back at all, who is the current student finance system working for?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The ONS decision gives the Chief Secretary an opportunity to tell the House and students who may be watching how she can justify the current Government’s policy of charging a lower interest rate for people promoting tax avoidance schemes when they pay their tax late to the Inland Revenue than the whopping 6.3% charged to students.
Elizabeth Truss
I cannot pre-empt the Augar review, which is currently taking place, of student finance—it will look at some of the issues the hon. Lady has raised—nor can I pre-empt a future fiscal event. This question is somewhat premature, because the ONS has not yet produced its detailed figures on the issue.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It would seem from the ONS decision that the same sort of mathematical genius has been applied that was applied with Tesconomics a few years ago. Given that 45% of the debt will not be repaid and that a large proportion of the debt is interest, does the Chief Secretary think it is astute and prudent to apply such an extortionate rate of interest—6.3%?
Elizabeth Truss
All aspects of student finance are under consideration in the Augar review, but that is a very different issue from how the ONS classifies various accounting decisions within Government. As I have said, the DFE is leading on the Augar review, and it is addressing those issues.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Can the Chief Secretary now answer the question that has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) on the Front Bench? Can she guarantee that the change in the accounting treatment and the effect on the public finances will not result in a cap on student numbers?
Elizabeth Truss
We do not want to cap student numbers. We have been clear about that as part of the Augar review.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The ONS decision has exposed what many of us have argued since 2010: the Government’s funding system is based on an accounting trick that imposes debt on students and the public purse. The truth is that there is no cost-free way of funding higher education, but the danger is that the Government will respond to the ONS decision by reducing their own liability at the expense of students and universities. Does the Chief Secretary agree that Philip Augar should not be deflected and that we need a comprehensive review of the student funding system that takes account of students from low-income households, part-time and mature students, nurses and midwifery students, and further education?
Modernising Defence Programme
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
In July, I made a statement setting out headline conclusions from six months of work on the modernising defence programme. Since then, work has continued apace. First, I would like to welcome the extra £1.8 billion of funding for defence, including the additional £1 billion that was in last month’s Budget. Today, I want to provide a further update on the MDP and set out the work that will be ongoing. I have placed a report on the MDP in the Library of the House.
First, I should put the MDP in context. The 2015 strategic defence and security review was the right plan for defence at the time. The Government put the defence budget on a firmer footing, increasing throughout the life of this Parliament. Defence is much stronger as a result. NATO is growing in strength, and the UK is a leader. More allies are meeting the 2% spending guideline, or have developed plans to do so. We are the second largest defence spender in NATO, one of only a small number of allies to spend 2% of our GDP on defence and to invest 20% of that in upgrading equipment.
We can be proud of what we have achieved since 2015, but we also have to be vigilant. National security challenges have become more complex, intertwined and dangerous since 2015, and those threats are moving much faster than was anticipated. Persistent, aggressive state competition now characterises the international security context. In response to the growing threats, the MDP was launched in January.
In the last year, our armed forces have demonstrated their growing capability, engaged globally, and supported the prosperity of the UK. The Royal Navy has increased its mass and points of presence around the world. We have taken steps to forward-base the Army, enhancing our global posture. The Royal Air Force has continued to innovate, and it celebrated a proud past in RAF 100, marking 100 years since its creation.
Progress has also been made in cyber and space, as the changing character of warfare makes both domains increasingly important. We have reinforced the UK’s position as a leading voice in NATO and on European security. Our armed forces have also led the way for global Britain, tackling our adversaries abroad to protect our security at home, and nurturing enduring relationships with our allies and partners.
Through the work over the past year, the MDP has identified three broad priorities, supported by the additional £1.8 billion invested in defence. First, we will mobilise, making more of what we already have to make our current force more lethal and better able to protect our security. The UK already has a world-leading array of capabilities. We will make the most effective use of them. We will improve the readiness and availability of a range of key defence platforms: major warships, attack submarines, helicopters and a range of intelligence, surveillance, target, acquisition and reconnaissance, or ISTAR, platforms.
We are adjusting our overseas training and deployments to increase our global points of presence, better to support allies and influence adversaries. To improve the combat effectiveness of our force, we will reprioritise the current defence programme to increase weapon stockpiles. We are also accelerating work to assure the resilience of our defence systems and capabilities.
We can mobilise a full spectrum of military, economic and soft power capabilities. Where necessary and appropriate, we will make sure we are able to act independently. We will also enhance efforts with our allies and partners, aligning our plans more closely with them, acting as part of combined formations, developing combined capabilities, and burden sharing. We continue to invest in, and grow, our global network of defence personnel and the education and training we offer in the UK and overseas.
Secondly, we will modernise, embracing new technologies to assure our competitive edge. Our adversaries and competitors are accelerating the development of new capabilities and strategies. We must keep pace and conceive of our joint force as consisting of the five domains of air, land, sea, cyber and space, rather than the traditional three.
We must modernise, targeting priority areas. A major new step will involve the improved Joint Forces Command, which will be in a better position both to allow defence to play a major role in preventing conflict in the future and to improve our cyber operations and capabilities across the armed forces, but also across Government.
This year, Defence’s innovation fund put £20 million towards projects in areas including unmanned air systems, virtual reality training, and enhanced digital communications for the future commando force. The fund will grow to £50 million in the next financial year, increasing the scope, ambition and value of the projects it can support.
We will launch new spearhead innovation programmes that will apply cutting-edge technologies to areas including sub-surface threats to our submarines; our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability; and command and control in the land environment.
To drive innovation and change through the Department, I am launching a transformation fund. Next year, I will ring-fence £160 million of the MOD’s budget to create the fund, which will be available for innovative new military capabilities. I will look to make a further £340 million available as part of the spending review. This fund will be available for new innovative military capabilities that allow us to stay one step ahead of our adversaries. Together, these and other steps will enable the acceleration of our modernisation plans.
Thirdly, we will transform, radically changing the way we do business in defence. We need to improve markedly the way we run defence. To sustain strategic advantage in a fast-changing world, we must be capable of continuous and timely adaptation. We will embrace modern business practices and establish a culture that nurtures transformation and innovation. We also need to create financial headroom for modernisation. Based on our work to date, we expect to achieve over the next decade the very demanding efficiency targets that we set in 2015, including through investment in a programme of digital transformation. We will develop a comprehensive strategy to improve recruitment and retention of talent, better reflecting the expectations of the modern workforce. We will access more effectively the talents of our whole force across all three services, and regulars, reserves, civil service and industry partners.
Looking ahead, dealing effectively with persistent conflict and competition will increasingly hinge on smarter and better informed long-range strategy. To help to achieve those goals we will establish a permanent net assessment unit, as well as a defence policy board of external experts, to bring challenge to defence policy and strategy. Our achievements under the MDP have made defence stronger. The capability investments and policy approaches set out, with the extra £1.8 billion of defence funding, will help us to keep on track to deliver the right UK defence for the challenging decade ahead.
Without a shadow of a doubt, there is a lot more work to be done as we move towards next year’s spending review. We must sustain this momentum if we are to realise our long-term goals of increasing the lethality, reach and mass of our armed forces. I will do everything in my power to make sure that the UK remains a tier one military power in the decade ahead, and that we continue to deliver the strong defence and security that has been the hallmark of the Government. I commend this statement to the House.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it.
I know that Members will be relieved that the review has finally been published—all 28 pages of it, 10 of which are photos or graphics—some six months after it was originally promised, because we all recognise the growing and diverse threats this country faces. However, given the amount of time it has taken, given the endless reports of the Secretary of State’s rows with various Cabinet colleagues, and given his commitment in the summer that this would lead to
“a major programme of top-down transformative reform”—[Official Report, 19 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 28WS.],
it is staggering that the end result is so underwhelming. The review does nothing to solve the affordability crisis facing the Ministry of Defence, a crisis that the Secretary of State has completely failed to get to grips with in his year in office.
The Secretary of State promised that the review would not be fiscally neutral. The Minister for Defence Procurement promised that it would
“put UK defence on to an enduringly affordable footing”—[Official Report, 5 November 2018; Vol. 648, c. 44WS.],
but I ask the Secretary of State how can it, when it includes no new money? Despite the £l billion that was announced in the Budget, the MOD’s own figures show that the funding gap in the defence equipment plan alone is somewhere between £7 billion and £15 billion. That leads to a very simple choice: either the Government must come forward with enough additional funds to fill that gap, which the Secretary of State has completely failed to do, or he must be honest about the difficult choices that have to be made.
We know that 84% of the MOD’s funding gap occurs in the next four years. According to the National Audit Office, that means that Ministers must make
“immediate savings decisions rather than relying on longer-term cuts or efficiencies”.
Can the Secretary of State tell us what those decisions are? Which programmes has he decided to defer, de-scope or delete? We all agree with the need to make savings wherever possible, but the MOD’s over-reliance on projected efficiencies which do not materialise has been a persistent problem. Will he accept that sorting the mess in his Department’s budget cannot simply be done through efficiencies?
Turning to the announcement of a transformation fund to develop new and innovative technologies, something one would assume his Department was doing in any case, can the Secretary of State confirm that the £160 million that has been earmarked comes from existing budgets and there will be no new money? What assurances has he received from the Chancellor that the remaining £340 million that is not currently in his budget will in fact be forthcoming?
Personnel are at the very heart of our country’s defences. Last week, the NAO published a damning report on the Army’s recruitment contract with Capita, the latest reminder that this company is failing badly and that MOD is failing abysmally to manage that contract properly. Ministers have made endless promises to take action to deal with this problem, but nothing has been done. Does the Secretary of State accept that it is now time to scrap that contract and take the service back in-house?
The news that the UK will not now be able to participate in the secure aspects of the Galileo programme is immensely concerning, as is the Government’s failure to answer straightforward questions about where the funds for the proposed UK satellite system will come from. In light of that, and with only two sitting days remaining, can the Secretary of State confirm that it is still his intention to publish a space strategy by the end of the year, or is this yet another decision that the Government will be deferring?
On the Labour Benches, we have always accepted the principle of the review. Threats have evolved since 2015 and our response must adapt as well. We recognise the importance of interoperability and burden-sharing with allies to maximise the UK’s defence capability for the future, but at a time when this country faces ever-increasing threats we do not believe that the Department’s affordability crisis can simply be ignored. That is just grossly irresponsible.
Gavin Williamson
In one breath the hon. Lady criticises people for fighting for defence and trying to get the very best for their Department, and then she does not even recognise the fact that the Government are investing more and more in defence. Last year, the defence budget was £36 billion. Next year, we will have a budget of £39 billion and the Government have committed to spend an extra £1.8 billion over and above on defence. Those are all incredibly positive steps. If we look at the debate we were having last year it was about capability cuts. That is what the speculation was about. We are not making those capability cuts and we are investing in defence.
The hon. Lady says we put too much emphasis on efficiencies. It is right to expect every Department to look at how it can run things more efficiently. We have achieved 70% of our efficiency target. Over the next 10 years, we hope and believe we can achieve all of our target. We remain positive that that is something we can deliver.
On Galileo, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be introducing a report in the early part of next year on satellite strategy, but I do not think it makes sense to continue to hand over money to the European Union in terms of a satellite programme that we will not have access to or industrial benefit from. That money can be better spent with other allies in developing our own capabilities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
There is much interest in this statement, but I point out to the House that there is a Standing Order No. 24 debate to follow and then the Second Reading of a Bill. There is, therefore, a premium upon brevity and I am keen to move on at, or extremely close to, two o’clock. Some people might not get in on this statement.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Very briefly in that case, Mr Speaker, does the Secretary of State accept that as we have not seen the actual document it would be useful to have a debate at an early stage? Will he accept the thanks, I think, of the whole House for having saved the amphibious capability of the Royal Marines? Does he feel, in this era of slightly looser Cabinet joint collective responsibility or whatever they care to call it, that he might accept the fact that the Defence Committee’s target ultimately of a return to 3% of GDP is what is really needed in terms of defence expenditure?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend always tries to tempt me with that question. I read his report with interest. He makes a point about an early debate. That would certainly be very welcome. I will make representations to the usual channels to see if that can be granted.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
When the modernising defence programme was announced over a year ago, it was supposed to be a sustainable and affordable defence settlement. It fails on both of those challenges. It is of course welcome that the Secretary of State managed to announce some pots of funding today, but the £1.8 billion he references is only for this year alone. That hardly shows the mark of a sustainable programme. It is also remarkable that he leaps between what he is going to spend and wanting more money from the Chancellor. That shows that the MDP has spectacularly missed the point of why it was initiated in the first place.
After meeting me in March this year, the Secretary of State knows that my party wanted to see a focus on the High North. He knows that we wanted a focus on Scotland’s maritime territory, but both those things are missing from the statement. He has not addressed the £15 billion black hole identified in the equipment plan by the National Audit Office. Of course, he knows that we wanted to see something in the statement about the declining size of the armed forces, but sadly, that was missing as well.
For the longest defence review in the history of his Department, it looks to me as though these conclusions are extremely thin, to be charitable, so will the Secretary of State finally stop storing up problems for the future? Will he make a switch to what we have suggested—multi-year defence agreements, which in fairness, there seems to be a vague nod to in his statement—or is he going to leave it to one of his successors to give our armed forces the certainty that all of them deserve?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about trying to reach a framework that goes multi-year. That would certainly assist with making investment decisions, and that is obviously part of the ongoing discussions that we would have right across Government. It is a valid and thoughtful point, but let us not underestimate the importance of what we have been able to achieve, with the extra £1.8 billion of investment in our armed forces. This means that we are able to make investment to make sure that our nuclear deterrent has the proper security that it needs. We can make the investment in anti-submarine activity and we can continue to make the investment that we need to counter cyber-attacks, both defensively and offensively. However, we recognise that there will be continued challenges. That is why the extra money that has been secured gives us the opportunity to start making the investment that is required for us to have, and continue to have, the world’s best armed forces.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I welcome the fact that there were no cuts in capability. The Secretary of State has held the line, and he will now go into battle against the Chancellor for more resources in the comprehensive spending review. Given the Chancellor’s legendary tact—the other day, he attacked over half of Tory Back Benchers for being extremists—I tell the Secretary of State that if he now goes toe to toe with the Chancellor for more defence spending, he will have 117 allies that he did not know he had.
Gavin Williamson
That is incredibly charming of my right hon. Friend. Over the last year, we have seen a commitment right across the Government from both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to getting increased funding for defence, and that is to be welcomed. This keeps coming back to the simple fact that last year’s defence budget was £36 billion and next year’s will be £39 billion with the extra money that has been secured, but it is about investing in the capabilities and making sure that our armed forces have the mass and lethality that they need to keep us safe.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
If military strength was based on management-speak and general waffle, the Secretary of State’s statement would make us a world-beater, but the reality he asks us to face is that since 2015, we have a smaller Army, with recruitment targets missed, ships in dock because they cannot have crews, efficiency targets met, and a £15 billion black hole in his equipment plan. When is the real money going to come forward, rather than the general waffle that he has put forward today?
Gavin Williamson
As I have pointed out, we are seeing an increasing budget. What we are doing, as we have outlined, is investing in those capabilities to make sure that we have better availability of assets, whether that means ships, armoured vehicles, submarines or aircraft. We are also investing in stockpiles to make sure that we have the depth of stockpiles that we need in order to deal with the increasing threats around the globe.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
It is excellent news to hear that the transformation fund will be set up, because that will ensure that the Department can really start to prioritise how that key funding is spent effectively. Will the Secretary of State tell us how he intends to prioritise that funding, and does he have three top priorities that he can share with us?
Gavin Williamson
The first is to make sure that we develop both the technologies and capabilities where we see our adversaries moving so quickly. That may be artificial intelligence or autonomous vehicles. Secondly, it is to make sure that our forces are properly ready and able to have a much better forward presence right around the globe. We want to use our armed forces as a deterrent against our adversaries so they can see that we are willing and able to act if and when it is required. Thirdly, it is to make sure that we look after the service personnel who make up our armed forces and that we put in the right investment to make sure that they are properly supported in doing the amazing job that they do in defending our country.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
This has been a supposedly urgent and immediate review, which has taken over 12 months. It has dismissed the strategic defence and security review and we have been waiting for proper decisions to be made, yet we have seen none today. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what we are now waiting for is the CSR next year?
Gavin Williamson
What we would agree with is that the SDSR 2015 clearly identified the challenges that this country faces, but we also recognise that our adversaries are investing in new technology, so we have put in place the ability for us to start investing more money in those technologies. The hon. Lady rightly points out that the comprehensive spending review is going to be very important to the Department to make sure that we get the right investment going forward.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
The innovation at the heart of the MDP is very welcome, but it is very important that innovation is not just a slogan and that it delivers increased fighting power for our armed forces. Can the Secretary of State give an example of how innovation will increase the fighting power of our armed forces?
Gavin Williamson
We have recently seen, in Exercise Saif Sareea in Oman, how we have used traditional technologies, such as tanks, in conjunction with drones to be able to enhance their ability to operate in such areas. We are also looking at investment to secure our submarines to make sure that they continue to remain undetected and are in the best position to detect others and at enhancing the capabilities of jets such as the Typhoon. These are all areas in which we are looking at making extra investment. It is also important that we make that extra investment because it increases the exportability of some of these products and capabilities that we have around the globe.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
No matter what platforms we buy or capability we have, if we do not have the personnel, we have no military capability. We have a major shortfall—according to the National Audit Office, between 21% and 45% of our armed forces is not being recruited. What will we be doing to ensure that we not only have the platforms, but the people with the skills mix and the training to ensure that we have the capability to move forward?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady’s point is very valid. That is why I said that one of the key priorities is looking after the service personnel who serve in our armed forces. This is not just about recruitment, but about retention and looking at how we make the offer better and attract people who have left the services back into them. However, the recruitment issue that she highlighted is one on which we have already initiated a number of pilot programmes to make sure that we get the numbers of people applying to join our armed forces and shorten the amount of time that it takes from their application to them joining the armed forces.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend on securing significant additional resources for the vital work that is done by the MOD. Does he agree that that will provide reassurance to the men and women in our armed forces that the Government are prepared to put their interests first and that the UK will continue to invest in world-leading innovation, much of which is done by companies in my constituency?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend points out an important part of this—investment in new technologies—and if we look at the future combat air strategy and Tempest, we see that the ability for us to invest in new technologies so that we have a successor for the Typhoon aircraft is absolutely vital and incredibly important. If we look at some of the speculation that was going around the Chamber this time last year about us, there was speculation that we were going to be getting rid of the amphibious platforms, Albion and Bulwark, and that we were going to be reducing the number of frigates and destroyers. There was a lot of speculation, and what this quite clearly says is that that is something we are not going to be doing.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
We all know about Russia’s aggressive behaviour in the sea of Azov and the Black sea. What does the Secretary of State’s statement mean for countering that aggressive behaviour and demonstrating our support for the sovereignty of Ukraine?
Gavin Williamson
We must remember that we have a friend in Ukraine, a nation whose sovereign territory has been invaded and which has seen the seizure of Crimea and, of course, incursions to the east. The Government must work continuously with Ukraine, giving it the support that it needs. In Operation Orbital, we have been stepping up our support for the Ukrainian Government, and the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Gordon Messenger, was in Ukraine recently discussing what further assistance we could offer. We have also recently signed a defence agreement with the Ukrainian Government, and we will see how we can provide that extra support. What is so important is a clear deterrence to prevent Russia from infringing any further sovereign territory of Ukraine.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
In order to be the architect of modernisation, will my right hon. Friend be bidding for some of the £39 billion Brexit bonus bonanza if we do not pass the withdrawal agreement?
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State spoke of no cuts in capability. Can he explain how a declining number of service personnel is not a cut in capability?
Gavin Williamson
As I have said, we have already taken a number of actions to drive up recruitment in our armed forces while also increasing retention. Service personnel have gone out into the streets to be part of a recruitment process that had not taken place for the last few years since the decision was taken to withdraw them. An increasing number of people are applying for all three services; what we need to do is convert that into those who are joining them.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The modernising defence programme is partly about improving the resilience of our defence and our country. Has the Secretary of State received any approaches from other Departments about using our world-class armed forces personnel in the event of a no-deal Brexit?
Gavin Williamson
As yet, we have received no formal requests from any Department, but we are making contingency plans. We will ensure that 3,500 service personnel, including regulars and reserves, are held in readiness to support any Department with contingency needs.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Ind)
The Secretary of State is right to push for more creativity in thinking about the future capability of our underwater environment, but is it not time for him to confirm that that will be based on a submarine platform?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to do so, but it is fair to say that our investment in submarines is currently vast, involving both the Astute and Dreadnought programmes. We want to think about innovation, and how we can best tap into the skills that are held by BAE Systems and the people of Barrow to develop the platforms that will succeed Astute, and we hope to be able to update the hon. Gentleman and the House on how we expect to do that in the not too distant future.
Mr Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, including his confirmation that there will be additional funds for the Ministry of Defence next year. I also welcome what he said about capabilities. Will he take this opportunity to tell us how he sees defence contributing to the prosperity of the United Kingdom with that extra money, and also to dispel some of the myths that are spreading outside this place about the future relationship between the MOD and the EU in respect of security matters?
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for his review on promoting prosperity through defence. Investment in capabilities, whether it involves ships, jets or land vehicles, is a real driver in the creation of jobs and investment, and the MOD is one of the largest departmental investors in science. We want to think about how we can leverage that more and more. We have seen some fantastic orders over the last year, including a £5 billion order from Qatar and a £20 billion order from Australia for a new frigate. Another great success has been the potential for a large order from the Canadians. However, we will continue to ensure prosperity is at the very heart of everything that we do. Some of the best examples of what British products can achieve is demonstrated through what our armed forces do with them.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
The report on the modernising defence programme, which I endorsed as a member of the Defence Committee, said:
“The force structure that emerges from the MDP must be supported by a robust and sustainable financial settlement”.
Can the Secretary of State point sceptics like myself in the direction of the section of the report that he has placed in the Library, so that we can judge for ourselves whether his Department seems likely to deliver the “sustainable and affordable” settlement that he promised a year ago?
Gavin Williamson
We have already made it absolutely clear that the defence budget will increase, and that by 2021 it will amount to £40 billion. That is a commitment that has been made by my party, and we are delivering on it. It would be interesting to hear what defence spending commitments Opposition parties are willing to make.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I was delighted to welcome the Secretary of State to RM Condor in Angus to see our fantastic training facility at first hand, and to see how it can be supported. I strongly believe that RM Condor should not only remain an integral part of the UK defence estate but be strengthened. I should be grateful if, ahead of the review, the Secretary of State would assure me that he too understands the importance of RM Condor in Angus.
Gavin Williamson
Having had the opportunity to visit Condor—I know that my hon. Friend has led an Adjournment debate on it—I recognise its importance to our capabilities, and also the spread of UK armed forces in every part of the United Kingdom. However, I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter in further detail.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
As Devonport’s Member of Parliament, I have been fighting the Government’s proposed cuts to our amphibious ships and our Royal Marines since my election. If the MDP does not guarantee the future of the Royal Marines, it will have failed. Will the Secretary of State now guarantee the future size of the Royal Marines, and will he ensure that the superbase in Plymouth to which his predecessors have committed themselves will be part of his plan for the future?
Gavin Williamson
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the fact that we are ensuring that we maintain that important amphibious capability in HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark. We have recognised the vital role played by the Royal Marines in everything that our armed forces do. When it comes to some of the challenges around the globe, whether they are close to home or further afield, the Royal Marines will always play an important role. We will continue to invest in the Royal Marines, and in the whole of the Royal Navy—there has been the great announcement of the basing of Type 26s at Devonport—and we will continue to consider how best to deliver the training of Royal Marines in the future.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right to seek to maximise our existing capability by mobilising it more often, but can he reassure us that the reduced tour intervals that will result from that increased operational tempo will not limit opportunities for meaningful peacetime training, and also that the wider package that supports the military community will be sufficiently improved to ensure that retention does not suffer as a consequence of that higher tempo?
Gavin Williamson
We will always do everything that we can to meet the guidelines that we set out in order to ensure that service personnel on active duty have the rest and recuperation that they need, because we recognise that if we do not do that, we will start to have problems with retention.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is an affordability gap in the MOD’s published equipment plan? How will he close that gap, and what choices is he considering in case he receives no extra funds from the Chancellor?
Gavin Williamson
As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have had increases in our budget, along with increased commitments from the Treasury to support what we are doing. We are looking at how we can drive further efficiencies in order to ensure that we deliver the frontline capabilities. There has been much talk about the affordability gap, but it has been declining year on year, and that is something that we hope to be able to continue to achieve.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that our party is absolutely committed to maintaining our nuclear deterrent? I think that many Conservative Members fear that the Labour party would make its funding cuts by cutting it.
Gavin Williamson
What is clear is that if we want a party that will come to the defence of our armed forces, invest more money in our armed forces and ensure that we continue to keep a nuclear deterrent, it is the Conservative party that will always do that.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Conservative party has a dogma about outsourcing everything possible to the private sector even when there are clear failures, as there are with the Capita contract around recruitment. So will the Secretary of State admit now that doing that is failing the armed forces and taxpayers?
Gavin Williamson
We will always look at new models and new ideas for how to deliver the best services for our service personnel, which they rely on so much. We do use outsourcing, as the Labour Government previously did, and we will continue to do so, but we will continue to look at how we drive the best value and, most importantly, the best quality of service.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Defence Secretary mentioned in his statement the proud history of the RAF in this year in particular, but he will also know it has a very bright future as well, especially in Moray at RAF Lossiemouth. Will he update the House on the progress being made ahead of the arrival of the P-8s and congratulate the local construction firm Robertson on its outstanding work?
Gavin Williamson
I congratulate Robertson on the work it is doing. We are making a £400 million investment in RAF Lossiemouth, one of the biggest investments of its kind anywhere in the UK, and I know my hon. Friend has fought hard to get that level of investment in his constituency. This is not just about creating armed forces jobs in his constituency; it also has a wide-ranging benefit to the whole economy that brings prosperity to the whole region.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have asked serious questions about the Department’s ability to deliver savings, keep projects on track and remain within budget. As the MDP adds even more entries to the list of tasks expected of our service personnel, may I ask where the cuts will come from and when we can expect to see that list, should the Department not be able to win more money from the Chancellor?
Gavin Williamson
We have made clear that we are not looking at making capability cuts in the MDP; we have been looking at how we invest in our armed forces and new capabilities.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right that retention is a challenge. Mindful of the use of reservists at Brize Norton, particularly in the AirTanker programme, will he consider expanding the use of reservists in the RAF?
Gavin Williamson
We always look at how we can expand the use of reservists. Their use is critical to what we do in so many of our defence functions, and we should not see them as separate from what our armed forces do; they are absolutely critical and will always be so.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I declare my interests.
Will the Secretary of State set out what his Department is doing, ideally on a multilateral basis, to ensure the ethical use of autonomous and artificial intelligence systems announced in his statement today?
Gavin Williamson
We will be working closely with all our allies to make sure we have the highest standards in the use of autonomous and AI technology going forward, and we will be looking at entering into legal commitments on that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
One of the strengths of NATO is the shared use of common 5.56 mm calibre ammunition, which is crucial for the interoperability of infantry weapons systems. What are the implications for the British MDP if the Americans go ahead with their plans to switch to 6.8 mm for their assault weaponry?
Gavin Williamson
We would not expect to see that right across all US armed forces, but the US has consistently been our closest ally and we would work very closely with it by having discussions as to how to continue to share the interoperability that we have always benefited from for the last 70 years.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We now need extremely short, single-sentence questions and replies.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
With the splendid isolationism of Brexit and an obsession with nuclear weapons, is there not a danger that the British state will become the European version of North Korea?
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
There are serious concerns regarding manpower, particularly in the Royal Navy; how will the MDP address them?
Gavin Williamson
We are going back and looking at how we do recruitment better—how we go out and get more people applying for our armed forces, and how we make sure their applications are dealt with swiftly—and we have been seeing an increase. We have also been looking at how to inspire a new generation of young people to join our armed forces. We employ more apprentices than any other Government Department; there are over 20,000 people on apprenticeships with the MOD, and we hope to have more.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State says that we need to save money. Here is one suggestion: shipbuilding orders of £7.5 billion will potentially be going out of this country between now and 2030. If those ships were built in the UK, that would save the Treasury 20%. Will the Secretary of State go to the Treasury and make the demand to build those ships in the UK?
Gavin Williamson
We are encouraging all British shipyards to bid for all ships that we will be procuring.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend commit to supporting the small and medium-sized enterprises that lead much of the innovation in the defence tech sector?
Gavin Williamson
It is important to recognise that some of the technology that will lead innovation in defence comes not from the large primes but from SMEs, and the question of how we can best tap into that is absolutely critical.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I have repeatedly raised with the Government the closure of important military bases such as Redford barracks in my constituency and not got a satisfactory reply. Will the Secretary of State now pledge to look again at the better defence estate plan?
Gavin Williamson
The MOD is a major employer in Scotland, employing over 14,000 people, and more than 11,000 jobs depend on orders from the MOD. We will continue to invest in Scotland in the future.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Thousands of jobs in Stevenage rely on defence spending. Is the Secretary of State confident that this programme will ensure those jobs are secured into the future?
Gavin Williamson
The investment in stockpiles in particular will have a very positive effect for businesses producing ordinance for the armed forces, such as MBDA.
Jim Shannon
Does the Secretary of State not believe that there will be cuts to civilian staff of 30% from extensive outsourcing, and that that would leave a massive gap in support staff and have an adverse effect on the MOD and the defence budget?
Rebecca Pow
Can the Secretary of State confirm that no cuts will be made to the Marines, and may I reiterate my invitation to him to visit 40 Commando in Taunton to see how effective it is and how much money it has invested recently, and how consolidating its position in Taunton would help the defence capability of the nation?
Gavin Williamson
I am very much looking forward to visiting 40 Commando, and we have no intention of cutting the Royal Marines.
Points of Order
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition’s point of order yesterday announcing the motion of no confidence, which is in the remaining orders and notices, you will recall that the motion states:
“That this House has no confidence in the Prime Minister due to her failure to allow the House of Commons to have a meaningful vote straight away”.
Her Majesty’s Opposition have not heard whether the Government will be making a statement or tabling a business of the House motion to deal with that motion. The Prime Minister refused to ensure that a meaningful vote took place on the date that she agreed, she refuses to allow a vote to take place this week, and she is delaying a vote until 14 January 2019. This is an affront to this House and to the British people.
The motion is clear that this is the Prime Minister’s failure. The Government have not had the courtesy to come to the House to inform right hon. and hon. Members whether there will be a debate on the motion. It appears that the Government have made an announcement to everyone except this House.
May I have your guidance, Mr Speaker, on whether you have heard from the Government about whether they have agreed to find time for the no-confidence motion, and whether you heard before everyone else that the Government are not allowing a debate on the motion?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me advance notice of her intended point of order. The short answer to her question is that I have had no such indication from the Government that they have any intention of acceding to the request for a debate on the motion, although I have no doubt that her plea has been heard on the Treasury Bench. For the avoidance of doubt and in the name of better public understanding of our procedures, I should make it clear that there is a strong convention that the Government provide time at an early opportunity for a no-confidence motion in Her Majesty’s Government if tabled by the official Opposition. However—and this is important—no such convention applies in relation to this particular motion, which is not a conventional no-confidence motion. So that is where things stand at present and I do not think I can add anything further, but the hon. Lady has put her point on the record.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it not true that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 makes it absolutely clear that, if Her Majesty’s Opposition were to table a motion of no confidence in the Government, an immediate debate would have to be held? Indeed, if the Opposition had tabled such a motion last night, we would now be discussing a motion of no confidence in the Government. The problem for the leader of the Labour party is that he does not want an immediate motion of no confidence because if, as is likely, it were to be lost, he would be forced by his party to go for a referendum. The Opposition are playing games.
Mr Speaker
I will not get into secondary matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I can confirm that his exegesis of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is broadly correct. I am not surprised by that; I would expect nothing less from him, as he is an experienced parliamentarian. He is right on that front.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In the light of your rulings just now, could you clarify whether it is possible for any hon. Member to table a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government? You will know that many of us are unhappy with the way in which Her Majesty’s Government have been conducting themselves, and that we are frustrated that a motion stating “This House has no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government” has not been tabled.
Mr Speaker
It is open to other Members to table such a motion, but there is a difference between tabling a motion and having the assurance of time for a debate on it.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. Is there a precedent for motions of no confidence in the Prime Minister? What has been the response to such motions in the past? I seek your guidance on taking this forward.
Mr Speaker
Forgive me—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is seeking counsel, but I feel that I have already set out the position clearly. That is to say that there is a well-established procedure that has, in a sense, been underpinned and reinforced by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. That procedure allows for an official Opposition motion of no confidence in the Government to be allocated time for debate and a vote. The particular motion that has recently been tabled expresses no confidence on the part of the House in the Prime Minister, but it does not express no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government, and it is therefore not automatically eligible for debate in the same way that a conventional no-confidence motion would be. Moreover, as I have explained to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), it is perfectly open to other Members to seek to table no confidence in the Government motions, but they do not have the same status as a motion from Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I hope that that is clear to colleagues.
Mr Speaker
Well, if the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) really must. I will come to the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey). We are keeping him waiting, but I am sure he will be worth waiting for.
Anna Soubry
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put on record how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on his point of order? This might be a first, but it is an important one. Have you had any communication with Her Majesty’s Opposition to assist them with the correct procedure? Is it not the case that you and your excellent Clerks are always available to Her Majesty’s Opposition, should they seek any information or advice on how to conduct themselves as a proper, functioning Opposition?
Mr Speaker
The Chair is always available to offer advice if it is sought. I sometimes proffer advice when it is not sought, but I do not unfailingly do so.
Mr Speaker
I think we should keep the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) waiting, because the hon. Member for Wells was first.
James Heappey
Mr Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe got my question in before me.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Further to the point of order from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), Mr Speaker. Is it possible for a Back-Bench MP to table a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Opposition, given the mess they have made of tabling a motion of no confidence? They have confused even their own Back Benchers over the difference between a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister and a motion of no confidence in the Government. They have made an utter shambles of the entire process. So can we have two motions of no confidence: one in the Government and one in that lot over there?
Mr Speaker
The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that I am not aware of any precedent for what he cheekily suggests. However, I would say to him that it is perfectly open to Members to table early-day motions. He is nothing if not an adroit and assiduous Member of the House and, if my memory serves me correctly, he is not entirely unfamiliar with that device.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the points of order raised by my hon. Friends, Mr Speaker. We on this side of the House are seeking to table a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister with the objective of bringing forward the meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement and of holding the Prime Minister to account for her failure. That was the objective of that measure. Failing having an opportunity to do that, what other measures are available to the House, which has held the Government in contempt, to bring forward that meaningful vote expeditiously?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that the art of persuasion is, I think, the only approach that could possibly succeed in bringing forward that vote. I have explained what the powers of the Chair are, and what they are not. I quite understand that many Members would like to get on with the conclusion of that debate—or with the beginning, continuation and conclusion of it if it is an entirely new debate—followed by the vote, but it is not for the Chair to bring that about. The hon. Gentleman asks how he could bring it about, and I think the answer is through the art of persuasion and the use of the charm and guile for which he is well renowned, at least in his own constituency and perhaps beyond.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Northern Ireland Secretary indicated to you that she intends to come to the Dispatch Box as a matter of urgency to respond to reports over the past 48 hours that the Irish Government have concluded a specific mapping exercise along the entire length of the 300-mile land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and that they have concluded that there are considerably in excess of the 200 crossing points that they had previously established to be in place? They have now indicated that the number is approximately the same as the number that I and others have suggested, thereby negating any requirement whatsoever for a backstop, given that a hard border would be a total and utter impossibility.
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that I have received no such indication from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. She is among the most courteous Members of the House, and I feel sure that if she were planning to make a statement I would have got wind of it. The hon. Gentleman beetled up to the Chair to raise this matter with me earlier, and I indicated that it was perfectly legitimate for him to raise it by way of a point of order. In the absence of any commitment to a statement, if he feels that this is a pressing matter that warrants the urgent attention of the House tomorrow, for example, he knows what resources and devices are available to him.
Bill Presented
European Union (Revocation of Notification of Withdrawal) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Geraint Davies, supported by Dr Sarah Wollaston, Mr David Lammy, Peter Grant, Tom Brake and Liz Saville Roberts, presented a Bill to require the Prime Minister to revoke the notification, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union unless two conditions are met; to establish as the first condition for non-revocation that a withdrawal agreement has been approved by Parliament by 21 January 2019 or during an extension period agreed by that date under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union; to establish as the second condition for non-revocation that a majority of participating voters have voted in favour of that agreement in a referendum in which the United Kingdom remaining as a member of the European Union was the other option; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2019, and to be printed (Bill 306).
EU Withdrawal Agreement
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the outcome of the Prime Minister’s recent discussions with the European Commission and European Heads of Government regarding the Withdrawal Agreement, and potential ways forward.
Ian Blackford
Well, there we are. I do not know whether that was picked up by the microphone, but “Go back to Skye,” has just been chuntered from a sedentary position. There is the message to the people of Scotland from the Conservative Benches, and the people of Scotland will reflect on the ignorance and arrogance shown by so-called hon. Members. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate on this specific and important matter. Not I nor anybody else will be going back to the Isle of Skye, because we will be in this place standing up for our constituents.
I recognise that the Prime Minister made a statement to the House yesterday, but this matter requires further discussion and examination. It is disappointing in the least that the Prime Minister is not here to listen and to respond to this debate. This debate has been won by the leader of the third party in the House of Commons. Where is the respect from the Prime Minister? Why is the Prime Minister not in her place to defend the inaction of her Government? It is an outrage that the Prime Minister does not have the gall to come to this House to debate such important matters. It is an insult to the people of Scotland and to the people of this House.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Will the public not find it strange that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has been asked to come here to talk about a Council meeting that he did not even attend?
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is correct. We have to understand the seriousness of the situation. The entire United Kingdom runs the risk of crashing out of the European Union on the basis that the Prime Minister and the Government are trying to deny this House the opportunity to have a vote. Given that we have secured this timely debate, it is vital that the Prime Minister recognises the importance of being here and ensuring that she can respond.
We are in uncharted territory. The Government were found in contempt of Parliament, and the Prime Minister faces weekly resignations, barely surviving a vote of confidence from her own party. She is still in office but not in control. Perhaps more troubling, we are three months away from leaving the European Union and we are sleepwalking towards disaster. There is no majority for the Prime Minister’s deal. We know that today the Cabinet was discussing a no-deal scenario—which very few would support—yet with the Prime Minister deferring a meaningful vote to the middle of January and the process of determining our future having to be agreed by 21 January, we run the risk of crashing out of the EU almost by accident. Having a meaningful vote on 14 January, with only a week thereafter for this House to agree an alternative, is playing with fire.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, which started off with great heat. If he wants to protect Scotland and protect constituencies that are concerned with business, such as mine, he should vote for this deal. Is he not trying to drive us over the edge? Is it not the Scottish Government who want to see us driven over the edge with no deal?
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that the Scottish National party, the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens in the Scottish Parliament voted to ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard. The determination of the people of Scotland was clear that we want to be in the European Union, but we have deaf ears from the hon. Gentleman, who fails and refuses to stand up for the people of Scotland. That is the reality.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I am going to make some progress.
Our constituents will not thank us for putting the UK in such a situation that we have one week from voting down the Prime Minister’s deal to save the UK from a no-deal scenario. That is why we need this debate today. More importantly, however, we need a meaningful vote this week, not in the middle of January. The Prime Minister is playing a dangerous game of trying to lock us out of any alternative and make it a binary choice between her deal or no deal. It is the height of irresponsibility, treating this place and the electorate with contempt.
We must be honest with ourselves and, more importantly, with the public. There is no such thing as a good Brexit. The Government’s analysis shows that we will be better off staying in the European Union compared with any of the Brexit options. Put simply, we are risking growth, job opportunities and prosperity, but why? We are told by the Prime Minister that it is because we must respect the referendum result. Well, when the facts change, our opinions can also change. We must be straight with those who voted leave or remain that we now know that there is a price to be paid for Brexit, such as job losses. Putting people on the dole is not a price worth paying. No Government worthy of that name are fit for purpose if they countenance such a scenario. It is an abrogation of responsibility.
We know that billions are being spent on no-deal planning. That money could have been spent on the NHS, on education, on transport and so on, but it is having to be spent on no-deal planning. What a waste it is that the Government think that that is appropriate. Money that should be spent on the frontline is being spent elsewhere because of the dogma of right-wing Brexit.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Is it not a very real possibility that the Prime Minister is pulling the wool over her Back Benchers’ eyes? They know that she is running down the clock, and they think that she may be going to no deal, but a catalogue of people in her party and her Government have described no deal as a catastrophe. What is going to happen is that she will look down the barrel of no deal and then end up revoking article 50, and there will be hell on the Tory Benches when she does.
Ian Blackford
We are trying to ensure that we have a meaningful vote this week to ensure that this House votes down both the Prime Minister’s plan and no deal. We can then move on to the alternatives and the solutions. The fact that the Prime Minister is risking catastrophe is unacceptable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I will make a bit of progress and then take interventions later.
Many of us have been given briefings on Privy Council terms on the immediate impact of no deal. I am not allowed to share the details with the House, although I will say that the information that was shared with me should now be made public. It is sobering. The first job of any Government is to protect the interests of their people. This Government are wilfully exposing their citizens to risk, whether on job security, the procurement of medicines or food supply, or on aircraft being able to take off. It saddens me that I point the finger of blame fairly and squarely at this Government and at the Prime Minister.
We must wake up to the impact of Brexit and to the options that are in front of us. Some MPs, working on a cross-party basis, want to break the logjam. The SNP has been working with the Liberals Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Greens, and I commend them for their desire to work on a cross-party basis. Members from the Labour party and, indeed, the Conservative party have also spoken out to support a people’s vote. I know that there are many others in the Labour party and the Conservatives who want a people’s vote. I understand party loyalty, but the issue today is one of loyalty to the electorate and to the individual nations that make up the United Kingdom. Now is the time to stand up and be counted. This is a constitutional crisis, and each and every one of us has an individual responsibility. Parliament will not be forgiven by many of our young people if we allow the greatest example of economic self-harm in modern times to take place.
Turning to the Leader of the Opposition, I do this from a position of sorrow, because I believe him to be a man of great principle, but I must say to him that he has become the midwife for Brexit. The Leader of the Opposition is letting the Government off the hook. He has it within his gift to bring forward a no confidence motion that will test the will of the House but, crucially, it will also allow his party to move on to the issue of a people’s vote. Yesterday’s stunt was an embarrassment. The Scottish National party and others sought to amend his motion, and today I ask him to do what he failed spectacularly to do yesterday and table a motion of no confidence in the Government. Let us move on and have that debate tomorrow.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Labour party has made it clear that we will table a motion of no confidence in the Government when we think we have the best opportunity of winning that vote. However, does the right hon. Gentleman agree it is a crying shame that the Prime Minister has chosen always to operate these negotiations in the best interest of the Conservative party? If she had considered the national interest, perhaps we would not be in the current mess.
Ian Blackford
I agree with the hon. Lady on that last point. She knows I have respect for her but, on the basis of the risks we all face, we have a responsibility to come together. I have spoken about the support we have had in working together with the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and Plaid Cymru, and I plead with the Labour party to work with us, too. We have to unite, because it is in the interest of all our nations to do so.
We need to bring forward a motion of no confidence in the Government because of the conditions the Labour party has laid down; we need to see whether we could trigger a general election. We need to test the will of the House on that issue and, on that basis, we would then be in a position to move forward. I simply say to the Leader of the Opposition that, based on the very real risk that there will be no deal as a consequence of the stupidity of what has come from the Government, we now have that responsibility, and today is the day—not tomorrow, and not when we came back in January—when the Opposition must unite in tabling a motion of no confidence in the Government.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Geraint Davies
In that spirit of solidarity, will the right hon. Gentleman join the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) in supporting my European Union (Revocation of Notification of Withdrawal) Bill? The Bill would basically rule out any possibility of a no-deal Brexit and would require any deal to be agreed by this House and by a vote of the people, or else we stay in the EU by revoking article 50.
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman is to be commended for his actions and, of course, we made it very clear that we supported the amendment of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), which would have ruled out no deal. We are engaged in a process that we all want to go through, and it is important that the legal action taken by a number of Scottish parliamentarians, on a cross-party basis, has got us to a position where we know we can revoke article 50. Indeed, that may be what has to happen, but we have to get to a situation where the House is given an opportunity to vote for a people’s vote first. In that scenario, the revocation of article 50 may well have to happen.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for knowing parliamentary procedure and for calling for the motion to be tabled correctly. I have been calling for the Labour party to grow up and table the motion with which it keeps threatening us.
I take the right hon. Gentleman back to the people’s vote, about which I have a sincere question. He is unhappy with the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum and with the outcome of the 2016 referendum. Why would he accept the outcome of a people’s vote any more than he has accepted the other two?
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because it allows me to say that, when we had our referendum in 2014, we produced an 800-odd page White Paper. The people of Scotland knew exactly what our vision was for an independent Scotland. Crucially, in 2016 we had a slogan on the side of a bus. We had a ridiculous situation in which people were not told the truth about what the impact of Brexit would be.
Way back in 2014, the people of Scotland were told that, if we stayed in the United Kingdom, Scotland would remain a member of the European Union and our rights as European citizens would be respected. In the 2016 referendum the people of Scotland voted to remain by 62%, and we were told that if we stayed in the United Kingdom, we would lead the UK and we would be respected as a partner in the United Kingdom.
What do we find? We do not find that we are leading the UK; we find that the UK is taking us out of the European Union against our will. The Scottish National party will not sit back and allow the people of Scotland to be dragged out of the European Union against their will. Scotland is a European nation, and we will remain a European nation.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and painting a very bleak picture of the mess the UK is getting itself into. Under normal circumstances, the Prime Minister would be long gone by now. Given that no one else wants the job, not even the flip-flopping, Brexit-enabling Leader of the Opposition, does my right hon. Friend agree that Scotland’s future lies squarely as an independent country and an equal partner within the European Union?
Ian Blackford
Of course, the First Minister of Scotland has said that we will work constructively across parties to try to save the UK from Brexit. We have made it clear that we wish to stay in the European Union but, when we get to the end of the process, if there is an economic threat to jobs and prosperity in Scotland, among other things, it is clear that the Scottish Parliament has a mandate to call an independence referendum. There is a majority in the Scottish Parliament to hold such a referendum.
Just a few months ago, this House voted to accept the claim of right for Scotland. If the Scottish Parliament comes forward with a request for a section 30 authority, this House must allow the people of Scotland to determine their own future.
Ian Blackford
I want to make progress. I will take interventions later.
Here we have a Parliament in London that is silenced by the Government, and the devolved Administrations are silenced and ignored. The magnitude and seriousness of the challenge before us cannot be overestimated. The House will go into recess this week, and we cannot allow this farce to continue over the Christmas period. The Prime Minister has returned from Brussels with nothing. She has been humiliated, told by the European Union that there is no new negotiation, yet she continues to bury her head in the sand, hoping that the squeeze of time—the threat and the pressure of no deal—will get her blindfold Brexit over the line. It will not. This Government should hold the meaningful vote now. They should put the options on the table now or stand aside and let the people decide.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal for the vote coming back immediately. Of course, the various options open to us could then be voted on in a meaningful way. In that event, would he and his party vote for Norway-plus? I know he has argued for that, as indeed have I, and it would mean the single market and the customs union. Or does he take the view that that boat has set sail?
Ian Blackford
The right hon. Lady makes a useful intervention. The position of the Scottish National party has always been that the people of Scotland voted to remain, and we wish that to be respected. The people’s vote would create a circumstance in which we could at least test the will of the people of the United Kingdom. We have sought to compromise over the past two and a half years, and she is correct that we said Norway-plus is the minimum we would accept, but I believe that ship has now sailed. We ought to be staying in the European Union. That is the best option, and we should put it to the people. I am grateful that she also takes that view.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I need to make progress. I am aware that many other Members wish to speak, and I wish to move on.
Yesterday the Prime Minister told us that we will get our meaningful vote but that we will get it in the second week of January. That is not acceptable. Do this Government recognise that, with every week that passes, more and more uncertainty sets in? We hear day after day of companies putting off investment decisions, and it is the uncertainty and chaos of this Government that is leading to that. Businesses, farmers and workers are all left waiting on this Government. Delaying the vote is a total abdication of responsibility, causing even greater uncertainty and instability. Yet again, the fate of our services and our economy is left to play second fiddle to the internal struggles of the Tory Party. The truth is that this Prime Minister is hamstrung by her own party. The result of the recent confidence vote was little more than a pyrrhic victory for the Prime Minister. At a crucial time in its history, the UK has a lame-duck Prime Minister, saddled with a lame-duck Brexit deal. The Prime Minister cannot and must not use this result to support her claim that the choice is now between her bad Brexit and a catastrophic no-deal Brexit. The Prime Minister will have to face up to the fact that her deal carries no majority in the House of Commons. She must break the deadlock, and the SNP will support any second EU referendum that has remain as an option. Still struggling to cobble together support for her disastrous deal, the Prime Minister is seeking to run down the clock rather than act in all our national interests. We, as parliamentarians, cannot let that happen. We must ensure that the voices of our citizens are heard.
The Prime Minister’s deal must be defeated. No one with the interests of this and future generations at heart could possibly accept it. This deal will take Scotland out of the EU against our will and remove us from the European single market of 500 million people. It will take us out of the customs union and the benefits of EU trade deals with more than 40 countries across the globe. This deal will make us poorer than staying in the European Union. [Interruption.] I can see the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), shaking his head, but he should look at his own economic analysis, as every shred of evidence shows that we are going to be poorer with Brexit than we would be if we stayed in. If he has not even read it and if he does not understand what it is in it, heaven help us. A no-deal Brexit is going to cost each person in Scotland £1,600 by 2030, compared with continued EU membership.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is on the subject of economic analysis, so let me draw his attention to page 63 of the economic analysis supplied by the Government, which clearly shows that under the Prime Minister’s deal there is zero impact on economic growth for Scotland. Surely if he wants to stand up for Scotland, he would do it by backing this deal.
Ian Blackford
I am afraid to say that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken, because the analysis he is referring to looks at the Chequers proposal and does not look at the Government’s deal. He is wholly wrong and he needs to go back to school and do his homework.
The Government’s Brexit deal will damage our NHS in Scotland, and make it harder to attract and retain the social care and health service staff we need. It will sell out our fishermen and put us at a competitive disadvantage with Northern Ireland—and the Prime Minister knows it. That is why our voice must be heard; this House should vote this week—[Interruption.]
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, that is why our voice must be heard. This House should vote this week before the recess.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that during last night’s Fisheries Bill Committee sitting an amendment proposed setting an end date of 31 December 2020 for leaving the common fisheries policy, and the Tories voted it down? That is their real commitment to the fishermen.
Ian Blackford
I am not surprised, because the Conservatives have form: when Ted Heath took us into the European Union, he sold out Scotland’s fishermen and every Tory Administration since have done exactly the same—and, guess what, they are still selling out Scotland’s fishermen.
Running down the clock to threaten a no-deal Brexit is neither acceptable nor realistic. There is no majority in this House for such an outcome. It is crucial that a no-deal Brexit and the Prime Minister’s deal are ruled out now. The Government must start listening to the Scottish Parliament, stop wasting time on their deal, which is going to be rejected, and pursue a better way forward. The SNP is clear that that means there should be an extension to the article 50 process, and we will join those from other parties in trying to secure such an extension.
We have always argued that the best option is to retain EU membership. We support a second EU referendum. Failing that—the best option of continued EU membership—we must stay in the single market and the customs union. I repeat that there are options that this Government are ducking and diving. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I would like to hear the right hon. Gentleman, even if nobody else does. I want to hear what he is saying, and he will be treated with the courtesy due to the leader of a party in this place.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful for that. Obviously, I have taken a number of interventions and I may take one or two more, but I am conscious that many people wish to speak in this debate. I have a number of remarks I wish to make—
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Blackford
I will give way in a little while.
The recent European Court of Justice judgment provides clarity at an essential point in the UK’s decision making over its future relationship with the EU. It exposes as false the idea that the only choice is between a bad deal negotiated by the Government or the disaster of no deal; remaining in the EU is still on the table, and the Prime Minister cannot insinuate otherwise. We, as Opposition parties, cannot allow the Government to kick the can down the road and we cannot allow them to run down the clock. I repeat: this is not a binary choice of this deal or no deal—there are other ways forward. The Prime Minister is simply scaremongering, trying to prevent a second EU referendum. This Government claim to want to fulfil the will of the people, yet they deny the people of the United Kingdom a say. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship. After two years of chaos, people have the right to change their minds. Why would this Government deny them a say? We cannot go on like this. We need clarity, certainty and conclusion; this continued turbulence is sending our economy into further insecurity. At a time when this place should be doing more to end homelessness, to decrease worklessness, to stop universal credit hardship, to safeguard our NHS—I could go on—this Prime Minister and this Government are distracted and divided. It is time they got on with the day job.
Mr Cunningham
I picked up a point the right hon. Gentleman made earlier in response to Government Members. Scotland faces the same as the rest of the country. Under this deal there is a lot of uncertainty and unknowns. The EU can almost tell us what to do. So far, the Government have come forward with no plan B. We do not even know at the end of this deal what is going to happen. Expenditure has been guaranteed only up to 2020. That affects universities, research and development, and the major manufacturers in this country. Does he agree that this is a disgrace?
Ian Blackford
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that what the Government have put forward is a plan for transition; there is no certainty for the long term. That is why Members from around this House, including Government Members, have to call a halt to this, and we should be doing that this week. We should be doing it on the basis that there is a real threat to the jobs, incomes and security of all our people of a Prime Minister who is recklessly taking us towards a potential no deal. We, as a House, should be putting a stop to it, and that is the opportunity we should be taking this week.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I am going to make progress, and I am not going to take any more interventions, as I have been generous with my time.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister told us she was planning for a no-deal Brexit. Prime Minister, there cannot be no deal; it must be removed from the table. It would be economically catastrophic. This Government must remove no deal from the table, instead of using it as gun to hold to MPs heads. We were promised “strong and stable”. The people were promised that we would take back control. This is a party and a Government completely out of control. I look around this Chamber at colleagues and friends, and perhaps some who would call themselves foes, but in common we came here to serve. I came here to serve Scotland—my people and my country. It devastates me to see the will of my people disregarded by this UK Government. It angers me to see my Parliament in Scotland—our Parliament in Scotland—our First Minister and her Cabinet locked out by this Tory Government from decisions that will affect the rights and lives of people right across our country. It is not right, and Members from other parts will feel the same. I know that England and Wales voted to leave, but what about the rest of us who voted to stay? So much for the union of equals that we were promised.
The Scottish National party will work with others to protect all of the UK from Brexit. That is the right thing to do. We will work constructively in the House, but our first priority as the Scottish National party is to stand up for Scotland. It is becoming ever clearer that Scotland is being hampered by its continuance in the United Kingdom. We do not co-exist in a partnership of equals. With every day that passes, the Government are making the case for Scottish independence. The UK Government’s behaviour over the continuity Bill, exposed this week by the UK Supreme Court, shows the utter contempt with which they are treating Scotland. With the UK Government’s approach to Brexit in complete and utter chaos, it is no wonder the Scottish Parliament does not trust Westminster to prepare our laws for life after Brexit. Of course, when there was the outrageous power grab of the powers of the Scottish Parliament, not one Scottish Tory MP stood up to defend the rights of our Parliament, for which the people of Scotland voted in 1997. They voted against Scotland’s interests: history repeating itself once again.
We get from the Government empty, meaningless words—that is all we can expect from them—and now those words are not worth the paper they are transcribed on, as promise after promise is broken by the UK Government. It is time we had our say and got our answers. I am sorry he is not present, but let me put it to the Leader of the Opposition again: table a vote of no confidence in this Government. We are with you. It is clear today that the gimmick motion has failed, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition: table the correct motion and do it today. The SNP stands ready to end this farce—to end this shambles. We are ready to defeat this Tory Government and a damaging Brexit. This Tory Government want to put Scottish workers on the dole through Brexit. The question for the Leader of the Opposition is whether he is prepared to stand up—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. That is enough. The right hon. Gentleman is concluding his speech. He will do so and he will be listened to.
Ian Blackford
A failure to table a motion of no confidence will be a dereliction of duty. We now need to call time on this Government. The Prime Minister’s time is up. The Government must go. We cannot allow the Conservatives to drive us off the cliff edge. The Leader of the Opposition cannot also seek to run down the clock to buy himself more time. He claims he wants an election; well, if he wants this Government out, he should listen to the other Opposition parties. We will support him in a vote of no confidence. Now is the time for courage. Now is the time for all of us to stand up for our communities. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to stand down, and for this Government to stand aside and let the people decide.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Stephen Barclay)
Notwithstanding the tone of the remarks by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), or indeed his conclusion asking the Prime Minister to stand down—in opening his remarks he asked the Prime Minister to stand here and reply—and notwithstanding the inherent contradictions at both the start and the end of his speech, I congratulate him on securing the debate. I recognise that this is an important issue and one on which I know, given that the Prime Minister took questions for two and a half hours yesterday, many Members wish to contribute. I shall therefore keep my remarks relatively brief, but I wish to address directly a number of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He opened his speech by saying that there is a binary choice—
Stephen Barclay
I am slightly confused: I am simply quoting back to the right hon. Gentleman how he opened his speech, which he seems to be taking issue with. Members might be forgiven for having slightly lost the train of his argument, but let me remind them—
Stephen Barclay
I understand why the hon. Lady does not want to hear her leader’s remarks quoted back, so will happily take her intervention.
Carol Monaghan
Does the Secretary of State understand the word “binary”? It means two parts, which means there are two choices. At the moment, the two choices open are deal or no deal. That is binary.
Stephen Barclay
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s pointing out the definition of “binary”. I was coming on to say that I think there is a third choice, to which the Prime Minister has repeatedly alerted the House: the risk of no Brexit at all. My point was that the right hon. Gentleman argued that there was a binary choice, while the substance of his remarks was to argue for a third choice. That seems to be an inherent contradiction in the case that he put forward. Notwithstanding that, he went on in the next section of his speech to talk about honesty. I do not think that the way to demonstrate honesty, particularly to the young electorate of which he spoke, is to say to that electorate, “We will give you a choice and respect that choice,” and then when the electorate deliver that choice to say, “Sorry, we are not actually going to honour that.” To me, that is not the way to approach a debate with honesty.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
The referendum had the second largest turnout of any electoral exercise in the entire history of the United Kingdom, and we know that the result was a margin of 1.4 million, but when I listen to the Scottish nationalists speak it appears to me that not only do they want to say no to that result—the democratic wishes of the people of the United Kingdom—but to ignore completely the fact that more than 1 million Scottish people voted to leave the European Union. Does my right hon. Friend believe that they should have their voices heard as well?
Stephen Barclay
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is not just that SNP Members want to say no; they seem to say no to the decision of the electorate but yes to giving them a decision. They gave them a decision on the independence referendum but then said that they did not want to listen to it. There was then the decision on the EU referendum, but they say they do not want to listen to that, either.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Stephen Barclay
Of course I will give way to the hon. Lady, but the point is that if one is talking of honesty and listening to the electorate, the starting point is to respect the decisions that the electorate take.
Patricia Gibson
Once again, we have a Tory Front Bencher or Prime Minister coming to the House and talking, because it suits them to talk, about the result of the referendum, but taking no cognisance of the fact that cheating occurred, according to the Electoral Commission, or of the fact that people were lied to about £350 million a week for the NHS. As the Secretary of State wants to talk about honesty, will he face up to the fact that people were lied to, as pointed out by the former Tory Prime Minister John Major?
Stephen Barclay
Far be it from me to keep pointing out contradictions, but the right hon. leader of the SNP began his remarks by saying that he wanted the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box, and now we have interventions complaining about the fact that the Prime Minister has been coming to the Dispatch Box. If the hon. Lady would like to draw attention to the fact that the Government are committing an extra £20.5 billion a year to the NHS to ensure that it is fit for the future, I am grateful to her for doing so.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank the Minister so much for giving way. I am deeply confused. If we are to leave with a deal, which is what the leader of the SNP in this Parliament says, then the deal needs to be voted through both in this Parliament and in the European Parliament. In the European Parliament, the members of the SNP who sit in that Parliament have voted in support of the principles of this deal time and again. Has the Secretary of State any idea why SNP MEPs support this deal, but SNP MPs appear not to?
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford)—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I must hear the hon. and learned Lady.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Member for Chelmsford has directly and, I am sure, inadvertently misrepresented the position of the two SNP Members of the European Parliament, both of whom are personal friends of mine. I can absolutely assure her that they have made their position clear that they are against this deal. Indeed, one of them was my co-litigant in the article 50 case. I ask your assistance for the third time in a week, Madam Deputy Speaker, about how I can go about correcting misrepresentations of the facts about Scottish politics coming from the Government Benches and the Benches behind them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate that the hon. and learned Lady has very cleverly made her point into a point of order by asking my advice. I say to her that, of course, she does not need my advice, as she has just taken the opportunity of her point of order to put her point on the record. It is not for me to judge whether the hon. Lady or the hon. and learned Lady are correct in their interpretation of something that has happened in another Parliament, but I am satisfied that both points of view have been put to the Chamber.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I think you know, I have the greatest of respect for you, but it occurs to me from what you have just said that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) can just come here, as she has done, make stuff up and then nothing happens. There has to be consequence for that. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Nobody can come here and “make stuff up” that is not correct, but this is a debating chamber, and there are opinions on both sides of the House. I would be the first to say that, if this is a matter of fact, I am concerned that a matter of fact should be properly represented in this Chamber—[Interruption.] Order!
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will allow the hon. Lady a brief “further to that point of order”.
Vicky Ford
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the SNP MEPs have backed numerous resolutions that set out the principles behind this deal, and have been quoted in the press releases by their group as backing—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Order. We will have no more on this subject. The fact is that there are different interpretations of the actions of people in a Parliament other than this. I am satisfied that both sides have been heard, and that the facts are on the record. We will leave aside that point of order and allow the Secretary of State to continue with his speech.
Stephen Barclay
One could be forgiven perhaps for being confused over the SNP’s position on these matters, because no doubt the electorate are also confused. They were told in 2014 that there was a vote to listen to the Scottish people. The Scottish people duly spoke and said that they wanted to be a part of the United Kingdom, and now the position appears to be to no longer listen to the Scottish people and to ignore their views.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Barclay
I shall take two more interventions and then I will make some progress.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way as I was not afforded the courtesy of being able to intervene on the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). As he spoke about the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence, he set out to the House how great the White Paper was that the SNP had produced. The SNP no longer stands by its White Paper on Scottish independence. Does that not just show what the SNP is all about? It is not even worth listening to, because what it speaks about, not even it can defend.
Stephen Barclay
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is perhaps not a surprise that, notwith- standing its 800 pages, one could finish reading it and still be left confused as to what the SNP’s position is.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. It is good to hear him have at least a few sentences before being interrupted by the SNP. Does he envisage any circumstances in which the Government might revoke article 50—a de facto extension of article 50—in order to give the Government more time to prepare for a World Trade Organisation-terms Brexit, or to prepare for a better deal given by Europe to the United Kingdom? Does he envisage any such circumstances within, perhaps, the next two months?
Stephen Barclay
I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he raises a point of substance. The point is that the court case was clear that one cannot revoke as a temporary measure with a view to the circumstances to which he alludes. That actually is not within the scope of what the court case says. I will come on to that if I get a chance to progress further in my remarks.
Let me pick up on a further point that the right hon. Gentleman made at the opening of this debate. He said that we should not be spending money on no-deal planning. Well, the reality is that I would prefer not to be spending money on no-deal planning.
Ian Blackford
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask for your guidance, because I think it is important that we are all honest in this place. If anyone looks at the record, they will see that what I did say was that we are wasting money on no deal that should be invested in frontline services. The Secretary of State has a duty to make sure that he is correct.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Again, I am not the adjudicator of whether what any Member says here is correct as far as other Members are concerned, but it is my duty and my intention to make sure that the facts and the truth are always on the record. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State will deal with that point.
Stephen Barclay
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your clarification. I am very happy to stand by that clarification. I thought that the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman was saying—I realise that there was a lot of confusion over his speech—was that he was not in favour of spending money on no deal preparations. I thought that was the kernel of his point. Perhaps he is in favour of spending money on no deal preparation.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Perhaps he can shed some light on the confusion that I feel following the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. He spoke of wanting a second referendum and a people’s vote, but he said that he did want no deal on it, and he did not want the deal on it. Can we have a referendum with just one question on it, which is to remain?
Stephen Barclay
My hon. Friend points to how one might achieve that unicorn, which is to end the uncertainty over the SNP’s position. Notwithstanding the fact that it is a waste of money to have multiple referendums—that waste of money is obviously acceptable whereas other ways of wasting of money are not—I simply draw the attention of the House to the fact that the best way to avoid incurring the cost of no deal is to back the Prime Minister’s deal.
Stephen Barclay
I want to make some progress. I have taken a fair number of interventions. I did start by saying that I was very conscious that many Members would want to come in on the debate. The first two speeches have taken quite a bit of time, so I should probably crack on.
The responsible act of a Government is to prepare for the contingency of a no deal, but it is absolutely our priority to secure a deal, and that is what the Prime Minister continues to work day and night to do.
Let me make some progress. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, we intend to return to the meaningful vote debate in the week commencing 7 January and to hold the vote the following week. As I will set out, that is consistent with our crucial next step of responding to the concerns expressed by MPs on the backstop and I make no bones about accepting, as the Prime Minister has done, that the deal that the Government secured was not going to win the support of the House without further reassurance, and that is the message that the Prime Minister has been clear about in her meetings and communications with EU leaders.
At last week’s European Council, the Prime Minister faithfully and firmly reflected the concerns of this House over the Northern Ireland backstop.
In response, the EU27 published a series of conclusions, making it clear that it is their
“firm determination to work speedily on a subsequent agreement that establishes by 31st December 2020 alternative arrangements, so that the backstop will not need to be triggered.”
The EU27 also gave a new assurance in relation to the future partnership with the UK to make it even less likely that the backstop would ever be needed, by stating that the EU
“stands ready to embark on preparations immediately after signature of the Withdrawal Agreement to ensure that negotiations can start as soon as possible after the UK’s withdrawal.”
EU leaders could not have been clearer; they do not want to use this backstop. The conclusions from the European Council go further than the EU has ever done previously in trying to address the concerns of this House. Of course, they sit on top of the commitments that we have already negotiated in relation to the backstop. Let us remember the real choice, which is between the certainty of a deal and the uncertainty of the alternatives.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to provide security for the economy is to agree the deal? We heard a great deal from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) about jeopardising jobs and people losing jobs. If we agreed the deal and the Prime Minister could get some security over the backstop, it would provide the greatest security for jobs that we could give the whole nation, including the Scottish.
Stephen Barclay
I am sure my hon. Friend speaks for the vast majority of businesses in Taunton Deane and elsewhere in the United Kingdom that want the certainty of a deal, the benefits of an implementation period that allows businesses to continue trading as now until the end of 2020, and the many other benefits secured by this deal, including a skills-based immigration system, the protections for 3 million EU citizens living in the UK and over 1 million UK nationals living in the EU, an end to spending vast sums of money and control of our fishing policy.
Anna Soubry
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; it is good of him to take so many interventions. By the way, I would like publicly to congratulate him on his appointment.
The difficulty with the argument about the so-called deal and trade is that we do not have the promised deal on trade. The promised certainty, particularly in relation to frictionless trade, is not in the withdrawal agreement, which is fixed in law and will be in the treaty, but in the political declaration, which can be ripped up by either side once we have left. The certainty that business is crying out for is unfortunately not delivered by the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement.
Stephen Barclay
My right hon. Friend speaks with great passion on this issue and she is right about the importance of certainty. First, many businesses particularly value the certainty of the implementation period that is delivered to 2020. Secondly, it was interesting that many people who were critical of the Prime Minister over the joint statement in December 2017, which was a political declaration, were critical on the basis that it was binding. Some of the same critics now criticise the political declaration reached alongside the withdrawal agreement because they argue that it is not binding. There is an inconsistency there.
What is clear, as the Attorney General has set out to the House in a series of statements and questions, is the legal wiring that exists between the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, giving the framework on which the future economic relationship will be based. That will give us confidence as we move forward into the second phase.
Wera Hobhouse
The Secretary of State has just mentioned the political declaration last December. Clearly what was legally binding was the backstop, about which everybody is now very unhappy because the political declaration is not legally binding. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) is absolutely right that that creates worry and uncertainty. The certainty is the backstop. The Government need to come clean and be honest with everybody—Conservative Members and the public—that the backstop is legally binding.
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Lady is correct that a backstop will be required in any deal that is reached with the European Union, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) commented from a sedentary position, on an issue of such importance to the Lib Dems, it is good that the hon. Lady—unlike any of her Lib Dem colleagues—is actually in the House to make that point with such conviction.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being characteristically generous.
We read that the Cabinet is now stepping up preparations for no deal, and the Government have quite rightly given a commitment to the more than 3 million European citizens here in the UK that their rights will be protected in that eventuality. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what assurance he or his predecessors have received from the other member states about the position of the 1.2 million Brits who may find themselves without rights in those circumstances?
Stephen Barclay
Let me first pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his work through the Exiting the European Union Committee. He will be aware of a number of the public statements that have been made—for example, in respect of the French position on safeguarding the rights of UK nationals in Europe. However, he points to the wider point about the best way to secure the rights of our own nationals in the EU, which is through the deal that the Prime Minister has agreed.
The right hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the written ministerial statement that I tabled about the position of EU citizens in the UK, which this House has long debated. As a former Health Minister, I am very conscious of the hugely valuable role that EU citizens play in our NHS, as in many other parts of our business and public life. We have made that unilateral declaration, but the right hon. Gentleman is correct that that has not been offered in all the 27 member states. Obviously that is an area of focus for us. A number of statements have been made, but the deal is the best way of securing those rights for UK nationals.
When the Prime Minister entered into this negotiation, she was told that there was a binary choice between two off-the-peg models—what are colloquially known as the Canada option and the Norway option—yet she has secured a bespoke option. From listening to this House, we have heard loud and clear the concern about the backstop element of the deal, notwithstanding the fact that there is no alternative deal that would not bring a backstop. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber is an experienced parliamentarian, but he must know that it is not an option for Scotland to remain in the single market when the people of Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom, and that United Kingdom is leaving the European Union.
The truth is that there are three deals on offer, including the deal that the Prime Minister has secured and the option of no deal, which is not desirable. It is worth pointing out to the House that although the Government are preparing extensively for the consequence of a no deal, not all the factors that affect a no deal are within the Government’s control, as the situation is affected by what businesses themselves do and what other member states do.
Stephen Barclay
I am conscious of time, so I want to wrap up.
Cabinet members met today to discuss how, as a responsible Government, we are preparing for that possibility, which—like it or not—remains a risk that this House runs if it does not support a deal.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. He says that he does not seek a no-deal scenario, and I completely take him at his word, but he equally says that a responsible Government are preparing for that possibility. Can he remind the House how big a fall in our GDP there would be if we went down that route? I recall that it is around 10%. That is about £200 billion per annum. Is it responsible to even countenance that? I do not think it is.
Stephen Barclay
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Treasury Committee looked at the economic impact of the various models, and the modelling of a no-deal scenario shows a far worse impact than that of a deal. That is exactly why we are seeking a deal.
Members need to accept that it is not enough for them to be opposed to things when the default position of being opposed to everything means that the risk of no deal increases. Advocating a further referendum is not a realistic option. One reason for that is the interplay with the timing of the European Parliament elections, which act as a significant constraint on the ability to have a second referendum. A second referendum would also be a significant risk to our Union, as it would be the excuse that the SNP and others would use to call for a second Scottish referendum.
This deal will come back to this House in the new year, when we have had time to respond to the concerns expressed to date and hold further discussions with the EU27. There is broad support across the House for much of the deal. It is a good deal, the only deal, and I believe it is the right deal to offer to the country. I hope that Members of this House will look again at the risks to jobs and services of no deal, and the risk to our democracy of not leaving, and will choose to back the deal when it returns to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the SNP for securing this debate and the Speaker’s Office for granting it.
It is obvious that we have reached an impasse. The Prime Minister spent two years negotiating a deal that she now knows cannot command the support of this House. I am not trying to make a point against the Secretary of State, but I think he acknowledged just a moment ago that he accepts that the deal currently before the House is not going to get the support of the House. That is therefore the position of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State.
But rather than confront that reality, the Prime Minister refuses to put her deal forward for a vote this week, instead kicking it into the new year. The problem for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State is that it is accepted that this deal cannot command the support of the House, but abundantly clear from last week’s EU Council that the Government cannot renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. So the one thing the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State know needs to happen for the position to change was rebuffed last week, and, at most, only non-binding “clarifications” could be possible. That is the impasse.
The President of the EU Commission said that there is “no room whatsoever” for renegotiation. The Commission spokesperson said:
“The European Council has given the clarifications that were possible at this stage, so no further meetings with the United Kingdom are foreseen.”
I do not suppose that informal meetings cannot go on, but there will be no formal meetings. I think some of us thought that there might just be the chance, coming out of last week’s summit, that there would be a further round, or a few days, of further negotiations by the teams, but that is not going to happen. The EU Council statement made it clear that the withdrawal agreement is “not open for renegotiation”.
However much the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State—for understandable reasons, perhaps—pretend otherwise, that is now the reality that we face, and that is why the vote needs to come back to this House this week. This deal cannot be changed by the Prime Minister, new negotiations are not even taking place, and we have only three months before the 29 March deadline. The Government’s response—to delay, to play for time, and to hope somehow that the deal will look more appetising in the new year—is not going to work. The reality is that the Government are running down the clock, but running down the clock is not governing, and it is certainly not governing in the national interest. Observers sometimes say to me that the Prime Minister is resilient, but this is not resilience—it is recklessness.
James Heappey
It might be argued that the Government are not the only part of this House to be kicking the can down the road, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman may well have been wanting to participate in a different debate today. Is that not happening because his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is inept, or invertebrate?
Keir Starmer
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for my caution in taking advice from the Government on when the Opposition should table a motion of no confidence in the Government. Last week, I heard plenty of Conservative Members say, “Bring it on.” In the role that I currently occupy, many people on both sides of the House give me their opinions all the time, and very rarely do two people agree on the way forward.
It is wholly unacceptable to delay the meaningful vote for another month in the knowledge that there is no realistic chance of delivering material changes to this deal. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) said in this House that the Prime Minister is
“asking the House to accept a deferral for several weeks of the meaningful vote on the draft withdrawal agreement, on the basis that further assurances can be agreed with the European Union, but there is nothing in what she has said today or in what has been reported from the EU Council to suggest that those further assurances are likely to be given.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 540.]
That is the problem. That is why, rather than having this debate today, the Government should be putting their deal to the House, because if that deal is defeated, everybody then needs to put the national interest first. We need to confront what the achievable and available options are and decide, as a House, what happens next in a way that protects jobs and the economy.
But what we hear from the Government is the opposite: delay over a meaningful vote, and then the distraction of no deal, hence today’s headlines about £2 billion for no-deal planning. Talking up no deal has always been misguided and, in my view, deeply irresponsible. The Treasury estimates that a no-deal outcome would mean a 9.3% decline in GDP over 15 years. It would see every region of the UK worse off. It would mean 20% tariffs on agri-foods and significant tariffs on manufactured goods. It would mean no common security arrangements in place, and a hard border in Northern Ireland. It would be catastrophic for the UK. That is why no deal has never truly been a viable option. It is a political hoax, and I think that, deep down, the Government and the Prime Minister know it. I know from personal experience how seriously the Prime Minister takes the security arrangements of the United Kingdom, and to put ourselves in a position where they would be jeopardised is not, I think, something that, deep down, she thinks could possibly be acceptable for this country.
Hilary Benn
My right hon. and learned Friend is making a most forceful case. I agree that the Government understand the risks just as well as we do. Given that, what possible purpose does he think is served by the Government continuing to pretend that they are prepared for the country to go over the edge of a cliff at the end of March? Would it not help, in this crisis we face, if the Government said, “We’re not going to let that happen”? Then the alternatives that we will have to consider if the deal is defeated would become even clearer than they can be for as long as no deal appears to exist as a possibility when every single one of us in this Chamber knows that it cannot happen.
Keir Starmer
What I think is happening—it saddens me to say so—is that the Government are running down the clock in order to put maximum pressure on Members to face what the Government will present as a binary choice between the proposed deal that is before us and no deal. That is the only purpose left in this delay. Yes, it would help a great deal if we could have clarification now that no deal is not a viable option. It would allow us to focus on other options and to take the necessary steps to advance those options in the time that is available. I call on the Secretary of State to give that clarification if he feels able.
If the Government had ever been serious about delivering a no-deal outcome, they would not be panicking like this at the 11th hour—they would already have had extra staff trained and resources in place. They would already have had the vast infrastructure that would be needed at UK borders and ports.
It is all very well those on the Government Front Bench shaking their heads—[Interruption.] If they will just listen, I will quote their own Chancellor, who said two weeks ago in response to a question from the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) that
“if we were to end up having a WTO-type trading arrangement with the European Union”,
that
“would involve some very significant infrastructure works that could not be done in a matter of months; they would take years to complete.”
If I was making that point, people might say, “Well, that’s just the Opposition,” but that is the Chancellor’s assessment. When the Chancellor says that, what is the answer from the Prime Minister or those on the Front Bench? What is the answer from the Government?
In a report in October, the National Audit Office said:
“The government does not have enough time to put in place all of the infrastructure, systems and people required for fully effective border operations on day one”,
and that
“organised criminals and others are likely to be quick to exploit any perceived weaknesses or gaps in the enforcement regime. This, combined with the UK’s potential loss of access to EU security, law enforcement and criminal justice tools, could create security weaknesses”.
The NAO has also said—this is a serious point that I have raised a number of times but not heard an answer from the Government on:
“If customs declarations are required for trade between the UK and the existing EU, HMRC estimates that the total number of customs declarations could increase by around 360%, from the 55 million currently made on non-EU trade to 255 million.”
That is an increase in customs declarations from 55 million to 255 million three months from today, in a no-deal Brexit. What is the answer to that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Support the deal!
Keir Starmer
The cries to support the deal would have a lot more authority if those on the Government Benches were supporting the deal. The Government are utterly split on this. Last Wednesday’s no-confidence vote exposed the fracture, and there is no point pretending it is not there.
Over the summer, the previous Brexit Secretary published 106 technical notices setting out the Government’s case for preparing for no deal. They did not get a huge amount of attention at the time, but it is worth reading and re-reading them, as my team and I have done, and as the Institute for Government has done. Those technical notices make it clear that the Government’s managed no deal would require the creation or expansion of 15 quangos, further legislation in 51 areas, the negotiation of 40 new international agreements with either the EU or other countries and the introduction of 55 new systems and processes. That is the analysis of the 106 technical notices—the Government’s own assessment.
The case I am making is that the argument that there should or could be no deal on 29 March is completely lacking in any viability whatsoever. The very idea that there could be legislation in 51 areas, 40 new international agreements, 15 new quangos and 55 new systems and processes in the next three months only has to be spelled out. That is not my assessment; it is the Government’s own assessment. It is not credible to pretend that that can be done by 29 March.
Anna Soubry
I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but not for the Opposition in this respect. He makes a good point—so are the Opposition now going to do their job of being an effective Opposition? By way of example, will we see an urgent question being asked in this place tomorrow about the Government’s plans for no deal? The Opposition have to put their money where their mouth is.
Keir Starmer
I respect the right hon. Lady, but what the Opposition do is a matter for us. It is not for the Government to give the Opposition advice on how to proceed with a no-confidence motion. If I am wrong, I will be corrected, but I think I heard her criticising us for not laying the motion last week so that she could get on and vote against it. I did not find that advice helpful in trying to come to a decision on how the Opposition should proceed.
Legislation on a proposed no deal would have to be passed by a Government who can no longer pass legislation, and these preparations now come with a £2 billion price tag. That is throwing good money after bad. I hope the Secretary of State will set out as soon as possible how that money will be spent, whether Parliament will have the chance to approve those measures and when no-deal legislation will be put before the House—at least in draft form, for us to see what it looks like and comment on it.
By now, the Government intended to have a deal agreed by the House. It is obvious that that is not going to happen. The Government need to get a grip and bring forward the vote. Let this House vote, then let us have a debate about the available and achievable options—and no deal cannot be one of them. I do not think for a minute that a majority in this House would countenance a no-deal Brexit. The price of delay will, as ever, be paid by the British people, businesses and communities, and that is a very sorry end to a year of failure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), let me say that it will be obvious to the House that a great many Members wish to speak, and we have only until just after 5 o’clock. We must therefore have a formal time limit, starting with five minutes. I know that that will be difficult for the right hon. Lady, but she will deal with it.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing this debate. I read the news in Aberdeen for a number of years, so I learned how to pronounce Scots. In all seriousness, I offer him my congratulations on securing this debate, and of course agree with much of what he said. I also agree with the analysis and with much of what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). The Government have made a grave error in taking this matter away from Parliament, delaying it for what will be at least a month and then undertaking to bring it back for the inevitable conclusion that would have been reached had the vote occurred the week before last—or was it last week? It seems in all of this as though time disappears, but it has been a grave mistake.
I agree with both the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said when they talk about the clock ticking away. I am afraid I have to say that I think the Government are playing the ultimate game of brinkmanship—it is deeply irresponsible—with Conservative Members, who are divided, as everybody knows. Unfortunately, the Government are flagging up to those who fear no deal as ultimately the worst thing that could happen, as they should do, that it is in some way acceptable, and they have never taken it off the table as we should have done two and a half years ago.
Of course, the Government are forgetting that we have no mandate: there is no mandate in this country for a hard Brexit. Everybody seems to forget that when we went to the polls in June 2017, the Conservative party lost its majority. We were saved, if I may say so, only by our brilliant Scottish Conservative MPs. However, we lost well over 30 Members from these Benches—hon. Friends—and we in effect lost that election. We lost our majority, and it was clear that the people of this country did not support a hard Brexit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should have taken it off the table then. Indeed, she must take it off the table now, because it is worst possible outcome.
I say with great respect to my hon. Friends that, in the game of brinkmanship being played, those who share the conclusion that a hard Brexit is the worst possible outcome are being told—we have heard this in calls from the Front Bench, and in some of the chuntering and comments from hon. Friends sitting along the Back Benches—“Well, if you don’t want a hard Brexit, you’ve got to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal”, as if there is no alternative. Indeed, there is an alternative. [Interruption.] Yes, there is, I gently say to the Government Whip sitting on the Front Bench.
Given the growing success of the people’s vote movement, those who want a hard Brexit are being told, “Ooh, if you don’t vote for the Prime Minister’s deal, you might get that dreadful thing called a second referendum, in which the people, knowing what Brexit now looks like, will have the opportunity to have a final say on it.”
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is rather extraordinary, at a time when we say we wish to reflect what is sometimes described as the will of the people, that we seem intent on dragging the country out of the EU on the basis of an agreement that appears largely to be rejected by the electorate themselves as flawed?
Anna Soubry
Here is a surprise: of course I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. I think we will also agree on this: Members on the Conservative Benches who think that we have somehow always wanted to be in the position we are in today of supporting a second referendum are absolutely wrong. Many of us—in fact, all of us—voted for triggering article 50 with a firm determination to be absolutely true to the referendum result. We sought to make compromises, and to reach out and form consensus. That is why it is so interesting—this is a fact—that Scottish National party Members, for example, would have voted for the single market and the customs union, as would many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches; I know that Plaid Cymru Members, the Green MP, and so on and so forth would have done. There was a majority in this place for what is now called Norway plus, but that time passed; too many people who said in private that they supported it did not show the courage when it was needed, for reasons that I understand. That ship has now long set sail, but there are alternatives, and there are things that must now occur.
Many of us reached the conclusion that going back to the people was the only right and proper thing to do, for a number of reasons. It has become increasingly clear that many people have changed their minds. It is two and a half years on from the referendum. People now understand far more—this includes hon. and right hon. Members in this place—about what Brexit means and what it looks like. Many have discovered the huge benefits that our membership of the European Union conveys to our country—we have the best, and indeed a unique, deal. Those are many of the reasons why we now support and ask for a people’s vote.
We also look at the 2 million young people who were denied a vote in 2016 by virtue of their age and who now demand a stake and a say in their future because they will bear the brunt if we get this wrong. I gently say to colleagues that if we leave without that vote and it turns out that the people of this country would have voted to remain in the European Union had they been given a vote, they will never forgive us; they will have no faith left in politics, but they will never forgive the Conservative party, and we will take all the consequences.
We need to get this matter back before us. We need to have on the table, with meaningful votes, all the alternatives that are available to us. If we cannot settle on one, we have to look at the process, and that must be a people’s vote or a general election. What is the best? What do the people want? A people’s vote.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I congratulate my party leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), on securing this important debate.
The Prime Minister has yet again returned from Brussels with no progress made in stopping her disastrous Brexit plan. She is clinging to the life raft from her sinking ship while her Cabinet plot against her. The Cabinet Office Secretary is having meetings with Opposition MPs to try to find consensus. The Foreign Secretary has said publicly that it will not be possible to get a version of the Prime Minister’s deal passed in this place. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions urges the Prime Minister’s Government to try something different because she thinks Parliament is currently headed towards no compromise, no agreement and no deal. The EU is not shifting and has said that the withdrawal agreement is not up for renegotiation.
The Prime Minister is impervious to all of this and is continuing to push her deal on this Parliament and the UK, despite the fact that she knows it will not be voted through. She is ignoring the effect of her actions: sterling is plunging, as are stock prices and growth, but that does not seem to register with her. The Prime Minister’s Brexit uncertainty is a nightmare for our constituents and local businesses.
I represent a constituency that voted decisively to remain. Businesses want certainty, but they face the prospect of a Government going into emergency planning mode, and they have been given no direction from the Government. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy, and they will face an especially difficult time. In the Budget, the SNP called for an office to be set up to support all SMEs in navigating new customs arrangements. The UK Government have done almost nothing to clarify the business environment for SMEs and are not helping them to plan for the worst, despite their commitment to do so.
The Prime Minister has stood at the Dispatch Box repeatedly to defend her indefensible deal. She has pulled the meaningful vote until 14 January, in the vain hope that she can wear down those who oppose it. All options, other than staying in the EU, will be damaging, and the UK public certainly did not vote for an outcome that is bad for the economy and their families.
We in Parliament must be allowed to come together before 14 January to defeat the deal and to move forward. There is no majority for anything except defeating the Prime Minister’s deal. We need to acknowledge that Westminster’s two-party system is broken and Parliament is now a place of factions, not parties. There should be a people’s vote. Things have changed in the past two years: there are serious doubts about the conduct of the referendum, there was no clarity about the consequences of leaving the EU and there is serious doubt about the legality of funding. People have a much clearer idea of the consequences of leaving the EU and they should be allowed to vote with that much clearer understanding.
Her Majesty’s Opposition have tabled a motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister, a symbolic action only. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), along with the leaders of the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green party, has tabled an amendment, which calls for a vote of no confidence in the UK Government, to Labour’s vote of no confidence. I call on the Labour party to move us all forward on a vote of no confidence in the Government.
In July 2016, the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and said:
“We are living through an important moment in our country’s history. Following the referendum, we face a time of great national change.”
We now also face a time of great national uncertainty.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
As I speak today, we are just over 100 days from Britain leaving the European Union. There is no plan being debated in this House, no vote in this House and no plan B. Instead what we see, depressingly for many people outside this place, is just party politics. Last week, we had the spectacle of a potential Tory leadership campaign, which I voted against. This week, we have the shambolic Opposition attempt to try to decide whether they have the confidence to bring a no confidence vote. I think people have a sense of drift in Parliament at the very moment when they want decisions to be taken that can help to get our country back on track as the clock ticks down towards Brexit.
People also recognise that, as has been the case for the past two and a half years, we are not discussing anything else. The issues they face in their day-to-day lives are going missing in this Chamber. The challenges my constituents face—South West Trains, housing, tax credits, universal credit and so on—are not being discussed in this Chamber with the level of intensity that the British people need if we are to play our role as a Parliament scrutinising the performance of Government. We have to get back on to the domestic agenda. Until we solve Brexit, we will not begin to get on to solving the challenges that people face in their day-to-day lives.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I strongly respect my right hon. Friend, but if there were to be a second referendum and remain were to narrowly win, does she seriously think that that would draw a line under the European issue? Is it not far more likely that it would rumble on—and rumble on for a generation?
Justine Greening
We have to accept that this country will always debate its relationship with the European Union and our neighbouring countries on the continent of which we are a part. We are a part of the continent, but we are an island just off the mainland of that continent. It is almost an inevitability that we will continue to debate how close our relationship should be with our European neighbours. We should accept that as normal, instead of obsessing about it as a Parliament and as a country when there are so many other, more pressing issues in the 21st century that we now need to get on with.
Anna Soubry
Is it not also the case that, because the political declaration is so vague—so vague it cannot even be properly examined by Treasury officials—all this will carry on rumbling away? There will be big rows, because we still have not determined our final relationship with the European Union.
Justine Greening
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was in Cabinet when we discussed the need for a transition period—but transitioning to something, not to nothing. Had the discussion then been that we were about to agree to do the political equivalent of jumping out of a plane without a parachute, the conversation would have been very different. That underwrites why the House is so unlikely to agree not only the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, which has its issues of rules without say for an unspecified time, but the political declaration, which is just 26 pages long, yet is meant to cover the detail of our future relationship with our other European neighbours and the European Union. What we do not need is for Parliament to keep going round in circles; nor do we need delay. We need some certainty for businesses and people in our country, and that means that we need to do three things as a matter of urgency.
Parliament must have a vote on the Prime Minister’s proposal and the deal. We cannot simply have the debate delayed and procrastination. We need a debate and a vote on the Prime Minister’s deal. After that falls, as I expect it will, we then need to get on to debating and voting on the other options that other Members of the House have brought forward. Whether that is Norway plus or Canada, we have to look at those as a Parliament, debate them and decide whether there is a majority in the House for them. I do not believe that there will be. I think that that has been clear since the summer and that we have wasted months, still without reaching a conclusion on the fact that there is gridlock in the House. We will therefore have to have a vote of the people. I cannot see the rationale for a general election. It is self-serving of the Opposition to try to get one. Brexit is not about party politics; it is above party politics. That is why the only people’s vote that we can have on Brexit is a referendum. We also have to recognise that if there is no consensus that we can find in Parliament, we have to trust people in our country to be able to find that consensus for themselves.
I finish by saying that there is no excuse in this House and from this Government for any further delay. We have spent two and a half years going round in circles, and we cannot simply go nowhere. We now have to take some decisions about going somewhere. We cannot have this continued dance from the Opposition about what their proposal is for Britain. Most people have realised that there is no proposal from the Opposition and that they face the same challenges as the Government in trying to square the circle of how to deliver a Brexit that is actually the Brexit that millions of leave voters voted for.
Similarly, and perhaps most importantly, I say to Government: do not delay the meaningful vote until the new year. MPs in this place would be happy to delay recess. Frankly, I would be happy to sit through Christmas and into the new year if it meant that we could find a direction on Brexit for businesses and people, who want certainty about where this country is going. There is nothing more important for this House to debate right now, and we have to find a route through. If the Government do not want that, they surely have to bring the House back on 3 January, when bank holidays in this country have been had, so that people going to work know that their Parliament is going back to work too to find a direction for this country. We have to do this sooner rather than later. People simply will not understand why this place is packing up and having a two-week holiday when we face the biggest constitutional crisis that this country has had in decades. It is simply wrong. The Government have to recognise that and they now need to take some decisions, take some action and make sure that this House has a chance to represent our communities on their deal, to vote it down and to work out where we go next.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening). On her challenge, on the Order Paper today I have tabled the European Union (Revocation of Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, because I think that there is consensus in the House that we do not want a no-deal Brexit and the chaos that would bring, including the lack of medicines, the lack of food, and economic catastrophe.
What the Bill says, in essence, is that a deal should be voted on here; if it is agreed to, it should subsequently be voted on by the people; if they agree to it, we should go merrily along that Brexit route; but if it is not agreed to, we should remain in the EU, which would mean the revocation of article 50. That is what people expect of this place. They do not expect some sort of chaos. I accept that the Prime Minister has done her best in a difficult situation, going to the EU to negotiate and trying to bring together two irreconcilable models, the pure Brexiteer and the pure remainer, but it is obvious that the Government, and the whole country, are split.
The Secretary of State has said, “We have already had a vote; we cannot have another.” The simple fact is that if the Secretary of State went to a restaurant and ordered a steak and a bit of chewed-up bacon arrived, he would have the right to send it back. The waiter would not have the right to say, “You ordered some food—eat it.” People were promised more money, more trade, more jobs, and “taking back control”, including control of migration. All that sounded great, and I can imagine a lot of sensible people voting for it, but what has been served up is a situation in which there is not more money. There is the £40 billion divorce bill, and there is the reduction in the size of the economy. We do not have more control. The Ministers have taken the control so that they can reduce environmental protections or workers’ rights below EU minimum standards in the future. We will still, in the deal, have to abide by the rules laid down by Europe, so we have not taken back control at all.
Alex Chalk
As I understand it, the Opposition’s position is that there is no chance of the deal being improved and therefore the Government should have the vote now, but if that is the case, there is even less chance of Labour’s alternative deal being approved. That means that with every passing day, the inexorable logic is that Labour is becoming an accessory to no deal. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree?
Geraint Davies
My own view is that Brexit is a betrayal of conservatism, because we are withdrawing from the most well-constructed market in the world. It obviously denies the Union, because any Brexit will mean an open border with open migration and products moving freely. Ultimately, that will not work. If we have a hard Brexit, there will be a hard border. I also think that Brexit is a betrayal of socialism, because it will mean a smaller cake that we will want to divide more equally, and it will leave a future Tory Government to undermine EU standards and workers’ rights and the environment in the future.
I make no apology for the fact that I am against Brexit and always was. I want a people’s vote because people’s eyes have now opened to the fact that this is an absolute nightmare. They voted for the steak, they got the bacon, and they do not want it. They want to stay with what they had before.
Furthermore, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 itself empowers the Prime Minister to trigger article 50 on the basis of an advisory referendum. What we have found, and what the courts have found, is that the illegality in the leave campaign would be sufficient for a general election to be ruled void and for the Government to go back to the drawing board. I think that they need, legally, to think again about article 50, and if a deal cannot be agreed, they should withdraw it.
People talk about what will happen if there is another vote. Incidentally, this will not be another vote; it will be a vote on the deal, which is intrinsically different from a vote in principle on whether people want to stay in the European Union. I accept that people wanted to leave on the basis of what they were told, but now that they have seen what has turned up—the bacon—they do not want to eat it, and they should have the right to send it back. That would not be the same as just having another referendum. As Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” People say, “What if we had another vote and lost?” We have already lost. Britain will lose if we Brexit.
People say that there will be a lot of anger. Obviously there will be some anger, but people who have been made poorer and poorer by a Conservative Government since 2010 were told, “If you vote for Brexit, we will get rid of the foreigners, and you will have a better job and better services.” In fact, they will have less. They will be even poorer. Those people will not be angry; they will be massively enraged.
We are walking slowly along the road to fascism. That is what is happening in this country. We face a choice between being impoverished and isolated—going down a darkened tunnel with no apparent ending—and seeing the future and returning to the sunny uplands. That means joining the EU again, giving the people the choice as to what to do, and creating a better, stronger future for all our children.
We are at a moment in history when we have to choose whether we give the people a vote or not. Our children will either condemn us in the future for condemning them or will thank us for giving them the opportunity to choose their future in a much better world we can all share—a world in which we can defend our shared values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law, rather than be cast aside, be much weaker, and find those values, in an uncertain world, under attack.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
It is a delight to be here in Parliament for another three hours of Brexit chat, and it is staggering to think, given when this all started, that José Mourinho is out of his club before we are out of ours. [Interruption.] It gets worse. I was listening carefully to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and I loved his honesty at least when he said that he does not want Brexit and that is why he is supporting the so-called people’s vote.
Geraint Davies
I am doing it because 25,000 jobs in Swansea depend on EU exports, and Swansea will be a lot worse off with Brexit.
Mr Evans
I admire that honesty, because a lot of people who bang on about this Orwellian concept of a people’s vote as if 2016 had not happened tend not to be as honest about their real motives. Their real motives are that they wish to stop Brexit; they wish to overturn the people’s vote of 2016.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
The situation is very simple: I do not want my constituents to be poorer than they are at the moment, which is why we are sitting here day after day trying to get the Government to do something about it.
Mr Evans
It is wonderful that there is so much honesty here now. One of the Sunday papers said that eight of the nine organisations that are now backing the people’s vote state explicitly on their websites that they are trying to overturn Brexit, so let us not have any pretence about that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Evans
I will not give way again, as I have taken my two interventions.
Let us not have any pretence about what is going on. Of course the people have spoken, including a million Scots who voted to leave the EU, and by a margin of 1.4 million the British people decided that they wished to go. I am well aware that I sit in a Parliament packed full of remain Members, and I understand that they are very angry and feel badly let down by the electorate. This really does turn things on their head; normally people are let down by their politicians, but in this case the politicians have been badly let down by the people. They were asked for their decision as to whether we should stay in or leave the EU. We had this massive exercise in 2016 when the British people said “We wish to leave,” and the politicians cannot quite get over it—the establishment cannot quite get over it, the BBC cannot quite get over it—and they have tried their level best since that vote to ensure that, one way or another, the decision of the British people is stymied.
There are 285 MPs who voted remain who represent leave areas, so I understand where people are coming from in this Chamber. But when sovereignty passed from this Parliament to the British people and we issued a pamphlet to every household that said that we would carry out their wishes, and when this Parliament itself voted for the referendum, really we do have to respect the wishes of the British people instead of refighting the referendum campaign of 2016.
Indeed, when we talk about what was written on the side of a bus and how much money was going to go into the national health service, I would have thought that Scottish nationalist Members of Parliament would be more interested in how much of our membership fees that are not now going to be sent to Brussels will be going to Scotland—to public services in Scotland, to the NHS in Scotland—rather than into the pockets of Brussels. Indeed, I am sure that President Juncker is very happy with his pay increase this week, which takes his salary to €32,700 a month; that is how much the President of the European Union is getting—way more in a month than most of my constituents earn in a year. I am delighted that we are coming out of the European Union and saving that money so I can see it being spent in my patch, and the Scottish nationalist Members will see it being spent in their patches as well.
Yes, I believe we got some things wrong at the beginning of the negotiations. The scheduling was completely wrong. It gave the EU negotiators a stick, in the form of the backstop over the Northern Ireland-Irish border, and they have hit us with that stick time and again. We are talking about a backstop that the United Kingdom and the European Union both say they do not want to use. They hope they will not need to use it, and they also say that it is going to be temporary. However, when our Prime Minister went to see President Juncker to raise our concerns about the possibility of our legally being able to be held in the European Union for an eternity if the EU so wishes, or of the backstop being used as leverage in the next round of trade talks between us and the European Union, all of a sudden they dug their heels in. They say that they do not want to use the backstop and that it will be temporary, but they are not prepared to allow us to leave the European Union unilaterally if we believe that they are stalling. That absolutely says it all.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister made it so clear yesterday that there would be no revocation of article 50 and no second referendum. She knows what a second referendum would be all about. I am delighted, too, that the Cabinet has today stepped up its preparations for WTO. As I said yesterday, President Juncker listens to what is said in this place, and he gets a bit of succour from the calls for a second referendum because he believes that if the first vote is overturned we will still be spending our money in the European Union and taking its laws. He gets a bit of succour from that, but he will also hear that we are stepping up plans for WTO, and that should provide some leverage.
We should not get angry with our Prime Minister. Where is the anger at President Juncker digging his heels in? Does he really want to see jobs being threatened in the European Union? We always hear people standing up in this place and talking about safeguarding jobs in Britain, but what about safeguarding jobs in Germany, Spain, Italy and the various other EU countries that want to sell their goods to us? We have a £95 billion deficit with the European Union. We buy 850,000 German cars and £3.5 billion-worth of flowers and plants from Holland, and we will want to carry on doing that.
I shall not be taking part in any of the debates tomorrow, so I just want to wish everybody—including you, Madam Deputy Speaker—a merry Christmas and a happy Brexit in 2019.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
The Leader of the Opposition and the like-minded Conservative European Research Group say that they have no confidence in the Prime Minister. On these Benches, we have no confidence in the Prime Minister or in her Government, and alas, at present, we have no confidence in the Leader of the Opposition either. The Prime Minister knows full well that no majority can be manufactured in this place for her deal. Other than that, all she seems to know is how to play for time so that the eventual decision will, she hopes, go her way, but there is so little time left, and however much she pleads, her deal fails to command sufficient support.
Yesterday the Prime Minister conceded to my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) that it was in her power to seek to extend the article 50 period; President Tusk has said as much. Extending article 50 would give the Prime Minister more time to try to find a way out of this Brexit impasse, not through squeezing her friends but by reaching out across this House and across the countries of the UK so as to avoid the no deal that she herself admits would be disastrous for us. Yesterday, she refused to take that course. Could there be a clearer example of putting narrow party considerations before the pressing need to find a solution that will work for all the people of these islands?
Talking of the people outside this place, much has been made of the potential savings that Brexit would bring. We were told that there would be a bonanza, with billions of pounds to spend, apparently on the NHS. In the autumn of 2017, the Treasury earmarked £3 billion for Brexit, with £250 million in its back pocket in case of no deal. Yesterday, in Cabinet a further £2 billion was allocated to no-deal plans. Irrespective of all that, we know that a no-deal Brexit would wipe £5 billion off the Welsh economy, so the people of Wales, and people across these islands, must be told how much this Westminster Government are willing to spend to bring about the disaster of no deal.
Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition threatened the Prime Minister with a vote of no confidence, something that only he has the power to do. However, when it came to it, panto came to Westminster at this Christmas time and he tabled his very own special motion of no consequence—[Laughter.] Thank you. If successful, it would at best only continue to prop up this shambolic Government, albeit with a different Prime Minister. It was nothing more than a pretence at opposition from the Leader of the Opposition while refusing to employ the power he actually has.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the reason the Leader of the Opposition did that was specifically to avoid having to make a decision about the people’s vote?
Hywel Williams
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Leader of the Opposition has unfortunately painted himself into a corner. As happens so often in politics, particularly when in opposition, there are only bad choices, and he seems to be choosing the worst of them.
To conclude, Plaid Cymru and the other opposition parties have tabled an amendment to Labour’s sham no-confidence motion to turn it into a real motion of no confidence in this shambolic Government. We will continue to work together and with others, wherever they are, to ensure that the people of these islands get the political leadership that they need and deserve.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). I congratulate the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) on securing this debate. I always thought that it was relatively simple for an Opposition to get a coherent motion down and secure a debate in the Chamber, but we have seen over the past 24 hours that that seems to be a challenge for the Labour party.
I am not usually the sort of person who rushes to retweet the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, but I did retweet her last night when she said that if it is only the Prime Minister in whom the Labour party does not have confidence, which Conservative Member is the Labour party looking forward to taking over? [Hon. Members: “You!”] Well, I hear Members say me, but I will be slightly modest and say that that is not really me, although I appreciate the comment. It could be the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), who just gave an excellent speech. This is about the absolute nonsense of the Labour party playing a parliamentary panto game when it should either have been making its view clear or moving on—I do not see the numbers in this House for a general election—and being honest.
I listened carefully and with some interest to the speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). He spent a lot of time dissecting no deal, saying that it would be disastrous and ruling it out as an option. He then spent a lot of time criticising the deal that is on the table, even though the leader of the Labour party spent the first half of his response to the Prime Minister’s statement saying that there was really no point her negotiating because she was not going to get any other deal.
That brings me then to the only logical conclusion, which is that the preference of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is actually the one set out in the Bill presented earlier by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies): no Brexit at all. If that really is the policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he should at least be up front about it. The Scottish National party has been clear about its preference for no Brexit, and I respect people when they are up front about what they think. I do not agree with that position, and it is not how my constituency voted. However, there were not many people who stood up before the referendum and said, “If this referendum goes the way that I do not like, I will disrespect it.” In fact, the strongest argument for respecting the referendum result before it was known came from those who were planning to vote remain, not leave. For me, this is about being clear.
The substance of this motion is about the ongoing EU withdrawal negotiations, and I think it is right that the Prime Minister is getting on with the job that the people have asked her to do. There was an irony last week that a meeting with the Irish Government to talk about the backstop was cancelled due to the actions of those who demanded that the Prime Minister go to talk to the Irish Government and European leaders about how the current wording on the backstop is unacceptable to many in this House.
For me, it is about being clear about the change we want to see. Extraneous issues—matters totally irrelevant to whether the border is kept open in Ireland, as all Members agree is important—could be used to veto future trading arrangements with the European Union, which would result in our staying in the backstop. None of us would think it is genuinely best endeavours if we ended up sitting in a backstop arrangement because, for example, a future Spanish Government did not think they had enough on Gibraltar or a future French President did not quite like the fishing agreement. The Northern Ireland backstop would not cover the common fisheries policy—I know the Scottish National party’s enthusiasm for staying in the European Union’s common fisheries policy—if we were forced into it.
We must make sure we can be confident that we will move forward and that there is not a return to the hard border of the past in Ireland. None of us wants to see the progress of the past 20 years undone, whatever view we take on Brexit. It is about being clear, which is why I welcome the fact that the Government are getting on with what this House asked them to do. It is bizarre for shadow Ministers to demand the vote now because they want to vote it down. Having the vote now would have been an argument if they wanted to vote it through, not vote it down. Such a vote would not move us forward.
Rather than playing games with procedural nonsense, it is time for the official Opposition finally to come clean on what their policies actually are. To be fair, the SNP and the Conservative party have, and it is for others to reflect over Christmas that there are choices to be made and it is time to make them, not to play procedural games.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) not only on securing this timely and important debate but on his speech and on the way he conducted himself in the face of quite disgusting behaviour, frankly, from Conservative Members.
I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate. It is fair to say that his leadership in the past few weeks has been in stark contrast to that of the leaders of the Conservative party and the Labour party.
The Prime Minister described people discussing the possibility of a second Brexit referendum as somehow betraying the first vote or as being a direct challenge to democracy. I might be wrong, but I cannot recall another Prime Minister suggesting that giving the people their say on a matter is anti-democratic.
What we are debating today is the real failure to honour that first referendum. This Prime Minister has had the job of delivering on that result, and she has chosen her own path, which looks certain to lead to defeat. It is therefore this Prime Minister who has failed to honour the referendum result, and she has failed because she has been too scared to take on her European Research Group extreme Brexiteers in case they submit letters of no confidence to challenge her leadership.
So unwilling has the Prime Minister been to have her Peel moment with her party that she boxed herself into a corner from which it has been impossible to extricate herself. She could have shown leadership and chosen other paths. As the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) rightly acknowledged, the Scottish Government offered a compromise position that many in her own party think would have been passed by this House last year if it had been supported, and that was to remain in the single market and the customs union—the least-worst option on the table regarding Brexit.
Sadly, Labour’s leadership has been equally lacking. They have done nothing to be the real opposition to this Tory Government. They have taken the tactical decision to take no position, to offer no leadership, to do nothing and to wait to see what happens, which has clearly been in evidence over the last week. They are just as happy as this Government to kick the can down the road.
Labour does not really know what it wants to do with Brexit, and at every turn the Leader of the Opposition has, like the Prime Minister, looked at narrow party political advantage rather than work in the interest of all countries in these isles. It gives me no pleasure to say that, because there are some, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and others in the Labour party, who are doing what they can to shift the Labour leadership. But even in the narrow scope Labour is currently operating within, it has still failed in its objective by missing the opportunity to call a vote of no confidence last week when we asked it to work with us to do so.
I cannot think of a more inept and incompetent combination of Government and official Opposition, and at this time of crisis that is unforgivable. That is what is causing the
“irreparable damage to the integrity of our politics”—[Official Report, 17 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 529.]
that the Prime Minister speaks of: an unwillingness of both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to see beyond the end of their own noses. Rather than work with us last week to call a proper no confidence vote before the Tories held their own, Labour ignored us. The Prime Minister won that Tory vote and Labour lost the initiative. Even when Labour ended up belatedly tabling the no confidence motion last night, in a moment of absolute chaos in the leadership office and the Whips office, it still could not get it right, and it was left to the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the Lib Dems and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to make it meaningful and not just a poorly executed political stunt. Perhaps those sensible Labour MPs who remain might now look to our amendment, support it and put pressure on their leadership to finally step up to the mark. At this time of political crisis, the public are looking for leadership. The First Minister of Scotland has shown that leadership for the entirety of this Brexit process. Sadly both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition continue to compete to see who can be the most inept. Is it any wonder that the people of Scotland, in growing numbers, want their chance to choose a different path, one of which leads to Scottish independence?
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). I did not come into politics to talk about the European Union. I think I have spoken more about it in the past couple of weeks than I have in the past couple of years. I wish to start by praising the Prime Minister. I am certainly no sycophant, and I suspect she probably did not like the letter I sent her a couple of weeks ago, but she deserves huge praise and credit for the determination and perseverance she has displayed throughout these negotiations, securing a deal that many said could not be secured. She has won my respect and, I suspect, that of the nation for that tenacity.
My constituency was split on the same lines as the country in the referendum—52:48. I did not get involved in either campaign, because although I decided, on balance, to vote for Brexit, I am a democrat and I said that whatever the result was, I would respect it—I stand by that. The decision I have taken on the Brexit negotiations and the EU withdrawal agreement that was due to come before this House is that it is for every Member of the House to do their due diligence, look at every aspect of anything before us and vote on it accordingly. I see my role as being to review the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and to come to a conclusion.
The deal has considerable merit and, apart from one element, I have little hesitation in offering it my full support. The hesitation comes in relation to the backstop. I have been clear about this in meetings with the Secretary of State, who has been hugely accommodating in listening to my concerns, the Attorney General—on more than one occasion—and the Prime Minister. I entirely understand and respect the Government’s position that the backstop will almost certainly be an uncomfortable position for both the EU and the UK.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The problem with the deal on the table is that it is neither fish, nor fowl. It satisfies neither the remainers, nor those people who wish to leave the EU, and because of that it falls down.
Will Quince
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for that intervention, although I do not agree with him on this point. Inevitably, any negotiation on our exit from the EU was going to be a compromise. Most people are probably like me and are, on balance, one way or the other. Of course there are those who have strongly held views on both sides, remain and leave, but most people wanted a compromise that was mutually beneficial to both the EU and the UK, protecting jobs and businesses in this country—this deal largely does that.
It really is only the backstop that I have an issue with. As I say, I respect and understand the Government’s position. It will most likely be an uncomfortable position if we enter the backstop, and I know that the Prime Minister certainly does not want us to be in that position and that she would use every endeavour to ensure that that does not happen. Were we to end up in the backstop, though, I am concerned that we would potentially be in an irrevocably weak position in respect of our future negotiating stance. The EU withdrawal agreement relates only to our exit from the European Union; we then have to go and negotiate the future trade agreement. I have concerns that, given our position in the backstop, we would not approach those negotiations from a position of power balance: there would be an imbalance.
I respect the Government’s position, though, and very much hope that the Prime Minister is right. Sadly, two weeks ago I tendered my resignation as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Defence, but the Prime Minister has listened. She listened to the first few days of the debate on the withdrawal agreement and has understood the House’s concerns, particularly in respect of the backstop, and gone back to the European Union—she was at the European Council last week and will continue those conversations—to raise our concerns and to try to seek a legally binding solution to the backstop. It is only right and proper that we give her the time necessary to secure the concessions that we in the House want to see. She not only deserves that but has earned it through her negotiating stance throughout the past two years.
On the motion in particular, I have some concern about how individual parties have conducted themselves. Let me turn first to the Scottish National party, which is at least consistent: it is quite clear that the SNP wants to overturn the 2016 referendum result. We can question whether that is democratic and in our national interest—
Will Quince
I will in a moment.
We can question whether overturning the 2016 result is in Scotland’s best interests, but at the very least the SNP is consistent. I am still none the wiser as to what the Labour party’s position on Brexit is. We seem to get a different answer depending on which shadow Secretary of State answers the question.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I do not believe the SNP is being consistent, because today it dropped a policy that it had been advocating for some time—namely, Norway plus. The SNP was asked directly about Norway plus and the First Minister and others have advanced the idea of Norway plus, but they have dropped it like a hot brick today. So they are not consistent. The only thing the SNP is consistent on—my hon. Friend is correct —is its obsession with independence and a second independence referendum.
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and bow to his knowledge of the political situation in Scotland.
Let me turn back to Labour. We get a different answer depending on which shadow Secretary of State is asked. I thought, perhaps naively, that the Labour party was against outsourcing, but it is absolutely clear that over the course of the past week Labour has outsourced all its opposition to the Scottish National party and is almost not even bothering. The dilly dallying over the confidence motion yesterday—what on earth was going on? The only thing in which we can have confidence is that the Labour party has absolutely no ability to offer effective opposition. Yesterday was like the no-confidence hokey cokey—it was verging on ridiculous. This House desperately needs far less political opportunism and far more honesty. At least we know where the SNP is coming from: it does not want Brexit to happen. What is the Labour party’s position, other than wanting a general election?
Let me conclude, because I am conscious that I have only 30 seconds left. I am entirely pragmatic on this issue. I still want to support the EU withdrawal agreement and I very much hope to. Now that the Prime Minister has entered into these vital renegotiations on the backstop, she deserves our support. We need to send a clear message to the European Union that we stand behind her in seeking those concessions, particularly on the backstop. We have to stop playing politics with this issue and get behind her. I for one look forward to supporting the Prime Minister when she brings back concessions on the backstop in January.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
This country is facing a grave political crisis the like of which we have not seen for more than a generation. The undeniable truth is that this is something that the Government have created for themselves. From the word go, they have chosen not to reach out across a divided country to try to build a political consensus on the question of our relationship with the European mainland. They have instead looked inward to the party of government, trying to patch over divisions within the Conservative party.
At least this latest insult by the Executive to the legislature in interrupting our debate on their proposals and denying us a vote on them this year is consistent. The Government have not suspended the process to fundamentally rethink their proposals and to listen to the concerns across this House. Oh, no—they are doing so only with a very narrow agenda, which is to placate the extreme right wing of their own party on its concerns about the Northern Ireland backstop. I have to say that the Northern Ireland backstop is, perhaps, the least offensive of the proposals before the House. Of far greater concern is the fact that, by the Government’s own admission, they will impoverish the people whom we represent and deny people the ability to come and live and work in my country, which threatens its future prosperity.
In fact, the most offensive feature of the backstop is that it serves to underscore the duplicity of the Westminster Government when it comes to dealing with representations from Scotland. The national Parliament in Scotland has argued precisely for differential arrangements post Brexit and been told consistently for the past two years that they would be impossible because they would compromise the integrity of the United Kingdom, only to find them written down in this withdrawal agreement with regard to Northern Ireland. That is an insult, and it is contempt for the people of Scotland.
Let me turn to this question of the second referendum. I want to caution some colleagues who are against the notion about the language that they are using in this debate. It is a fantasy and a fiction to try to claim that, somehow, allowing all the people of this country to vote in a referendum is anti-democratic.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
In the Scottish Parliament today, the Cabinet Secretary for Government Business and Constitutional Relations was asked whether he would respect the result of a second referendum, and he would not answer. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman: would he respect it?
Tommy Sheppard
I am consistent in respecting the results of every referendum. It is true that 17.4 million people voted to leave the European Union, but there are 65 million people in the United Kingdom, and at least 2 million of those 17 million have changed their minds. In a democracy, people have the right to change their mind. For people to oppose a second referendum and try to use an historic mandate, which is increasingly out of date, to suppress the democratic aspiration of the people in the here and now is more akin to authoritarian populism than to a liberal democracy. I urge colleagues not to go down that path in our dialogue.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point, but does he not agree that we have had two referendums on this, so this would be the third referendum in which people have been allowed a say about membership of the EU? We also had a referendum in Northern Ireland on the Good Friday agreement, which resulted in a 71% majority. Should not that referendum result be respected, which it is not in the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement?
Tommy Sheppard
Let me explain it this way: we can never say that people do not have the right to reconsider a proposition in a democracy. On the other hand, we cannot have a referendum every month or every year, so we have to set tests for whether it is legitimate to have a second referendum. I would set three tests. First, the information on which the initial decision was taken needs to have substantially changed or to have been shown to be wrong—I think that test is met. Secondly, a significant number of people have to have changed their minds—enough to create a different result. That test is met. The third test is whether the elected Parliament is incapable or unwilling of discharging the mandate from the referendum. When we get the chance to vote on it, that test, too, will have been met. It is now possible that having a people’s referendum is actually the only way to get out of the current impasse and crisis.
Let me turn to the official Opposition. I am being completely non-sectarian. I do not just want to work with the Labour party in defeating this Government; I am desperate to do so. I am really concerned by what has happened over the last 24 hours. Earlier comments suggested that the mis-wording of Labour’s no confidence motion to include “the Prime Minister” but not “the Government” is somehow a mistake or an ineptitude. It is not. It is a deliberate attempt not to put the question, so that it now languishes on the Order Paper with the same authority and effect as 1,900 early-day motions that are lying around.
I say to the Labour Front Benchers: you need to do something to dispel a growing concern, which is that Labour Members are not effectively taking on the Conservatives because they are not actually disagreeing with their policies all that much and would be quite content to see them go through. The Labour party needs to lead. It is the biggest Opposition party in this House. It needs to step up and co-ordinate the opposition on the Opposition Benches, but also on the Government Benches, and to defeat these proposals. Please do that and we will be your willing accomplice, if you ask us to be so.
There has been a lot of talk about the fact that Scotland, for the time being, remains part of the United Kingdom. I respect the 2014 referendum result. Scotland does remain part of the United Kingdom, and we have every right to argue in this Parliament for the benefit of our constituents within the United Kingdom, which is why we are desperately engaged in a process of trying to save this country from itself—from the worst act of collective self-harm in history—by stopping this ridiculous process of Brexit. But know this: we will not go down with the ship if it does not change direction. We will use our right of self-determination as a lifeboat to escape from this catastrophe. And when the time comes, if this process unfurls the way the Government want it to, you will be the greatest champions of Scottish independence, because the people of Scotland will take their opportunity to chart a different course and become a proper European nation at the heart of Europe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman several times referred to “you”, when he meant hon. Members, not the occupant of the Chair.
I now have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the impassioned speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard).
We are having an emergency debate on matters that are presumably of great importance and urgency, otherwise it would not be an emergency. Yet, having spoken in the Standing Order No. 24 debate roughly this time last week, one has to conclude that we seem to be having exactly the same discussion today as we had last week. It is therefore rather hard to understand exactly how this is an emergency. I suppose this debate was the insurance policy. One cannot blame SNP Members for seeking it, because I suspect they had their doubts about the ability of the Labour Front Benchers to put forward the motion that we thought we were all going to be debating today.
As I asked the Secretary of State earlier—he blushed and declined to answer—it is not quite clear whether it was the ineptitude or the invertebrateness of the Leader of the Opposition that led to the SNP motion being preferred over the official Opposition’s. But here we are, effectively having exactly the same debate that we had last week—yet more time in which we are chewing over exactly the same issues as we have been for hour after hour over the recent weeks and months.
The Prime Minister and her Ministers have spent hours in this Chamber, taking questions at the Dispatch Box. The debate on the meaningful vote was three days in. I have to admit that I caught sight of the Whips’ book while I sat near them during those three days, and every single line read, “Disagree”. The mood of the House towards the deal as it stood then was absolutely obvious. Rather than proceeding to a meaningful vote last week when it was clear that the House was against it, we went away and sought something different, and when that was not immediately achieved in last week’s summit, we said, “Okay, we’ll give ourselves the Christmas period to push even harder and see if something different can be achieved.” That seems to me to be a very rational, very sensible approach by a Prime Minister and a Government acting in the national interest.
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. I suggest to him that the fact that Member after Member said that they disagreed with this deal, and that the European Union presidency has made it clear that it will not negotiate on it, means that we need to vote down this deal so that we can all come together to break the impasse. That is the point of this debate.
James Heappey
It is interesting logic to say that by voting down the deal we all somehow come together. As far as I can see, the deal is the best chance that we have—it is a very long shot, I grant you—at least of a majority in this House coming together in some sort of compromise.
If the deal is no longer available, we end up with no plan being offered by the Opposition; an outright—and, in fairness, unequivocal and consistent—opposition to Brexit from the right hon. Gentleman’s party; the Liberal Democrats, who in my constituency seem to say one thing on the doorstep to one household and another to another—
James Heappey
I would gladly take an intervention from the hon. Lady if she could confirm today that the Liberal Democrats’ official policy is an end to Brexit and that they would like to work with the Leader of the Opposition in government to bring that about.
Wera Hobhouse
I am happy to intervene. We have always said that our best place is in the European Union and that anybody who wants to work with us on that aim is very welcome.
James Heappey
I think that my constituents in Burnham-on-Sea, Cheddar, Shepton Mallet, Glastonbury, Street and Wells can see unequivocally from what the hon. Lady has just said that the Liberal Democrats are indeed seeking an exit from Brexit and would happily put the Leader of the Opposition into No. 10 to achieve that. That is somewhat at odds with what the Liberal Democrat candidate in my constituency has been telling people. I am grateful to her for clarifying that in the short time that I have available to speak today.
I find that we are having these debates again and again and again. I did not come to Parliament to talk endlessly about Brexit, yet that is what we seem to be doing. I am not going to argue that a second referendum is undemocratic. I absolutely take the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard)—how can it be undemocratic to keep exercising democracy? However, I see a process that would take at least a year to deliver. If it took us 348 days to take the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill through this House, there is no way that a referendum Bill would take any less time. That means a year of huge uncertainty during which time Brexit would continue to dominate the national conversation, not in any way of trying to find compromise and a solution, but with people reverting back to the binary positions that dominated the original referendum debate.
A second referendum would be a step backwards, not a step forwards. It is not an end in itself. It is not a solution to the problems that we face in this place. It is simply us saying that we are not willing to make the decision ourselves and are putting in place a process whereby others can decide because we have not got the bottle to do so. We know what are the options in front of us, and we have to make the decision. A second referendum is a soft way out that solves nothing and does nothing other than create more parliamentary process and more dominance of the Brexit debate.
We have three choices: either no Brexit, which, in fairness, many Members in this House want; no deal, which many Members in this House also want; or the Prime Minister’s deal, which at least means that we find a compromise and do not end up having to choose between two extremes.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I will start by trying to perform something of a Christmas miracle by striking a note of consensus for just a moment. I am sure that hon. Members from across the House would want to join me in marking International Migrants Day. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It was not that painful, then. It is a day for thanking our migrant family members, friends and neighbours for everything they have brought into our lives, and for committing ourselves to ensuring that all who have made this country their home can live full and happy lives, free from anti-migrant prejudice and discrimination.
In that spirit, I thought I would use my speech to take a slightly different tack and suggest how the Prime Minister might just be able to salvage one meaningful thing from ongoing talks with Brussels—something that could bring a bit of peace of mind to the 3 million EU migrant friends and colleagues we have here, as well as the 2 million or so British people living across the EU, and a way to save us from a completely wasted month. If the Prime Minister wants to do something meaningful that I think would have widespread support in the Chamber, she should seek to ring-fence the agreement on citizens’ rights, so that even in the doomsday scenario of no deal on everything else, those rights would be protected. I do not for a minute think that that would be easy, and it might be that it cannot be done, but it is worth a try, because not trying means that all the 3 million have to rely on is a unilateral promise from the UK Government. Not trying also means that the British in Europe risk losing rights unless Governments in the 27 other member states each unilaterally pass legislation to replicate their status before April.
Of course, the Prime Minister says she has already committed to ensuring that EU nationals can remain here in the event of no deal—the Secretary of State and the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee referred to that earlier—but there are three problems with leaving it at that. First, it is no help to the British in Europe. Secondly, the Government’s published arrangements for EU nationals in the event of no deal are a watered-down version of the citizens’ rights in the withdrawal agreement. Why is that? There is no justification for the difference in treatment. Thirdly, and most fundamentally, a unilateral promise from the Prime Minister can be here today and gone tomorrow. We have seen all sorts of Government promises ripped to shreds in recent weeks.
Even if the Prime Minister sticks to that commitment, it does not bind her successors. Those citizens’ rights can be repealed in the blink of an eye, perhaps even through a change to the immigration rules. Who knows? We could end up with a Government daft enough to commit to reducing EU migration by something like 80%, if recent reports are in the right ballpark. It may be that a target-obsessed Prime Minister decides that the only way to meet that goal is to clamp down further on the family reunion rights of the 3 million.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Hostile environment.
Stuart C. McDonald
Indeed. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, but we can well understand why a unilateral promise from the Prime Minister is not filling the 3 million with the sort of certainty that they would like.
For their sake, and for the sake of UK citizens in the EU, instead of frittering away these three weeks of further discussion in Brussels seeking assurances that will not make one bit of difference, the Prime Minister should use them to seek to ring-fence and guarantee at least the citizens’ rights part of the deal. If she tries and fails, she will not get criticism from me, but if she does not try at all, she most certainly will, and she will also get criticism from the millions of EU and UK citizens living abroad who demand this peace of mind.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I want to begin on the theme of leadership and say how proud I was to stand as a Scottish Conservative and be elected to this Parliament under the leadership of our Prime Minister and Ruth Davidson. For my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Union is an enduring principle. For many, support for the Union is perfunctory, but she genuinely believes in the Union. She knows that the strength of this country lies in its unity, and when she speaks of our precious Union, she means it.
The SNP are at it—more political games and more procedural devices, and to what end? To the only end that nationalists have any interest in: the break-up of the United Kingdom. Instead of discussing the substance of things, they obsess over process while nursing grievance. What they should be doing is putting the interests of our country and our constituents ahead of their narrow party political agenda.
The SNP do not accept the result of the 2016 referendum. That is not a novel position for them. They have a problem with accepting any referendum result when they do not win, which is always. They are blatant. They want to overturn the votes of 33 million people. Of course, my constituency voted 67% to remain in the European Union. If my constituents had been the sole electorate voting, we would still be in the European Union, but this was a United Kingdom vote on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, and the voice of the people was clear. The people’s instruction was that we should leave the European Union. Should this House fail to fulfil that instruction, it would be an abrogation of our responsibility as Members of this House to respect democracy and the verdict of the British people.
The people of Stirling elected me to this House on the back of my election commitment to make the best of Brexit: to return powers to our country from Brussels and to grow our economy—the free enterprise economy—which has produced a jobs miracle since 2010 and will continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is carrying out the will of the electorate. She is acting in good faith and with respect for the instruction of the British people. The people were told their decision would be carried out.
Let us not forget who we are dealing with—the Scottish nationalists. They have only one objective today, which is the objective they always have. They want to break up the United Kingdom at all costs. From the break of dawn on the morning after the EU referendum, Nicola Sturgeon has focused solely on the second independence referendum. The people of Scotland, who are now bearing the heaviest tax burden in any part of the United Kingdom and living with the failures of an 11-year-old SNP Administration, can see through all the posturing and faux rage. The SNP’s theatrics today may satisfy the appetites of their core supporters, but the people of Stirling want none of it. They want improvements in their schools, their NHS and their police service, and they want policies to tackle antisocial behaviour and to improve the quality of their lives and the life chances of their children, not this pantomime.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
It is always a delight to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). I can reveal that his speeches are watched with great excitement in SNP headquarters, where the single question is: how many more phone lines will we have to open for people wanting to join the SNP?
Looking back to April 2017, immediately after article 50 was triggered, we knew that for two years nothing very much would change, but nobody really knew what would happen after that—that depended on the outcome of the negotiations. In December 2018, we know that during a two-year implementation period nothing much is going to change, but nobody has any idea what will happen after that. So after two or two and a half years of the greatest efforts by the brightest buttons in the Tory box, we are no further forward than we were in April 2017. All they have done is bring back and order us—not ask us, but order us—to support a deal, every single aspect of which is immeasurably worse than the deal that we already have and the deal that our nation overwhelmingly voted to retain.
Yesterday, without a hint of irony, the Prime Minister warned about damaging the integrity of our democracy. This from a Prime Minister who broke her promise not to call a snap election and broke her promise to give Parliament a vote last week, and from a party that allowed two self-confessed gross misconduct MPs back in just to let them vote in a leadership contest and a Government who are the first in history to be in contempt of Parliament. If the Government are worried about a loss of trust in the integrity of our politics, I suggest they get themselves a very large mirror and spend some time in front of it. If they want to know about the millions of people who are wondering whether this façade of a democracy is ever going to deliver, they should not only speak to but listen to some of the 62% in Scotland who voted to remain with the deal we already have, or indeed to some of the 71% in Northern Ireland who voted for a peace process that, right now, is not guaranteed under Brexit and which, even if the Prime Minister’s deal is accepted, still will not have a guaranteed long-term future.
The Prime Minister claims to have listened to Parliament. She has listened to Parliament in the way that a defence lawyer listens to the case for the prosecution: absolutely no prospect of her budging an inch from her position, but listening for potential clues as to how she can impose her will on everyone else. Yesterday, she told us that this was not about expressing our personal views, saying that
“expressing our personal views is not what we are here to do.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2018; Vol. 651, c. 528.]
In response to 23 different Members of Parliament, she then expressed her personal views about what was right and what was wrong. So when the Prime Minister says that we are not here to express our personal views, what she really means is that we are here to listen to her personal views and then do what we are told, regardless of what 649 other Members of Parliament and 60 million other people may think is best. That is not a parliamentary democracy; that is an elected dictatorship. When the word “elected” refers to a Prime Minister without a parliamentary majority, without the confidence of a third of her own MPs, and opposed by nearly 58% of those who voted in 2017, that elected dictatorship becomes dangerously close to an unelected dictatorship.
Had the Prime Minister not run away from debate last week, we would have been discussing the Union for eight hours on Tuesday. The question for Scotland is, which Union? The day is fast approaching when the people of Scotland will be asked whether they want a Union that is a true partnership of equals, such as is enjoyed by our friends in Ireland, or a so-called partnership of equals, which even today has demonstrably treated our nation and our nation’s elected representatives with absolute contempt. When that question is asked, and it will be asked very soon, the answer from the sovereign citizens of Scotland will be as emphatic and as final as it is inevitable.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the singular wit of the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).
Today, we have heard some fantastic words from the SNP; it has all been about humiliation, embarrassment and betrayal. Well, it is not this House that has driven education in Scotland down and has Scotland tumbling down the international rankings; it is not this House that has us failing our young people and their mental health targets; it is not this House that has us losing 150,000 further education college places; and it is not this House that has our farmers being left out of the UK’s Agriculture Bill, betrayed by the SNP. The only betrayal, humiliation and embarrassment is on the SNP Benches, not the Conservative Benches. I wanted to be very clear about that.
We have talked a lot today about uncertainty, and when we talk about uncertainty in this Chamber, it is a real concern. I spoke to a developer in my constituency because a project was behind schedule. I asked why he was struggling, and one of the key reasons he gave, in front of other elected Members who were present, was that the uncertainty posed by indyref2 meant he was unable to get proper funding for the project to progress.
That undermines the SNP’s whole argument about why it cares so much about Unions. I have heard its members talk about the strength of Union, the feeling of camaraderie and the fact that we can achieve so much more together than we can apart. Why is it, then, that they want to remain part of the EU but break our own United Kingdom? It is not rational, it is not logical—it is just plain, hard nationalism. That is divisive; it is the scar that divides our communities.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman complains about the uncertainty over indyref2, as he puts it. The best way to end that uncertainty is to have a referendum and let the Scottish people speak. He is afraid of that.
Luke Graham
As I have shown in every debate, I am never afraid to face the hon. Gentleman. What is clear is that the SNP will not necessarily accept the result of that referendum. They did not accept the result in 2014, they are not accepting the result in 2016, so they certainly will not accept the 2018 result.
I am concerned that the SNP is inadvertently misleading the people of Scotland by telling them that they will be worse off leaving the EU versus leaving the United Kingdom, when we have four times the trade and far more social and cultural connectivity than we do with our European partners.
I will be honest: I campaigned for remain, and I came to this House because I wanted to talk about more Unions, not fewer; I wanted to talk about more international co-operation, not less. The strain that has been seen among my hon. Friends, and that has tested many Labour Members too, relates to the question of how we can progress as a country. We passed the power to the people, and a democratic decision has been made, which needs to be honoured, lest we undermine the democratic mandate we gave the people. I am not in the habit of defying the results of referendums, even though the SNP, as I said, did not respect the 2014 result and do not respect the 2016 result. We must respect the result. The two referendums we have had in the last few years have not brought our country closer together or sealed any rifts; they have actually kept the wounds open and kept them fresh. We have to use this House to bring people together, to come up with ideas and to chart a way forward.
The Prime Minister’s speech—[Interruption.] If Members want to intervene, they should intervene; if not, they should pipe down. When it comes to the Prime Minister’s deal and the economic analysis that goes with it, one of the key reasons why I am minded to support that deal is that the economic impact on the growth for Scotland would be zero—that is on page 63 of the economic analysis that has been issued for everyone to read and observe.
Stephen Kerr
The reality is that the businesses and farmers in my constituency, as in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are saying to us, “Stop playing politics. Get behind the Prime Minister and pass this agreement.”
Luke Graham
This is the point we are getting to: it is just becoming petty party politics. Opposition MPs say, “We want access to the single market.” The deal on the table gives us access to the single market. They say, “We want a customs arrangement.” The deal on the table gives us a customs arrangement. There are some compromises on goods and freedom. I know colleagues in all parts of the House who want a different kind of Brexit disagree with that, but there elements of compromise on all sides. That is why we need to work together. SNP Members make great play of saying that they want to reach across the aisle. I may be just a humble Back Bencher, but as someone who actively campaigned for remain, not one SNP Member has ever approached me to try to work together to come up with a better plan or find some clever new initiative. If they want real cross-party working, then they should not use words but take action. That is what our constituents want to see and it is seriously lacking from those on the SNP Benches.
No deal is perfect. The forces facing people in this House are a choice between hard socialism, hard nationalism and a decent compromise from the Government Benches. That is what I am advocating from these Benches. That is what I will be supporting. I hope hon. Members will support me in that, too.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker, how do you follow someone who is speaking in a different debate from everybody else?
This entire process has from the start been one long con job. The EU withdrawal agreement is a complete fudge. The Prime Minister’s visit to Brussels for concessions on the backstop is proof that the she, like the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), lives in a parallel universe. It is absolutely obvious that nothing was gained, and it is obvious that her deal still cannot get through Parliament. It is a damning indictment when an EU diplomat labels the Prime Minister unprofessional and conclusions are changed in frustration at her attitude. It is little wonder that her Ministers are now coming up with alternatives while she has her head in the sand.
The current failures reflect a failed strategy from a Government that she was part of from the outset. The voting franchise was a con. It is an absolute disgrace that EU citizens living here and paying taxes were excluded along with 16 and 17-year-olds. These cohorts would have changed the outcome of the vote and we would not be in the mess we are currently in. Then we had the Vote Leave lies, an organisation whose chair is still a Secretary of State in this Government. We had the Cambridge Analytica scandal and the confirmation of dark money, which the Tories are up to their necks in. The con job goes all the way back to 2014, when the Better Together campaign told Scotland that the only way to retain EU membership was to vote no in that referendum.
The reality is that EU citizens, including my wife in Scotland, are worried about their future, despite any hollow reassurances from the UK Government. I do not want freedom of movement to end, even though that pledge itself is another con trick. Article 5 of the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol states that within the common travel area there will be
“free movement for Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of their nationality, to, from and within Ireland.”
There it is in black and white: freedom of movement to Northern Ireland will continue. Therefore, the only way to resolve freedom of movement to Great Britain is a border in the Irish sea. According to the Prime Minister the backstop is the only issue, but there are so many aspects that have been kicked into the long grass that still need to be resolved to avoid the backstop arising—key matters that the Prime Minister should resolve, but pretends do not exist.
Just last night, the Tories refused to take an amendment to the Fisheries Bill that would see the end of the common fisheries policy by 31 December 2020. The Fisheries Minister admitted that there might need to be an extension of the transition period, so what is there to stop another sell-out of the fishermen? Worse, the Fisheries Minister had to correct the record to confirm that under the backstop Northern Ireland will have tariff-free access to the EU, whereas Great Britain will not. What is the Prime Minister doing to resolve that competitive disadvantage for Scottish fishermen?
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is making a very important contribution. Is it not a fact that the Tories have always seen Scottish fishing as dispensable? In fact, that was actually Government policy when they entered the CFP.
Alan Brown
Absolutely. That is an historical fact. We only had to see the dynamics in the Fisheries Bill Committee last night. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) tabled an amendment which he said was only a probing amendment and he then voted against leaving the CFP on 31 December 2020.
All these things are proof that the Prime Minister’s red lines were a con as well, as was the Scottish Secretary’s threat to resign if Northern Ireland was given special status. The Scottish Secretary has refused to even look at the compromises suggested by the Scottish Government. It really is time for the UK Government to acknowledge that for any deal to get through this Parliament, it will have to include the single market and the customs union—something that is more likely to appeal to the EU than further UK demands for concessions.
After two years of our being told that no deal is better than a bad deal, we are now suddenly told, “No deal would be a disaster—but don’t worry about a disaster, because we are planning for it! We are putting arrangements in place.” We have had a Brexit Secretary who did not know how important Dover was, and the Transport Secretary did not visit Dover until October 2018. The Transport Secretary also promised that there would be an aviation deal, and then two years later admitted that discussions had not even begun on the aviation agreement. That is how much of a con this Government’s no-deal preparations are—they are an absolute joke.
It is not a binary choice between a bad deal and no deal. The European Court of Justice ruling means that MPs can revoke article 50. As other hon. Members have said, we need to seriously consider a people’s vote. In Scotland, as new polls show, independence within the EU is preferable to Scotland being dragged out against its will. It is quite clear that we need our own independence referendum to let the people of Scotland decide our future.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I just want to make some brief points, and I will endeavour not to be nebulous. I did not vote for Brexit. I would rather not be where we are, but people were given the choice and we told them that their choice counted, so we are where we are. No deal is not attractive, nor is trying to trade on WTO terms alone. It is especially not attractive for financial services, security co-operation, the digital sector, science and research, and for advanced manufacturing.
The declaration on the future framework offers the pathway for the deepest free trade agreement and the deepest security partnership ever offered by the EU to a non-EU country. It has been agreed unanimously by the Heads of State of 27 EU countries. Five of those Heads of State are Prime Ministers from sister parties of the UK Labour party. Seven of the Prime Ministers are from sister parties of the UK Liberal Democrat party. Last Friday, those same 27 Heads of State made it clear again that they intend to honour that declaration and that they are ready to start the detailed negotiations. Suggesting that the declaration on the future partnership is somehow not meaningful insults the integrity of those 27 other Heads of State.
Furthermore, the withdrawal agreement and the future framework agreement follow the principles that have been supported in numerous resolutions in the European Parliament—in April, October and December 2017, and again in March this year. Those resolutions were all supported by the Members of the European Parliament from the Scottish National party, so I say to the SNP: if you want to avoid leaving with no deal, the best thing to do is to vote for this deal. And I say to the Opposition: if you want to have a motion of no confidence in the Government, table a motion of no confidence in the Government. It is that simple.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
As people say, a week is a long time in politics, and today we find ourselves talking about Scottish independence when we were meant to be having a European Union withdrawal debate. One thing that I must say about the debate today is that I believe we are better together in the European Union and in the United Kingdom.
Delaying the vote that should have taken place last week was deeply irresponsible. It is obviously the Prime Minister’s aim to blackmail MPs by saying that other than her deal, there is only a no-deal Brexit. This is playing Russian roulette. The Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to consider any other options. Parliament is now at an impasse. There is currently no majority either for the Prime Minister’s deal or a no-deal Brexit, and in this House we cannot cancel Brexit. The 2016 referendum has taken place and we have to recognise that. However, that does not mean that the result should not have to be looked at again for generations to come. As Parliament cannot agree on a specific Brexit plan, we must take the issue back to the people—including, when we look at the Brexit reality rather than the Brexit fantasy, the question of whether we should stay in the EU. I see nothing condescending to leave voters in that proposal. There is nothing stupid about reconsidering such an enormous issue, and reaching a new conclusion in the light of new information or new facts.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. She is right that people should have the opportunity to look at the issue again. Given that the United Kingdom for which people in Scotland voted in 2014 no longer exists, why is her party opposed to a second referendum on Scottish independence?
Wera Hobhouse
As I said earlier, today we are talking about EU membership. [Interruption.] The Liberal Democrats believe in the Union of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I believe that it is a sign of integrity and intelligence to reconsider a referendum result—and by all means let the Scottish people have another look at that decision. [Interruption.] If people want to confirm their previous decision, that is absolutely fine by me as well. I believe that there is nothing undemocratic about asking for confirmation or clarification. It is clear that leave voters were split when they voted to leave. There are those who were happy to leave the EU without a deal and who now feel betrayed by the Prime Minister’s deal, and there are those who are happy to support it. The current divisions are most profound among those two camps.
Referendums need not be divisive. They only become so when promises are made that cannot be delivered. The 2016 referendum was divisive because promises were made that could not be delivered. Now Brexit fantasies are hitting Brexit realities. It is therefore not inherently the fault of the Prime Minister that a bad deal was negotiated. Frankly, no other Prime Minister would have been able to reconcile the incompatible demands of the Brexit vote. There is no good Brexit deal. Parliament knows that, and it is right to vote down the Prime Minister’s deal.
The most democratic thing to do now is to return the question to the people, but this time a referendum should be based on facts and not on fantasies. The Prime Minister should stop being afraid of democracy, allow her vote to take place this week, and allow Parliament to do its job and move forward to a people’s vote.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Patrick Grady to speak very briefly.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to have caught your eye, and I will be very brief.
In 2015, the Scottish National party released the speech that Alex Salmond would have given if Scotland has voted yes to independence. If we had won the referendum in 2014, we would have embarked on a programme of nation building, of ambition, of progression and of bringing everyone together, recognising that not everyone would have voted in favour of independence, and recognising and reaching out to the people who voted no.
How that contrasts with what the Prime Minister did in 2016 and what she has done since. She has pandered to the hardest and most extreme Brexiteers on her own Benches instead of trying to bring the rest of the United Kingdom together. That is the legacy with which we have been left today, that is why we have found ourselves in the current farce and impasse, and that is why the deal that the Prime Minister has proposed is unacceptable to everyone and the no-deal contingency planning has had to be stepped up. It turns out that rather than getting £350 million a week for the NHS, we will have 3,500 troops on the streets. No one in the United Kingdom voted for that to happen as a consequence of Brexit, yet that is exactly what we are seeing.
However, the real story of the past few days has not been the contemptible failure on the Conservative Benches—we have known about their chaos for a very long time—but the failure on the part of the Labour party and the Leader of the Opposition, who should have taken his constitutional responsibility seriously and tabled a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty’s Government. He is the man who should be the credible alternative in this House, and he has singularly failed to be that. That is because the Labour party is the pro-Brexit Labour party and the leader of the Labour party is the pro-Brexit leader of the Labour party, and that is a betrayal of the people the Labour party is supposed to represent.
It is true that hard-core Labour voters voted leave in 2016, but the job of the Labour party should not simply be to kowtow and run away in fear; it should remake and remake again the positive case for European membership rather than support a Brexit that is going to put those very people out of work and make them less well off.
That may be difficult for the Labour voters in the north of England, but the voters in Scotland have an alternative. The voters in Scotland have a way out: if we want to exit from Brexit, we can do that by exiting the United Kingdom.
Ian Blackford
I am grateful for the opportunity to have held this debate today and I thank all Members who have contributed to it.
It is clear that Members across this Chamber have significant concerns about the challenges that lay ahead of us. What is even clearer is that, sadly, this Government will dig their heels in regardless of what lays ahead. It has been acknowledged across this House that we have reached a moment in history when Parliament has been systematically undermined by a Government out of control, and when the public have been let down by a Tory party so divided and distracted by its own infighting that it has no regard for the interests of citizens across the UK.
Let me be clear and repeat a comment that has been made by several Members: there is no good Brexit. Our economy will be smaller, our people poorer and the opportunities for future generations limited as opposed to what would be the case staying in the EU. That is borne out by the UK Government’s analysis.
It is an utter travesty that today the Prime Minister chose to sit out this debate, despite the importance of its substance. That is not good enough, and it shows the contempt that the Prime Minister has for the motion granted by the Speaker. Maybe it is the case that the Prime Minister should sit out the rest of the debate on Brexit. She and her Government should stand aside and let the people sort out this mess. Let the will of the people be heard. Let us have a second EU referendum so that we can allow those who have changed their minds, now that they have the facts, to end this crisis and chaos. As democrats, we should have nothing to fear.
We have always made it clear that we would support permanent, continued membership of the single market and the customs union—short of the best option of staying in the EU, that remains our position. The SNP set out our position in “Scotland’s place in Europe” and we have been entirely consistent throughout. However, the reality is, based on the publicly stated position of the other parties in the Commons, that there does not currently appear to be majority support for that option of staying in the single market and the customs union. Therefore, with the EU exit date of 29 March fast approaching and the UK Government in chaos, the urgent priority now is to stop the clock on this disastrous Brexit process by extending article 50. That allows time for options, including another EU referendum, or indeed the Norway option if enough support emerges for it.
Let me clarify that it has always been the case that the SNP’s first option, in line with the wishes of the people of Scotland, is to retain EU membership. A second referendum would be an opportunity to stay in the EU, and with the clock ticking down to 29 March, that is the focus of our efforts.
Compromise options should always remain on the table, but, frankly, we need to be realistic. The opportunity for votes and for debate is narrowing, with the Government denying Parliament and the people a say. It is time for this Government to go. Voices from many in this Chamber have made it clear that they agree with the SNP. This Government are a disgrace. This Government have shown contempt for Parliament; it is a farce. I say again to the Leader of the Opposition—
Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 18th December 2018
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 View all Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 147(a) Amendment for Third Reading (PDF) - (5 Dec 2018)
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Every Member of this House will agree that we have a duty of care to the most vulnerable in our society, and that everybody deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, no matter what their physical or mental condition. I hope that the House will also agree that liberty is a fundamental right, and that no decision on the deprivation of liberty can ever be taken lightly. Such decisions can be taken only to protect society or individuals. There are currently 2 million people in this country who have impaired mental capacity. Care homes and hospitals often have to take decisions to restrict people’s movements in order to protect them. That could involve preventing elderly people with dementia from moving, or stopping vulnerable people getting access to things that they could use to self-harm. The present deprivation of liberty safeguards are meant to ensure that people who lack the capacity to make decisions for themselves are not deprived of their liberty unfairly or unnecessarily, but the current system is broken and needs to change.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
What assurances can the Secretary of State give us that local authorities will be given sufficient resources to allow them to process all deprivation of liberty cases?
Matt Hancock
The resource question is an important one, and so too is the process. The question of resources and the question of what the process is go hand in hand. There has been an increase in the amount of resources given to local authorities to enable them to deliver in this area, but the question will undoubtedly arise again as we run up to the spending review.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I visited a police station a couple of weeks ago, and I found that the police lacked adequate training to deal with some of the cases that they were coming across. Has the Minister had any discussions with the Home Secretary about that?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I have. This is an incredibly important point. The deprivation of people’s liberty in a police cell when there is a lack of mental capacity—or, in certain circumstances, when there is a serious mental illness—happens far too often. The purpose of police cells is to detain criminals. Providing a system in which such people do not have to be held in police cells is absolutely critical and part of our plan.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Hancock
I want to make a little bit of progress.
For many reasons, the current system is broken. Too many people do not have the protections they need because of a bureaucratic backlog. There are currently more than 125,000 people waiting to be processed, and nearly 50,000 people have been waiting for over a year.
Matt Hancock
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who did a huge amount of work on this as a Minister in the Department.
Norman Lamb
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I share his view on the extent to which the current system is broken. He will be aware that the Bill came under substantial criticism in the House of Lords, and that substantial improvements were made to it there. There is a recognition, however, that there is still a long way to go. Will he commit to working with the Opposition parties and to meeting us and interested parties beyond Parliament to ensure that by the end of this process we have an agreed Bill that will actually improve people’s safety?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely I will. I know that the right hon. Gentleman met the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), yesterday to discuss this question. Of course this ought to be a collaborative process. Improvements were made to the Bill in the other place—I shall talk about those in a moment—but we recognise that further improvements could still be made. Ultimately, there is a careful balance to be struck between the need to protect people who do not have the full mental capacity to take care of themselves and the need to ensure that we do not deprive people of their liberty unnecessarily. That is a careful balance, and we should take this forward on the basis of open discussion and deliberation, rather than of a party political ding-dong.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is clearly right about the system being broken, and one aspect of that is the shockingly low rate of appeals under deprivation of liberty orders, which currently stands at about 1%. Although the case law has become clearer, in most situations there is a positive obligation on advocates to progress cases to court where somebody is objecting to their deprivation of liberty, either directly or even through their behaviour. In contrast, 47% of detention decisions under the Mental Health Act 1983 are appealed. The Bill’s impact assessment predicts that the number of appeals will halve under the new procedure. Given the amendments that were made to the Bill in the Lords, does the Secretary of State think that the Government should now review that figure?
Matt Hancock
All such considerations should be taken into account and looked at in Committee. We made changes to that area in the Lords, and we are determined to reach the right balance, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s important point seriously. Like anyone who has read the Bill, he will know that it makes a significant improvement in this area. Rather than cases being immediately passed on to the courts, there is a process in place both before the deprivation of liberty where that is possible, which is a big improvement, and then later on when the deprivation is questioned. I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, but the Bill makes significant progress, and if he has suggestions for how the details may be nuanced still further, we are all ears because this is very much a collaborative process.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am surprised that this Bill and the reforms to the Mental Health Act are not being considered at the same time. As I understand it, this Bill would allow clinicians and managers to detain somebody for up to three years without a renewal decision, which is much longer than is recommended for community treatment orders by the Wessely review. If both reforms are implemented, patients detained under the Mental Health Act could have the security of a shorter review period than those detained under this Bill. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether that is the Government’s intention or simply a mistake?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady is not quite right about the three-year period, because there are review points, meaning that it involves a twice-possible one-year extension, so she is not quite right about the relationship between that and what happens under the Mental Health Act. However, she makes an important point about the links between the Mental Capacity Act 2005, this Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill and the mental health Bill that we propose to bring forward.
We considered putting the two Bills together, but we did not do that for two reasons. First, it would simply be a big Bill that included two separate regimes, and we would not want the full Mental Health Act powers to be applied across the board, and I think there is a broad consensus behind that. Secondly, the view of Sir Simon Wessely, who ran the review into the Mental Health Act, is that we need to get on with this while taking the time to get the Mental Health Act update right. Combining the two was seriously considered, and I considered it again when I became Health and Social Care Secretary and asked for further advice, but we came to this conclusion, which I hope the hon. Lady will support.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I do not disagree with Sir Simon Wessely’s conclusions about that, but the review does contain suggestions that could be transferred into this Bill. For example, the use of tribunals instead of the Court of Protection in some cases would make them a lot simpler, cheaper and better for the person involved.
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. To start to deal with the serious number of cases that we need to make progress with, the interface between this Bill—hopefully on the statute book by then—and the Mental Health Act provisions will be considered as we develop the draft mental health Bill. The truth is that the current system causes unnecessary suffering, and the case for reform could not be more urgent. That is why we are bringing forward this Bill now. Age UK, the UK’s largest charity working with older people, says we have a crisis in the current system that is
“leaving many older people with no protection at all… If we lose this opportunity we’re unlikely to get another one in this Parliament and it is profoundly unfair on the older people and their families…to have to wait any longer…doing nothing is not an option.”
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the Justice Secretary about the application of the measures in this Bill upon those who are serving prison sentences, particularly indeterminate sentences?
Matt Hancock
I have had some discussions on that subject, and I am happy for the hon. Lady to take up that point in more detail either directly with me or with the Minister for Care, or in Committee, because there are significant interlinkages between the two areas.
The Bill builds on the extensive work and recommendations of the Law Commission. It has been fully scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and then improved by the other place, as has been discussed. I am grateful for all that work. Ultimately, it is about striking a balance between liberty and protection.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentions the Law Commission and its suggestions. What he proposes does not quite tally with all the Law Commission’s recommendations. Where are the differences?
Matt Hancock
We built the Bill on the basis of the Law Commission report, but we have put some differences into the Bill. For instance, we think the principle of prioritising people over process is important, and we have strengthened that compared with the Law Commission’s recommendations. The Law Commission improves the law but does not make policy decisions. On top of the Law Commission’s work, which is incredibly helpful, we have made further policy decisions to ensure that people are put more foursquare at the heart of the process. It is true that the Bill and the Law Commission’s recommendations are not exactly aligned, but I would strongly defend our further improvements.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I have the privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on speech and language difficulties. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists is concerned about the conflation of mental capacity with speech and language difficulties. It is important we have provision so that people with speech and language difficulties are appropriately assessed and are not banged up because they are thought to be dangerous. There should be enough training in light of the fact that 60% of people in the criminal justice system have speech and language difficulties.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of getting highly trained social workers to make these judgments and about the importance of making sure such training is provided for and embedded in the Bill. He speaks powerfully, and I agree with how he puts it.
The Bill introduces a new liberty protection safeguards system, and it makes the authorisation simpler and more straightforward. It removes some bureaucracy and duplication, and it makes the system easier to navigate for individuals and their family. People will get their rights protections sooner, there will be greater independence when decisions are taken to restrict liberty, and the NHS and social care providers will be given a bigger role in the decision-making process so that people under their care receive the right care and their rights will be protected. It will introduce an explicit duty to consult the person being cared for and to consider their wishes and feelings.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
An appropriate person will be appointed when dealing with vulnerable people. Who are these appropriate people, and what will be their role?
Matt Hancock
An appropriate person will have greater involvement in any decision to restrict liberty, so their role is essentially to speak for those whose liberty is potentially being restricted. We have framed this in terms of an “appropriate person” because in large part this will be a family member or a carer, but that cannot always be the case.
Matt Hancock
It could easily be a carer, yes. Some people have no family and in others cases the family are not the appropriate people to be the spokesperson for those who are mentally incapacitated. The appropriate person—the families and carers—will have greater powers to intervene or to object. Crucially, where there is no family or an appropriate person to advocate for the individual, the person has the right to an independent mental capacity advocate. So in all cases there should be a person whose role in the system is to advocate on behalf of the person whose liberty is being restricted.
Paul Blomfield
Does the Secretary of State accept that that access to an advocate should not be necessarily subject to a best interest test, as is being proposed, but should be a right?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Just to help everybody, let me say that we have 11 speakers, we still have to hear from the Opposition shadow Minister and we have the wind-ups. So I hope we can take that into account, although I recognise that the Minister is being very generous.
Matt Hancock
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. These are very important points—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps I will have to set it out differently. What I am trying to say is that we have 11 Members to speak and we could try to give them some time. Important as this and giving way all the time is, it is very important that we hear from other people.
Matt Hancock
Noted. Returning to the point made in the intervention, of course if there is an objection, there is a right in this case. So there is an escalation process in the event of an objection.
Before I end, I want briefly to deal with the Opposition’s reasoned amendment, because I hope we are able to show in this debate that all the points they raise have been considered. I hope the House will not mind my taking a moment to address each one briefly. First, they make the claim that somehow the Bill has been rushed through and insufficient pre-legislative scrutiny has been carried out. The Bill follows the Law Commission spending three years developing the new model, consulting extensively. The Joint Committee on Human Rights then conducted an inquiry and pre-legislative scrutiny. The Local Government Association, Age UK and Sir Simon Wessely have all backed the new legislation now. The LGA says:
“The Bill provides a vital opportunity for long-awaited reform”
and it needs to be passed. So we need to get this Bill on the statute book, because every extra delay risks depriving someone of their liberty and their right to freedom unnecessarily, and I do not want to see that happen.
Secondly, the amendment claims that the Bill
“enshrines a conflict of interest in relation to independent providers of health and care services”.
Again, that is not the case. Every authorisation must be reviewed by somebody who does not deliver day-to-day care and treatment for the person in question. We plan to go further by tabling Government amendments that will require authorisations in independent hospitals to be reviewed by an external approved mental capacity professional. Finally, the reasoned amendment claims that it is concerned about clearing the backlog in the current system. Well, so are we, and that is what this Bill does. Anyone concerned about the backlog and the current system should back the Bill with enthusiasm.
The claims that this Bill does not put the interests of the cared for person first or address the interface with the Mental Health Act have been addressed already. The very reason we need this legislation is so that we can put their interests first, because they cannot afford to wait for the recommendations of the Mental Health Act review to come into effect, in a Bill that will inevitably take time to develop, because of the need to do this on a consultative and broad basis. While welcoming the probing, I very much hope that the Opposition and every Member of this House will support this Bill, because it strikes a careful balance between liberty and protection. It offers vulnerable people a brighter and better future. We have listened to concerns and we continue to be open to ideas. We have sought to amend and improve the Bill as it has progressed through the other place, and we will make further amendments in this House. I therefore hope that this opportunity to change the system for the better is one that the House recognises. I also hope it will recognise that doing nothing is not an option. That is why I am proud to commend the Bill to the House.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill, notwithstanding the need for reform to the current system of mental capacity assessments and while acknowledging the improvements made to the Bill by the House of Lords, because the Bill underwent no pre-legislative scrutiny, it does not put the interests of the cared-for person at the heart of the Bill, it enshrines a conflict of interest in relation to independent providers of health and care services, it fails to provide measures to reduce the substantial backlog of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards Assessments and it fails to recognise explicitly the interface with the Mental Health Act when determining which legislation should be used to authorise care or treatment arrangements.”
The issue before the House today is one of fundamental importance to us all: the individual liberty of vulnerable people. Today, we are being asked under which conditions it is right to deprive vulnerable people of that liberty when they need care and treatment and cannot give their consent, and what protections should be in place when their liberty is taken away.
The proposals in the Bill to replace deprivation of liberty safeguards have the scope to affect the rights of a large portion of the 2 million people in the UK thought to lack capacity to make their own decisions. Among them are people with dementia, learning disabilities, autism and brain injuries. Whether to deprive some of the most vulnerable people in this country of their liberty should be an issue that we treat with the utmost respect, thought and care. However, I am afraid the Government’s approach to this immensely important issue has shown few of those qualities.
The reform of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires methodical planning, but the truth is that the Bill has been rushed through without proper scrutiny, despite the best efforts of many people who are concerned about its contents and have been working to change it for the better. The fact that the Bill has less than two hours for Second Reading and was brought forward with just two sitting days’ notice speaks volumes of the speed that the Government are adopting in respect of the Bill, and will raise further concerns among those who care about these matters.
The process of reforming the 2005 Act began when the Law Commission produced a draft framework for new liberty protection safeguards to replace the existing deprivation of liberty safeguards. That came after two years of painstaking work and wide consultation ended last year. The Government accepted the commission’s proposals at the time they were produced, but the Bill that was introduced to the House of Lords has diverged substantially from the original recommendations— an issue on which the Secretary of State answered a question earlier. At the outset of the process, the draft Bill published by the Government was subject to no prelegislative scrutiny whatsoever, meaning that important stakeholders were not consulted about its contents.
During the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords, my colleagues and I heard many concerns about it from interested stakeholders, from charities representing people with dementia, learning disabilities and autistic people through to directors of adult social services, organisations representing social workers, and social work professionals involved with the current system. They have been unanimous in their agreement that the Bill is deeply flawed, that there has not been adequate time for consultation, and that the proposals in the Bill could cause more problems than they solve.
The Secretary of State quoted a smattering of organisations; let me read him this list: the Relatives & Residents Association, Mencap, the National Autistic Society, Mind, Rethink, the Alzheimer’s Society, VoiceAbility, Disability Rights UK, POhWER, the British Institute of Human Rights, Sense, Liberty, Learning Disability England and Inclusion London have all called for the Bill to be paused so that further consultation can take place. But as we can see today, that call has not been heeded.
Mr Dhesi
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that Sir Simon Wessely’s review has only just been published, the Government should consider pausing the Bill to look into the interplay between it and the recommendations on the Mental Health Act? Otherwise, we risk creating legislation that fits together very poorly.
Barbara Keeley
Absolutely, we do, and that is a real concern. The Opposition’s concern is that we do not want to end up with a flawed piece of legislation replacing another flawed piece of legislation, and then to have to change it again.
It is worth noting that until yesterday the Government had not even published an equality impact assessment, more than five months after the draft Bill was first presented. Before that, the Government’s only published impact assessment was concerned solely with the cost savings that the new system would bring. That initial impact assessment is now woefully out of date, given the number of amendments made to the Bill in the House of Lords—I understand that more than 300 amendment were tabled. I pay tribute to the work of many peers in the House of Lords, including my colleagues on the Labour Front Bench, who worked to try to improve the Bill, despite the hurdles placed in front of them by the Government. Nevertheless, fundamental problems with the Bill remain that simply cannot be rectified by amendments.
We cannot support the Bill in its current form because, quite simply, it proposes to replace one deeply flawed system with another. I will come onto the flaws in the Bill in due course, but, first, I wish to address the need for substantial reform of the Mental Capacity Act, which we accept. We recognise that the deprivation of liberty safeguards system is deeply complex and bureaucratic, as the Law Commission identified in its report last year. Concerns about the deprivation of liberty safeguards predated even the Law Commission’s report, and we know that a House of Lords Committee declared the DoLS not fit for purpose in 2014.
The scope of DoLS is too narrow, applying only in care homes and hospitals. Authorisations outside care homes and hospitals have to be done through the Court of Protection, which is costly and cumbersome. It is clear, as we have already heard in this debate, that the explosion in the number of DoLS applications after the Cheshire West judgment left the system struggling to cope. The latest figures, as the Secretary of State has said, show a backlog of 125,000 applications. That, of course, leaves the person subject to the application potentially unlawfully deprived of their liberty. If the Government want to resolve that backlog, as they profess to, then the way to do it is to provide local authorities with the resources they need to process all the applications they receive. The Government should not be trying to hide their failure to fund local government behind a streamlined process that does not protect vulnerable people.
Although the deprivation of liberty safeguards need reform, and I agree that they do, the Bill deals with none of the challenges that have been outlined and creates some new problems that cannot be solved simply with further amendments. I am afraid we feel that the Government cannot be relied on to make the necessary changes during the remaining legislative stages given the resistance that they showed to making important changes in the House of Lords. On the contrary, the transformative spirit of the Law Commission’s draft Bill has been squashed, and the measures that would place the best interests of the cared-for person at the heart of the new system have been reduced.
The Government should have enacted the Law Commission’s proposals in full through the 15-clause Bill that was drafted, but instead we have this five-clause Bill. Why did they not simply bring forward the Law Commission’s proposals? The inescapable conclusion that we have come to from reading the Bill is that the Government are more interested in cost saving than in the best interests of cared-for people. This is a crucial point, because there can be disastrous consequences when the best interests of cared-for people are not taken into consideration.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I say this in a spirit of co-operation on such an important issue. The Labour party amendment is to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. Instead of trying to change the Bill and bring in some of the Law Commission’s recommendations, why, with nearly 200,000 people waiting to have a DoLS assessment, have the Opposition proposed an amendment to reject the Bill out of hand?
Barbara Keeley
That is a question that the hon. Lady needs to put to her own party. What has happened up to this point is that the Government have been asked repeatedly to pause, to carry out more consultation, and to consider redrafting the Bill. There is a list of 40 organisations that have asked for a pause and a redrafting of the Bill. This is a familiar situation from health and social care legislation—it has happened before in this House. The Government could have considered a pause, and the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), knows that I have discussed that with her. The whole question really falls back on the Government.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend refers to what happened in 2012 with the Health and Social Care Bill. We had to have a pause halfway through its parliamentary stages because it had not been thought through properly. I worry that we might end up having the same thing happen again if the Government do not take heed of what the shadow Minister is so clearly setting out.
Barbara Keeley
I thank my hon. Friend for saying that, and it is the case.
Let me give an example. Just last week, the BBC’s “Victoria Derbyshire” programme exposed the horrific case of Rachel Johnston, a woman with learning disabilities who died after having an operation to remove all of her teeth. Rachel had a long-standing and extensive dental problem, but, clearly, could not consent to the dental work. Rather than doing the surgery in several treatments, the dentist opted to remove all her teeth in one operation, using the Mental Capacity Act to authorise the use of a general anaesthetic because he deemed it to be in her best interest. After being discharged, Rachel bled profusely from her gums, developed breathing difficulties and later died. How on earth can that treatment have been in her best interest? That case shows a need for greater safeguards, not fewer safeguards. We should not allow medical professionals to make decisions without considering the best interests or wishes of people who lack the capacity to consent to treatment.
I recognise that, as the Secretary of State mentioned, the Government conceded in the House of Lords that the cared-for person must be consulted, but there are still worrying aspects of the Bill that undermine that principle. We should ensure that individuals have access to an independent advocate. That is a vital safeguard that allows people to challenge authorisations, and it should be the default. The manner in which the independent mental capacity advocates can and should be appointed remains ill-defined and even contradictory.
The Minister in the House of Lords, Lord O’Shaughnessy, seems to have dismissed concerns raised about the application of a best interest test before the appointment of an advocate. The role of an advocate is essential to allowing individuals to access appeals and review their rights. Access to support from advocates should not depend on best interest tests, and the provisions in the Bill are far weaker than those proposed by the Law Commission. Yet despite that being pointed out in the debate in the House of Lords, the Minister there seemed unwilling to listen to advice, merely saying that it would work “in practice”. That is simply not good enough. These factors amount to a severe undermining of the concept of the individual’s best interests, which should be at the heart of the Bill but is sorely lacking.
I will now address the backlog of deprivation of liberty safeguard applications, because at the outset the Government presented the Bill as a cost-effective way of reducing it. On Second Reading in the House of Lords, the Minister claimed that the Bill would relieve
“local authorities of the…legal liability burden of more than £408 million by removing the backlog of…applications.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 1060.]
But he made no mention of how that would happen. Our conclusion is that by attempting to place the onus for assessments on care home managers, the Bill would remove the responsibility from cash-strapped local authorities.
The Government initially tried to pass responsibility for assessments on to care home managers, and that was clearly intended as a cost-cutting measure. That was amended in the House of Lords, but care home managers will still decide whether an assessment needs to take place and will also identify whether the person being cared for objects to a liberty protection safeguard for their own care and treatment. The British Association of Social Workers has said that this presents a potential conflict of interest for care homes, as they need to maintain occupancy and may not readily identify an objection by the cared-for person.
The BASW has a further concern about the grounds on which the responsible body would decide whether it or the care home manager would make the necessary arrangements for an LPS authorisation. There is a significant risk of a two-tier system, whereby local authorities under financial or waiting list pressures would default to care home managers completing the new duties, and other local authorities under less strain would do the assessments themselves. I think we have enough of a postcode lottery in care without adding to it through the Bill.
Care England, which represents the network of care providers, says:
“There is a lack of clarity about the role of the Care Home Manager...the separation of roles between care homes and community care provision seems designed to increase rather than reduce confusion and complexity.”
Indeed, the body is so concerned by this Bill that is has also said:
“This ill-considered Bill risks storing up a range of problems of a kind that we do not want and should be slowed or returned for redrafting.”
There remains a further dangerous conflict of interest at the heart of the Bill because of the role that independent hospitals are given in the assessment process. Despite debate in the House of Lords regarding the role of independent hospitals, under the Bill they would still be allowed to appoint their own approved mental capacity professionals. That would allow independent hospitals the responsibility to authorise deprivation of liberty for people in that same hospital for the assessment and treatment of mental disorders. That is plainly wrong.
Barbara Keeley
The Minister says no, but Lord O’Shaughnessy in the House of Lords would not consider amendments tabled by two parties to deal with that issue. It is plainly wrong and represents a very clear conflict of interest.
Moreover, the Bill currently allows for the deprivation of someone’s liberty to be authorised for up to three years without review after two initial periods of 12 months, as the Secretary of State said earlier. It cannot be right to have that period of three years without renewal. The Bill is reducing the protections afforded by the current DoLS system, which operates a maximum period of 12 months before renewal.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The hon. Lady is outlining, with some good reason, the fact that there may be fewer safeguards and fewer opportunities for people to review or appeal under this Bill than when someone is sectioned under the Mental Health Act. She has a point about the need to look into that point, and to look more broadly at how this Bill sits alongside the Mental Health Act, given Simon Wessely’s review. Does she agree that a pause would be helpful to consider the interface of those pieces of legislation?
Barbara Keeley
Very much so. I will come on to that shortly, but I will not leave the point about independent hospitals, because it is important.
We know only too well from media reports, and the Secretary of State does too, of the torrid situation in independent hospitals that detain people with autism and learning disabilities under the Mental Health Act, and the measures in this Bill could have disastrous and far-reaching consequences. I have raised at the Dispatch Box on several occasions the appalling treatment of people with autism and learning disabilities in assessment and treatment units. I have described the situation as amounting to a national scandal, and I believe that it is still so. As many as 20% of people in these units have been there for more than 10 years. The average stay is five and a half years. The average cost of a placement in an assessment and treatment unit for people with a learning disability is £3,500 a week, but the costs can be as high as £13,000 a week or more.
As the journalist Ian Birrell has exposed in The Mail on Sunday, private sector companies are making enormous profits from admitting people to those units and keeping them there for long periods. Two giant US healthcare companies, a global private equity group, a Guernsey-based hedge fund, two British firms and a major charity are among the beneficiaries of what campaigners have seen as patients being seen as cash cows to be milked by a flawed system at the expense of taxpayers. According to a written answer I obtained from the Department of Health and Social Care, in the past year alone the NHS has paid out over £100 million to private companies for these placements. Shamefully, the Government cannot reveal how much they have spent since they came to power, because they claim that they did not record the expenditure before 2017. It cannot be right that the Bill potentially gives private companies the power to lock up vulnerable people for years at a time to feed a lucrative and expanding private health sector.
I would like to draw attention to one more issue that the Bill does not address—we have already discussed it—and that cannot be papered over by amendments. The Government commissioned Professor Sir Simon Wessely to lead a review of the Mental Health Act, which is of course long overdue for reform. However, as the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said, there is clearly a complex interface between the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act. Professor Sir Simon Wessely has made the point that there is now a worrying trend of people, particularly with dementia, being detained under the Mental Health Act when their deprivation of liberty should be dealt with under the Mental Capacity Act. His review recommended imposing a new line of objection to determine who should be treated under which legislation, but, as the hon. Gentleman said, there has been no engagement with these recommendations, which were finalised as this Bill was going through the House of Lords.
In our view, the Government must commit to a review of the interface between the two Acts, with full consultation, which has, to date, been sorely lacking. It is one thing to say that Sir Simon had a conversation with the Secretary of State about this, but that is not full consultation. The consultation must look at both hospital and community settings and provide clear and accessible rights of appeal.
Matt Hancock
Of course the interface between the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act will be considered, but Sir Simon himself favours bringing forth the Mental Capacity Act renewal now and then dealing with the Mental Health Act later. As with all of the hon. Lady’s other considerations, that has been taken into account, and this is the best way forward.
Barbara Keeley
Well, clearly we do not agree.
The reform of the Mental Capacity Act began as an attempt in good faith to reform a flawed piece of legislation that fails to protect the human rights of some of the most vulnerable people in this country, but it now threatens to infringe those rights further through this Bill. We simply cannot afford to rush an issue of this magnitude where individual liberties and human rights are at stake. Indeed, the Minister in the House of Lords himself admitted:
“We cannot introduce another Bill or piece of legislation that just creates a problem three years down the line.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 1110.]
But that is exactly what this Government are trying to do today. We will fail some of the most vulnerable people in society if we allow the creation of flawed legislation that needs to be replaced in just a few years. We must get this right. That is why the Government must pause the Bill, and why I urge hon. Members to vote for our reasoned amendment and ensure that Ministers get the message loud and clear.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I must now introduce a six-minute limit on speeches.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
It is an honour to speak in this Second Reading debate on a subject of real importance to some of my most vulnerable constituents across north Northumberland. I want to focus on one cohort of those for whom the Bill is important: those in care homes.
I first became aware that the deprivation of liberty safeguard system was not fit for purpose as a new parliamentary candidate some years ago, while visiting the excellent care homes across my rural constituency—the small, family-run care homes based in sparsely populated areas that elderly constituents have made their home, some by choice, many placed there by Northumberland County Council and some whose family could no longer care for them at home.
One of the first issues raised with me on those visits—even then, when the deprivation of liberty system had just been put in place for those who were unable to consent any more—was that the system was proving burdensome and not family or vulnerable person-centric, and that our local authority had become rapidly overwhelmed by the unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, with six separate assessments clogging up the system but failing to ensure protection and reassurance.
The care home managers in my wonderful small and otherwise person-centric care homes were drowning in paperwork and new requirements but could not get the answers they needed quickly from county hall or doctors. It seemed to all those whose careers—indeed, vocations—it is to run care homes that the bureaucracy was simply adding complexity without positive value or outcomes. Much of the work was simply going over the same ground already covered by local authority officials when the decision to place vulnerable elderly constituents into the care home had been made originally.
Busy managers felt they were simply going round in circles, but they were especially concerned by the distress that the system was causing their residents—not only those to whom the deprivation of liberty assessment related, but others with greater capacity who had to watch their co-residents’ anxiety increase and were concerned that when they became that frail, all that would happen to them too.
This Bill is a welcome piece of legislation to provide important safeguarding for our most vulnerable elderly and young adults with severe learning disabilities or autism, to ensure that the system functions better and to reassure us all. Whether it is members of our family or our constituents, we need to have confidence that where restrictions are deemed necessary by the carer of a vulnerable person, the checks in place are streamlined and effective. Good Government policy delivers on its aims. The original 2005 Act failed to do that.
It is encouraging that the Bill will strengthen the protections and rights of vulnerable adults who lack mental capacity and have their liberty deprived. It will introduce a simpler process that involves families more and gives swift access to assessments, which is really important and has been a problem. It will be less burdensome on people, carers, families and local authorities, and it will allow the NHS, rather than local authorities, to make decisions about their patients, allowing a more efficient and clearly accountable process—something that many GPs have raised with me consistently over the years.
The Bill will consider restrictions of people’s liberties as part of their overall care package, which should be a self-evident truth but has not been under the historical legislation, and it will get rid of repeat assessments and authorisations when someone moves between a care home, hospital and ambulance as part of their treatment. We have few ambulances in north Northumberland, and this has been a huge burden for the paramedics who have to deal with these difficult and complex cases. There is enormous frustration, because there is a sense that people are not getting patient-centric care, which is what everybody looking after them wants to achieve. These proposals go a long way towards creating a system that can be trusted by our constituents, and I look forward to working with the Minister to ensure that the Bill reaches the statute book quickly.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
First, I declare my interest as chair of the all-party group on social work. This very Bill was the subject of our most recent meeting, when we heard from those working in this sector. These are no doubt some of the most important issues we could be debating and legislating on, and judging by the attendance at the all-party group meeting, it could not be more important to the policy makers and professionals in the field. This legislation governs the rights of individuals and the people who can deprive them of one of their most basic fundamental rights—freedom.
Some of the people attending the all-party group felt the Bill had made some progress with the amendments in the House of Lords, but it is fair to say that the Bill is simply not yet good enough. I really think that the Government need to pause, think again about the implications of the plans that Ministers are putting before us today, listen to the countless charities, other organisations and professionals that work with the legislation every day and then come back with a Bill that is fit for purpose.
This cannot and must not be a basic political argument between the Government and the Opposition; it is a debate between law makers and the people, some of whom at a particular time in their life can be subject to some of the most restrictive legislation we have. It saddens me that this could be another Government measure to cut the costs of associated assessments under the current Act.
There is a wealth of briefing material, from organisations as diverse as the Law Society and the Royal College of Nursing, outlining concerns that need to be discussed and addressed through the legislation. There are serious issues with potential conflicts of interest, but I think the Minister knows that. Imagine a scenario in which a care home manager is making a decision on someone’s life but has a financial interest in making a judgment either way. The Royal College of Nursing shares my concerns on this. Care home managers may feel under pressure in their workplace, meaning that they may make decisions that are not always in the best interests of the person they are caring for. There should not be any vested interest—only an interest in the wellbeing and freedom of the person concerned. Issues have already been raised about private hospitals. A private hospital could authorise deprivation of liberty, knowing that it would benefit financially from that. I know that the vast majority of people are honest and work in the best interests of those they care for, but such judgments should be made by a genuinely independent person.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) mentioned the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. There is a real and genuine risk that people may be wrongly deemed to lack mental capacity because any communication needs they have are not properly recognised. Nothing short of full staff training on communication needs—for everyone in the system—would be satisfactory as a measure to ensure that people are being assessed correctly and that any additional needs are addressed.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very sound point. Given the importance of communication and of being able to assess people correctly, does he agree that it may be beneficial to add speech and language therapists to the list of approved mental capacity professionals, which would benefit some of the people being assessed?
Alex Cunningham
That is not something that has previously come to my attention, but I am sure the organisation would very much like to look at that possibility.
Following on from that, there must be a suitably qualified person carrying out the assessments and they must also be independent. A skilled approved mental capacity professional should be involved before a person is placed in an institution, not just when there is an objection or a trigger. There needs to be further clarity on the role of independent mental capacity advocates. Considering that the Bill in its current draft would allow responsible bodies to detain someone without renewal for up to three years, leaving people deprived of their liberty for inappropriate lengths of time, it is essential that there is genuine independence when it comes to such an assessment.
Dr Poulter
The hon. Gentleman is making some very good points. I am sure he is aware that, for a section 2 or section 3 admission to be approved under the Mental Health Act, there needs to be a second-opinion doctor—it is good practice for that doctor to be independent—and a social worker to ensure that the section admission takes place. It therefore seems extraordinary to me that, in a similar situation where there is an issue of capacity to be decided, there is not the safeguard of a second opinion, given that the decision may last for three years.
Alex Cunningham
I would certainly bow to the expertise of the good doctor and acknowledge exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. These second opinions and safeguards are absolutely essential, and I do not see such cover in the Bill at the moment.
Another concern I want to highlight is the lack of consultation and clarity about extending the scheme to 16 and 17-years-olds, and the risk that the new scheme will make it easier for authorities to remove young people from the care of their families, despite the family objecting. The Government must go back and give careful thought and consideration to the risk that 16 and 17-year-olds could see their liberty restricted inappropriately.
This issue has already been mentioned, but I too am concerned about the fact that there is no real acknowledgement of the interface between the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, although the Secretary of State said it would be considered. I am no expert in this area, but does the Minister not agree that, as the Wessely review on the Mental Health Act has only just been published, the Government should pause the Bill to look at its recommendations properly, rather than risk creating legislation that does not fit together? Professionals must be able to understand the differences in regime and to clearly decide which is most appropriate.
We are dealing with changes to the law that any of our relatives, or even ourselves, could be subjected to in the future. We cannot just bounce this through the Commons and potentially hand substandard powers to a group of people who could rule the roost over an older person, a middle-aged person or a teenager, with nothing at all that their families could do about it.
There are plenty of people out there who are experts in this field; they could have been consulted and heard if there had been pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I have some questions and concerns that have been raised by some of the organisations out there. From Inclusion London: does the Minister agree that the Bill makes it clear that deprivation of liberty cannot be used as a way to deliver care in the cheapest way possible? From the Royal College of Psychiatrists: can the Minister confirm that the Bill will not prevent psychiatrists from being called away from frontline services? From Mencap: what reassurances can the Minister give that all conflict of interest is removed from the Bill? There is plenty in there. From the Law Society: will the Government consider the interaction between the Bill and the Mental Health Act, as set out in their recently published review? Will they take the time to do that properly?
There are many other questions from many other organisations, and I hope that we have real time to address them if the Bill gets into Committee. I gather that the programme motion suggests that the Bill should come back towards the end of January, and there will not be a lot of time in January to consider the real issues. I just hope that the Minister will listen to that point.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Let me start by welcoming the Second Reading of the Bill and by declaring an interest as a registered nurse who has used the current legislation in clinical practice. I therefore welcome the provisions in the Bill, which amend and reform the current legislation.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 was a groundbreaking piece of legislation, which, for the first time, provided safeguards not just for those without capacity, to enable decisions to be made about their care, but for healthcare professionals, families and friends who were having to make the most difficult decisions in the most difficult circumstances.
In terms of the deprivation of liberty aspects of the legislation, there is no doubt that, after 10 years, reform is urgently needed. The DoL system has become too cumbersome and too bureaucratic, and it is not responsive enough to patients’ changing needs. I therefore fully support the Law Commission’s report last year, which recommended that DoL be repealed and replaced. The Bill delivers those reforms.
There was a huge amount of debate in the House of Lords, and many amendments were tabled. The Government were in listening mode and accepted many of those amendments. Therefore, it is disappointing to see the Opposition amendment before us today, which simply states that we should decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. There will be plenty of opportunities in Committee and on Report for Members to lay down amendments about the concerns they have. This is such a serious issue, and there is such a backlog of cases; we are talking about the most vulnerable people in our society, and to leave them waiting for assessment or languishing with a DoL system in place that is clearly not working—we have a huge body of evidence that shows that—is irresponsible. If Opposition Members have concerns—many of them have raised genuine concerns today—I urge them to table amendments to address them, and not simply to reject Second Reading out of hand.
At the Lord’s Committee stage, concerns were raised, and the Bill has been amended accordingly. There are four measures, in particular, that I welcome. First, the scope of the Bill was extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. That is a welcome move, which will ensure that they are covered by the new legislation. In addition, I welcome the fact that family and friends will be able to trigger a review if there is an objection. That possibility does not exist in the current legislation. I also welcome the fact that the person we are discussing will be part of the consultation. Although they cannot make an informed choice, because they lack capacity, it is important to continue that dialogue with them, because they are the most important people in the whole process. I welcome the introduction of safeguards in relation to conflicts of interest and care home providers undertaking assessments. That was recognised as a genuine concern and the Bill has been amended as a result.
I still have a concern about independent hospitals. It would have been helpful if Opposition Members had tabled an amendment to reflect that concern. We want to ensure that the proposed legislation covers patients who move between various sectors—independent hospitals, care homes or NHS hospitals—in all scenarios. There is a feeling that there is a gap that still needs to be bridged and perhaps that could be considered in Committee.
I want to make a final point, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what I know is not the responsibility of UK Government Ministers. I sit on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Only last week, the Committee heard evidence from mental health professionals about people who lack capacity in Northern Ireland. There is actually no legislation in Northern Ireland, compared to the rest of the UK, on mental capacity. While there is no Northern Ireland Assembly and no Northern Ireland health Minister, that will remain the case. It is a huge concern that while UK Ministers are amending current legislation to make it more adaptable and responsive to patients’ needs, vulnerable patients in Northern Ireland have no legislation to cover them. There are healthcare professionals working in Northern Ireland who do not have safeguards to protect them. I urge Ministers to have discussions with the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Ministers to see whether something can be done until the Northern Ireland Assembly is up and running.
As a healthcare professional who has used the existing legislation, I am encouraged by the changes proposed in the Bill. I welcome the reform of the legislation to protect the most vulnerable, to protect healthcare workers in that setting, and to protect family and friends. I welcome further debate in Committee.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I want to start by reinforcing the point that the Bill deals with an issue of profound importance: the deprivation of a citizen’s liberty and the circumstances in which that can be done. That is why it is so vital that the measures are properly and closely examined and scrutinised. This is particularly important when dealing with people who potentially cannot object to the deprivation of their liberty. There is a real need for robust safeguards to be in place to ensure the least restrictive care possible in all cases and to restrict liberty only if that is genuinely in the best interests of that individual.
The system that the Bill seeks to reform is clearly not fit for purpose. The Joint Committee on Human Rights reached that clear conclusion. After the Cheshire West ruling, which actually happened during the period when I was a Minister, we have seen the development of a massive backlog, in particular because of the broadening of the definition of what constitutes the deprivation of liberty. It is therefore imperative that we sort that out. If we think about it, here and now we are routinely flouting people’s human rights. All those people on the backlog waiting list are being deprived of their liberty without proper authorisation. That is intolerable and it is why I resist the idea that we should just stop this process and leave in place the current wholly imperfect system.
When we think about reform, it is vital that we replace a flawed bureaucratic system with an effective robust system with proper safeguards, not another flawed system. It is very important to recognise what turned up in the House of Lords. My colleague Baroness Barker commented:
“This is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever brought before this House.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2018; Vol. 794, c. 1247.]
That was the view of many peers when the Bill first appeared in the House. I pay tribute to peers on all sides. I know my Liberal Democrat team did an incredible amount of work, but they worked with Labour colleagues and, I should say, the Minister Lord O'Shaughnessy. He collaborated with peers on all sides to improve the proposed legislation.
Barbara Keeley
The comment from Baroness Barker, who did some great work in the House of Lords, was made on Third Reading; she still described it then as one of the “worst pieces of legislation” that they had seen in the House of Lords.
Norman Lamb
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her intervention, because I was just coming on to the comments that Baroness Barker added on Third Reading. She said that although it had become better legislation, it was still
“highly deficient, but not as bad as it was.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 2018; Vol. 794, c. 1247.]
That, Minister, is not a ringing endorsement of this legislation. That is why it is critically important that the Government do what they say they will and collaborate to improve it, because improvements are absolutely necessary. Our assessment will be at the end of the process: is it workable? Does it genuinely respect and safeguard individuals’ human rights? Does it result in very vulnerable people being better protected than they are under the existing, highly flawed system? On those tests will we decide whether to support the Bill on Third Reading.
My plea to the Minister is, as we have discussed, to meet us well before the Committee stage. Do not rush headlong into the Committee stage. I am alarmed that we are talking about that happening at the end of January, given what else is going on then. Be in no doubt that if we do not sort out the flaws that still exist, I will work with others across the House to make sure that the Bill is defeated on Third Reading, because the stakes are so important.
I want to end by highlighting some of the key issues that need to be sorted out. First, many viewed the impact assessment that was presented to the House of Lords as based on fantasy, even before all the amendments were made there. I understand that it is being updated, but it is really important that it is a credible and robust document and, critically, that, along with the impact assessment, the new system is properly resourced. If it is not properly resourced, people’s human rights will continue to be flouted.
Secondly, there needs to be a published equality impact assessment. There has not been one yet. That is not acceptable. The Government need to get on and publish anything that they have produced. If they have not done the work on it, they need to get on and do that.
Thirdly, there are continuing concerns about really important conflicts of interest of independent hospitals and care home managers, who will still carry out consultations. Independent hospitals, as I understand it, are still able to authorise the deprivation of liberty within the hospital. When financial interests are at stake, there will be those who behave badly and who are prepared to act to keep a bed filled to earn the money from that individual—the “cash cow”, as the shadow Minister suggested. That is why robust safeguards are absolutely critical.
Fourthly, we need a clear definition of the “deprivation of liberty”, and the Minister has indicated that that will be forthcoming.
Fifthly, there are the renewal periods. I understand—the Minister made this point to me yesterday—that we do not want a tick-box exercise when it is clear and obvious to everyone that the arrangements are in that person’s interest, but there is something very concerning about our moving in the opposite direction to what Simon Wessely’s review said should happen with regard to the Mental Health Act 1983, where we would see improved safeguards. Here, however, we are talking about a longer period between reviews and renewals, and that seems to me to be a real concern.
Sixthly, there is the interface with the Mental Health Act—please get this right, because if we legislate and repent later, it will be too late and people will lose out as a result. My final comment is: listen to us, talk to us and talk to the interest groups to make sure that we get this right.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has such expertise in this area and brought such valuable content to this debate as well as a valuable tone, which was very good to hear. I want to say a few things, first, in support of the Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is very important that we take a moment to reflect on the significance of getting this right.
Depriving someone of their liberty is a very significant act. Liberty is a fundamental right and freedom. We must take it seriously, and we must get this right. It is clear that the current system is not working. The fact that between 100,000 and 200,000 people are waiting because of an applications backlog is clearly unacceptable and cannot continue, given the consequences for individuals who have been deprived of the safeguards to which they are entitled, and the impact on their families and on care homes in which they may be residing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Earlier today I had a chance to speak about this matter to the Minister and some of her officials. Is it the hon. Lady’s understanding that the issue of human rights has been included in legislation that has been endorsed by Age UK, the Law Commission and Simon Wessely? If that is the case, the action that the Minister and the Government are taking this year is right, because it brings everyone together and ensures that there is legislation that everyone in the House can support.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman has made a good point about the support for the Bill. Some Opposition Members have suggested that there is not much support for it, but it is, in fact, widely supported. Yes, there are concerns, with which I shall deal shortly, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said, there is widespread support for improvements in the current system. Those improvements include simplification—less bureaucracy and fewer administrative burdens—and the critically important representation of individuals through the independent mental capacity advocates, which will give them a voice. The frequency of assessments will become more appropriate; as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) said earlier, timings can be inappropriate and excessively burdensome. There is a better choice of language: the Bill removes the term “unsound mind”, which is very stigmatising and completely unnecessary. I am also pleased that the Government have listened to the concerns expressed by some of my constituents about, for instance, potential conflicts of interests for care home owners when a financial interest may be involved.
However, I have three outstanding concerns. First, there is the question of how the amended Act will work for people with severe mental illnesses. The Bill clearly focuses on those who lack capacity because of, for instance, dementia, learning difficulties, autism or brain injuries, but, if I understand it correctly, it could be applied to people with severe mental illnesses. Figures suggest that the current Act is applied to a significant number of people in such circumstances. We know that such illnesses—bipolar disorders, for example—are likely to fluctuate, and that as a result people’s capacity may also fluctuate. That could cause them to be detained and deprived of their liberty when, in fact, they have regained capacity. The Minister in the Lords, Lord O’ Shaughnessy, gave a commitment that that would be addressed in the code of practice, but may I press this Minister to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill?
Norman Lamb
Does the hon. Lady agree that, given the cohort that could be covered by both pieces of legislation, it is particularly important that the approach be consistent?
Helen Whately
I completely agree, and that relates to my second concern, which others have mentioned and which relates to the interaction between the Bill and the 2005 Act. In his review, Sir Simon Wessely suggested that there should be a new dividing line between the two. I hope the Minister will explain how that will work.
My third concern is whether the Bill will address a situation that I suspect many of us have encountered, when elderly people are locked into their homes. When I have been knocking on doors, I have sometimes been told, “Do not knock on that door, because the lady there has been locked in by her family, and she becomes very distressed and upset if someone rings the doorbell because she cannot answer the door and she does not understand why.” This is clearly a completely inhumane way to treat people, but it is happening. People are being detained at home without appropriate safeguards for their safety as much as anything, so I ask the Minister to say whether the Bill can address this problem, or are there any other steps we might take to deal with the issue of people being inappropriately locked in at home and deprived of their liberty?
I appreciate the spirit in which this Bill has been presented to the House, and the willingness of the Government to listen, as they have already shown as the Bill has been going through the Lords. I have listened to Opposition Members, but think there is widespread support for the Bill among interest groups and experts. I look forward to the Government continuing to listen and improve the Bill so that we have a better system sooner rather than later.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am anxious to make sure everybody gets in so I must now reduce the time limit to five minutes.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
We judge a civilised society by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens, so getting this legislation right is vital. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) said, “There by the grace of God go we all,” and I agree: we could all find ourselves or family members involved in this. The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) raised the issue of the Cheshire West case, which demonstrates that we do need change because we have got people whose human rights are being denied at the moment. It is not the case, therefore, that we can just do this at our leisure.
Is the Bill flawed? Yes, in its current state it is, but change needs to happen among the voluntary sector and others and we need to put some principles behind this, and one of them must be putting the person at the centre of the legislation. We should also only use these measures where there are no alternatives; they should not be used as a recourse of first resort or for financial or convenience reasons.
The review of the Mental Health Act 1983 introduced the least restriction principle and that should be written into this Bill. It is also key to ensure that individuals and families not only know their rights, but have access to them. Also, the length of detention should be kept to a minimum, and certainly kept under regular review. The care plans of individuals must be kept up to date with the individual’s situation, too. The access of individuals and families to independent medical advocates must be a central part of this Bill as well, and if people do not have family or relatives an independent advocate should be appointed to them automatically. The possibility of conflicts of interest has been raised and I am not yet happy that this Bill addresses that. There are issues that need to be looked at. Referring to the Mental Health Act again, having second opinions is important; we must tighten that up in this Bill.
A lot of this could be covered in the code of practice. The Government have not yet produced that, and it needs to be produced before the Bill goes any further. It would also be important for it to be incorporated into the Bill.
Reference has been made to the interface with the review of the Mental Health Act. I have read it and know Simon Wessely, and he is clear in that report that he does not want this legislation held up, and he does not think that fusing the two Acts would be a way forward. He makes a suggestion on how to use the two Acts: for objection we use the Mental Health Act, and for not having capacity we use this mental capacity Act. He also deals with the issue of cases that cover both, offering some ideas around tribunals and judges and court protection. I would also like the Minister to address the issue around 16 and 17-year-olds and how this interplays with the Children Act 1989 which gives certain rights to parents.
The right hon. Member for North Norfolk said that the situation needed to change, because people are now being detained who are not having their human rights observed. I have to say that I agree with him, and that is why I cannot support the reasoned amendment. Throwing the Bill out at this stage would be a huge mistake. I plead with the Minister to look at a number of things. The delaying of the Committee stage that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned would be important, and I believe that we should extend the sittings of the Committee if we need to. We ought to take as much time as possible in Committee. With good will, we can get there.
Is the Bill perfect? No, it is not, and I am not happy with it as it is outlined, but we can get some changes into it. I know that the Minister is an advocate for the sector and that she is passionate about doing the right thing, and it is not beyond the wit of man or woman to get to where we should be. To throw the Bill out at this stage would be a mistake, because my fear is that it would not come back, owing to a lack of legislative time. That would mean that the legal crisis would continue. Also we would be missing an opportunity to change the legislation. We can make the necessary changes if the good will is there.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We looked at this whole issue generally in our report in June, and we looked more specifically at the Bill in October, so I declare that interest. Article 5 of the European convention on human rights sets out the right to liberty and security. It says that no one shall be deprived of their liberty
“save…in accordance with a procedure determined by law”.
That essential safeguard applies to all those who are deprived of their liberty, not just people in the criminal justice system, and so it should. The previous system involved the deprivation of liberty safeguards, which were criticised by the House of Lords Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Committee found that
“far from being used to protect individuals and their rights, they are sometimes used to oppress individuals, and to force upon them decisions made by others without reference to the wishes and feelings of the person concerned.”
So reform is most definitely needed.
The only guidance that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 gives to the courts is that
“references to deprivation of a person’s liberty have the same meaning as in Article 5(1) of the Human Rights Convention.”
The Supreme Court, as has been mentioned, has defined deprivation of liberty in an “acid test” that covers all those who are under “continuous supervision and control” and “not free to leave”, regardless of their condition or contentment. It was logical of the Supreme Court to do that, but it has none the less meant that hundreds of thousands of people who were not previously considered as being deprived of their liberty may now be so considered, and 125,630 people have been unlawfully deprived of their liberty between 2017 and 2018.
Just as importantly, this definition causes real anguish to many people and their families. We heard evidence from parents whose children are now considered to be deprived of liberty, despite being content and cared for in their own home by devoted family members. I shall give the House a couple of examples. Mark Neary told us that his son Stephen was
“very much king of his castle in his own place. He requires 24/7 support, which is either me or a member of the support team. It was decided last week that Stephen is being deprived of his liberty in his own home on the basis that, first, he is not free to leave, because you need support workers to go with him when he goes to the shop or goes swimming, and secondly, that he is under constant supervision.”
Graham Enderby told us that we had
“gone so overboard after this judgment it is ridiculous”.
Keeping to the current definition will mean that any system of authorisation would have to be either extraordinarily expensive or minimal. As we said in our second report on this issue,
“a scheme which applies too widely will be so light touch as to reduce protection for those who truly need it.”
For those reasons, the Committee recommended that Parliament use this opportunity to give the courts guidance about an article 5-compliant definition of liberty that will ensure that the safeguards are focused on those who need them. We noted two possible ways in which that might be tackled. The first was to focus on whether the deprivation of liberty was the result of an underlying condition, or whether it was caused by continuous supervision and control. The alternative was to revisit the whole notion of valid consent. Those who lack mental capacity cannot, by definition, give legal consent, but as we have heard, in practice it is possible in many cases to tell whether a person is content with his or her support.
We were disappointed, when the Bill was introduced, that the Government had not tackled that issue. We were also disappointed that the scheme that was initially proposed did not have sufficient safeguards for people who were going to be the subject of the new liberty protection scheme. However, I am pleased to see that the Government have listened, and that during the Bill’s passage through the House of Lords it has been amended to make it explicit that there is a duty to consult the cared-for person about their care arrangements. There were many other amendments that I do not have time to go into now. I am also pleased that the Government have now undertaken to bring forward an article 5-compliant definition of liberty, and we look forward to that extremely important step.
Some concerns remain, however. We must consider whether people should be able to give advance consent to care arrangements. I understand the Government’s position is that advance consent could date from many years before care was put in place, that people may “give up” their human rights in long-stay settings, and that people could feel pressurised into making advance consent arrangements when they did not wish to do so. We understand those concerns, but they can be mitigated with sufficient safeguards to enhance the personal autonomy of cared-for persons. I also remain concerned that the right to advocacy is not robust enough. The provision of advocacy is essential for ensuring that cared-for persons can exercise their right to challenge authorisations, and article 5 guarantees everyone the right to challenge their deprivation of liberty before a court. I am pleased that amendments strengthening the right to advocacy were made in the Lords, but they may not go far enough.
This important Bill needs careful and thorough consideration, so I fully support the recommendation that the Bill’s Committee stage be extended.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on speech and language difficulties, so my primary concern is that people will have their freedom taken away simply because they cannot be understood rather than due to a mental capacity problem. The Minister will know that this is a big problem, with something like 10% of children entering school having a speech or language difficulty. Some 60% of young people in the criminal justice system have a speech or language difficulty, and yet speech and language therapy reduces reoffending from 39% to 26%, so it is a cost-effective intervention at that stage and would be even more cost-effective beforehand. Some 81% of children with emotional and behavioural disorders have unidentified language difficulties. Left untreated, 33% of children with speech and language difficulties develop a mental illness, and half of them commit crimes.
In other words, it is important to identify and provide support for people in such situations because, as we have already heard, it can cost £13,000 a week to keep someone incarcerated, but that may be happening simply because they have not been properly understood and have not received the support they needed. There is therefore a financial and moral onus on us to identify and provide therapy to reduce and reverse the development of mental health problems linked to speech and language difficulties.
The situation at the moment—it will be the same under the Bill—is that assessors often will not and do not recognise speech and language difficulties or cannot differentiate between them, and they often do not know how to support the client and communicate their needs.
Rebecca Pow
I support all the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is making a strong case. Does he believe that staff training on communication ought to be included in the Bill, and that speech therapists should be included in the list of approved mental capacity professionals?
Geraint Davies
I was going to make precisely that point. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has said that the list of professionals should include such therapists and that all professionals carrying out assessments should have speech and language training so that they can identify the issues that they currently do not identify and provide clients with support. I ask the Minister to consider the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which requires that support must be provided for communication.
When people are deprived of their liberty, that comes through their lack of capacity to consent, which is questionable if there has been no proper assessment of speech and language difficulties. The person may have a mental disorder, and the action that is taken must be necessary and proportionate. If they object, a review is carried out, but there is no requirement that a speech and language therapist should be involved in the review, which is another change that needs to be made.
The central point is that speech and language problems do not mean a problem with mental capacity, but they are commonly misread as such, which obviously costs the public sector a fortune and costs thousands of people their liberty. As has already been asked, I ask the Minister to look carefully at these issues over a longer timeframe, because we are in danger of rushing this through under the heat and smoke of Brexit, and everything else, and we risk denying the liberty of people whose liberty should not be denied and costing the public sector a fortune when that money would be better invested in preventive treatment such as early intervention for speech and language problems.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I will be brief, as I am aware that others wish to speak.
The privilege we have as a Parliament is to defend liberty, so any action we take to seek to deprive a person of their liberty should always be weighed against their best interest. I was not greatly aware of the deprivation of liberty safeguards until the Bill was tabled and I received lots of representations from constituents who work in the social work sector. They are concerned that, although the Bill may be well meaning, it does not necessarily have at its heart protections for the best interests of the people to whom it might apply. I have always listened when a doctor tells me something is not right and I am unwell, and we should listen when a social worker tells us that the Bill’s provisions for depriving a person of their liberty fall short of their expectations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) made two excellent points. First, if we are to take away a person’s liberty, there has to be no possibility that the process could be abused for whatever purpose. I fear that, in some of the arrangements for moving away from a local authority-based system to a responsible body, the potential exists, however small that potential may be, for an unscrupulous person who is not necessarily working in the best interest of an individual to exercise that power simply to maintain a business model in their own facility or care home. Such cases may be few and far between, but we have seen many situations across the country where one or two individuals have taken advantage of people in vulnerable situations, and I am not convinced that the Bill, as currently written, goes far enough to provide safeguards. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes her head, and it would be wonderful if she could address that in her summing up.
Gareth Snell
I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
My other area of concern is the independence of advocates. I am fortunate to have a family who can speak up if a relative were ever in such a situation, but there are countless people across the country who do not have somebody who can stand up for their best interest and represent what might be right for them. The Bill contains no provision properly to strengthen the independent advocacy rights and make them robust so that everybody who might be subject to the liberty protection safeguards is able to be represented and have their views considered, which is important. [Interruption.] The Minister is nodding, and I would welcome it if she offered some sort of guidance and further clarity on how the Bill will deliver that. From where I sit, from what I have read and from the evidence given to me by social workers, there are several holes in the Bill that do not stand up to scrutiny.
I suspect the Bill will get its Second Reading, and I hope several of those holes will be identified and considered in Committee. At the moment, my fear is that the Bill is well intentioned but simply does not bear scrutiny. There is therefore a potential for exploitative people to take advantage of vulnerable people and, as a Parliament, we must make sure to address that.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who spoke with characteristic concern for his constituents and characteristic courtesy. I am grateful to him.
In the brief time available, I will argue why it is inappropriate for the Government to be rushing this Bill through Parliament. There are three reasons: the potential for an under-scrutinised Bill to have unintended consequences; the Bill’s lack of clarity on responsibility and resourcing; and the lack of calibration between this Bill and the much more carefully thought through and inclusive approach of the recent review of the Mental Health Act. As I detail those objections, I will refer to the specific concerns mentioned to me by my constituents.
I am well aware, as is everyone who has spoken on this Bill, that the current system is not functioning appropriately, but there has been a need for change since at least 2014. The question is whether we have had sufficient time to consider whether these measures are the appropriate ones, and I would argue that we have not. We had a discussion about the equalities impact assessment just now. I saw that a webpage was produced just yesterday with an equalities impact assessment allegedly produced in December—presumably giving the impression that it was produced yesterday. It refers to the independent review of the Mental Health Act being sure to report at the end of this year, but it has already reported. This is a dog’s dinner, and we cannot have it in relation to such a significant piece of legislation. We know about all the amendments made in the other place, which we have discussed. In that context, the time allocated to this Bill is just insufficient.
Even in this debate, we have seen the lack of clarity. The Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place, seemed to be unaware of expert calls for advocates being available to all, not just those objecting. He also did not agree with a comment made by a colleague who said that the new approach would potentially allow the deprivation of liberty for three years. However, the equalities impact assessment I just referred to, albeit that it is a flawed one, says that the Bill provides that authorisations could last up to three years where appropriate—after two initial authorisations of up to one year—compared with a maximum of one year under the existing DoLS system. The Government seem to be rushing this new approach in because of the existing backlog of DoLS cases dating from 2014, but it is not clear to me that the new measures will deal with that.
The Secretary of State said earlier that there would be a larger role for healthcare providers, but that seems to contradict what was stated in the other place. I am confused, and I think others are too, and that ambiguity is leading to the significant concerns expressed by many stakeholders about the potential for a conflict of interest. He said he would deal with that by tabling amendments in Committee, but in my experience we have not always seen that collaborative approach in Committee from the Government. I hope we will see a change, but presumably others can understand why there might be concerns about that.
It is unclear how local authorities and clinical commissioning groups will be able to perform their role expeditiously under these measures in the current financial climate. No fewer than 38% of assessments under DoLS in Oxfordshire required more than a year to be performed, according to the latest statistics. That is not just because of the regime; it is also because of funding constraints. Oxfordshire County Council has just announced that it will be cutting its contribution to mental healthcare funding. It has one of the lowest levels of mental health funding in its budget compared with other healthcare funding. Just as with lengthening waiting lists for accessing mental health provision, if we do not deal with this resource issue we will only hit the brick wall of inadequate funding.
Lastly, I wish to say that that review of the Mental Health Act involved thousands of service users from the off. In fact, it had someone who had been sectioned as a vice-chair. We have not had that level of inclusion in respect of this Bill.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Coming here tonight, I thought that this was in origin a well-intentioned but flawed Bill, but after listening to the Secretary of State I am not sure we are discussing the same legislation. It is hard to believe that in a free society such as ours, probably more than 125,000 people are currently denied their lawful liberty because of failings in the system. We need to improve the situation, not make it worse.
As with much of this Government’s legislation, the Bill seems to be more about reducing costs than protecting and promoting the rights of vulnerable people. As we have heard, the impact assessment was produced before a raft of Government amendments were made, so there is now a clear argument for producing an updated assessment before we proceed. The attempts to transfer some of the responsibilities set out in the Bill just do not make sense. I am not sure it is wise to transfer any responsibilities for things such as liberty to bodies such as CCGs. They are already very stretched and prone to questionable judgments on delivering equality and fairness in the NHS.
There are real doubts about the protections in the Bill. Access to legal aid is a Catch-22 if a person qualifies for it only after they have been deprived of their liberty. How can that be fair? There is also concern about the length of detentions and authorisations. Sir Simon Wessely recommended that initial detention should be reduced to three months, with a three-month renewal and six-month periods thereafter. Under the Bill, despite what the Secretary of State claims, a person can be subject to an order for three years.
The Bill does not put the interests of the cared-for person at its heart. The existing arrangements explicitly state that deprivation of liberty may be granted only where it is in the best interests of the cared-for person. The Government should make it clear on the face of the Bill that depriving a person of their liberty must be in their best interests, and should come only after the consideration of less restrictive options.
Proposals must ensure the right of a person to object to and challenge arrangements if they so wish, and that they have appropriate support and representation to do so. Access to an approved mental capacity professional is currently available only in limited circumstances. That is wrong: access should be made available in all cases. Scrutiny for pre-authorisation reviews should be extended to all situations in which a person might be considered vulnerable.
All cared-for people in private hospitals should have an independent mental capacity advocate appointed, and all authorisations must be carried out with approved mental capacity professional oversight. Independent oversight is essential in all cases, as cared-for people may not be able to object in the formal sense. Appropriate advocacy must therefore be available. The Royal College of Psychiatrists rightly draws attention to its concern that no one should have their liberty denied because of a mental disorder without first being seen by a qualified doctor.
It is essential that these matters are dealt with properly, which is why there are real concerns about the role of the care home manager. It is wrong that they should make the decision on independent representation. As drafted, the Bill makes the care home manager responsible for carrying out the consultation with the cared-for person, when the main purpose of that consultation is to ascertain that person’s wishes. Nor can it be right that the choice of assessor should lie with the care home. There is an obvious conflict of interest if independent health and care providers are responsible for both providing a service and deciding on that service’s suitability. The Bill allows for managers of independent hospitals to authorise deprivation of liberty when care is being delivered in their hospital. That is plain wrong.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this important debate. There have been many worthwhile and thoughtful contributions from all parts of the House, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), and my hon. Friends the Members for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe).
The Bill was supposed to be a welcome proposal to simplify a complicated system, but what is before us is equally problematic and will not fix the fundamental challenges that it was supposed to fix. That point was eloquently articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North. Put simply, the Bill has been rushed from start to finish. It has not received the meticulous and careful planning that befits legislation about the human rights of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The Government have shifted the goalposts. First, they agreed with the recommendations of the Law Commission’s draft Bill, but the Bill before us has only five clauses, compared with the Law Commission’s 15 clauses. The Law Commission consulted widely with stakeholders over a two-year period, but the Government did not consult those stakeholders even once before developing their much-changed Bill. Do they think they know better than the Law Commission, which spent years developing its draft legislation? I know from my own discussions with those stakeholders the serious concerns about how the Bill has proceeded. Surely the Government should have started consulting them at an early stage rather than proceeding at what Mencap, the National Autistic Society and many others have called “a breakneck speed”.
There are other examples of the Government acting hastily. There has still been no code of practice, and no definition of “deprivation of liberty”, on which much of this whole debate hinges. As we have heard, the Bill’s equality impact assessment was published only yesterday—that is not good enough—and despite what the Government say, it was not simply an update of a previous impact assessment in the House of Lords. That impact assessment, which is now completely out of date, discussed only the savings that the new system would make for the taxpayer. This process has been bungled to the point that Baroness Barker called the Bill the worst piece of legislation ever to have come before the House of Lords. It was clearly designed with one thing in mind: to save money on dealing with the backlog of DoLS applications.
We accept that the backlog that has arisen since the Cheshire West judgment, which widened the scope for what constitutes a deprivation of liberty, needs dealing with. That could be done through properly resourcing local authorities to deal with the problem, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out earlier. We know that the Government initially intended to solve the problem by foisting this responsibility on care home managers. Leaving aside the massive pressure that this would add to already overstretched care home managers and the worryingly high vacancy rate of care home managers, this would have created a dangerous conflict of interest. Thankfully that was amended in the House of Lords, but an equally dangerous conflict of interest remains in the role that has been given to independent hospitals. It simply cannot be right that this House legislates to give independent hospitals, so many of which are detaining people for years on end under the Mental Health Act, a similar ability under the Mental Capacity Act. It is totally unacceptable to enable them to determine whether appointing an independent mental capacity advocate is in someone’s best interest. It could create the very conditions that my hon. Friend described so harrowingly earlier. We could see even more Bethanys, and that would be a truly horrifying prospect for this House.
It is only down to the tenacity of the noble Lords, including my colleagues on the Labour Benches in the other place, that vital concessions to address some serious problems with this Bill. However, this Bill still falls far short of what is required. This debate has discussed the concept of an individual’s best interest, which should be at the heart of this Bill. If that were the case, the Government would have implemented the Law Commission’s recommendations in full. There are still several areas where the Government have diverged fatally from the Law Commission’s recommendations.
This Bill did not adopt the Law Commission’s recommendation that independent mental capacity advocacy should be available on an opt-out basis and not dependent on a best interest test. There are still worrying shortcomings in the arrangements for approved mental capacity professionals, and there has been no consideration of the interface between the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, which has recently been the subject of review by Sir Simon Wessely. Sir Simon made important recommendations about the overlap between those Acts. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) suggested a pause to consider that interface, and I concur with him on that.
This Bill is simply not fit for purpose. We cannot and must not rush legislation that deals with fundamental human rights. The Government must pause and take stock of the concerns that are being raised by so many voices urging them to revise these disastrous proposals. Some excellent suggestions have been made in this debate this afternoon. It is time to stop and think again.
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
Our liberty is one of the most fundamental of our human rights. Depriving people of that liberty is something that must be done with the greatest of care and with respect for individuals, and not as a tick-box bureaucratic process—a one-size fits all—that leaves vulnerable people without protections and in an unspeakable backlog. That is what we are facing today.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions today. I will aim to cover all the questions that have been raised and will write to anybody whose points I do not get to. I start by stressing from the outset that liberty protection safeguards are not about detainment, but about appropriate arrangements being in place for the purposes of care and treatment.
We have heard it argued that the Bill has been rushed through. The Law Commission looked at this issue for three years, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has looked at it. The Department of Health and Social Care has spoken endlessly to stakeholders. We are determined to get this right, but we continue to consult people across both Houses in order to do so.
Let me address the issue of three-year authorisations. This was a Law Commission recommendation, and the provision is geared towards people like my grandmother who live with dementia—people with long-term progressive conditions from which they are unlikely to recover. Their families tell us that they are part of an unnecessary and intrusive measure that they have to repeat every single year, when there is essentially no way that their loved one’s condition will improve. It is in such scenarios that the Bill allows the flexibility to deliver tailored protections that best support the individual depending on their needs.
The three-year renewal can be used only after two one-year renewals. Furthermore, the responsible body is required to specify a continuous programme of reviews if a person’s circumstances will change. That will address the issue of fluctuating conditions that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). We will also set out further details of fluctuating conditions in our code of practice.
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the code of practice, which will be a statutory document. It will be co-produced in consultation with the sector, the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Adult Services and the third sector, and it will be laid before both Houses. It will not be in the body of the Bill, because the problem at the moment is that there is a one-size-fits-all process in legislation, but people will have to pay regard to this statutory document.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned 16 and 17-year-olds. We have given very careful thought to how to include 16 and 17-year-olds and to how the Bill will interact with other legislation including the Children Act 1989, and we are very comfortable that it works alongside existing legislation. It is also a Law Commission recommendation to bring the provisions in line with the Mental Health Act, as he will be aware.[Official Report, 7 January 2019, Vol. 652, c. 1MC.]
Under the Bill, every authorisation must be reviewed by somebody who does not deliver the day-to-day care and treatment of the person. That is how we will avoid a conflict of interest for care home managers and independent providers. We want to drive a culture where independent hospitals are considering appropriate arrangements and where there are less restrictive alternatives available. This was also one of the Law Commission’s recommendations. However, we need to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards, which is why, in addition to introducing the consultation duties and the role for appropriate persons or independent mental capacity advocates, we will be tabling an amendment to ensure that every individual in an independent hospital setting will be assigned an approved mental capacity professional to complete the pre-authorisation review. That is regardless of whether the individual or their family object to the deprivation of liberty.
The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about speech and language. It is vital that communication needs are considered where relevant, and we would expect that a speech and language therapist will be consulted in order to establish the individual’s wishes and feelings. It is really important that those wishes and feelings are very much at the centre of the process.
Members have spoken about the interface with the Mental Health Act. We have broadly recreated the current interface with that Act. The Mental Health Act review did make recommendations on that interface, but Sir Simon Wessely himself said that the Government need to consider the implications of the interface as part of the consideration of that Act. He said that the reform of DoLS cannot wait when there are 48,000 people waiting more than a year for protections to which they are entitled.
If the Opposition’s amendment succeeded, we would be stuck in a broken system with a bureaucratic backlog, in which 125,000 people are waiting for protections. Professor Simon Wessely said that this Bill strikes
“a better balance between the importance of care planning and the provision of (all too often) perfunctory and box-ticking procedural safeguards around that care.”
That makes it clear that action must be taken.
Through this Bill, we are ensuring that people’s wishes are always considered and respected, and that people are safe, cared for and looked after. We are talking about changing a system that is currently not fit for purpose. We have attempted to be collaborative at every stage of the Bill so far. We are driven by a relentless desire to make it as strong and effective as possible and worthy of the vulnerable people we are seeking to protect. We want their loved ones and healthcare professionals to have faith in it, and we will never swerve from our commitment to what is necessary, proportionate and in the best interests of the individual. We commit to working with individuals across this House to make sure that this Bill is in the very best possible shape.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to motions 7 and 8, which, with the leave of the House, I will take together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Betting, Gaming and Lotteries
That the draft Gaming Machine (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocation) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 15 November, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Postal Services)
That the draft Postal and Parcel Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 29 October, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Companies)
That the draft Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 31 October, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 19 December (Standing Order No. 41A).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the leave of the House, I will take motions 10 to 13 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Electronic Communications
That the draft Privacy and Electronic Communications (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 1 November, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Merchant Shipping)
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Recognised Organisations) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 12 November, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services and Markets)
That the draft Capital Requirements (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 15 November, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Financial Services)
That the draft Bank Recovery and Resolution and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.—(Mike Freer.)
Question agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to motions 14, 15, 16 and 17, which, with the leave of the House, I will take together.
Church of England Measures
Petitions
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition on the Government’s sale of arms to Saudi Arabia on behalf of my constituents in Cambridge. It was set up by OxCam, the University of Cambridge’s—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Will hon. Members leaving do so quietly? We want to hear the petition from Daniel Zeichner.
Daniel Zeichner
The petition was set up by OxCam, the University of Cambridge’s Oxfam group. I was approached by Thea Augustidis, the OxCam campaigns officers, who asked me to present this petition to Parliament, bringing this important issue to the attention of MPs across the House.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the government’s sale of arms to Saudi Arabia is unacceptable, as there is substantial evidence that these arms are being used to kill innocent civilians in Yemen. This is in direct breach of the UK arms export policy, which states that the licenses cannot be granted if there is a “clear risk” the arms might be used in a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government to: suspend all arms transfers to members of the Saudi coalition carrying out attacks in Yemen, including weapons, arms, munition and ammunition, parts and components and other equipment that pose a substantial risk that they could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in this conflict.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002305]
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I seek to present a petition signed by 2,500 of my constituents that condemns the fact that only 75p per child is spent in Cumbria each year on preventive mental health care.
The petitioners therefore
request that the House of Commons urges the Government to end the 75p per head allocation and give Cumbria the money it needs to keep our young people mentally healthy and support those who are in the early stages of experiencing mental health problems
specifically by funding a mental health worker for every school and college in Cumbria.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of Residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that huge Government cuts to the public health budget have left Cumbria being able to spending £75,000 on Tier 1 preventative health measures for young people which works out at just 75p per head; further that back in 2015, the coalition Government made a spending promise of £25m per year for Cumbria’s public health budget, but the Conservative Government broke this promise and now allocates £7m less than originally promised for the county.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to end the 75p per head allocation and give Cumbria the money it needs to keep our young people mentally healthy and support those who are in the early stages of experiencing mental health problems.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002300]
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents who have been affected by Green Deal mis-selling. This was a Government-backed scheme that my constituents believed they could trust. However, many of them were conned by unscrupulous installers and rogue salespeople, including HELMS—Home Energy and Lifestyle Management Ltd—based in my constituency, which was approved under the scheme. This was through no fault of my constituents and the Government must act to resolve this injustice. The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to ensure that the Government will compensate and protect people who have found themselves suffering a detriment because of this Government-backed scheme, and take steps to ensure that this cannot happen in the future.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Rutherglen and Hamilton West,
Declares that the Government-backed Green Deal Scheme has adversely affected residents of Rutherglen and Hamilton West both financially and psychologically; further that many residents have, in good faith, invested their life saving or accrued several thousands of pounds of debt to pay for work that was carried out by companies approved by the Green Deal Scheme; further that in some cases the work including the installation of insulation and of solar panels, was incomplete; further that some were sub-standard and in many cases residents were given incorrect information which led them to believe that they would save or make money when in fact they have simply lost money; and further that in other cases the installer did not apply for building warrants and as a result they are unable to sell their properties, or have the peace of mind that their homes are safe to live in, or that the insurance policies residents continue to pay are valid without a building warrant.
The petitions therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to compensate financially and protect people who have found themselves suffering in this way after signing up to this Government-backed scheme using Government-approved installers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002306]
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Up to 169 households in my constituency of Central Ayrshire may be affected by this mis-selling scandal of Home Energy Lifestyle Management Ltd. Many elderly people were led to believe they were receiving insulation and solar panels free, provided by the Government, under the Green Deal scheme, only to find they were tied into long-term financing. In some cases they were even tricked into signing away their electricity feed-in tariff, meaning they have received no benefit, only debt. In addition, some installations were faulty, causing roof damage. The failure to secure building warrants means they cannot even sell their homes. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to financially compensate and protect people who have found themselves suffering in this way after signing up to this Government-backed scheme using Government-approved installers.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Central Ayrshire,
Declares that the Government-backed Green Deal Scheme has adversely affected residents of Central Ayrshire both financially and psychologically; further that many residents have, in good faith, invested their life saving or accrued several thousands of pounds of debt to pay for work that was carried out by companies approved by the Green Deal Scheme; further that in some cases the work including the installation of insulation and of solar panels, was incomplete; further that some were sub-standard and in many cases residents were given incorrect information which led them to believe that they would save or make money when in fact they have simply lost money; and further that in other cases the installer did not apply for building warrants and as a result they are unable to sell their properties, or have the peace of mind that their homes are safe to live in, or that the insurance policies residents continue to pay are valid without a building warrant.
The petitions therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to compensate financially and protect people who have found themselves suffering in this way after signing up to this Government-backed scheme using Government-approved installers.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002307]
Democratic Republic of the Congo: Presidential Elections
(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Ind)
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is scheduled to hold a presidential election in only five days’ time, on 23 December. This historic election could see the country’s first-ever democratic transfer of power, or bring further instability and violence to a country riven with human tragedy and despair. It is essential that this House and the Government send the strongest possible message today that we will settle for nothing less than a free and fair election, and that working with our international allies we will take punitive action against the regime should they attempt to steal the election. Conversely, as the DRC’s second largest bilateral donor, in the event of a free and fair election, we stand ready to support a new democratically elected President to face up to the mammoth challenges that lie ahead.
The country will only move forward with new leadership committed to a vision rooted in economic growth and poverty reduction. That will only be possible with better governance and a plan to end horrendous levels of violence and endemic corruption.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
How will this election affect the endemic corruption in the DRC, which is even worse than in Nigeria where I am a trade envoy, and how will it deal with the 2.7 million internally displaced people?
Mr Lewis
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. The international community has poured billions of pounds into the DRC over many, many years. Until the leadership of that country changes so that it is transparent, open and accountable to the people, and free of corruption, we will not see the kind of changes that the people of the DRC have a right to expect. That is why this presidential election is so crucial. Without a change of leadership, we will not see the kind of changes that are so necessary and which the hon. Gentleman articulates.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this matter for an Adjournment debate. I have always had an interest in the politics of Africa, in particular the DRC. He knows that the level of violence against those who are eligible to vote, in particular women, is very high. How does he see the elections taking place when that violence is being targeted at voters? How does he feel the Government can ensure that people are safe to vote? The democratic process must go ahead and the voters must be safe. How will that happen?
Mr Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the question of violence. As any Member of this House who has visited the DRC and spoken directly to victims of violence—particularly, women who have been victims of sexual violence—will know, there is not a more horrendous or horrific example anywhere in the world of rape being used as a weapon of war. Therefore, the ability—I will come to this later—of that country to protect voters from the threat of violence is central to having free and fair elections.
As hon. Members have alluded to, it is important to understand the scale of the challenge. The DRC is a country of some 80 million people and has a landmass the size of western Europe. According to the World Bank, with its 80 million hectares of arable land and over 1,100 minerals and precious metals, the DRC has the potential to become one of the richest countries on the continent and a key driver of African growth. That is almost the irony of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Between 2005 and 2012, the poverty rate has decreased only from 71% to 64%, and the DRC ranks among the poorest countries in the world. It was 176th out of 187 countries on the UN human development index. As of 11 December, as hon. Members will be aware, there have been 505 suspected cases of Ebola, including 457 confirmed cases, and at least 296 people have died. I know that this country has made a tremendous contribution to trying to contain the outbreaks of Ebola that we have seen.
UNICEF said that the humanitarian situation in the DRC has deteriorated dramatically just over the past 12 months. That is from an incredibly low base. A surge in violent conflict in the Kasai and eastern regions has forced more than 1.7 million people from their homes. The number of internally displaced people has more than doubled since January 2017, reaching 4.1 million, the highest number in Africa. More than 13 million will need humanitarian assistance this year alone, including 7.8 million children, and 13.6 million people are in need of safe water and adequate sanitation and hygiene facilities. Some 7.7 million people are facing severe food insecurity, which represents a 30% increase since 2016, and a shocking estimated 2.2 million children will suffer from severe acute malnutrition this year alone.
The country continues to experience frequent and deadly disease outbreaks, including measles and malaria, and is undergoing one of the worst cholera outbreaks of the decade—that is in addition to Ebola. Grave violations of children’s rights, including forced recruitment, killing, maiming and sexual violence, are key features of the conflict. Violence and insecurity are seriously impeding access to basic education for 3.4 million children across the country.
Recent UNICEF data show that more than 3,000 children have been recruited by militias and armed groups over the past year alone. According to an April 2014 UN report, sexual violence remains “extremely serious due to” its
“scale…systematic nature and the number of victims.”
Human Rights Watch talks about the “horrific levels of rape” and other forms of sexual violence used by all armed groups in the conflict, which has been destabilising the country for several decades. Unfortunately, members of the country’s armed forces are among the main perpetrators of this violence.
As the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) suggested, as the DRC goes to the polls, the stakes have never been higher. This election will decide who succeeds President Kabila, whose second and final term expired on 20 September 2016. The promised elections have been delayed until now. Kabila has been in power since 2001. Many had feared that he would never relinquish power, but largely as a result of pressure from the international community, he reluctantly agreed to step down. However, he has nominated a chosen successor, Emmanuel Shadary, who, due to his actions as a member of the Kabila Government, is currently subject to European Union sanctions. Opposition parties in the country fear that the electoral process will be a sham, orchestrated by Kabila, who wants to stay in power at any cost. They believe that the regime will do whatever is necessary to steal this election.
Kris Berwouts, of the African Studies Centre, wrote only last month:
“If the Congolese government manages to organise the elections in time, it will organise them in order to win them. It will deploy all the pressure, fraud, intimidation and violence necessary to do so. The chances of free and fair elections are nil. That is why the authorities are deploying heavy repression against any potential watchdogs. Congolese journalists and observers bear the brunt of this, but foreigners are also targeted.”
If the international community is serious about its commitment to peaceful, credible elections, it would be wise not to ignore the wisdom of the Congolese people regarding the conditions needed for legitimate elections.
In that context, I should like the Minister to address a number of specific concerns. I thank him in advance for his politeness in contacting me today to discuss some of them.
Electronic voting machines will be used for the first time in these elections, and civil society groups fear that they are not secure enough and there is a possibility of the results being rigged. The United States ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has affirmed the US belief that the DRC should stick to the tried and tested method of paper ballots. The technology for the machines was created by a South Korean company which built similar machines for elections in Argentina last year, but the devices were subsequently rejected because of security issues that made them vulnerable to hackers.
In fact, Congolese law does not provide for the use of voting machines, although that has been denied by the electoral commission in the DRC. I should add that there is a question mark over the commission’s independence in the entire process. It has also claimed that changing the system would mean delaying the election. According to a review of the devices by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, they have not been thoroughly tested, and there is a potential for long delays and also, crucially, for abuse and misuse.
Earlier this month, 7,000 of 10,000 voting machines in an electoral commission warehouse in the capital, Kinshasa, were destroyed in a fire. The Kabila Government blamed unidentified “criminals” for the blaze, but the warehouse was being guarded by their army. The destruction of the machines is therefore highly suspicious, and, obviously, reinforces the concerns about the use of such machines. There are also concerns about the voters’ roll, which has revealed that 6 million voters have not been fingerprinted. It would aid transparency, and would be incredibly helpful, if the UK Government could argue that the electoral commission should publish the names of the people concerned and the areas in which 50% of fingerprints have not been obtained. That would establish whether it was a case of random distribution or evidence of dubious practices.
It is also essential, even at this very late stage, for the international community to seek an agreement between the armed forces and the United Nations Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo—or MONUSCO—for a MONUSCO brigade to be deployed to guarantee safe, free voting in eastern and central parts of the country. That point was made by the hon. Member for Strangford. If such an independent force is not deployed, there is a real risk that people will be intimidated by the threat of violence. There are also concerns about the lack of observers. Analysts and activists have warned that if polls are seen as fraudulent, the country could face years of protests. Civil society organisations are operating in a highly restrictive political environment, with regular threats to employees and their families.
Finally, should the outcome of the elections become a matter of intense dispute, that could lead to further upsurges in violence across the country, some parts of which, especially the east, are seriously affected by intractable conflicts. Africa Confidential reports—this is shocking—that some national army officers are even talking in terms of a “third Congolese war”, with troops from neighbouring countries potentially becoming drawn into the DRC once again. Although the international community has poured much money and effort into the DRC over the last 20 years, there are justified fears that, in the end, a Shadary victory could be met with international acquiescence.
Let me make this point very strongly to the Minister. In the past, our Government and others of successive political persuasions have chosen perceived stability over democracy and free and fair elections, and, on those grounds, have often not called out elections as being illegitimate when they clearly have been. This country’s last best chance for the next decade, in the context of the human tragedies that I have described, is to determine whether the result of these elections demonstrates that they were free and fair. I call on the Minister, and the UK Government—who, because of their donor status and their diplomatic reputation, still have a tremendous amount of influence in that country—to take a very tough line, even at this late stage, in putting pressure on the DRC Government.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) for securing this timely debate and I know he has considerable expertise on the DRC. He is a long-standing advocate for the Congolese people, and I think I am right in saying that he has visited the DRC very recently. The Minister for Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), would have been delighted to respond on behalf of the Government tonight, but unfortunately she is unavailable and it is my pleasure to take her place.
I note the concerns expressed about the presidential elections that we hope will take place on Sunday and whether they will lead to the first peaceful and democratic transfer of power in the country’s history, and about whether the UK is doing enough to help ensure that they are free, fair and credible. We of course want an election result that is all of these things, and most of all we want a result that can be readily accepted by the people of the DRC, and over the next few minutes I hope to reassure the House that we are doing all we can to help to bring this about.
The Congolese people are understandably impatient for stability and security, and this Government agree, and this is important not only for the DRC but for the region as a whole. We have always been clear in our messaging that only credible and inclusive elections will deliver that long-term stability, and indeed the prosperity, that the DRC desperately needs. So this Government will always condemn acts that hamper democratic processes wherever they take place, but it would be wrong to prejudge these elections before they have happened, and the UK’s approach will be informed by reports from local and international observers, who must be allowed the space to make a full assessment.
Members might recall that in 2016 the UK joined the international community in condemning President Kabila for holding on to power after the expiry of his second presidential term, contrary to the country’s constitution.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I declare my interest as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to the DRC. What assurances has the Foreign Office received about the impact of the warehouse fire and the destruction of voting machines in Kinshasa in a strong opposition area? The Minister referred to the observers, who have largely been paid for by Her Majesty’s Government; we have recruited some 22,000. What assurances has the Foreign Office got that those observers will be doing an entirely independent and effective job?
Sir Alan Duncan
I will come on to the issue of electronic voting in a moment, and if my hon. Friend has further concerns I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Africa to write to him.
In order to prevent Mr Kabila from amending the constitution to permit himself a third term, the international community pressed him to sign the Saint-Sylvestre accord, setting out the terms for establishing a transitional Government which would work towards elections in 2017. Since the accord was signed in December 2016, the UK has repeatedly called on Kabila to honour both the DRC constitution and the Saint-Sylvestre accord, and to enable a peaceful transfer of power through credible elections. Our then Minister for Africa made these points directly to the President when he visited Kinshasa in November last year.
The UK continues to work with the international community, including the African Union and the Southern African Development Community, to press the DRC authorities to meet the democratic aspirations of the Congolese people by electing a new president.
Jim Shannon
I understand that this is not the Minister’s portfolio, but I want to ask again about something the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) mentioned and I referred to in my earlier intervention. We were very clear that we are having all the observers there but it is also important to have security so that people can physically go to vote; has an assurance on that been sought and given?
Sir Alan Duncan
I totally accept that someone can only be an effective observer if they have the security around them, so the hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
With our regional and international partners, and through a variety of channels, including our seat on the UN Security Council and our embassy in Kinshasa, we have continued to impress upon the DRC authorities the importance of adhering to their commitments. I am pleased to say that this concerted pressure has helped to persuade Kabila to agree to hold elections this month, in which he will not be a candidate. This is welcome news, but we remain concerned about the credibility and openness of these elections. My hon. Friend the Minister for Africa raised these concerns with two of the three main presidential candidates in telephone conversations this week. She discussed the need for the parties to engage fully in the electoral process and to condemn any violence or incitement to violence. She hopes to speak to further candidates in the coming days.
In addition to engagement at ministerial level, the UK has committed significant resources towards practical support for the electoral process. This totals nearly £19 million, and it includes support for voter education programmes, for election observations and for strengthening institutions such as the justice and peace commission. UK-funded civic education programmes have reached nearly 3 million people through face-to-face campaigns and over 10 million more through various media campaigns. We have also trained 425 long-term observers to help to ensure the credibility of the elections, and we have funded 20,000 local observers through the local Catholic Church’s committee for justice and peace. This represents one third of the anticipated number of local observers.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend and to Her Majesty’s Government for all their support. Will he particularly commend the role played by the Catholic Church and other Churches in the Saint-Silvestre accord of 2016, and also their continued striving for peace and democracy in the DRC?
Sir Alan Duncan
My hon. Friend has an amazing reputation for his interest in Africa, and I totally share his judgment. I agree with what he has just said.
We are concerned that some candidates have been prevented from moving and campaigning freely around the country, that activists from all sides have been subjected to violence, and that some candidates have used inflammatory language. The UK issued a joint statement with the American, Canadian and Swiss ambassadors in response, which condemned all forms of violence as well as expressing regret at the news of the recent fire at an electoral commission warehouse in Kinshasa, to which the hon. Member for Bury South referred.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fact that electronic voting machines were being used for the first time in this poll. The DRC electoral commission—known as CENI—will be responsible for their operation. In response to a request from CENI in February, we funded the Westminster Foundation for Democracy to carry out a technical analysis of the electronic voting machines. The WFD’s report is publicly available on CENI’s website, and it notes that it is not best practice to introduce the machines on this scale without a pilot. However, it does not endorse or reject their use, because this is a sovereign decision for CENI and the DRC. The report provided a number of recommendations to mitigate the risks associated with using the machines, many of which have been adopted by CENI. All the major presidential candidates have now indicated that voters should use the machines.
In addition to our support for the electoral process, we also run an extensive programme to alleviate the humanitarian situation in the DRC. This includes our support for the World Health Organisation-led response to the Ebola outbreak in the east of the country, where we are the second-largest bilateral donor. More broadly, we are working to improve the humanitarian and human rights situation in the DRC through advocacy work, through bilateral projects and programmes and through our support of multilateral interventions such as the UN peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO.
We help to fund a programme run by the UN’s Joint Human Rights Office to document human rights abuses. We continue to call on the DRC Government, as a member of the UN Human Rights Council, to demonstrate their commitment to the highest standards of human rights and to take decisive action against abuses and violations. With the EU, we have established a sanctions regime against members of the Government responsible for the violation of human rights. We have made it clear that we are prepared to take further action as necessary, including against those who seek to obstruct the democratic aspirations of the Congolese people. We will continue to use all channels available to us to end human rights abuses in the DRC, to press for accountability, and to demand a better future for the Congolese people. I hope I have shown that the UK is engaging closely with the electoral authorities and civil society in the DRC to support free, fair, safe and credible elections on Sunday.
Mr Ivan Lewis
Given that this is not the Minister’s portfolio, I thank him for giving such a comprehensive response. Will he make it clear today to the current regime that if there is strong evidence that the elections were not free and fair as a consequence of its actions, there will be accountability through whatever measures the UK and the international community deem fit, including the potential for further sanctions?
Sir Alan Duncan
We want to see the highest standards applied to these elections, and we will monitor them very closely. If we feel the need to express a view afterwards, we will of course do so both in this House and more widely.
I hope that what I have said on the Government’s behalf tonight shows that we hope that everything we are doing helps to address some of the root causes of the DRC’s many problems and that the elections provide the political stability the country needs in order to build the secure and prosperous future that the Congolese people rightly crave. That stability is vital not only for them, but for the region. This Government are clear that we will continue to provide support to help the DRC to achieve that longed-for stability and prosperity.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Fertilisation and Emryology Act 2008 (Remedial) Order 2018
Draft Human Fertilisation and Emryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (Remedial) Order 2018.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2018.
Jackie Doyle-Price
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and to move the motion. 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 a parental 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. That confers legal certainty of parenthood, parental responsibility and decision making on behalf of the child to the intended parents. It is clearly a key legal underpinning of the new arrangements for surrogacy.
When the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 laid down the legal foundations, parental orders were introduced for married heterosexual couples only. In the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, that was extended to same-sex couples, civil partners and couples in long-term relationships where the relevant criteria were satisfied.
In 2015, there was a legal challenge by a father who had a child through a surrogacy arrangement in the USA. He could not apply for a parental order because he was single. The High Court found that the 2008 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—someone not in a long-term relationship—to apply for a parental order. The order addresses that case by removing any discrimination against single people being able to exercise their rights under the 2008 Act.
The Government made a commitment to rectify the incompatibility as soon as possible. That is why we are here today. I have been determined to see this through and get the law changed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for East Renfrewshire and for Brigg and Goole, who have been my conscience in ensuring that we bring the arrangements to the House as soon as possible.
I think all members of the Committee would recognise that since surrogacy was first introduced back in the 1980s, it has become increasingly common as a method for childless couples and individuals to address their wish to have a family. As such arrangements become more commonplace, it is important that we in Parliament ensure that the legal provisions underpinning them are safe for the child and for everyone whose rights need to be respected. The proposals have been considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. After its extensive and rigorous scrutiny, we have amended the order to get it into the shape that it is in now.
The regulations replace the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2010 as a consequence of the changes made by the order that we are considering. The regulations will set the legal framework for parental orders by making provision for matters such as the legal status of a person who is the subject of a parental order, how the register functions and the factors that a court must take into account when considering an application for a parental order. It is worth emphasising that the issuing of a parental order still very much relies on the decision of the courts.
The regulations operate by applying, with modifications, adoption legislation to parental orders. For example, the regulations contain the requirement for the relevant Registrar General to hold and maintain a parental order register. When the child is born, the surrogate and her partner, if she has one, will record the child’s birth on the live birth register. Once the parental order has been granted, the court will send a copy of the order to the Registrar General and a new birth certificate will be issued. That is important when we satisfy ourselves about the legal rights and status of the parental order and how that will affect the child. This will be a certified copy of the entry in the parental order register.
Following the JCHR’s clear recommendations about the remedial order, we do not strictly need to debate the order, but the Government took the view that a joint debate with the parental order regulations would be more appropriate, and I am glad that this Committee has done so too. I hope that this debate has helped to illustrate the reason behind the regulations and explained the policy behind them, and I hope that we have been suitably transparent on an issue that many hon. Members will have very clear views about. I commend both statutory instruments to the Committee.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The Minister and I shared a phone conversation about this issue earlier this year; I believe it was sometime in the summer. I told her then that I would support the Government in this change and I remain committed to that today. I know that the Government have been keen to get this right. It is a shame that it has taken so long for the measure to be brought forward. Sadly, Brexit seems to get in the way of everything at the moment.
In May 2016, as we have heard, the High Court ruled that the inability of a single person to obtain a parental order was incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The Government rightly confirmed in December 2016 that they would lay a remedial order before Parliament, but with the referendum and then a general election and Brexit business in-between, we are now only just getting to debate the revised draft of the remedial order.
I understand that a draft remedial order was tabled in November 2017, but that the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that a blanket ban on a person
“who is in a couple getting a single parental order is clumsy and inflexible, as well as discriminatory”,
and, in relation to the requirement for a single person still married or in a civil partnership to prove that a separation from a partner was permanent, that that would be
“difficult or impossible to prove to the Courts”.
The Government’s revised remedial order has addressed the JCHR’s concerns, and it has advised that there are now no reasons why this order should not be agreed by both Houses of Parliament. However, I would like to place a couple of questions on the record, which I hope the Minister will be able to address when she concludes the debate.
First, when will single people be able to apply for a parental order? As the Minister will be aware, many people have already been waiting years for the legislation to come forward and so will be very eager to start a family of their own. Can she provide an update on what this will mean for surrogacy and adoption legislation? I know that the Law Commission is looking into the matter as part of a three-year review, but I am sure that if the Minister could please update us on it as soon as possible, that would be helpful to families and campaigners.
Has the Department made any assessment of unintended consequences to the way parental orders operate as a result of these measures? Applications for parental orders can be made six weeks after the birth of a child and are made to the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service—CAFCASS—for a court fee of £215. Has the Government made any recent assessment of the cost of the court fee and any accessibility issues that it may cause?
The Minister recently said:
“The order will allow a six-month period where an existing sole applicant can retrospectively apply for a parental order for a child born through surrogacy.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 38WS.]
Currently, applications can be made six weeks after birth. Why has a six-month period been chosen for retrospective applications, and has any assessment been made of the impact that that could have on the surrogate mother, parents and child?
As I have said, I support the Government in making these changes, so I am happy to end my remarks there.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. On behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on surrogacy, I thank the Minister for the positive way in which she has engaged both with us as a group and with the surrogacy community. I also thank her for the positive language that she has used about surrogacy on numerous occasions, which is new from a Government Minister. Going back decades now, I think there has always been something of a nervousness in Government about the language used around surrogacy, but the Minister has been absolutely clear that surrogacy is a positive way of creating families, often for less conventional relationships. We thank her for that.
We also thank the Minister specifically for the NHS guidance that she issued through the Department, which several surrogates have already made use of. Imagine being a surrogate who is excited about a new birth but is forced by the hospital to hand over the child in a hospital car park or, worse still, is unable to see their own child after the birth. There is clearly still more work to do in this department, but this is clearly a positive step forward, and the surrogacy community welcomes it.
Similarly, I thank the Minister for the Government funding of the Law Commission review, which the APPG is very engaged in. We have taken evidence over the last few weeks from lawyers, intended parents, surrogates and others. This afternoon we will take evidence from Tom Daley, who went overseas with his partner because of the problems in the UK with obtaining a parental order. There is a lot more to be done on parental orders, particularly on the time it takes to get one in the UK. We look forward to those issues being addressed as part of the Law Commission review.
The APPG and the surrogacy community are happy that the draft order has at last been laid. It comes out of the September 2015 case of Re Z, in which the court was unfortunately unable to grant a single male applicant a parental order. There have been delays, some of which came about as a result of potential unintended discrimination that could have come out of the original wording. However, it was absolutely clear when the Minister laid the draft order before Parliament on 19 July this year that her language was very positive. That is to be welcomed.
As I said, laying the order has taken a long time, which has resulted in some people who would by now have become parents being unable to do so, while others have been forced overseas. It has also put the courts in a difficult position in several cases.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Does the fact that people have to travel abroad not indicate that this option is available to only those with resources and money? Vast swaths of the population who do not have the resources to travel abroad do not actually have access to surrogacy.
Andrew Percy
That is true in part. There is no doubt that, if people want to go to a model place for surrogacy such as California, it is a very expensive option, although the actual costs paid to the surrogate are generally the same as those in the UK; it is the medical costs and all the rest of it that pushes costs up. People are forced to go, if not to the United States, then to regimes in the world where the systems and protections for the surrogate, let alone the intended families, may not be of a standard that we would be comfortable with. That is why it is vital that we change the law in this country, so that surrogacy can become so much easier for those denied it at present.
Several other cases have come before the courts in which applications for parental orders have unfortunately had to be stayed, or other powers, such as wardship, have had to be used. Although we welcome the draft order, there are still some issues for single people moving forward, which I hope the Minister will confirm will be addressed as part of the Law Commission review. For example, under the remedial order, some single people will still be excluded from being parents, while a parent who is not genetically linked to the child will be unable to be granted a parental order. Similar issues could arise if an intended parent dies during the course of a surrogate pregnancy.
There are also sad cases of, for example, women who have received cancer treatment, leaving them unable to use their own uterus or eggs. If they are single and use egg donation, they will not be able to receive a parental order. More work needs to be done to address some of those challenges, and I hope that will be undertaken as part of the Law Commission review.
I thank the Minister again for the incredibly positive way she has engaged. The draft order will enable more people to form families—it will enable more individuals to become part of the surrogacy family, to register with organisations such as Surrogacy UK and to get on with building their families.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West for the constructive way in which she has approached this issue. We want to ensure that the law is fit for purpose in the 21st century, when surrogacy is becoming more common, and I look forward to having further conversations with her as the Law Commission continues its work. It is clear that the use of surrogacy arrangements has grown massively since the original legal framework was drawn up, and we really need to satisfy ourselves that the law is fit for purpose.
The hon. Lady asked when the measure will kick in. It will kick in 14 days after I sign off these statutory instruments following the approval of the House, so we can take action straightaway. Clearly, however, a lot of people have been waiting a considerable time for the change, so it will be possible to make retrospective applications going back six months. We kept that the same as in the previous legislation, but clearly the courts will be able to consider whether the change of law applies to a case and make judgments on that basis.
The hon. Lady also mentioned court fees. Those are of course primarily a Ministry of Justice issue. We are happy to follow up with the MOJ, but I am fairly confident that the fees will not be excessively burdensome, bearing in mind that parents have to go through the legal process of seeking a parental order as it is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole showed his great passion for and interest in this subject. He is absolutely right that there are still issues with surrogacy law. It was without hesitation that I approved the grant to the Law Commission to have a good look at this whole area. He specifically mentioned parents with no genetic link to the child and the legal issues that follow from that. It is only when we think about these issues in the round that we realise just how vulnerable both parents and children are when the law is less than satisfactory. I can say to him categorically that the Law Commission absolutely is picking up the genetic link issues in its review, and I am sure it would welcome representations. I was interested to hear about his continuing work on this subject.
The Government recognise that there is a small but important number of individuals who have been waiting patiently for the law to be changed. No matter how small their number, it is essential that we in Parliament ensure that those people’s rights are protected and guaranteed, particularly given that we found such an obvious lacuna in our law. Those are people who are not currently recognised legally as the parent of their child, which is not good for the child, either. There are also people waiting to undertake a surrogacy arrangement with the support of a national surrogacy organisation who want the certainty of being able to apply for legal recognition of parenthood before embarking on their journey. That illustrates that people want the responsibility of exercising parenthood, and we absolutely must ensure that the legal framework enables them to make that choice and do it correctly.
Once again, I thank everyone for the spirit in which they approached these measures. We have corrected an injustice here, if I may say so, Mr Evans. I thank everyone for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2018
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Parental Orders) Regulations 2018.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
The royal wedding and public money
Roll-out of Universal Credit
Roll-out of Universal Credit in Glasgow
Universal Credit Roll out
Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 18th December 2018
(6 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 View all Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at Tuesday 18 December - (18 Dec 2018)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. I remind Members that no refreshments other than water may be consumed in Committee sittings. Please ensure that mobile phones are turned off or switched to silent. Not everyone is familiar with the procedures of a Public Bill Committee so it might help if I briefly explain how we will proceed.
First, the Committee will be asked to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper, on which debate is limited to half an hour. We will then proceed to a motion to report any written evidence. Then we will begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
The selection list, which is available in the room, shows how the amendments selected for debate have been grouped together. The Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in the group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak to the amendments in the group. A Member may speak more than once, depending on how the discussion is going. At the end of the debate on a group, I will call the Member who moved the lead amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision.
If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in the group to a Division, they need to let me know. I am working on the assumption that the Government wish the Committee to reach a decision on all Government amendments. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper.
I call the Minister to move the programme motion in the terms agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee. This debate is limited to half an hour.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall meet at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 December (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on that day);
(2) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on that day.— (Mr Wallace.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Mr Wallace.)
Clause 1
Making of overseas production order on application
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
This amendment removes subsections (5) and (6) from Clause 1 of the Bill. These subsections concern the designation of international agreements under section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
It is a delight to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Moon. I thank hon. Members for having listened in a consensual manner on Second Reading. This should not be a controversial piece of legislation. As people know, the Bill is designed as a docking station to give power to our law enforcement agencies to go to our courts to seek orders for the production of data overseas. It is about removing bureaucratic barriers to our law enforcement and allowing investigations to be concluded in a timely manner—often very quickly, compared with the delays of up to two years that can sometimes be experienced abroad. Fundamentally, it is a piece of legislation about UK law enforcement’s request for inward-coming data, so that our law enforcement can seek from the courts data from overseas. I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind.
At the moment, the majority of communications service providers, such as Facebook and Google, hold their data in the United States. It is therefore obvious that one of the countries we will seek to sign a treaty with so that it recognises these court orders is the United States. No doubt there will be one with the European Union at a future date. More than 90% of the data resides in the United States, so when our law enforcement tracks paedophiles, terrorists or organised crime, it is very important that we have timely access to it. At the moment, we go from the United Kingdom to the US Department of Justice to a US court to a CSP, and then it goes back down the line. In some cases, that can take up to two years and, regretfully, some cases have been abandoned as a result of that delay, while all the time offenders are abusing.
I have tabled an amendment today to remove from clause 1 the additional sections added by the House of Lords on international agreements. Subsections (5) and (6) of clause 1, which were added in the Lords, will prevent the Government and all future Governments from designating international agreements under section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 with a country that retains capital punishment, unless assurances have been received.
I understand the strength of feeling on this issue and am grateful to Members of both Houses for their contributions. I have listened carefully to their arguments, including those made in the House of Lords. I want us to work together to reach a position that we can all support ahead of Report. However, if the Lords amendments stand, they will put at risk the Bill itself and any future treaty with the United States or, potentially, any other country. Live international negotiations do not work where the host Government—this Government or any future Government—can have their hands tied in this manner. It would prevent our making a negotiation and could effectively disqualify us from getting where we are trying to get to with the United States.
The Bill is about producing the power for a court to make an order in the United Kingdom. Subsequent scrutiny of any international treaty that we seek to make will be done through the normal processes of Parliament. We would table any international treaty for ratification in both Houses, providing 21 working days for scrutiny. Anyone in the House can object to the treaty as formed. If they do not like the terms of the international treaty, that is how they can register their objections or stop it going ahead.
The Bill is agnostic about the countries that we might make a treaty with. That is for the treaty itself. While I understand what is at stake here and what the Lords amendments try to achieve, the principle would be absolutely the same with a Labour Government, as it has been in the past, or any other Government. We should resist attempts in primary legislation to bind our position in negotiations that have not yet concluded and have not come to the House. I believe that would be upheld by any sitting Government.
When it comes to death penalty assurances, it is a fact that under the last three Governments over the past two decades, there have been very rare occasions—two occasions—when a Government have felt that there have been exceptional circumstances and either a death penalty assurance has not been sought when exchanging evidence or one been sought but not been achieved, and the exchange of evidence has nevertheless progressed. That has happened incredibly rarely, but it did happen under the Labour Government in the early 2000s and under the coalition Government when Liberal Democrats Member were in the Department. A legal case is currently outstanding about an occasion when it happened under this Government.
It is not that this or any other Government have wantonly done it with enthusiasm, but there may be occasions when something so egregious has happened to a friend and ally that we make a decision that it is not for us to dictate such stringent terms to that ally in our decision to help keep us all secure or to balance the needs of security with the needs of human rights. I could give an example, but the terms of the confidentiality involved mean that we are unable to do so.
Suffice it to say that a fictional example could be that someone in this country has launched a biological weapon—or, at least, a horrendous weapon—that has caused death and destruction to thousands of people in the United States. That person manages to make it back here and the United States seeks evidence from us about that individual. If there is no evidence in this country to charge him or her with an offence, the Government would have to decide whether evidence about the individual should be shared with the United States authorities. There may be occasions when the US authorities say, “Look, we cannot guarantee that what you do with that evidence will not lead to a death sentence, either indirectly or directly. We cannot do that.” This Government or a future Government might realise that the individual poses a real threat—we do not want him residing here any more than anyone else would want him residing anywhere else—and in that position there would be very strong reasons why, if a death penalty assurance was not received, we should share the evidence.
That would be sharing evidence with a country such as the United States or the European Union that has due process, fair trials, independent defence and an independent judiciary, and therefore meets all our values and matches our view of the rule of law, so this is not about making an agreement with a country that does not have the rule of law. It is a very difficult choice, but ultimately the duty of Government is to keep us safe and that is why the Lords amendment puts at risk not only this Bill but the treaties that we could potentially sign and the ability to keep people safe in the United Kingdom.
Let me be very clear that if the Bill was not able to proceed, that would mean that in the 99.9% of cases that are not attached to a death penalty at all—indeed, I have said that there have only been three occasions in 20 years where Governments have been involved in cases where there is a potential death penalty, and interestingly enough in two cases there was not one—offenders such as the people I referred to on Second Reading, who had serially abused children for the most horrendous crimes, will be able to continue to abuse with a longer timetable for being caught. At the heart of my mission is to catch those people as soon as possible.
That is the choice that right hon. and hon. Members are making with this legislation. We can stand on a totally purist principle of absolute opposition, irrespective of strong reasons or exceptional reasons, or we can decide that we have to balance the security needs of our constituents and our national security with the Government’s duty towards human rights and to observe the European convention on human rights. It is not an easy balance and it is sometimes tested in the extremes, but I cannot look right hon. and hon. Members in the face and say, “This consideration is so necessary that I would be willing to put at risk the cases that I have seen, as Security Minister, of child abuse, where the data is stored in America.” I do not think any hon. Member in this House, of whatever party, would be able to say to their constituents that they would put that at risk.
I am happy to provide the Committee with example after example after example of seriously dangerous people’s behaviour towards our children and our friends, and also of terrorists plotting mass-casualty events, where this Bill will help incredibly our law enforcement agencies to get the evidence they need.
The example that I used on Second Reading was of a man—Matthew Falder—so egregious in his abuse that he abused hundreds of people across the world using highly specialised encryption. He was an academic. He persuaded people to commit suicide, or to abuse themselves. He set up chatrooms that people were only qualified to enter by bringing their own images of abuse of children to that chatroom, where they could then share those images among themselves.
When our law enforcement agencies come across these chatrooms or follow the leads, people do not use their real names. Sometimes, one sees things from outside the chatroom and all one sees is a jumble of numbers. We might hear them speaking. We might see, as I have done, some of the footage. Therefore, getting the data from the CSPs, 90% of which is in the United States, is vital for us to do our job and to bring those people to justice. In fact, the first efforts are to stop them abusing, and then to bring them to justice.
That is the difficult choice that we have to make in Government. It is the Government’s responsibility. The last Labour Government recognised that choice, because their internal advice on such events was that in exceptional circumstances they did not need to seek or require death penalty assurances. The coalition Government went further and, for the first time, published something called OSJA—overseas security and justice assistance—guidance. It is a publicly available document with a very clear guideline about what we need to do to uphold our human rights obligations. However, under paragraph 9(b), where there are strong reasons not to seek assurances, we can proceed without them.
That was a public document—never published by any previous Government—that was published under the coalition Government, via the Foreign Office. It was a landmark and it truly opened up the whole process of risk and balance that people go through. I was not the Security Minister at the time, but none of us received any objections. No political party in this House made an issue of it. I did not hear any objections from the Scottish National party, the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, who were part of the Government at the time, and it stood as a serious piece of work, and still does.
All we seek in the Bill is to reflect that. I therefore hope that hon. Members will support our efforts to get the legislation through the House and to make a treaty with the United States, and other countries as required, in a way that allows us to uphold our values, but recognises that the Government have to balance that with their duty, which is often not easy but is necessary, to keep us safe. That is why we will remove the amendment made in the Lords and progress the Bill, which I do not believe is controversial. I also do not believe that the amendment tabled in the Lords has anything to do with the legislation, which is about empowering a court order. If the Lords want to object to the treaty that we make with the United States, they can do that through the ratification process that takes place in this House and in the House of Lords when, hopefully, it arrives at a later date.
I am afraid that there are high stakes. I wish that I could tell the United States what to do and bind its hands, but I simply cannot. The reality of international negotiations is that none of us holds all the cards. We all have to negotiate, just as I negotiate with Her Majesty’s official Opposition, and just as I negotiate with the Scottish National party. That is what we do. I cannot speak for the Scottish National party any more than the Scottish National party can speak for me. [Interruption.] The tartan Tories! Similarly, I cannot speak for international communities.
I therefore commend our amendment to remove the additions that were made in the House of Lords, so that we can get on with the important job of protecting our constituents, while having the highest regard for our obligations under the European convention on human rights.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair this morning, Mrs Moon. The Opposition oppose the attempt to remove the amendment that was inserted into the Bill in the other place. Indeed, I am grateful to my Labour colleagues in the other place, where the Bill started, for their persistence and success in securing the amendment. On Report in the other place, Lord Rosser outlined the Opposition’s concerns and, indeed, Labour’s position on the death penalty. However, I point out that the amendment in the House of Lords proceeded on a multi-party basis, with support from other political parties.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman’s arguments, but change that he is seeking will drive a coach and horses through this Bill, which will protect the vulnerable. Is he not using the wrong vehicle for that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, I am not using the wrong vehicle. This plug-in mechanism will have an impact on many other treaties. My answer to the hon. Gentleman is a rhetorical one: if we do not make a stand here, where will we make a stand? The idea that this huge amount of data and information relating to cases that do not carry the death penalty will be put at risk for a small number of cases—three in 20 years, as the Minister said—is, to my mind, not the most credible position.
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that there is no equality of arms here. Because of the creation and development of the internet, 90%-plus of the data we need is held in the United States. If it were 50:50 or 60:40, it would be different. The United States has been absolutely categorical with us that, should we adopt the principle of effectively telling it how to conduct its justice system, it will not proceed with the treaty. That is the choice in the real world that I, as the Minister with responsibility for this, have to make. Do I like it? No. Do I have to make the decision? Yes—that is a fact. There is no conjecture about whether the United States will or will not: it will not. In addition, it holds 90% of the data. If the hon. Gentleman would like to like to come here so we can change the law together on how we store data, I would be delighted to do that, but that is a fact. That is the reality that I have to live with. Therefore, if he knows that the United States will not do that, does he recognise that the implication of supporting the amendment made in the Lords is that the Bill will fall over?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do not for a minute question the Minister’s perspective, but let me just say this. We are talking about the United States which, as he rightly points out, at this moment in time holds the substantial majority of CSP data. That is the treaty that is being negotiated. This Bill could be used for treaty plug-ins for many other countries. What if in eight, nine or 10 years down the line, it is not the United States that still holds the majority of CSP data? What if it is another country that does not have a particularly attractive human rights record? Will the Minister say the same thing—that it does not matter?
Mr Wallace
We can debate that when we make the country-by-country treaty. That is the difference between this Bill and the treaty. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have plenty of time to scrutinise the international treaties as they come before this House and the Lords under the process that has been well established. That is the time to scrutinise the decisions we have come to, and whether we agree or disagree to make the case at that time. It is perfectly possible to refuse to ratify the treaty.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
It seems to me that the Minister is saying that there are circumstances in which he would make a different judgment. His judgment to me is that now is not the time to make a stand. Respectfully, I have to disagree with him. I believe that now is the moment to make a stand. The Opposition oppose the removal of the amendment.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. The hon. Gentleman has set out the opposition to the Government amendment with commendable detail and clarity. I do not seek to repeat too much of that, but I will make a brief statement setting out the Scottish National party position.
The Minister spoke of principles and of tying the hands of Governments. I have a different set of principles: the SNP has not been a member of a Government who have passed on information without seeking or receiving assurances about the death penalty. The Minister also spoke about a compromise potentially before Report. That is largely a matter for the Government and the Labour party, although we would be more than happy to engage in that process.
To be crystal clear, the SNP will only support a compromise where the default position of Parliament would be not to provide data where assurances on the death penalty have not been received or sought and where it would be for the Government to argue otherwise in exceptional circumstances. At the end of the day, article 2 and protocol 139 obligations should be met and our shared principles across the United Kingdom on capital punishment should be protected.
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman says it is for the Government to argue about exceptional circumstances. Is he saying that a Government should always seek death penalty assurances and if they do not get them, there could be exceptional circumstances, or is he saying that there are no circumstances or no exceptional circumstances—no nothing—where they would be allowed to seek that?
Gavin Newlands
I am saying that it is our position, and it should be Parliament’s position, that we should not give information to any country seeking the death penalty or seeking information from the United Kingdom in pursuit of the death penalty.
We are trying to listen to the principle that the Minister has set out, and we are trying not to bind completely the hands of future Governments. If we are looking to achieve compromise and there is a small glimmer whereby the Government can argue in exceptional circumstances for that duty to be removed—we will be arguing against that at every turn, I am sure—it should be set out in the Bill, so that we are not handing over information, but Governments can argue for doing that in exceptional circumstances. What the Minister has been arguing should be flipped on its head. We will vote against the Government amendment.
Mr Wallace
I have listened to the SNP, and I am happy to look at further scrutiny of those decisions when we consider exceptional circumstances. The SNP, having been in government in Scotland for a long time, will know that Governments very occasionally encounter circumstances where they have to make difficult decisions. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for more scrutiny, we are absolutely happy to provide that. We are also happy to provide in the Bill a primary obligation to seek death penalty assurances in a way that has never been done before. We are happy to look at that.
What we cannot do is seek and acquire those assurances, because we are not in charge of the other country. We can certainly bind our hands to seek it in primary legislation and to explain why we have made an exceptional circumstance. I have no objection to trying to reach that position. My challenge is in the absolute. My challenge is in the bit where there is absolutely no position for a Government to make a choice or decision that is so exceptional that something has to be done. It was never any different with the previous Labour Government. In fact, a Secretary of State of that Government did exactly that when push came to shove, and the details around that are even more extreme.
Never did I hear an objection about the overseas security and justice assistance document, which is a public document that has been in circulation since 2014. It is not from the shadow Attorney General or the Liberal Democrat shadow Attorney General. It says absolutely clearly in part 9:
“Where no assurances are forthcoming or where there are strong reasons not to seek assurances, the case should automatically be deemed ‘High Risk’”—
I think we recognise that and agree on it—
“and FCO Ministers should be consulted to determine whether, given the specific circumstances of the case, we should nevertheless provide assistance.”
That is the reality.
If this is about making a stand, what has been the Labour party’s stand been since 2014, or since 2000, when it was carrying out these things? I venture that it has not taken that stand because it knows that in government—it aspires to be a Government sooner rather than later—it might have to make those decisions. That is why members of the Committee are seeking not to agree that amendment. We can offer more assurances and scrutiny of that decision, but as the Minister of State for Security, I make the decision to try to help our law enforcement agencies catch these people time and again, and I cannot bind their hands 100%. The United States has made it clear that we will not be able to progress with the treaty if the amendment falls in the legislation in the way it does.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 1, page 2, line 10, leave out “or prosecution”.
This amendment would refine the definition of international agreement which could serve as the basis for an order.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, in clause 4, page 5, line 24, leave out “proceedings or”.
This amendment would mean that a judge would need to be satisfied that the data sought is likely to be of substantial value during the period of the investigation: an application could not be granted solely because the data might be of value during any proceedings in relation to the alleged offence.
Amendment 9, in clause 4, page 5, line 30, leave out “proceedings or”.
This amendment would mean that a judge would need to be satisfied that, before granting an order, there is likely to be a benefit in the public interest during the period of the investigation: an application could not be granted solely because the data might be of value during any proceedings in relation to the alleged offence.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will deal with these three amendments quite quickly because, in essence, they would all do the same thing: bring the provisions in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Specifically, they would limit the use of the information to an investigation, rather than investigation and proceedings. That is the position set out in the 1984 Act.
To be clear, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act outlines that material may be used when it is likely to be of substantial value to an investigation. It does not use the term “prosecution”. Paragraphs 2 and 14 of schedule 1 to the Act detail that applications can be made of material if they benefit the investigation. For overseas production orders, however, the clause also details the term “prosecution”. Our simple position is that, in so far as is possible, the provisions should be in line with those of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, rather than those of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, given the nature of the cases that the Bill will deal with.
Mr Wallace
I understand that the Bill is not the most exciting piece of legislation, but after the first vote the Labour party lost three of its Committee members, who have gone off to do something else. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, for example, has done a bunk—I shall go through the others as we proceed. [Interruption.] The Scottish National party is present in all its yellow glory. The Bill might not be exciting, but I do not think that Members should turn up for the controversial vote and then do a bunk. We should recognise that this legislation is incredibly important to our law enforcement community and our constituents.
I understand that the hon. Member for Torfaen is concerned about the additional proceedings in relation to serving an overseas production order while PACE refers only to the investigation. However, I believe that PACE has been misread in this regard. Nothing in law says that an investigation ceases once proceedings have been brought to court. Indeed, PACE does not state anywhere—I do not believe it infers this either—that orders may be used only up until someone is charged.
The operational partners we work closely with have made it clear that, in the context of applying for production orders under PACE, they do not consider an investigation to have come to an end until convictions have been secured. It is common for new evidence to come to light and to be obtained throughout the criminal process after charge. Evidence gathering is not limited to the investigation. I believe that it is highly unlikely that a court would construe PACE so narrowly that the police could lose access to investigative tools once the person has been charged.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Minister seems to be making the case that there is little practical difference between the two, but my point is that PACE does not include the word “prosecution.” Where has the wording for the Bill come from, because it does not mirror PACE?
Mr Wallace
I understand. I suspect that the wording just comes from the parliamentary draftsmen. Given no significant difference, as I am explaining, the wording was simply put in that way.
As I was saying, that interpretation would be perverse, and it would have an impact not only on the prosecution but on the defence, given the duty on the police to exhaust avenues of inquiry even if they point away from the defendant’s guilt. The COPO Bill therefore deliberately references “proceedings” to make it clear that orders are available for all stages of the investigation. That was influenced by language used in section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, which deals with a request for assistance when obtaining evidence from abroad.
I reiterate that, despite the difference in the language used, the Government do not intend any difference in effect between the Bill and PACE in that regard. We do not consider that the use of the word “proceedings” in the Bill increases the likelihood of “criminal proceedings” in PACE being interpreted unduly narrowly. PACE will continue to be available to law enforcement agencies once proceedings have begun for use up to charge and beyond.
The hon. Member for Torfaen has suggested that once a trial begins the investigation is often handed over from law enforcement agencies to the Crown Prosecution Service, but it is still possible that—this happens a lot—the law enforcement agencies that were investigating the crime will then come across new evidence, which of course they would share with the prosecuting authorities. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do not disagree with anything the Minister has said in that interpretation. The point I was trying to probe was the difference in the wording. On the basis of the Minister’s assurances that the wording comes from somewhere else but that he does not expect there to be a substantial difference, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State may only make regulations designating an international agreement under subsection (7) where that agreement—
(a) provides for safeguards and special procedures in respect of applications by competent authorities of a country or territory other than the United Kingdom for orders in respect of journalistic data and confidential journalistic data that are equivalent to those in this Act, and
(b) provides for at least as much protection for freedom of expression and the protection of journalists’ sources as Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.”
This amendment would seek to ensure that the terms on which other states may access electronic data held in the UK mirror the UK’s own safeguards for press freedom.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State may only make regulations designating a treaty for the purposes of this section if that treaty provides as least as much protection for freedom of expression and the protection of journalist’s sources as guaranteed by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.”
This amendment would mean that a treaty could be designated an international co-operation arrangement for the purposes of this Act only if it provided as much protection for freedom of expression and the protection of journalistic sources as that provided in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The amendment deals with the concern over what has been described as a free pass for overseas authorities to access data in the UK. Again, the issue is a fairly discrete one, on which I hope the Minster will be able to comment and give some reassurance. In its current form, the Bill allows the Government to enter into agreements with foreign Governments to enable reciprocal access to data stored in the United Kingdom. The concern is that there are no appropriate safeguards to compel the position in other countries with regard to freedom of the press, mirroring those that we have in the United Kingdom. From comments that the Minister made in a different context in a previous discussion, it may be that that is something we take into account before a particular country is considered for negotiation for such a treaty, but I would appreciate it if that was set out.
The concern is that we create a back door for overseas Governments to bypass procedures and protections laid out in the United Kingdom. Put simply, we could have a situation whereby a country that does not have our standards of press freedom is able to access something that has been obtained by journalists in this country. What assurances can the Minister give on the considerations that would be taken into account on that issue before any treaty was entered into with another country?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I recognise the slight difference between this amendment and amendments 13 and 14, in which he deals with confidentiality. First, as I pointed out earlier, hon. Members are talking about incoming requests for UK-held data, but the Bill relates only to the UK’s outgoing requests for electronic data held overseas. I completely accept the point that the Bill cannot work without a reciprocal international agreement in place, but amendments 15 and 18 are directly related to the international agreement, as opposed to what our Bill provides for.
The Bill is simply not the right place to mandate what is, I agree, a right and laudable protection for journalists and their data. We cannot impose these conditions in advance of negotiations on an international agreement. In my view, this goes back to the principle of allowing the Government of the day to have those negotiations without necessarily having their hands tied. Of course, the UK would never agree to share data with a country that had insufficient safeguards—not as long as I am the Minister and this is our Government. I do not think that it is necessary or helpful to mandate this in the Bill.
The amendments, which seek to control the Government’s negotiating position before they have begun considering future international agreements, would not prove desirable to any Government. However, I remind hon. Members that they will get ample opportunity to scrutinise any international agreement, both when the agreement is designated and again, ahead of ratification, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. The Government already amended the Bill in the other place to provide that extra level of scrutiny of all international agreements.
The first, most immediate and most important international agreement will be, I hope, with the United States. As hon. Members know, the US has an even higher regard for protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press than the UK has, as set out in the first amendment to its constitution. In addition, the US-UK agreement has been drafted to be fully compliant with EU law. If hon. Members want to know how strong the US holds the first amendment to be, I tell them that when they lobby me about neo-Nazi websites hosted in the United States—as they often do—and we seek to have them taken down because of the vile extremism that they spout, our challenge is that under the first amendment it is extremely hard, even domestically, for the US to do that.
To some extent, we would not have the same problem—well, let us hope not—but the US definitely has that problem. That is an example of how these international agreements will be between like-minded countries with similar values and rights, the rule of law and so on. In this case, on the journalistic issue, the US has a stronger protection than we currently have in the European Union. That is why we have done this in the way we have.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do not disagree with much of what the Minister says, and I take his point about the scope of the Bill. The point I was driving at is that if we had a treaty with a country that did not have the same laws about freedom of the press, that would obviously create a concern. I think the Minister is saying, in effect, that that would be taken into account before a treaty was finalised in any event. Is that correct?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman is right on that. I cannot speak for the next Government, but the Bill is about our requests to our courts, and this Government would not enter into an agreement with a Government that went around oppressing the press and the media. Despite the fake news, this Government believe that journalism and the press are vital to exposing the truth, corruption and everything else, and we absolutely would do all we could to protect that, both in domestic proceedings and with any international treaties. That is why the Bill is drafted so it is both compliant with European law and has high regard to the first amendment.
Gavin Newlands
I was going to speak to amendment 18, but the hon. Member for Torfaen made points broadly similar to those I was going to make. The Minister has addressed some of them, but I have one question. He said he would never countenance handing over information to a country with fewer journalistic safeguards than we have here. If that is the case, why can we not have that safeguard in the Bill, which all these international treaties and agreements will plug into? What is the danger of building that safeguard into the Bill?
Mr Wallace
First of all, the Bill is simply the docking station from here to there. It is not about international treaties—when we sign our treaties, we can dock them into the Bill. The principle of allowing a Government to negotiate without their hands narrowly tied about what they can discuss is important.
Secondly, remember that—this probably comes down to how we would draft such a provision—for the purposes of security and so on we sometimes share information with countries that do not have the same high standards as us. If we had a credible threat against aeroplanes with British tourists taking off from third countries, we would not say, “We’re not going to tell you,” and let British tourists get blown out of the sky. Of course we share information with countries, but this is about journalistic information as it applies to investigations, criminal proceedings and so on.
We can do more to provide assurances about journalistic material, notification and journalists in court here, and I can give the Committee the assurance that we would enter into international agreements only where we felt there was high regard for the protection of journalists, but I do not think that safeguard needs to be in the Bill. There would be a challenge about how exactly to draft it. It would also go against the principle of letting the Government of the day be free to hold a negotiation in a way that would achieve the same things, but could address all the different issues. Every country will have things that we have issues with, and I bet that not one country will tick all our boxes across the board. What is my highest priority? Protection of the ECHR, the right to life, journalistic protections—those things will be right up there at the very top, which I think is the best way to do it.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the basis of the Minister’s reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr Wallace
Clause 1 is the meaty part of the Bill, and the Government have removed the amendment made in the Lords. I do not need to reiterate the importance of the Bill progressing in the way that we have tried to take it through. I have offered concessions throughout, as I have done elsewhere, and concessions are still on offer to Opposition Members, and indeed to Conservative Back Benchers. However, I cannot say that I will put the Bill in jeopardy, because I believe that fundamentally that would make our constituents less safe. That is why we have removed the amendment, and why I believe clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Minister knows that I am always willing to speak to him about concessions, and that remains the case. However, I hope that he understands the real strength of feeling about death penalty assurances, which was reflected in my speech and the vote this morning. Of course we will consider the issue in further discussions, and we will revisit it on Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Meaning of “electronic data” and “excepted electronic data”
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 3, page 3, line 46, at end insert:
“but shall not include bulk data”.
This amendment would prevent applications for bulk data under the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, in clause 3, page 3, line 46, at end insert:
“but does not include bulk data”.
This amendment would exclude bulk data from the electronic material which can be made subject to an overseas production order.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Amendment 11 is about safeguards on bulk data. Baroness Williams of Trafford spoke on this issue in Grand Committee on 5 September and explained why she felt that an amendment excluding bulk data was unnecessary:
“The Bill has been drafted to require appropriate officers to consider carefully what data they are targeting—which, of course, is not the case with bulk data—and where the information is stored, in order to help with the investigation and prosecution of serious crime, in addition to demonstrating that the data will be of substantial value to the investigation and in the public interest. It feels to me that there are sufficient safeguards in place,”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 September 2018; Vol. 792, c. GC150.]
Put simply, there is a worry that under current safeguards it could be argued that bulk data was of substantial value to any criminal investigation and was in the public interest. This is a simple but discrete point regarding reassurances that bulk data will not be accessed by the powers in the Bill. The Government’s position, as set out in the other place, is that the safeguards there are sufficient to ensure that as the Bill stands, but I am hoping that the Minister will be able to set out and expand in greater detail on the reassurance given in the other place.
Gavin Newlands
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Torfaen is probably more grammatically correct than mine—my high school English teacher would not be surprised by that—but the principle is exactly the same. Rigorous safeguards are required to ensure that overseas production orders are not open to abuse in terms of requesting access to bulk data.
As someone who suffered—served—on the Investigatory Powers Bill Committee, I used to read the excerpts on the levels of oversight on the various elements of bulk data collection and interception to help to put me to sleep at night; if this is a dry Bill, then the Investigatory Powers Bill, although incredibly important, was even drier. The Scottish National party held out strong opposition to bulk data collection, and it is important to explain why we tabled this amendment: to remind the Minister that we believe that surveillance should be targeted by means of warrants that are focused, specific and based on reasonable suspicion.
Although the Government produced an operational case for bulk powers in between the draft Bill and the Bill as scrutinised in Committee, it was inadequate because it was largely anecdotal. We still firmly believe that such powers do not pass the legal tests of necessity and proportionality, and the additional test that the same results could not be achieved using more proportionate and less intrusive means. Two American Committees that asked to look at these Bills concluded that the same information could be obtained using more proportionate and less intrusive means.
Amendment 21 in my name is straightforward; the hon. Gentleman has already outlined many of the arguments and quoted Baroness Williams, but we agree that applications for bulk data lack a careful consideration of specifically which data is to be targeted. However, the Bill does not contain any express provision requiring orders to be targeted in the manner the Government describe. It is perfectly possible for officers to argue to the Government’s satisfaction that bulk data will be of substantial value to criminal investigations and in the public interest, given that the Government already regularly make arguments about why bulk powers are required in a wide variety of circumstances.
That assumption on the Government’s part does not amount to an adequate safeguard against the potential for bulk data to be requested under an OPO. Any access to routine daily surveillance of communications en masse should be expressly prohibited, and that is what the SNP amendment and the hon. Gentleman’s amendment are both intended to do. I urge the Minister to accept our amendment.
Mr Wallace
I hope I can put colleagues’ concerns to rest. The Bill does not provide for the acquisition of bulk data. The only means of acquiring bulk data is provided for in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
The test in clause 4 of this Bill clearly sets out that the power to obtain an overseas production order is to make a targeted request for specific data. When applying for an overseas production order, an officer must specify or describe what electronic data is sought, and applications must therefore be precise and specific. Moreover, the Bill provisions have been drafted to require officers to consider carefully what data they are targeting, and to be able to demonstrate that the data would help with the investigation and prosecution of a serious crime.
There are safeguards, also in clause 4, that require the judge to thoroughly test the need for the data sought and to be confident that
“there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person against whom the order is sought has possession or control of all or part of the electronic data specified or described in the application”,
and, in clause 4(5), that the data will be of “substantial value” to an investigation or proceedings and, in subsection (6), that producing the data is “in the public interest”. Those tests make clear that the quest for electronic data using overseas production orders will be targeted, specific and not about large volumes of data relating to a number of unknown persons.
I accept that hon. Members may be referring to bulk personal datasets, but those cannot be required using overseas production orders either. The Investigatory Powers Act fact sheet on bulk personal data, which the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North must have remembered from his reading, defines them as
“sets of personal information about a large number of individuals, the majority of whom will not be of any interest to the security and intelligence agencies. The datasets are held on electronic systems for the purpose of analysis by the security and intelligence agencies. Examples of these datasets include the electoral roll, telephone directories and travel-related data.”
The request for a large volume of data on a specific individual, or even a group of individuals such as a criminal gang if every individual is of investigatory concern, does not constitute a bulk personal dataset, as the request is still targeted and specific. For requested data to constitute a bulk personal dataset, it has to include the full bulk dataset, which would include the personal information of large numbers of unknown individuals of no interest to the investigation. Again, under the Bill, officers cannot just request bulk personal data that would not be of substantial value to their investigation.
Gavin Newlands
To clarify, on the specific information request that the Minister speaks of, can that information be taken from data that is harvested in bulk?
Mr Wallace
Certainly not through this process. Any use or acquisition of bulk data is guided by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, and those conditions are set out. Someone could not use the Bill to go along to court and say, “Google, can I have data on everyone in Scunthorpe who uses the internet?” That would be a bulk dataset. However, they could go along to the court and say, “I’m investigating somebody called Gavin Newlands, and I would like to see the comms data record and some of his content.” They would make the request to the judge, possibly for more than one set of data—browsing history and mobile phone text history, perhaps. That would be two sets, but they would be specifically targeted at an individual, and would therefore not be a bulk dataset. That is the difference.
Bulk datasets are required under the 2016 Act by our intelligence service and so on, and they are overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office and the warrantry system, which now has the double lock in many cases. They can also be overseen by Ministers, and to some extent by the Intelligence and Security Committee when investigating operations and how that data was used. I do not know when it will be published—it might be about to be published, or have been published—but the latest annual report by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is out. Lord Justice Fulford’s report is a detailed analysis, and highlights where mistakes have been made or the law has not been applied.
That is how bulk data is regulated and acquired. The Bill does not apply to that, and none of those requests could involve bulk data applications.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have some other issues to press later about journalistic material; however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 3, page 4, line 3, at end insert
“, or
(c) confidential journalistic data (within the meaning of section 12(4)).”
This amendment would bring confidential journalistic data within the definition of “excepted electronic data”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 14, in clause 12, page 10, line 27, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) ‘Confidential journalistic data’ means data—
(a) that a journalist holds that is subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation; and
(b) that has been continuously held (by one or more persons) subject to such an undertaking, restriction or obligation since it was first acquired or created for the purposes of journalism.”
This amendment would redefine confidential journalistic data for the purposes of the Bill.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Again, the amendment relates to a theme of my amendments, regarding provisions of the overseas production orders being in line with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I will refer to the excluded material under the Bill, because there is a set of conditions different from those that need to be met under the 1984 Act.
Under the 1984 Act, the definition of excluded material means that in most cases confidential journalistic material is simply out of the police’s reach. That protection helps to ensure the anonymity of those who approach journalists with information that is in the public interest. If journalists cannot ensure that their sources’ identities will be protected, people will not come forward with information exposing crime, corruption and other wrongdoings in society.
Clause 3 does outline that excepted electronic data cannot be targeted by applications by orders. That includes data subject to legal privilege, and any personal record that is confidential. However, there is a further concern with regard to protection for excluded material or journalistic material that is held subject to a duty of confidence. Under the 1984 Act, excluded material has a different set of conditions that need to be met. My question to the Minister is why that should be different in the Bill.
I appreciate that on Second Reading the Minister set out that the Bill had been worded in such a way that it is in line with the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. However, particularly in relation to POCA, one would usually have an application—a POCA application—at the conclusion of a trial. Obviously, in that situation the crime would already have been proven and the authorities would go after any ill-gotten gains as a consequence. It is not necessarily the best place to mirror provisions from in this context.
The concern is that, as the Bill stands and as excluded material is defined, we are running the risk of potentially sensitive material contained in confidential records being applied for and that there is not that explicit protection with regard to confidential journalistic sources. Journalists play a fundamental role in our society in holding those in power to account; I am sure that the Minister shares my concern that we do not want this legislation to suppress in any way investigative journalism and the exposure of matters in the public interest. I hope that he will be able to set out his position on that issue and provide reassurances to the members of the Committee.
Mr Wallace
The amendment would make confidential journalistic data an excepted category for material for an overseas production order, meaning it cannot be sought using the powers in the Bill. The amendment goes further than what is currently in place under PACE. While confidential journalistic material is excluded material in PACE, it is accessible if certain access conditions are met.
Under PACE, a constable may obtain access to excluded material for the purposes of a criminal investigation by making an application under schedule 1. Excluded material can be applied for only if there is a statute that would have authorised obtaining material in question under warrant before PACE was introduced.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I accept that the conditions are different. The point is this: why is it not in the same place?
Mr Wallace
While the Bill was based on some of the provisions in PACE, its powers extend to further offences, such as terrorism investigations. In the Terrorism Act 2000—the legislation that law enforcement agencies currently use for terrorism investigations—confidential journalistic material is not excepted data. The Bill creates a new power to obtain an overseas production order, drawing on existing powers available to law enforcement domestically for the acquisition of content data overseas, to help to prevent unnecessary delays in tackling serious crime.
It is sensible to ensure that we do not have significantly different legal tests in the Bill. The existence of different court procedures for different sorts of court orders leads to unnecessary confusion, avoidable litigation and further delays in investigations.
Huw Merriman
My right hon. Friend touches on a point that has struck me, in relation not only to this clause but to measures further on in the Bill. The Bill applies a test that relates, on a domestic basis, to where our terrorism laws relate, but it could actually be a lot broader. I know that he has just touched on the fact that it would actually make things more complex, but would it not be possible to have a two-tier test, depending on whether the application is terrorist-related or non-terrorist-related?
Mr Wallace
I hear my hon. Friend’s point. The whole point of the Bill is to increase the speed of the process and smooth it. What we will come on to later is obviously that in this process there is notification for journalists; other people do not get notification. Journalists are brought into the process early on, so that they are able to make representations to a judge in a way that does not apply to the rest of the public. Indeed, it does not apply to Members of Parliament; if MPs are under investigation, they will not get a chance to make representations to the judge. But a journalist will get that chance.
Our view is that the terrorism law is domestic law, and that judgment has been in existence since the last Labour Government. What is important is that the judge uses his or her discretion, guided by the fact that any judgment needs to be proportionate, necessary, in the public interest, targeted at an individual and in line with the range of domestic laws. So, yes, there is POCA, PACE and the Terrorism Act 2000. However, all of those laws are established UK pieces of legislation.
If we add the notification to the judge’s discretion—the point of it has to be proportionate and necessary—and to the fact that the laws are already established, I believe that journalists will have the protection that they need. I am happy to look at the issue, which we will come to in later amendments, about effectively improving the definition of journalistic material to make sure that it is not broad and spread wide.
In this case, we must remember that the appropriate officer will need to provide evidence against each of the access conditions, and the judge will scrutinise them carefully. It is almost inevitable that in any situation where the police attempt to obtain journalistic material, there will be understandable resistance from the journalist or media organisation that holds it. Both are well versed in the process of making representations to court, and it is rare that access to confidential material is granted through PACE.
It is the Government’s intention that journalists’ interactions with their sources should be protected, but that does not mean that journalists should receive blanket protection from legitimate investigation, simply because of their chosen profession. The Bill takes a reasoned balanced approach, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw amendment 13.
Amendment 14 seeks to redefine “confidential journalistic data”. The definition in the Bill is taken from the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which the Government feel is sufficient protection for source material.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have already referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I am not saying that there is a blanket protection, but there is a stringent set of tests. Before the Minister concludes, will he say how satisfied he is about how stringent the tests are in the Bill?
Mr Wallace
I am satisfied, and the court rules will also expand on that. I am satisfied that judges, who regularly come down not on the Government’s side, will take the Bill and scrutinise the requests properly. We have to go to a judge, so our law enforcement agencies cannot examine the information without going via the judiciary; it goes via the judiciary in this case. I have every faith that they will be able to uphold those important principles.
On amendment 14, the term “confidential journalistic data” reflects the reality whereby journalistic material can be hosted on servers where the data would technically belong to the communications service provider, rather than the journalist. To ensure that source material has proportionate protections, the term “confidential journalistic data” has been borrowed from the 2016 Act. I am happy to discuss that further with hon. Members before Report. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Requirements for making of order
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 4, page 5, line 1, leave out “(6)” and insert “(6A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 5, line 34, at end insert—
“(6A) Where an application for an order includes or consists of journalistic data, the judge must also be satisfied—
(a) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the specified data is likely to be relevant evidence;
(b) that accessing the data is in the public interest, having regard—
(i) to the benefit likely to accrue to the investigation if the data is obtained; and
(ii) to the circumstances under which the person is possession of the data holds it,
(c) that other methods of obtaining the data have been tried without success or have not been tried because it appeared that they were bound to fail.”
This amendment would require a judge to be satisfied that journalistic data which is the subject of an application for an order constitutes relevant evidence.
Amendment 6, in clause 4, page 6, line 16, after “section” insert—
““relevant evidence”, in relation to an offence, means anything that would be admissible in evidence at a trial for the offence.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 4.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
This group of amendments consists of amendment 4 and two consequential amendments. Again, the amendments refer to the read-over to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Under that Act, the warrant can be made for journalistic material only if the judge is satisfied that a series of conditions have been met, including that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an indictable offence has been committed, that the materials sought would be of substantial value to the investigation, that all other avenues of procuring the evidence have been exhausted or would be bound to fail, and that the evidence sought is relevant to the investigation. The amendments probe that relevance test.
Huw Merriman
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I wish to speak to amendment 4. I declare an interest: I chair the all-party parliamentary BBC group, but my concerns relate to all organisations. As the hon. Member for Torfaen said, under schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, there are three conditions that must be met. One is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value. That is replicated in this Bill. Another is that it is in the public interest to have regard to certain matters. That is also included. What is not included is the requirement that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be relevant evidence. I support the move to add that third limb to the Bill.
Let me use as an example a typical application that I have received for all material relating to a matter. It relates to all journalistic material including but not limited to audio, visual recordings and documentation related to and arising from interactions with X and Y in respect of allegations linked to certain addresses. That can be incredibly wide, so the relevant evidence test is very important.
Journalists and media organisations rely on individuals to come forward, and their investigations can be incredibly broad. There could be a large onus on them to supply a lot of information, which could include legal advice and editorial content back and forth. Without this amendment, I believe that there would be difficulties. The amendment would make the Bill entirely consistent with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which should be its benchmark.
The Bill states:
“The judge must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that…the electronic data…is likely to be of substantial value”.
I recognise that there are additional bulwarks in the Bill to give us assurance, but I gently suggest to the Minister and his excellent Committee team that, if we extend the Bill to include the third limb, that would make me comfortable.
Mr Wallace
Amendments 4, 5 and 6 seek to include in the Bill an additional test of relevant evidence, which the judge must be satisfied has been met before granting an overseas production order for journalistic data, and the additional requirement that all other avenues for obtaining the data have been exhausted before applying for an overseas production order. On the relevant evidence test, under schedule 1 to PACE, there are certain conditions that must be satisfied before the judge can order the production of special procedure material. Under these conditions, first, there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be of substantial value to the investigation in connection with which the application is made. Secondly, there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the material is likely to be relevant evidence, which means, in relation to an offence, anything that is admissible in trial for that offence. Thirdly, it must be in the public interest, having regard to certain matters, for the material to be produced.
Only the public interest and substantial value conditions are included in the Bill. That was deliberate drafting to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to gain access to material that could help further investigation, even if that material is not necessarily admissible as evidence in court. Although the intent of the powers is to allow for data gathered to be used as evidence in court, we do not intend admissibility as evidence to be a barrier to obtaining material that has been identified as being of substantial value to an investigation. My officials have worked closely with operational partners to understand the need for this. Investigators from law enforcement agencies advise that there are often cases in which access to data is fundamental in discovering certain leads in an investigation, although they will not necessarily be used as evidence in court. For example, if someone is being investigated for storing inappropriate images of young children, an overseas production order could reveal further references to other platforms where inappropriate content was being stored. While the images themselves would be used as evidence in court, the lead to the platforms on which they were stored might not be.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Minister is talking about admissibility, not relevance. Why on earth would anyone want to investigate something that is irrelevant?
Mr Wallace
I do not think that is what I am saying. I am saying that some material would be used as evidence and some would be used as a lead through which to access or potentially find evidence. This is not about anyone going to the court and asking for irrelevant material. It is about asking for material that is substantial and meets the test of the judges.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do not see how a relevance test would prevent that from taking place.
Mr Wallace
I will give another reason. Unlike PACE, the Bill allows for the investigation of terrorist offences. It has been drafted to mirror the relevant parts of the Terrorism Act and POCA, neither of which has a requirement for relevant evidence tests to be met.
The concept of relevant evidence works only if an application is made in relation to a particular offence. That is why it does not exist in the Terrorism Act, under which an application does not have to be made in respect of one particular offence, but only for a terrorist investigation. Given that an overseas production order made under the Bill could be served in support of a terrorist investigation, we cannot simply import a relevant evidence test into the Bill, as in PACE. I do not believe that introducing a markedly different legal test depending on the investigation is helpful.
I reiterate that the Bill deliberately brings different police powers under one piece of legislation. The intention is to create a single set of test criteria, which the Government believe provides appropriate safeguards to accessing content data.
Huw Merriman
In a way, the Minister has answered my point, but I will still prod him in this direction. If we will not have the same three limbs as in PACE, is there no justification—notwithstanding what he just said, which makes it more complex—to have two separate related texts? One could have terrorism-related activity under the Bill, and one could not and could follow the three limbs of PACE.
Mr Wallace
We are in the process of trying to balance the safeguards. Let us remember that the Bill effectively covers a relationship between the law enforcement agencies, the courts and the CSPs—not the journalists or the person under investigation or anybody else. Journalists will be notified effectively to make a representation to a court about why, for example, half of their address book is irrelevant. They have an opportunity to make that point to the judge. Nobody else does. That provides a different type of safeguard from what my hon. Friend is looking for.
The point is well made about an investigation. Many of these investigations are about discovery and are very fast moving; starting with one mobile telephone number or one individual, it very quickly becomes a plot in a terrorist case. It is therefore about giving our law enforcement agencies the ability to pursue an investigation. However, when the investigation comes across journalistic material, the journalist will be given a notification that they are allowed to make a case for why it is irrelevant and effectively influence the parameters of that request. I venture that a judge would take that very seriously.
Some 99.9% of journalists do not have anything to fear from this process. The ones who do have something to fear are those who call themselves journalists at the Dabiq or Inspire magazines from Al-Qaeda and IS and so on, who pump out propaganda and journalism, as they see it, around the world. They have something to fear because this Bill will help us catch those people much quicker. I do not call them journalists, however; I call them first-class terrorists. Ultimately, they are the ones who would love to see bureaucracy slow down the investigation. I do not think our journalists—mainstream journalists, law-abiding journalists, and not even mainstream journalists—have anything to fear from this.
Another point was made about exhausting all avenues of accessing journalists’ data before an overseas production order is granted. First, if the amendment were incorporated in the Bill, that could have the adverse effect of compelling a judge to ensure law enforcement agencies have tried the mutual legal assistance route, which is the route we are currently trying to fix because that can take up to two years before an overseas production order can be granted. That would defeat the point of our creating this new process to prevent up to two years of delays via MLA. The caveat the hon. Member for Torfaen has added to his amendment with the phrase,
“tried without success or have not been tried because it appeared that they were bound to fail”,
would not mitigate this risk either. We are not worried about MLA failing, but about the length of time it takes to gain access to vital evidence.
It is worth noting that, in practice, law enforcement agencies would have exhausted less coercive methods of obtaining data, if they exist. Agencies will only go through the process of applying to court for potential evidence as a last resort in the investigation, for example, should suspects refuse to release or unlock access to their phones and so on. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am not minded to divide the Committee on this, and I am willing to withdraw the amendment. I just say to the Minister that I am not sure the relevance test has quite the impact he thinks it does. I urge him to look again, because its inclusion would provide greater safeguards and reassurance without doing the damage he thinks. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Gavin Newlands
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 4, page 5, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) In any case which —
(a) falls within subsection (3)(a), and
(b) relates to data which comprises or includes excluded material (as defined by section 11 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) or special procedure material (as defined by section 14 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)
the judge may only make an order if satisfied that the relevant set of access conditions in Paragraphs 2 or 3 of Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 would be fulfilled if the application had been brought under that Schedule.”
This amendment would that, in the case of excluded or special procedure material, a judge could only make an order if the relevant provisions on access conditions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 were complied with.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 17, in clause 4, page 5, line 17, leave out subsections (4) to (6) and insert—
“(1) In any other case, the judge must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that —
(a) the person against whom the order is sought has possession or control of all or part of the electronic data specified or described in the application for the order.
(b) all or part of the electronic data specified or described in the application for the order is likely to be of substantial value (whether or not by itself) to the proceedings or investigation mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or, as the case may be, to a terrorist investigation.
(c) is in the public interest for all or part of the electronic data specified or described in the application for the order to be produced or, as the case may be, accessed having regard to—
(i) the benefit likely to accrue, if the data is obtained, to the proceedings or investigation mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or, as the case may be, to a terrorist investigation, and
(ii) the circumstances under which the person against whom the order is sought has possession or control of any of the data.”
This follows on from Amendment 16 and brings the current subsections (4), (5) and (6) together in one subsection.
Gavin Newlands
Many of the arguments relating to these amendments have largely been made in the previous set of amendments about PACE. To clarify, from our point of view, journalists are currently given notice under PACE, which allows them to negotiate changes to their application in most cases. These amendments simply replicates what already exists and works well under PACE for the measures in the Bill. They would ensure that the evidential value test mirrors the current law on both terrorism and non-terrorism cases, in reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. They would also ensure that confidential journalistic material is protected as under the current law for domestic applications. As has been said already, the Bill strips out the requirement that the information sought is likely to be relevant evidence and that other means of obtaining it have at least been considered. In a free, democratic society, seizing journalistic material should be a last resort.
Although there is a public interest test in clause 4, it sets a lower threshold than in PACE. Instead of the judge being required to determine whether granting access to information would be in the public interest, as in PACE, the judge must merely be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it would be in the public interest. Separately, the police and security services have covert powers, primarily under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. These powers are exercised through the issuing of a warrant by the Secretary of State and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Exceptionally, these powers have been used by the police to identify a source. Most infamously, the police used a journalist’s phone number to identify the police source who had leaked the “plebgate” story to The Sun. As a result of concern from the press about this, some safeguards have been added. However, neither the journalists nor the CSP is given notice of an application for an IPA warrant.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I support what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and there is a later amendment for a notice. Is not the essential issue here that, as the Bill stands, the notice provision is not there for material that might not be confidential but is none the less extremely sensitive? It would be sensible to have the notice provision for that journalistic material as well.
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more. The Investigatory Powers Act—I thought I left it behind a couple of years ago but I am on it again—provides for communications to be intercepted in the course of transmission; for communications data, but not content, to be produced to the police; and for the bulk surveillance of communications, with access to the content of specific communications that are highlighted in this process. Other than that, there is not a general right under the Act to apply for the content of stored communications, so there is no general ability under domestic law to obtain the content of journalistic communications other than through applying for a domestic production order.
Mr Wallace
I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, but I hope that I can explain why they are not in line with the policy intention behind the general tests set out in the clause. To summarise, amendment 16 would incorporate the tests under PACE for special procedure and excluded material. Amendment 17 would ensure that our existing tests in the Bill apply to all other data in scope, including any electronic data obtained from terrorist investigations. The amendments would introduce a separate set of access conditions for special procedure and excluded material, but the Bill has been carefully drafted with serious consideration. The rational policy intention reached was that it is not desirable to introduce a separate set of access conditions, as the Bill seeks to reduce bureaucracy and streamline process, not complicate it.
More crucially, the Bill was designed not to imitate PACE but to take relevant parts of PACE, the Terrorism Act and POCA and merge them into something appropriate for an entirely new tool: a streamlined version of mutual legal assistance called overseas production orders—a new tool that confers a new or revised set of conditions. I accept that the greatest number of production orders are issued under PACE, but the power under PACE is limited to just one type of production order, for special procedure material and excluded material. If material that is not special procedure or excluded material is not voluntarily given to the police, an ordinary search warrant would be used.
The purpose of the overseas production orders will be to request evidence held overseas where we could not use search warrants. In addition to PACE, production orders can be issued under the Terrorism Act and POCA for different types of evidence. Indeed, overseas production orders will seek electronic content data for a range of offences related to serious crime, which may include terrorism.
Therefore, the overarching policy intention is to provide a careful, considered and blended set of tests that reflect the current legislation in PACE, the Terrorism Act and POCA, which would work for all types of evidence sought through overseas production orders. We do not want to introduce two different legal tests; we want to keep this simple for police and judges, in order to offer a streamlined alternative to an existing bureaucratic process. That policy intention was the goal firmly in mind, but certainly not at the expense of any necessary safeguards.
None the less, the Bill incorporates the robust tests required to request electronic content data for all types of serious crime, including terrorism. The Bill and the general tests set out in clause 4 are what we deem reasonable for all the types of evidence that overseas production orders can access. It is important to reiterate that an issued overseas production order has been deemed proportionate by an independent judge, having concluded that the tests in clause 4 have been satisfied—tests that we believe are sufficient safeguards to prohibit officers from just requesting any data they wish.
On the point about the difference between the powers under the Bill and powers under the Investigatory Powers Act, miraculously—as if in a Christmas pantomime—the answer has appeared in my hand. The Investigatory Powers Act provides for lawful intercept of communications, but US companies have been prevented from complying with requests by domestic US legislation. The agreement will hopefully fix those problems and remove those barriers.
I hope that I have convinced the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North that his amendments are not in line with the policy intention, and I hope that he will be content not to press them to a vote.
Gavin Newlands
The Minister will be surprised to hear that I am not content. He said that the Bill is not designed to replicate PACE. We and others argue that it should. I look behind me, however, and realise that attempting to divide the Committee would be a futile gesture this morning, so I shall not press the amendments. However, if the Government do not bring forward protections that we feel appropriate—
Mr Wallace
Given that the hon. Gentleman wants to put the provision in line with POCA, is he saying that he would want to amend the Terrorism Act to put many of the Terrorism Act orders and requests on exactly the same line as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002? That is a consequence of his view.
Gavin Newlands
We are talking about PACE, not POCA—I think that the Minister meant that, so I will answer accordingly. What he outlined is not before us today. If he introduces another Bill to make such changes to legislation, then perhaps on considering it we would argue the same points. That is for another day, but I take his point.
If the Government do not table appropriate amendments to provide protections, I suspect that we shall revisit the matter on Report, but for now I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Inclusion of non-disclosure requirement in order
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 8, page 8, line 42, at end insert—
“(3A) A judge shall only include a non-disclosure requirement for a period which, in the judge’s opinion, is necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances.”
This amendment would require a judge to include a non-disclosure requirement to cover a period which was only as long as he or she deemed necessary and proportionate.
This is another quite discrete point. Clause 8 empowers a judge making an overseas production order to include a non-disclosure requirement. Subsection (3) provides:
“An overseas production order that includes a non-disclosure requirement must specify or describe when the requirement is to expire.”
However, the clause does not include a necessity and proportionality test. Of course, it is essential that a non-disclosure requirement should not run for longer than reasonably necessary. Whereas under subsection (3) an order with a non-disclosure requirement would certainly have to specify or describe when it would expire, the judge would not be asked to consider the necessity for and proportionality of the order and its duration.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to probe the Minister for an indication of why there is no necessity and proportionality test, and whether he thinks any reassurance can be provided that those factors would be borne in mind in any non-disclosure order, which he will appreciate is a powerful order to make. It has quite profound consequences in these circumstances.
Mr Wallace
As the hon. Gentleman outlined, the clause allows for a judge making an overseas production order to include a non-disclosure requirement. Such a requirement would be imposed on the person against whom the order is made. It would prevent that person disclosing the making of the order or its contents to any person, unless with the leave of the judge or the written permission of the appropriate officer who applied for the order.
In deciding whether to include a non-disclosure requirement, judges are under a general obligation to make a reasonable decision and to take into account all relevant factors when making that decision. Furthermore, as a public authority, the court is under an obligation to act compatibly with convention rights. I hope that hon. Members are reassured that a decision to include a non-disclosure requirement will not be taken arbitrarily.
There might be circumstances in which it is appropriate for non-disclosure requirements to remain in place once the order has been complied with, or on revocation of it, for example when it could prejudice an ongoing investigation. In such instances we would expect a judge to include such a requirement as he or she would consider reasonable in the circumstances.
If the person subject to the non-disclosure requirement wants to disclose either the contents or the making of the order, the Bill already contains provisions under which the non-disclosure requirements may be challenged, including that of duration. First, when the person against whom the order is made wishes to oppose that requirement, the duration of the non-disclosure can be amended on application. In an individual case, the person against whom the order is made could seek leave of the judge, under subsection (2)(a), or written permission of the appropriate officer, under subsection (2)(b),
“to disclose the making of the order or its contents to any person”.
A mechanism therefore exists by which a person against whom the order is made can seek permission to disclose information relating to the order.
Secondly, the non-disclosure requirement will form part of the overseas production order itself. Clause 7 confers a right to apply for the variation of an order. An application for a variation can be made by the appropriate officer, any person affected by the order, the Secretary of State, or the Lord Advocate in Scotland. That could include varying the order to remove the non-disclosure requirement entirely, or to alter its duration to a period that the applicant feels is reasonable.
As hon. Members know and respect, our judges and courts are under an obligation to act reasonably. There is therefore no need to amend the Bill as is proposed. When a person subject to a non-disclosure requirement believes that it is not reasonable to remain subject to the requirement, provision already exists in the Bill for an application to the court to amend the order accordingly. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and the Government cannot support it.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think that there is still a case for having the necessary and proportionate test in the Bill, and that would not necessarily undermine the Minister’s argument. In the circumstances, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Notice of application for order: confidential journalistic data
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 12, page 10, line 18, leave out “that is confidential journalistic data”.
This amendment would require notice to be given of an application for an overseas production order for electronic data which is believed to contain any journalistic data, not just confidential journalistic data.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 12, page 10, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) Where an application is for journalistic data, the court must not determine such an application in the absence of the journalist affected, unless—
(a) the journalist has had at least two business days in which to make representations; or
(b) the court is satisfied that—
(i) the applicant cannot identify or contact the journalist,
(ii) it would prejudice the investigation if the journalist were present,
(iii) it would prejudice the investigation to adjourn or postpone the application so as to allow the journalist to attend, or
(iv) the journalist has waived the opportunity to attend.”
This amendment would give a journalist opportunities to make representations in relation to any application for data which he or she may hold.
Amendment 20, in clause 12, page 10, line 27, leave out subsection (4).
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Clause 12 states:
“An application for an overseas production order must be made on notice if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the electronic data specified or described in the application consists of or includes journalistic data that is confidential journalistic data.”
Amendment 3 is designed to broaden that notice requirement to include material that might not be counted as strictly confidential but is nevertheless sensitive. When there is an application for journalistic data, amendment 10 would mean that the court must not determine that application in the absence of the journalist affected, unless the journalist has had at least two business days to make representations, or the court is satisfied that that would not be appropriate on a number of other counts. These two matters are important, and I urge the Minister to consider them carefully.
The notice requirement often enables a negotiation to take place between the media organisation to which the journalist belongs, or the journalist themselves, regarding what data it is appropriate to provide. It would also enable the media organisation or journalist formally to oppose the application if necessary. We believe that those are important safeguards. The notice requirement is helpful for the overall protection of journalistic material that we have discussed during our deliberations on a number of different clauses, and it is a fundamental aspect of fairness in such situations. It is not that there is a blanket exception to material becoming available in appropriate circumstances, but the amendment would introduce an appropriate balance that allows the journalist or media organisation to put forward their concerns and try to ensure that we protect our free press and investigative journalism—something I am sure all members of the Committee wish to do.
Huw Merriman
I will be brief because the hon. Gentleman said much of what I wish to say, but I wish to endorse it. The amendment would make the clause consistent with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and apply it to all journalistic information, rather than just confidential information. I would be pleased if the Minister considered such a provision.
The point has been made—perhaps I can extend it—that such a measure would also save a lot of time and administration. If journalists are given an opportunity to negotiate with more notice, we will not find that matters reach the stage where it is too late. I am led to believe that the procedure works very much on a negotiation basis. On that basis, I think this measure is fair and consistent with domestic matters, and that it will also make for more administrative justice through our court process. I therefore support the sentiments behind the amendment, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
I say gently to Opposition Members that, to a certain extent, and judging by what the Minister said earlier, we could perhaps have flexibility in this area and make the Bill work better if they do not seek to drive a coach and horses through the Bill with an amendment that is completely outside its scope and could potentially take it to pieces. I make those gentle points to those on both Front Benches.
Gavin Newlands
The hon. Member for Torfaen made his points with force and alacrity, and I shall not seek to detain the Committee by repeating them. However, in supporting the hon. Gentleman, I urge the Minister to listen not only to those on the Opposition Benches, but to those on his own Back Benches, to concede the principles of the amendment, and to table Government amendments on Report. If he does not do so, we will.
Mr Wallace
The Minister shook himself. Amendments 3, 10 and 20 would provide that when journalistic data is sought as part of an overseas production order, the journalist is put on notice of application. Clause 12(1) of the Bill requires that when confidential journalistic data is sought as part of an overseas production order, the respondent is put on notice. The respondent in this context would be the communication service provider from which law enforcement agencies or prosecutors are seeking content data.
The Government intended to ensure that where an application for an overseas production order was made there was a presumption that any person affected by the order, which would include the journalist themselves, was also put on notice. That was to be included in the relevant court rules, as is the case with domestic production orders, including those made under PACE, the Terrorism Act and POCA.
I am pleased to see that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Torfaen recognise that, should all journalists be put on notice when an overseas production order is served in respect of an application that relates to their data, certain exemptions must be in place. It is important that the requirement to provide notice for an overseas production order is not absolute. The difference between the Bill and PACE is that PACE production orders are served directly on the respondent themselves—that is, the journalist. Where PACE requires notice to be given to the respondent, notice has been given to someone who will of course be made aware of the order when it is served, as they are the person who will be required to comply with it. In practice, that will be the person handing over the data to law enforcement agencies.
However, in the Bill the orders are served directly on the CSP that owns and controls the data. Giving notice to a third party—the journalist, who is not required to act on the order—should not stand in the way of issuing an overseas production order where there are good reasons for notice not to be given. I believe that the judge is well placed to determine whether the journalist should be notified, and the circumstances in which it will not be appropriate for that to be the case.
The exemptions set out in amendment 10 are that
“the applicant cannot identify or contact the journalist…it would prejudice the investigation if the journalist were present…it would prejudice the investigation to adjourn or postpone the application so as to allow the journalist to attend, or…the journalist has waived the opportunity to attend.”
Those exemptions mirror what is currently in place in court rules for domestic production orders through PACE, and they seem a sensible approach. For example, we do not want to oblige law enforcement agencies into notifying an ISIS blogger or journalist when clearly that could prejudice the investigation. Those exemptions are fundamental to retaining a robust and sensible approach to evidence.
I thank Members for their detailed arguments, and for the time that they have taken to consider the protection of journalists. I reiterate that both the notice requirements and the important exceptions that underpin them will be provided for, as they are currently, in court rules. However, I am happy to consider whether they can be provided for in the Bill. I am happy to discuss that with hon. Members as we proceed to Report, if they will withdraw the amendment.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the basis of that continuing discussion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr Wallace
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 12, page 10, line 39, at end insert—
“(6) In determining for the purposes of subsection (5) whether or not a purpose is a criminal purpose, crime is to be taken to mean conduct which—
(a) constitutes one or more criminal offences under the law of a part of the United Kingdom, or
(b) is, or corresponds to, conduct which, if it all took place in a particular part of the United Kingdom, would constitute one or more criminal offences under the law of that part of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment clarifies what is meant in Clause 12(5)(a) of the Bill by the reference to creating or acquiring electronic data with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose. What is criminal is to be judged by reference to what is, or would be, a criminal offence under the law of a part of the United Kingdom.
Clause 12(5) provides that electronic data is not to be regarded as having been created or acquired for the purpose of journalism if it was created or acquired with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose, and that electronic data that a person intends to use to further such a purpose is not to be regarded as intended to be used for the purpose of journalism. As drafted, the Bill does not explicitly define what is meant by a criminal purpose in that context. Without a definition of criminal purpose or a crime in the Bill, there is a risk that the provision could be interpreted inconsistently within UK law. Our intention is that a criminal purpose is criminal only if the conduct constituting a related crime is an offence under UK law, regardless of whether it is a crime in the place where the relevant data was created or acquired, or where it was intended to be used.
For example, if a person located in another country was creating an extremist blog that encouraged others to join a terrorist organisation that is proscribed in the UK, such as ISIS, that person should not benefit from any protections afforded to journalistic data under the Bill. That could be the case even when that country does not criminalise the same conduct. That reflects the principle that the criminal purpose must be recognised as criminal under UK law.
To flip the example the other way, if a legitimate British journalist based abroad is writing an article about political corruption, which the country that they are in deems illegal, we should absolutely ensure that they are given the right protection under the Bill, given that their conduct is perfectly acceptable under British law. Without something that links criminal purpose to conduct that is criminal in the UK, or to conduct that would be criminal had it occurred here, there is a risk that the term will be interpreted by reference to the criminal law of the place where the person who created or acquired the data is located. I therefore propose amending the Bill to include a definition of what is meant by “criminal purpose”. I hope that hon. Members will support the need for this clarifying amendment.
The Chair
Colleagues, we usually have to finish at 11.25 am, but I have discretion to extend the sitting by 15 minutes, if I think we can finish our consideration of the Bill in that time.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I support the sensible amendment. As subsection (5) is drafted, it is clearly the case that we should not regard electronic data
“as having been created or acquired for the purposes of journalism if it was created or acquired with the intention of furthering a criminal purpose”.
The difficulty comes when we have investigative journalistic work in another country that would not be regarded as a criminal act under UK law but could be illegal in that country, if it had particularly stringent or harsh laws. The sensible way to deal with that problem is the Government’s amendment, which defines criminal purpose in relation to UK law. That achieves the purpose of subsection (5) without endangering investigative journalistic activity abroad, which we all want to see.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Mr Wallace
Thank you, Mrs Moon, for your swift and efficient chairmanship. I am glad that something is functioning in Parliament and Government, and it is this small corner of the United Kingdom. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I thank the hon. Member for Torfaen, who has contributed throughout, and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, who has also contributed in as consensual a way as possible. It is regretful that we disagree on one important part.
The Bill will allow our citizens to be kept safer than they are now. As unexciting as its title is—I designed it that way—the Bill is an incredibly important piece of legislation. I hope that it progresses to Report soon and then returns to the House of Lords. I thank hon. Members for their attendance. The speed of our consideration does not reflect the seriousness of the Bill.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Thank you, Mrs Moon, for the way you have chaired proceedings. I also thank all the officials, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, the Minister and all hon. Members who have contributed. As the Minister said, the speed of our proceedings is due to the fact that the vast bulk of the Bill is uncontroversial; it does not detract from the serious nature of the matters we are considering. I look forward to hearing further from the Minister on Report about the concerns I have expressed.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Traidcraft and Fair Trade
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Traidcraft and the future of fair trade.
It is a pleasure to open this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who chairs the all-party parliamentary group for Fairtrade, for their support in making the application to the Backbench Business Committee.
In one of those strange coincidences, when I was thinking about my Christmas card competition for local primary schools last summer, an officer from Gateshead Council—my local authority—telephoned the office and suggested that this year the theme should be fair trade. That seemed an excellent idea to me. Gateshead prides itself on being a Fairtrade authority. In Traidcraft, a Fairtrade company and charity based on the Team Valley trading estate, we had a real local connection and a topic that would get pupils thinking about just what fair trade means for us here in the UK and for producers who grow, create and supply fair trade goods and products, especially in the lead up to Christmas, when we think of gifts and rich food.
I was shocked to hear in September that Traidcraft was in difficulty, facing potential closure and consulting its 60-plus staff based in its Team Valley warehouse and offices on potential redundancies. Traidcraft has a personal significance to me. Over many years I have been a Traidcraft customer, and its craft products are scattered around my home. Some may even have appeared as raffle prizes over the years. Indeed, I have been a trader, although sadly not a very successful one.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I could share many happy memories of buying Traidcraft goods from the late 70s. My sister used to run a stall for Traidcraft in her church, St Robert’s in Morpeth. She ran an evening at the place where I worked in North Shields. It is not just about getting gifts and helping people to have nice things from abroad; what was crucial was the raising of awareness for people who otherwise would not be aware of the need for fair trade.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Last month, I attended an event hosted by Traidcraft in Newcastle entitled, “Who picked my tea?” It is a brilliant campaign that has resulted in Yorkshire Tea, Twinings, Tetley and Clipper all publishing who is picking their tea and their list of suppliers. That should help drive up the standards for those tea plantations in Assam. Does my hon. Friend share my view of the importance of Traidcraft’s work? Will she join me in calling on PG Tips and Typhoo to publish that information as well?
Liz Twist
I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. Traidcraft and the Fairtrade Foundation have played a huge part in ensuring that producers are accountable and that those principles are applied fairly.
My mother loved to look at the Traidcraft catalogue, find out what was going on from the Traidcraft bulletins and buy products—mostly chocolate, it should be said—from the back of her church. Churches have played a hugely important part in selling Traidcraft goods. She would get me to buy products either from the Traidcraft shop in Team Valley or on the internet.
Apart from my personal reasons for feeling sad at the news of possible closure and the loss of 60 jobs from our local economy in Gateshead, there are much more serious reasons why so many people were sad to hear of Traidcraft’s difficulties. As the company has said, it was
“overwhelmed by the outpouring of public concern and offers of support which demonstrates that the mission of Traidcraft still matters to many, many people”.
That is absolutely right. Next year marks the 40th anniversary of Traidcraft plc. Established as a Fairtrade enterprise, it initially provided a market for handcrafted items from Bangladesh at a time of great political turmoil there. Handicrafts, because they required minimal capital outlay for women in affected communities and could be produced alongside farming activities, provide an additional income source while preserving food security. Those values of supporting women, developing resilience and environmental concern have been recurring themes for Traidcraft over the years.
From its creation in 1979, the company developed into a public limited company with 4,500 individual shareholders and shares traded on the ethical stock exchange. It buys groceries and craft items from more than 70 producer groups in around 30 countries. Goods are sold through community resellers, online and through specialist fair trade shops. Traidcraft has pioneered fair trade products such as wine, charcoal and rubber gloves, alongside more familiar products such as tea, coffee, chocolate and biscuits. It has reached into thousands of homes—including my mum’s—and communities through its community sales force. What is more, it has had a real impact on the lives of countless producers and their families, delivering real social change.
Traidcraft was at the forefront of the Fairtrade movement and was a founder member of the Fairtrade Foundation along with Oxfam, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, Christian Aid, the Women’s Institute and the World Development Movement. The Fairtrade movement developed the Fairtrade certification system, which enabled those same fair trade principles to be applied by mainstream businesses. That was a vital tool for those businesses wanting to establish fairer and more just trading relationships and provided an independent guarantee for consumers.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady and the others on securing this important debate. I declare an interest, having been a member of the board of Twin, a fair trade organisation. I have been involved in fair trade for well over 20 years. The point that she makes about mainstream organisations is absolutely right. Does she agree that without the work of Traidcraft and others, such as CAFOD and Twin, fair trade would not have been taken up by the mainstream supermarkets, resulting in the enormous boost to fair trade that means that the UK has, I believe, the largest fair trade market in the world?
Liz Twist
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I sincerely believe that without the input of those organisations and Traidcraft, we would not be in the position where we now take it for granted that we can obtain fairly traded goods in mainstream supermarkets and other shops. I most certainly agree with him on that point.
The Fairtrade Foundation has recognised that Traidcraft plc’s approach has been an inspiration to many and that the approach it pioneered in 1979 is now also being taken forward, as the hon. Gentleman said, by other brands and businesses that choose to trade fairly. Traidcraft also established a separate development charity, Traidcraft Exchange—thankfully, it is not under threat—which is supported by individual donations and institutional donors including the Department for International Development, Comic Relief and the Big Lottery Fund. The charity works with farmers and artisans who are not part of fair trade supply chains and campaigns for justice in international trade.
So, what happened to Traidcraft? Just as for many other UK businesses, life has been difficult. The retail environment has been particularly challenging. The success of fair trade products in mainstream suppliers and their availability in supermarkets is welcome, but that challenges fair trade enterprises such as Traidcraft on price and scale.
Much as we might like to escape the B-word, it is simply not possible. Currency fluctuations immediately after the EU referendum and uncertainty about Brexit continue to affect Traidcraft. Traidcraft estimates that the drop in the value of the pound within a week of the referendum cost the company £350,000. With most of the company’s £2.4 million of purchases from suppliers in developing countries paid in dollars, that early 15% currency drop meant that Traidcraft had less to spend, and holding true to its long-held fair trade principles meant that it could not, as others might, exert downward price pressure on its suppliers.
Catherine McKinnell
I share my hon. Friend’s concern about the impact on Traidcraft, and its need to reduce operations, because I, too, am proud of the fact that it has such strong roots in the north-east, in our region. Does she share my concern that the implications are not short term? Does she agree that we need to ensure that not only Traidcraft but all businesses that want to trade ethically can do so, and that that is not affected in any way by our departure from the EU?
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and emphasise its importance for future world development. Traidcraft appears to have been hit by a perfect storm in so far as Brexit and currency fluctuations have damaged its business model, and uncertainty in world markets and trade agreements, and changes in consumer purchasing behaviour, have conspired to undermine it. Does she agree that, given the importance of Traidcraft’s small businesses in taking people in the most vulnerable countries out of poverty, there is a strong case for the Department for International Trade and DFID to look at developing a model of support that will ensure that such businesses survive in a very difficult international environment?
Liz Twist
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will touch on some of those points later.
Brexit, as we have said, continues to affect the company’s trading. When I spoke to Traidcraft’s chief executive, Robin Roth, shortly after the announcement of a potential closure, I asked what I could do to help to secure Traidcraft’s future. He told me that the best thing that I could do would be to encourage people to buy from Traidcraft in the run-up to Christmas, as a strong Christmas—the Christmas catalogues were nearly ready—would allow Traidcraft to look to a future for the organisation.
That is what I have tried to do locally, and—with the help of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham—in this House. I hope that many hon. Members will have bought at least some of their Christmas gifts from the Traidcraft catalogue, which we sent to all Members some weeks ago. Traidcraft do a fine line in quality socks as well as more decorative crafts, and they have certainly featured on my Christmas list.
I am glad that Traidcraft supporters have, I am told, responded magnificently. That has meant that the company has been able to put together a plan for the future that will see the company refocus and survive. Sadly, many of the jobs in Gateshead will be lost, the warehousing will be outsourced and there will be a focus on food and related goods and a very much narrower range of crafts, together with a new emphasis on consumers buying co-operatively. I look forward to seeing the new “Traidcraft 2” develop and grow, and will continue to support it.
Traidcraft, as part of the fair trade movement, has some asks of the Government. I thank the Minister for inquiring in advance whether there were any particular issues for which he could prepare. I do not believe that any of the asks will come as surprises to the Minister, although I was unable to give him that notice.
First, the Government need to reassure the many producers and farmers in vulnerable developing countries that the UK will put in place measures to preserve market access—if necessary, unilaterally—to avoid disruption. They urge the Government to provide reassurance that the needs of poorer countries and vulnerable stakeholders will be taken into consideration as future trade policy is developed and implemented.
Jeremy Lefroy
Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the great benefits of the work of Traidcraft, and others, has been that it works on the ground with producers and farmers, and enables them not only to increase their incomes, but to improve their quality and so much else? That engagement on the ground with producers and small-scale farmers, with whom I have worked for 30 years or more, is vital, because it means that money gets to the grassroots. So often, money does not seem to trickle down. This is money, support and agricultural extension work going in at the grassroots.
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I agree with him on all those points. One of the important things about Traidcraft has been that personal connection through the “meet the producers” tours, and being able to see in the catalogue who produces the goods. We must never forget the impact on individuals of the work of Traidcraft and other fair trade organisations. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that DFID will play its part in continuing that work.
The UK has a strong record of using its aid programme to support business development. The Government should continue their development work in that area and re-emphasise the inclusive approach that we have talked about within that, through a clear gender focus and support for small and medium-sized enterprises, ensuring that the trade and business environment enables them to voice their needs and to thrive.
As Traidcraft goes forward, it will look to offer consumers even greater transparency. As part of the review of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the Government should update the official guidance to encourage companies to publish where they buy their goods from and the wages of their supply chain workers. The Government should consider legislation to make human rights due diligence mandatory, so that we can have that transparency and see exactly what is being done.
Finally, Parliament is considering the Agriculture Bill, which is perhaps not in the Minister’s immediate purview, although I am sure that he can have some input.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Alistair Burt)
I have a lot of farming constituents—trust me.
Liz Twist
Yes. As Parliament considers the Agriculture Bill, the Government could table amendments that establish more comprehensive regulation, supporting fairer purchasing practices all the way along agricultural supply chains.
Earlier this month, I went to the Traidcraft warehouse sale in Team Valley and, yes, picked up some bargains, although it feels wrong to do that knowing the difficulties that the company has faced. While there, I spoke to a member of staff who was tidying up the shelves and said how sad I found it. He surprised me by saying that it was not sad; Traidcraft plc has a plan and a future to look forward to, although there will not be the same range of crafts.
Although I was surprised, I am sure that his was the right attitude, and it will ensure that the company has a long and sustainable future—different from what it has been, but still upholding and strengthening the fair trade principles that it has been instrumental in developing, and continuing to work with like-minded organisations in the Fairtrade Foundation. I wish it every success.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The debate can last until 11 o’clock. I have to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 10.28 am, and the guideline limits for the Front Benchers are 10 minutes for the Scottish National party, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, 10 minutes for the Minister, and then we will hear again from Liz Twist to wind up. Until 10.28 am, it is Back-Bench time. Our first contributor will be Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate and on succinctly setting the scene. We are here because we have an interest in fair trade and Traidcraft and the good that they bring to those who produce the products that we use in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who has a deep interest in this matter—a practical, physical interest—from his past work. He has hands-on knowledge of how it can benefit people.
We live in a dog-eat-dog world, to use terminology that we have in Northern Ireland. I frown upon it, but it is sought after by some. There seems to be no shame in doing someone over as long as you come out on top. To succeed, people are expected to trample on other people, instead of working with them. Traidcraft and Fairtrade are essential, because they bring us back to where we should be. All of us in this Chamber are people of faith and understand what it means, and therefore we have an interest in people. That is one of the reasons why we are here to participate in this debate. We also have an interest in people across the world.
I think it was Margaret Thatcher who referred to us as a nation of shopkeepers. Well, my family were shopkeepers. My dad was a shopkeeper—he was one of the first to go into the grocery trade. At that time it was VG—it is now Spar—and it was one of the first grocery groups in Northern Ireland. He had a wee shop in Ballywalter. I call it a wee shop—it was a big shop in those days, but it is probably a wee shop today. He was known as a man who operated with fair pricing. I want to make this illustration, because it is important. There was always the ability to take advantage by putting the prices up, as we lived in a rural community and not many people had their own cars, so they could not get to the big towns easily. That is how it was in the ’60s and early ’70s. My dad could have hiked the prices, but he chose not to. I remember him saying, “James”—everybody else calls me Jim, but my dad christened me James—“we may never be rich, but we will always have enough. We will never put someone in need as a sacrifice to our greed.” He had a very clear message as a shopkeeper. It was not about excessive profits, his grandeur or his lifestyle; it was about producing things for other people.
My dad ran another business that I remember very well. He probably supplied furniture, carpets, lino and blinds to every house in the villages of Ballywalter, Greyabbey, Carrowdore, Kircubbin, Ballyhalbert and Portavogie. He did what we called “cuff” in those days—a form of borrowing, with so much paid back per week. He was a very generous person. His ethic of fairness to people is one that Fairtrade and Traidcraft share. It is so important.
Jeremy Lefroy
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the great supporters and promoters of fair trade in retail over the past 30 years is the co-operative movement? Alongside Traidcraft and others, it has really taken forward fair trade and made it a household name in the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon
I wholeheartedly agree. The hon. Gentleman brings wisdom and knowledge to this type of debate—to every debate, but to this one in particular. I thank him for that.
Unfortunately, that school of thinking has been somewhat lost, as some of the big companies look to the dividends of their shareholders and do not concern themselves with how suppliers lower the bottom line to meet their profit margin need. It is good that some companies have realised that they have to adhere to a moral compass. That is why Fairtrade and Traidcraft exist. I thank everyone who works in those wonderful organisations and takes part in what they do.
I am given to understand that there has to be a cut in staff numbers. That is unfortunate, and I encourage the venture to hold fast and keep doing good. There is a verse in scripture that always encouraged me: it says that we should not be weary in doing good, for we shall reap what we diligently sow. It is my belief that there are countless families in communities throughout the world who are reaping the benefits of what these organisations sow in fairness, respect, hard work and honesty.
Before making this contribution, I was thinking of the advert on TV for Fairtrade coffee, which tells the story of the young boys in the fields. If they were not doing that farming and that work, the alternative would be to go into criminal activity. By buying Fairtrade and Traidcraft goods, we enable people in other parts of the world to gain a wage, to have families and to grow, and we also keep them away from criminality.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is taking about the short-term difficulties that Traidcraft faces. The decline in the pound has hit Traidcraft for obvious reasons, but does he agree that, beyond the next 12 to 18 months, there should be more stability in the economy and the financial markets? It is essential that, in the interim, we keep supporting organisations such as Traidcraft through this type of debate and our physical support on the ground, as we buy their products?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We should not be inhibited in supporting Fairtrade and Traidcraft. I was going to say at the end of my speech —he may have gone through my notes—that even if it means paying an extra 50p or £1 for a product just to keep it all going while the pound strengthens again, we should do that. I thank him for that comment. As always, he brings knowledge and wisdom to the debate.
I read a briefing by Traidcraft that said that, as Traidcraft plc goes forward, it will be striving to offer consumers ever greater levels of transparency about where its products come from and where its money goes. Hon. Members in this Chamber probably know where the products come from and the benefits of them, but it is important that others see that too. Fair trade is increasingly seen as the norm for all businesses. Traidcraft Exchange is also encouraging mainstream businesses, through its “Who picked my tea?” campaign, to know and make public information about their suppliers. There are small things we can do to assist that. I believe that that is vital in providing workers and community groups in supplier companies with the information and opportunity to hold companies to account for the standards that are expected in their supply chains—for example, with reference to working conditions and vulnerability to modern slavery.
There is a real need to ensure that workers’ conditions are at a good standard. Traidcraft has said:
“We urge Government as part of the review of the Modern Slavery Act to update the official guidance to encourage companies, as part of their reporting, to publish where they buy their goods from and the wages of their supply chain workers. We also encourage Government to consider legislation that would make Human Rights Due Diligence mandatory.”
I am my party’s human rights spokesperson, so like all hon. Members in this Chamber and others outside it, I have a deep interest in this issue. Therefore, the issue of fair wages and good working conditions are important to me.
I am pleased that, in this debate, we have a shadow Minister who has a deep interest in this issue and a Minister who understands it better than most. I know that both their contributions will be worth listening to, and that they will respond to our concerns. I have no doubt that they will both reply very positively and supportively.
I support Traidcraft in what it is asking the Government to do. There is an onus on us to ensure that we do not support the trafficking and ill-treatment of children or adults throughout the world. I sincerely believe that we must do more and be more for those who have no voices and no one willing to stand up for them. As often happens in this House, we are the voice of the voiceless. This debate gives us the opportunity to do just that.
I say well done to all in Traidcraft and Fairtrade for how far they have brought us. It heartens me that my own grandchildren—those who have children and grandchildren have probably found the same—already know what the Fairtrade symbol is. It is encouraging that grandchildren remind people of what the Fairtrade symbol is and what it means. Perhaps their parents or grandparents do not know, but it is good to know that the children of today—in both primary school and secondary school—know about the Fairtrade symbol. That encourages us to buy things with the symbol. That needs to continue. We need to teach a generation to be cognisant of the fact that an extra 50p or £1 on an item could make the difference between a child slave and a paid wage. That is the importance of what we are doing. We encourage people to purchase Traidcraft and Fairtrade items.
I offer my full support to those who wish simply to do the right thing, and to do all in their power to ensure that the people they buy from also do the right thing. We need to make people aware legislatively that “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” in the process of their purchases will no longer be possible or, indeed, acceptable.
I again apologise, Mr Hollobone. I have asked your permission to leave early, because I have a meeting with a Minister. I apologise that I will not be here at the end of the debate for the contributions of the shadow Minister, the Minister and the mover of the debate.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on the initiative to secure this debate and on what she said. I also very much agree with what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said.
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, where it is recorded that I am the unpaid chair of the Traidcraft Foundation trustees. I will say a little more about the work of that body later in my remarks.
In 2007, Sainsbury’s announced that it would in future sell only Fairtrade bananas, a commitment that it has maintained to the present day, with 100 million a year of those bananas coming from St Lucia. At the time, a press article described the impact of that decision, under the headline, “Saving St Lucia: UK supermarket sweeps up 100m bananas”:
“Just seven years ago the banana farmers of the Caribbean island of St Lucia were hanging up their machetes and ready to turn their steep hillsides back to forest. UK subsidies for their fruit were doomed, they couldn’t compete with giant ‘dollar’ bananas from South American plantations, and a dying industry seemed to provide only back-breaking work for scant reward.
Today, the island where bananas are not so much a crop but a way of life is celebrating. Just about every St Lucian banana sold for export now commands a premium price and European supermarkets are queuing for more. Money is going into run-down schools, the banana sheds are being repaired and the farmers can scarcely believe the turn round in their fortunes.”
A remarkable change had taken place. The article went on:
“In a reversal of the situation nine years ago where only the Co-op was prepared to stock fair trade products”—
I join the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) in paying tribute to its role—
“the big supermarkets now openly compete with each other to be socially conscious.”
How did that turnabout occur? What was it that changed the retail market in the UK to deliver such huge benefits to struggling farmers in the developing world growing bananas, coffee, tea, cocoa and other products? In a word, it was Traidcraft.
Traidcraft, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon said, was established 40 years ago. It described itself as a “Christian response to poverty”. It started with hand-crafted items from Bangladesh, and still sells those. Together with the chair of Traidcraft, Ram Gidoomal, my wife and I visited some of those producers in Bangladesh in 2012. Traidcraft has always had a focus on support for women producers as the most effective way to raise family incomes.
Traidcraft started with those craft products. In the 1980s, the idea of fair trade was pioneered in the Netherlands with coffee, and Traidcraft brought the idea to the UK. What happened, in effect, was that people who ran church bookstalls were persuaded to offer some crafts and fair trade items for sale on the edge of their collections of books. You might be forgiven, Mr Hollobone, for thinking that a few bookstalls in draughty church halls around the country were never going to change anything much but, ultimately, they brought about that change of fortune for the banana farmers of St Lucia, even though neither they nor Traidcraft ever sold any bananas.
Voluntary, community-based support, initially in churches and then increasingly elsewhere—for example, Fairtrade schools—enabled the fair trade movement to get a toehold to start with, to survive and to go on to flourish. Today, fair trade has a large niche in the UK retail market—Fairtrade sales volumes rose 7% last year.
Traidcraft established itself as a plc. As my hon. Friend pointed out, it has 4,500 individual shareholders, buys groceries and craft items from more than 70 producer groups in some 30 countries, and sells them through community fair traders online, dedicated fair trade shops and mainstream retailers. To secure Traidcraft’s focus on its core mission, as a Christian response to poverty, it established the Traidcraft Foundation, which I chair. It has a golden share in the plc to ensure that the initial focus is maintained.
Traidcraft Exchange, the sister charity which does a lot of the producer support work that the hon. Member for Stafford rightly highlighted in his intervention, was established in 1986. It continues to thrive, to support low-income producers in Africa and Asia to grow their business, and to campaign in the UK. For example, a few years ago it played a key role in the campaign to establish the Groceries Code Adjudicator to secure fairer access to the retail market. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) in her intervention mentioned the “Who picked my tea?” campaign that it led, drawing the attention of consumers to questions about the working conditions and circumstances of those who pick the tea that we all enjoy.
Traidcraft played a key role in the establishment of the Fairtrade Foundation in 1992. It also developed the Geobar, which proved to be a phenomenally successful product, I am pleased to say. The Geobar generated substantial commercial success for the company and underpinned its activities for a long time. In recent years, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon pointed out, Traidcraft has struggled to make a profit for the reasons that she set out: the wider challenges in the UK market, Brexit and the fall in the value of the pound.
Traidcraft had quite a specific role as a pioneer in fair trade and, with fair trade being taken up widely by retailers—supermarkets have lots of their own-brand fair trade products these days—the position of Traidcraft in establishing its own niche and commercially viable market has been a difficult one. It struggled to make profits. Last summer, Traidcraft under its then recently appointed chief executive, Robin Roth, after some disappointing sales figures, took the view that things could not carry on. It was decided to rethink the business model, to downsize radically—losing more than 60 jobs, as my hon. Friend pointed out—and in the new year to go forward with only 12 staff, outsourced warehousing and a focus on the grocery business. I am pleased to say that Traidcraft has had a good autumn of sales. There has been tremendous support from the community in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in the north-east more generally, which has helped to buoy it as well.
Fairtrade continues to do well in the UK. I have referred to the fact that its sales volumes rose by 7% last year. It is important to recognise that, notwithstanding the difficulties that Traidcraft has been through, fair trade continues to enjoy strong consumer support.
Traidcraft has a remarkable story. Its pioneering role helped to create fair trade as an enduring segment of the retail market. Committed volunteers in churches led the way, but the support for fair trade is now very widely based, placing it squarely in the mainstream of today’s retail marketplace. Polling shows that awareness of and trust in the Fairtrade mark are at the highest level they have ever been since the Fairtrade Foundation was established in 1992 and started polling on the views of the Fairtrade mark a couple of years later.
Traidcraft has been through a difficult phase—hopefully, it will emerge leaner and stronger with new investment in the new year—but the values that Traidcraft has championed enjoy greater support than ever in the UK. I hope that in his remarks, the Minister—I am pleased to see him in particular in his place for this debate—will confirm that the Department for International Trade will want to uphold those values as it develops future trade policy. Such decisions are crucial for farmers and producers in the least developed countries and in other developing countries around the world.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate on a subject that I am sure we all have a great level of agreement about. She talked about the personal significance of Traidcraft to her as a customer, the future of fair trade and the importance that Traidcraft has had for women in affected communities. The lives that have been changed in those communities show how important it has been.
The hon. Lady also talked about the ability of the products to reach thousands of homes and communities, and the sense of the overarching campaign for justice that is included in fair trade. Very importantly given the situation at Traidcraft, she talked about encouraging people to buy from Traidcraft in the run-up to Christmas, and the fact that it need not be a time of real darkness because there are hopes that, through restructuring, it can look to a brighter future.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place—he explained that he had to leave—talked about companies such as Traidcraft bringing some light into a highly competitive, sometimes uncaring market. He spoke about his father and the need to think about the needs of others—the importance of an ethical approach to retail that sometimes becomes a bit lost in society these days. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of fair wages and working conditions, wherever those people may be—something we should all keep working together on. He talked about the need to challenge the “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” approach to retail that can sometimes pervade.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) talked about fair trade being brought to supermarkets and the role—repeated by others—of the co-operative movement in facilitating that. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made an interesting speech about the fact that St Lucia’s economy was, in effect, saved by Sainsbury’s decision to sell only its bananas. He also paid tribute to the co-operative movement for leading the way and talked about the gradual expansion of fair trade and Traidcraft’s role in that expansion throughout the nations of the UK. He asked the Minister to uphold the values that have been set for the future in his work. I am sure we will hear about that.
Scotland is a fair trade nation. I proudly represent a fair trade city in a region with a fair trade local authority. Inverness became a fair trade city in 2006 and is proudly joined by the highland fair trade communities of Skye, Broadford, Ullapool, Strathpeffer, Dornoch and Dunvegan. As a good global citizen, Scotland has always been committed to playing its part in addressing poverty and fair trade at home and afar, and was one of the first countries in the world to be named a fair trade nation. However, I must give a special mention for Wales, which was the first ever fair trade nation, gaining its accreditation in 2008.
In Scotland, the Scottish Fair Trade Forum has been particularly instrumental in driving forward our fair trade nation agenda. We believe in encouraging business to play its part in promoting and respecting human rights, working with partner countries to support development through trade. Transparency is vital to ensure that our trade policy is carried out in a way that is beneficial to all nations of the UK and consistent with international development goals.
It takes serious commitment for a nation to achieve fair trade nation status. In Scotland, those commitments included all seven Scottish cities and at least 55% of local authority areas having fair trade status; all 32 local authority areas and at least 55% of towns with a population of 5,000 or more must have active fair trade groups working towards fair trade status. The percentage of those with fair trade status is now at 80%. Similarly, at least 60% of higher education institutions must have active fair trade groups working towards fair trade status.
In addition, the Scottish Parliament and Government must use, promote and make available Fairtrade products internally, and actively promote Fairtrade fortnight each year. Fair trade has to be promoted in schools through the curriculum, procurement and other possible means. Schools, further education institutions, faith groups, trade unions, business networks and voluntary and youth organisations must pledge to use and promote fair trade; finally, 75% of people must buy a Fairtrade product every year, and 40% of people must regularly buy Fairtrade products.
A commitment to fair trade is not about just qualifying for a status; it is an ongoing commitment to tackling poverty across the world and support those worse off than ourselves through the promotion of Fairtrade products. In Scotland, the drive to become a fair trade nation took commitment from people, Government, businesses, public bodies and community, and cross-party work from politicians across Scotland to promote fair trade. It is organisations such as Traidcraft, as we have heard, that have led the way to allow that to happen, which is why we are all deeply saddened by the difficulties it has been going through.
In a briefing for this debate, the Fairtrade Foundation described the Traidcraft plc. approach to fair trade as:
“an inspiration to many and the approach that it pioneered in 1979 is now also being taken forward by other brands and businesses that choose to trade fairly. The wider Fairtrade sector, owes a great debt to Traidcraft and their many volunteers, especially within the faith communities, and the Fairtrade Foundation wishes them every success with the plan proposed last month for a slimmed-down Traidcraft with fair trade, community buying, transparency and ‘market disruption’ at its heart”.
I am sure we all share those sentiments. Traidcraft’s contribution to fair trade has been wide reaching and felt across the world. As we have heard, it was one of the founding members of the Fairtrade Foundation, which was established in 1992 with a vision to make trade fair and to secure a better deal for farmers and workers. It has educated us, enabled us and ensured that fair trade has remained on the political agenda in all the nations of the UK.
Others have mentioned that Traidcraft, which is based in Gateshead’s Team Valley, put 67 of its 68 staff on notice of redundancy in September after a series of factors caused it to lurch into a financial crisis. In early November, it announced a rescue plan in which the company will slash its product lines and keep just 12 employees to stay afloat. I wish, as I am sure everyone here does, the management all the success with the recovery plan. I hope—and believe—that this iconic organisation can have better times ahead. I also hope that in his response, the Minister will share the action that his Government are taking to support Traidcraft through these extremely trying times, especially given that the chief executive officer cited Brexit as one of the main factors in its recent difficulties.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, in this important and timely debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing it, and I associate myself with her comments and concerns. I thank the other Members who spoke. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned having derived his fair trade values from his father, who was a shopkeeper, and urged us to do more to be a voice for the voiceless. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) spoke of retailers committing to sell Fairtrade items in the UK and Traidcraft’s role in making that happen. I also thank him and the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) for the work they do through the APPG for Fairtrade. It was a pleasure to hear the strength of support among all Members for just and fair trade in which workers and countries are not exploited.
Let me start by welcoming the work that Traidcraft—and, indeed, everyone who buys Fairtrade—does to ensure justice in the consumer-producer relationship. Fair trading initiatives have led the way in ensuring that the true costs of produce are not paid by people living in poverty and insecurity through exploitative and dangerous working conditions, being ripped off by powerful global agribusinesses, or environmental destruction and degradation. However, fair trade must be just the start of a broader move towards more just global trading relationships, so it is deeply disappointing to learn that many social businesses and smaller fair trade companies are struggling as they absorb the hit of the pound’s depreciation as a result of the Brexit negotiations. They have been unable and unwilling to pass those costs down the supply chain as many larger companies have done.
A bad deal for Traidcraft would not only be damaging for its workers in the UK but contribute to worsening the position of vulnerable people around the world. If the Government continue to flounder in their attempt to finalise a Brexit deal, developing countries will face an estimated £1 billion in additional taxes on imports. That will foster poverty and inequality, burden already struggling countries with further debts, and deny workers their rightful access to living wages and robust labour rights. Will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that those social businesses are able to continue to produce and sell Fairtrade products? Why did the Government see fit to reduce funding to promote and encourage ethical and fair trading?
The Fairtrade market in the UK is worth more than £1.6 billion, so it is clear that it is not a niche movement. Rather, it is a powerful example of the British public’s support for the benefits of trade being shared with workers around the globe, not funnelled into a narrow pool of corporations. That is further emphasised by the breadth of support for fair trade across the United Kingdom. Hundreds of individual businesses across the UK help to empower fair trade farmers and workers in developing countries. There are more than 10,000 local campaigning groups, including more than 600 towns and 1,000 schools as well as universities and faith groups, boosting awareness and understanding of international trade issues up and down the country.
Fair trade and its supporters in the UK are part of a global fair trade system that supports 1.66 million fair trade workers in 73 countries around the world. The UK should be proud of its role in the formation of that movement, which has become truly global. We need to uphold that legacy, and we should use those groups and the practical and real successes of the fair trade movement to drive wider reform of international trade conventions so they are built on equality and justice.
It is important to remember that what we are talking about goes beyond what can be achieved by the fair trade movement alone. Trade relationships between the richest and poorest countries are at the heart of uneven global economic development. We in the Labour party want to introduce long-term structural change to the global economy to eradicate poverty and inequality. We want to work hand in hand with the world’s poorest countries to ensure that trade works for them and us, rather than forcing them to be beholden to corporate interests or always to give British companies an advantage regardless of whether that is good for domestic development strategies.
We know that, when done justly, economic development initiatives can lift people out of poverty, tackle inequalities and help to change lives. However, the Department for International Development’s economic development strategy fails to do that, instead falling back on old, discredited tropes about free trade alone succeeding in addressing those problems. Will the Minister explain why DFID’s economic development strategy does not recognise fair and ethical trade as a cornerstone of economic policy?
The Government know full well that when the UK and other countries industrialised, they used the kinds of industrial development strategies that are now withheld from the poorest countries. Will the Minister tell us what impact assessments are done on trade deals, and will be done on any future deals, to ensure that they support development targets, the national development strategies of southern countries and poverty reduction?
Rather than having trade deals that require Governments to cut corporate taxes, increase privatisation and promote deregulation of our social and environmental protections—all policies that increase inequalities and push already vulnerable people into more precarious situations—why do we not ensure that our trade deals act as positive incentives to foster equality, in particular gender equality? We must end the model whereby the UK dominates economically weaker nations and insists on policies and agreements that weaken workers’ rights and protections, remove or undermine environmental standards and reinforce a world of “winners” and “losers”. We know from the example of the fair trade movement that trade can have a positive impact for the world’s poorest nations, but only when it is done right.
The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 outlines the Government’s plan to roll over the EU’s existing “Everything but Arms” scheme, ignoring calls from the Labour party, the Fairtrade Foundation, Global Justice Now and the Trade Justice Movement to introduce a UK preferential treatment scheme that covers a greater number of vulnerable economies. Considering the transformative potential of fair trade for people’s lives, will the Government commit to developing unilateral UK preferential access schemes for developing countries?
People in the UK want to be paid a fair wage for the work they do, to be protected from malicious or irresponsible employers and to live secure lives. Everyone the world over should have those rights, and trade that is ethically and fairly driven is vital to achieving them.
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As we have heard, there is a huge amount of common ground on this topic. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate on both Traidcraft and the future of fair trade generally, and I thank other colleagues for their contributions. I congratulate her in particular on the way she set out the relationship between Traidcraft and her constituency and those around it, and how Traidcraft’s values have infused people in her constituency and beyond. That shone out from the debate generally.
I suspect very few Members have not had a connection with Traidcraft and fair trade over the years we have been engaged in public life. I am sure many of us have been in draughty church halls and seen the work that is done. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) illustrated vividly how we can turn those draughty church halls and book stalls into policy change in relation to fair trade. What he said about Sainsbury’s in St Lucia is a dramatic demonstration of what can be done when people set their minds to something. A thousand different opportunities picked up around the country can make a significant change. It was wonderful to hear that example. I think some people still feel as though all the big decisions in the world are made by remote organisations and worry about whether they can influence things. That is at the heart of queries about democratic practices, not only in this country but throughout the western developed world. That is an example of something good that can happen very much at grassroots level.
I am pleased also that tribute was paid to my good friend, Ram Gidoomal, who has been an influence on a variety of positive issues in this country for many years. I am delighted that such a friend of many decades is able to listen attentively to this debate. We certainly appreciate his relationship with Traidcraft and all he has done with it over the years. In my constituency, I have been to St Andrew’s Church many times with the Fairtrade group in Biggleswade, and churches throughout north Bedfordshire—particularly North Bedfordshire Methodist Circuit—have been very involved. We can pay tribute to those who have acted locally and nationally on this.
Let me proceed with my remarks, into which I will incorporate some of the comments made by colleagues. When Traidcraft was created in 1979, we undoubtedly lived in a very different time. Today’s hyper-interconnected world was just emerging, and more business was carried out using locally sourced products. Now companies operate through a complex and sophisticated web of supply chains that span the planet. Products are created and assembled across multiple jurisdictions, and delivered to our front doors within hours of us purchasing them online. We have much more understanding of who is creating the things we buy, and about the lives they live and the challenges they face. At the sharpest end, that leads to images of children working in sweatshops, or the appalling Rana Plaza tragedy in Bangladesh.
Today, ethically minded consumers shop in line with their values in numerous ways, for example by following a vegan diet, buying organic cotton or using social enterprises. The ethical market in the UK is now worth £81.3 billion per annum. Millennials, in particular, are spearheading the idea that companies should operate in a responsible way, and 66% say that they would pay more for sustainable brands—that paragraph was undoubtedly written by one of my millennials, but those of us who are older also recognise that we played our part in the past by supporting Traidcraft and Fairtrade, and the way they got going. There is no doubt, however, that that pioneering work by the previous generation has been well picked up by the millennials of today, and we congratulate them on taking it forward. In the late ’70s, Traidcraft was one of the first organisations to shine a light on the working conditions of those who made our products. That is a vital legacy, and a theme that continues through the work of commerce today.
Stephen Timms
I am enjoying the points the Minister is making. Will he also pay tribute to the role of Traidcraft in establishing standards for corporate reporting? I think Traidcraft was the first plc to publish a proper social impact report, which was very influential across the entire plc sector.
Alistair Burt
I will indeed. Such reporting has increased the sense of responsibility not only of companies, but of consumers who ask the right questions and ensure that those delivering products recognise the need to respond to their concerns. Those reporting changes were fundamental.
The influence of Traidcraft and Fairtrade is felt not just in hundreds of churches and community centres across the country where their products are a mainstay, or in the growth of the wider fair trade market, but across millions of consumer decisions in the UK that are made with sustainability in mind. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about values, and it is no surprise to those of us who have had contact with him to learn where his values come from. I cannot think of a better fit between an individual Member talking about his upbringing and the values he incorporates into his life, and what he does constantly in this House through his remarks and determination to secure the best of human rights, tolerance and fairness. It is a great mix, and I am not surprised at his connection with Fairtrade.
As the hon. Member for Blaydon said, Traidcraft has reached a crossroads in its journey, and with so many ways for consumers to express their values, it is rightly looking to explore new ways to improve the lives of poor people across the world. We wish Traidcraft well. The hon. Lady concluded her remarks by speaking of the ray of hope mentioned by the worker who also spoke of a new challenge, and undoubtedly that challenge will be faced with the same degree of determination that was possessed by those who set off on this course in the first place. I therefore hope we can have confidence for Traidcraft in future.
Wherever this challenge leads the organisation, it is important that the rest of us continue to strive for the principles that shine through its work—to ensure that trade is inclusive and sustainable, that any jobs created are quality ones, and that developing countries can truly grasp the opportunities of trade to reduce poverty and build a safer, healthier, and more prosperous world. In that, the work of the Department for International Development, alongside the Department for International Trade, is key, particularly at this critical moment in our history. DFID initiatives, such as the responsible, accountable and transparent enterprise programme—I will say more about that later in my remarks—work to promote responsible and sustainable business standards, and to identify and tackle modern slavery and child labour in global supply chains. With more than 40 million men, women and children trapped in modern slavery around the world, that is vital work. We must continue to tackle permissive environments that enable the criminality of modern slavery to thrive, which includes supporting businesses to clean up supply chains in key sectors where slavery persists.
Let me turn to some of the questions raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) and other colleagues spoke about the impact on this issue of our leaving the EU. As we leave the EU, the UK has a unique opportunity to shape our trade and development work for the benefit of developing countries, and I am proud of the work taking place across the whole of Government to ensure that development and global prosperity are at the heart of future UK trade .
Stephen Timms
I am grateful. The Minister may well have been about to answer this point, but the Government have confirmed that they will continue to provide the poorest and least developed countries with quota-free, duty-free access to the UK market, which I welcome. Can he give any reassurance to producers in other countries—not the least developed, but poorer countries— that EU-negotiated economic partnerships and free trade agreements will be rolled over so that after Brexit, producers in those countries will continue to have the access to the UK market that they currently enjoy?
Alistair Burt
Clearly the right hon. Gentleman has had prior sight of my remarks if he is asking such a perceptive question at this time. I will come to that issue in a moment.
Our immediate priority on leaving the EU is to deliver continuity in our trading arrangements, so that developing-country firms exporting to the UK do not face new and damaging trade barriers—that is one benefit of securing a deal on leaving the EU, rather than no deal, and the Government will determinedly strive for that, as will all Ministers. To that end, we will put in place a UK trade preferences scheme that will, as a minimum, provide the same level of access as the current EU scheme by granting duty-free, quota-free access to 48 least developed countries, and generous tariff reductions to around 25 other developing countries. We will also seek to replicate the effects of the EU’s economic partnership agreements, which are development-focused trade deals with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. We aim to maintain the preferential access to UK services markets for least developed countries that is guaranteed through the LDC services waiver—that, I was pleased to note, is a better deal than the one currently offered through the World Trade Organisation, which is an important consideration.
As well as maintaining preferential trade access for around 100 developing countries, those trade arrangements also embed the principles of inclusive and sustainable trade that Traidcraft and others have long argued for. For example, the UK’s trade preferences scheme will include an enhanced tier similar to that of the EU, which grants special tariff reductions to developing countries in return for progress against ratifying and implementing international conventions on human rights, labour rights, the environment and good governance.
More trade does not have to come at the expense of workers, the environment, human rights or the growth of least developed countries, and the Government firmly believe that it is in everyone’s interest to avoid any kind of race to the bottom on standards. That point was at the heart of the remarks by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston when she asked what more might be included in deals, and my sense is that as these opportunities evolve, we should all press for the highest standards. As I said earlier, we have a minimum baseline, but that is not where the United Kingdom should be. We should be able to operate to higher standards, and we should work through them. My sense is that DFID and the Department for International Trade recognise that and wish to ensure it is the case. There is much work to do for these new agreements, and the House would not be fair if it took the bottom line minimum standard that we “must” have in place as our intention or ambition, because I am sure we will be keen for it to be developed.
The hon. Member for Strangford asked about modern slavery, and I shall say a little more about that. At last year’s UN General Assembly the Prime Minister launched the “Call to Action” to end forced labour, modern slavery and human trafficking, in which specific commitments are set out, to address modern slavery at the national and international level. It has been endorsed by 43 countries[Official Report, 7 January 2019, Vol. 652, c. 2MC.] so far. On the International Day for the Abolition of Slavery, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced a £40 million package of new funding, forming part of the overall £150 million spend that the Prime Minister committed the Government to at the UN. That package of support will help more than 500,000 vulnerable men, women and children, and includes £13 million for the second phase of the work in freedom programme, the UK’s £20 million contribution to the global fund to end modern slavery, and the £7 million of DFID support to Nigeria.
That is all in addition to existing DFID programmes such as the £8 million regional women and girls protection programme operating in Greece and the Balkans, protecting girl and women refugees by providing shelters and strengthening national counter-trafficking mechanisms, and the £22 million1 responsible business programme, which is spreading responsible business approaches. That international strategy, overseen by the Prime Minister’s taskforce, has the aim of driving down slavery in source countries to the UK, and others of high prevalence, and effecting change through multilateral channels.
Liz Twist
A specific request to the Government was to update the official guidance to encourage companies to publish where they buy their goods from and the wages of their supply chain workers, and to consider legislation to make human rights due diligence mandatory. Are the Government prepared to make that commitment?
Alistair Burt
My remarks have gone even wider than the copy that was obviously supplied to the right hon. Member for East Ham. DFID has recently updated its supplier code of conduct to require companies to sign up to the UN global compact, thereby promoting responsible businesses and committing companies to take action to address such issues. Responsible business is about more than just small or one-off projects that create win-win outcomes for business and society; it is the expansion of firms’ core business in developing markets, embracing socially and environmentally positive conduct through supply chains. That is why we have updated the code. We are encouraging businesses to contribute to economic development in ways that are socially responsible and environmentally sound, and that help to defeat modern slavery.
Hon. Members raised the question of gender focus, and all DFID private sector work goes through a gender lens. We recognise the changes that have taken place, as well as the particular pressures on women when working through these issues. The Commonwealth Development Corporation has a gender strategy, and DFID has its Work and Opportunities for Women programme. As I have explained, there are specific programmes directed at supporting women.
The hon. Member for Blaydon asked us to consider legislation to make human rights due diligence mandatory. That is a matter on which we must encourage, rather than legislate. We are encouraging better reporting on human rights, through grants to Shift and the Ethical Trading Initiative. We also rank human rights performance through corporate human rights benchmarking. We do not have plans at present to make that mandatory through legislation. It would be difficult to enforce. However, the question of how to promote that and to work with others on it is much on our minds. I think that is important.
There is more we must do to ensure that the benefits of trade are spread widely, levelling the playing field for those on the margins. That is important between countries, which is why the Government have a range of programmes to support the least developed countries to benefit from global trade, including our flagship trade facilitation programme TradeMark East Africa, and the recently launched Commonwealth Standards Network.
Stephen Timms
The Minister is being generous in giving way. May I press him a little further on the question of access to the UK market for developing countries other than the least developed? I think what he has said to us is that the Government’s aim is to make sure that after Brexit, access will be available to other developing countries at least at the level provided by EU-negotiated economic partnership and free trade agreements. Can he confirm that that is their intention?
Will the Minister also tell us a little more about what the Government are doing to ensure that that aim can be delivered? For example, why can they not simply announce, “Yes, everyone is going to carry on with the access they have at the moment”? Perhaps he can tell us a little more about the mechanics of what needs to be done to deliver on the aim he set out, which I very much welcome.
Alistair Burt
What we have been able to say publicly is what I stated just now about the bottom line and the roll-over of existing agreements. As to the aspiration, plainly that must come through the work that will be done to develop individual arrangements with states post Brexit. I am not sure there is any more detail that I can provide at this stage. If there is on reflection, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and make it clear.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston asked what DFID already does, why we do what we do and whether we could do more. Perhaps I may take colleagues through the responsible, accountable and transparent enterprise programme that I mentioned earlier. RATE is our primary mechanism for promoting responsible and sustainable business standards. It works through providing accountable grants to organisations such as Fairtrade, the Ethical Trading Initiative and the ISEAL Alliance to work with businesses to improve their performance on the relevant issues. RATE also delivers DFID’s main offer on identifying and tackling modern slavery and child labour in global supply chains.
To go into some of the details, through Humanity United’s Working Capital fund we are providing seed funding to early-stage technology initiatives aimed at increased transparency in supply chains, including Provenance, an app that tracks the journey of a product from the source to the shelf. We are also partnering with ShareAction on the Workforce Disclosure Initiative, a global coalition of investors with more than $13 trillion of assets under management, which is demanding better data from its portfolio companies on workforce practices. DFID is also a founding donor of the World Benchmarking Alliance, the world’s first publicly available set of corporate benchmarks—to reinforce a point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham—that will rank multinational companies on their contribution to the sustainable development goals. Through our grant to the Ethical Trading Initiative, we are helping companies such as Tesco and ASOS to uphold the ETI base code to eradicate modern slavery in their supply chains and ensure that purchasing practices are fair. We are ensuring that workers at the bottom of the supply chain know their rights and can exercise their voice through worker participation mechanisms.
In all those ways, DFID is working to deliver what has been called for in this debate, and we intend to continue to do so. New opportunities are coming in the future. As the House will know, I am very much in favour of a deal—an agreement—that means that if we are to leave the EU, we leave it on good terms that are beneficial to us and to those we work with, and that maintain the highest standards. It should not be impossible to do that. The United Kingdom, both within the EU and outside it, will not get involved in a race to the bottom—or certainly not with the support of the Government and the vast majority of Members. Fair trade, and the work that is done on it, will be a good test of how the UK of the future moves forward and meets the challenges.
A thought has come to me about the question raised by the right hon. Member for East Ham. I assure him that we are maintaining access and considering opportunities to make improvements once we have left the EU. As I mentioned, I may write to him and clarify the matter further.
More trade on fair terms is a key engine of poverty reduction. The Government will build on their track record on trade for development, we will continue to be a champion of free and inclusive trade when others may have turned their backs on it, and we will not shy away from issues of injustice or exploitation where they arise in the system. We cannot do that alone, however. Real progress will be based on partnership between Government, business, and, of course, movements such as fair trade that focus public attention where it is needed. We must all work together to create a trade system that works for everyone, including the poorest, and that eliminates poverty through inclusive economic growth.
Liz Twist
It seems to me that there has been a good deal of agreement on the issue of fair trade from all sides in this debate. All hon. Members who have taken part, whom I thank, have recognised the social impact and significance of fair trade standards and the use, as the Minister said, of fair trade as a key tool in poverty reduction.
It is amazing that, as many hon. Members have said, those fair trade volunteers standing in draughty church halls up and down the nation should have produced a real blast that has changed things for the better, leading to big business adopting fair trade standards and affecting producers in faraway countries, such as those banana producers in St Lucia mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). It has been a real turnaround.
Another issue that was picked up widely in the debate is the importance of inclusivity, of helping women and recognising their importance in trading and eradicating poverty. That is a key message that we must not forget: enabling women to trade and to support their families for a fair reward, and pursuing, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, the overarching campaign for justice. We have heard about the importance of the co-operative movement and its role in fair trade, which we must certainly recognise; the impact that not only Traidcraft—although most definitely Traidcraft—but many other members of the Fairtrade Foundation have had on big business; and consumers’ enthusiasm to follow fair trade, with a 7% increase in Fairtrade sales last year.
I welcome the Minister’s comments in response to the specific queries from Traidcraft. While his comments are very welcome, I am sure that Traidcraft and other fair trade producers will continue to push the Government to go one step further to ensure that we really can pursue fair trade, with an emphasis on gender focus and poverty reduction. Traidcraft has had a difficult time, but it has a plan and it will survive. It is not too late, by the way, to order for Christmas: we have until the 21st, so I encourage everyone to look out their catalogues and order. I wish Traidcraft well in its new role.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Traidcraft and the future of fair trade.
Govia: Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City Railway
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Govia on the Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City railway line.
It is a pleasure to start this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss an issue that, although I suspect it will not fill this second Chamber, is none the less of enormous concern to my constituents and thousands, perhaps even millions, of people along the line from Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City. I should say that, although the title of the debate is the train service from Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City, there is also an impact from other services that run along the same line, specifically and in particular the King’s Cross service toward Cambridge and through my constituency.
Unfortunately, although the problems are in no small part to do with changes that were made, rather infamously, to the timetabling in May this year, that is not the whole story. I see that I first raised my concerns about the quality of this service all the way back in December 2016, when I called for a much improved service from Govia. It is most certainly the case, however, that since the May timetable change services have gone from pretty bad to disastrously awful. I will take a few moments to highlight some of the things that have gone wrong.
It cannot be right, in a timetable change intended to add 6,000 additional carriages to the train network and the services enjoyed by everybody, that in my constituency the service provided went backwards, in terms of not just the number of trains, but the speed of those trains. In a café that I am sure is frequented by many of my constituents, I came across a poster from the 1930s about coming to live in Welwyn Garden City—the second and, I should say, the best garden city in the country—boasting that people can get from Welwyn Garden City to King’s Cross in just 23 minutes. Here we are in 2018, about to go into 2019, and we can no longer make the journey at that kind of speed. It now takes seven minutes longer to get into London from that station, Welwyn Garden City. The speed of service is certainly a problem, but the problem is not just the speed of service.
We also now have fewer trains, particularly off peak, such that some stations—for example Welham Green and Brookmans Park, stations that I use regularly—have gone from having three trains an hour off peak to only two. The service has become less frequent. In other places in my constituency, particularly Welwyn North and particularly at the weekend, that drops back to one train an hour—a completely unacceptable level of service.
The problem is not only slower trains and those missing trains, but a poorer service all round, particularly from the larger stations, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City, which are suffering. I have been inundated—and I mean inundated—with correspondence from my constituents, who are upset and concerned. At the height of the timetabling problems in the summer, some even had to give up their jobs as a result of this appalling level of service. While I accept that the Minister— who by the way I consider entirely blameless in all this, since he has only been in the job for a few weeks—will get to his feet and reassure me that things are improving, I must say that my patience has already given way and I have been looking for a suitable alternative.
Fortunately, there is an example of an alternative that could be put in place to resolve many of the problems. I have been in continuous discussion with Transport for London, which is keen to take over the service. I know that TfL has been in contact with the Minister’s predecessor, if not the Minister as yet, and certainly with the Secretary of State for discussion, and has written a detailed note in which it points out that if it were to run the service from Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City as a London Overground service, it could offer us better integration into the railway network, faster trains, more trains, cleaner platforms and a service integrated across the entire information system—in other words, when we are looking at information for the reliability of services, we are looking at the entire TfL system in one go.
I think that would make a significant impact on the quality and level of services to my constituency. It is of course the case that to get to my constituency, those services must run through several other stations along the line that are outside my patch, so I have been in active conversation with and writing to Members of Parliament across parties and right down the track from Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City, to seek their opinions. It is probably true to say that the concerns that have been raised in the past have been about where the Transport for London services would run outside London boroughs. That actually occurs in only two constituencies—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden) and mine. The concern is effectively that TfL would be in charge of services over which our constituents would have no democratic control.
Would it be the case that TfL running that line would somehow remove from my constituents the ability to hold both the franchiser and the franchisee—the organising department, in the case of TfL—to account? Not in my view. We are more than happy to take on the small risk that, because we are not Greater London taxpayers, the Mayor’s office might attempt to totally ignore our views. I simply do not accept that that would be the case, and I bring evidence.
London Overground lines run by TfL and Arriva Rail London already go into my county of Hertfordshire and elsewhere. I have taken the time and trouble to speak to Members for and residents of those areas, and none have said that they somehow feel ignored because they happen to be just outside London. Many report a quite dramatic increase in service quality as a result of the lines switching to TfL. I have some figures that back that up.
The lines that TfL has taken over and changed to London Overground lines have seen an increased frequency of trains, from 400 per day in 2007 to 1,500 per day 10 years later. Ridership has increased by 650%, delays have decreased by 30% and customer satisfaction has increased by 18%. In other words, I am more than convinced that switching the distinct Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City line to London Overground would increase customer satisfaction, improve the quality of our services and make our services far more integrated.
However, there is yet another reason why I believe that the Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City line should be run by London Overground—the heritage of the line itself. As I am sure only railway geeks will be aware, a section of the line actually operated as part of the London Underground until the 1970s. That section was from Moorgate to, I think, Drayton Park, where observers will find that the lights on the Govia Great Northern trains still flicker as they switch from the different electrics that were used on the London Underground. We already have the heritage of being a London Underground line. I argue that it is high time to convert the whole line to a London Overground line, which has only been available since the 2007 innovation.
The case is convincing indeed, but the question is how we get to that situation. I have met the deputy Mayor, the Secretary of State and the former Rail Minister; indeed, I have met every former Rail Minister from before the former Rail Minister. The Secretary of State has already said that this part of the Govia franchise needs splitting out, which, as hon. Members will imagine, I am very keen to see happen. In any case, the franchise is up for renewal in 2021.
I do not think that there is any principled objection to TfL managing that line, which I argue should be along the same basis as the other London Overground lines, with TfL procuring a service from Arriva Rail London. However, in order for that to happen, I need ministerial action almost immediately, and it is for that reason in particular that I secured the debate. As the Minister will know from his limited time in the job, these things do not happen overnight; the procurement process takes a couple of years.
Specifically, TfL now needs research and data that only Govia can provide in order to fully model this replacement service, with a deadline of February 2019. In other words, we have only a couple of months for that information to be passed across. How does that happen, in practical terms? It is straightforward: the Secretary of State needs to request that Govia shares that information.
At the risk of boring the Minister with details of woe and appalling service and the heartbreak of the problems over the summer, I put on the record my thanks to the Department for Transport for responding to my calls for additional compensation for commuters who were unable to travel during that period of enormous disruption. It was always the case, particularly for Southern, that compensation was offered if services completely fell apart, and in this case I think a month’s free travel was offered to season ticket holders.
However, the problem for my constituents was that many travel slightly less frequently. They do not know what time of day they might travel—perhaps after dropping the kids at school—and some days they might work at home. I came to a deal, after being very insistent with the Secretary of State in a meeting very early during the disruption post May, that additional compensation should apply not only to those who had season tickets but to everybody else who used the line on a regular basis. We agreed in the end that commuters who could demonstrate that they travelled on three days or more per week should be compensated.
I have to say that there was a bit of an internal, behind-the-scenes battle involving the Treasury. A couple of times it said it could not do it, which I said was unacceptable. I am pleased and grateful that the Minister’s Department ensured that compensation was offered. Constituents now regularly come up to me and tell me that they have had back £200 or £300 of compensation in addition to the delay repay scheme, which is far too fiddly to use and which I know the Minister has plans for.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman makes a compelling case on behalf of his constituents for looking at the management of the service. Does he agree with the Transport Committee that season ticket holders and others who were so badly affected by the timetable changes on Great Northern should receive a discount on their 2019 season tickets, in order to protect them from the fare increase due in January? That might provide some more immediate relief than the longer term changes that he seeks.
Grant Shapps
Yes, I agree. Commuters on our line from Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City have suffered unbelievable disruption. It would be right for the Minister and the Department to look at how they could compensate those commuters, which could perhaps be with a discount on the fare increase that has been mentioned for the new year.
I support that call, although I accept at the same time that, while being given £200 or £300 does not in any way compensate for the appalling disruption, it is at least a recognition of it, since it comes on top of the delay repay scheme. I put on the record that commuters should not be put off if they have already gone online and claimed their £3 back for a late train using the delay repay scheme. I am assured by Govia that they can now also claim compensation, whether they are a season ticket holder or not, using whatever means of proof they can provide. That can be a bank or credit card statement or tickets. I know some people will have bought carnets rather than tickets. Govia is prepared to be very flexible.
I will mention one other matter before I sit down. I have for a long time called for Oyster cards to be accepted along the distance of the line. I think it is currently accepted only from Moorgate to Hadley Wood, which means that ticketing is a complicated business. A person has to get an overground ticket. Then, at some point when they come off the train—at Finsbury Park or Highbury & Islington—they have to switch to paying by Oyster. The position at the moment is very unsatisfactory, so I am really delighted, on behalf of my constituents, that the Government and the Minister have announced that Oyster will come into play next year—I understand that that will be at some point in the autumn—meaning that the Oyster network will extend right out to Welwyn Garden City, along the length of that line. I would like to push it further—of course everyone will say that—because Welwyn North is also in my constituency and I must make reference to that. However, I will be very pleased to see this innovation. It will help tremendously: it will speed up ticketing times at the station dramatically. The innovation of not just Oyster but contactless payment—the ability to use phones and credit cards—makes travelling a lot easier.
Therefore I really have two specific requests: one simple and one on which I hope that the Minister will equally be able to reassure me, either today or very soon—ideally before Christmas. It will be his Christmas present to my commuters and, I suspect, commuters right the way along the line if he can provide clarification on the first point, and a yes on the second. The clarification is on the date on which the Oyster card will actually be introduced in our area. I very much hope that the Minister has available the date of its introduction next year. If not, I just seek clarification that it will certainly be introduced next year.
If my second point is not resolved as we go into the new year, the Minister will find me, rather annoyingly, on his shoulders about it. I am talking about the provision of data from Govia to TfL so that we can start the process of matching a London Qverground service to the line and not miss the 2021 deadline. I am reliably informed that that must be done by the end of February next year to meet the deadline. I invite the Minister to make my constituents’ Christmas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) and congratulate him on securing the debate. I recognise that he is a very long-standing campaigner on rail for his constituents; he detailed some of the things that he has achieved. I think that his constituents are incredibly well represented and I hope that they fully show their appreciation of that to him, because he has delivered improvements for them.
My right hon. Friend has focused today on the quality and quantity of the rail service and particularly how that has faltered in the course of this year. The timetable change on 20 May caused an unacceptable level of delays and cancellations on Great Northern services through the Welwyn Hatfield constituency. That was not the only constituency affected; the May timetable change was a very major fail from the industry as a whole, and there were multiple causes of it. I hope that the amount of investigation and change to procedure that we have seen from that—people trying to learn the lessons—will have been noted as well.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
First, Mr Hollobone, I apologise for being a minute or two late. Given the debate’s very prompt early start, I missed the first part of the speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps). Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that it is vital that both Govia Thameslink Railway and Network Rail learn lessons from what went wrong in May and ensure that they very significantly improve the quality of service that constituents receive on this rail line? I say that because what commuters have had to put up with over the last few months has been totally unacceptable, and the responsibility lies with both GTR and Network Rail. They both have to do a great deal better in the future if they are to provide an acceptable service for my constituents.
Andrew Jones
My right hon. Friend is as wise and experienced in this matter as we would expect, and she is right to say that there was not a single cause of the failure from the timetable change in May. Everybody should be taking some responsibility for that, and my right hon. Friend is correct to highlight the franchise operator and Network Rail.
We have of course had the Glaister review, which looked at the underlying causes. I will come on to some of the things that have changed as a result of that. The key point was to ensure that lessons were learned and that we do not have a repetition of what was a complete failure. It was very frustrating because across the country as a whole, some really impressive things have been delivered—things that were started and taken forward, indeed, by my right hon. Friend. I am thinking of such things as, in the north, the Ordsall Chord and work at Liverpool Lime Street. The timetable change was to bring some of the new interventions and upgrades into service for passengers, but that has not happened yet, so it did not just cause disruption; it was a real missed opportunity as well. I will come on to that in a moment.
Since the interim timetable was introduced on 15 July, we have seen improved performance on the Great Northern line. In the most recent figures, the public performance measure for these services was around 83%. I completely understand that that is not good enough; we are obviously aiming for vast improvement, but it is still an improvement compared with 74%, which was the equivalent last year. Yes, there clearly remains room for improvement, and we continue to push GTR to improve reliability across its network.
Grant Shapps
I just caution the Minister on quoting statistics, because the trouble is that it is 80-whatever per cent. of fewer trains. The timetable has left my constituents with fewer options, and that means that the percentages, even if the timetable runs perfectly, are actually rather meaningless.
Andrew Jones
I will come on to that point. I would not go so far as to say that the statistics are meaningless, because they are part of the measures that we use to measure the performance of train operating companies. They are regularly scrutinised; indeed, I have found myself looking daily at the PPM by individual franchise, which is a habit I must get out of. This is monitored by the regulator and by officials in the Department. I will come on to the quantity of trains, but it does matter. We want to ensure that train operating companies and Network Rail are held to account for a failure to improve.
GTR is working on a range of ongoing schemes designed to improve the underlying performance. There are more fully trained drivers on this route than ever before, and service performance is improving as a result of revised operational plans that make best use of those additional resources. Network Rail continues to deliver improvements designed to combat some of the underlying infrastructure issues on this part of the network. GTR and Network Rail are collaborating more closely to reduce the frequency and impact of trespass, which has been a type of incident affecting this route. The rail industry is implementing new solutions to reduce that risk, including by focusing, through social media channels, on the target demographic.
One question raised repeatedly by colleagues across the House has been this: what is being done to hold the operators to account? We have seen some improvement in performance. We have always been clear that GTR would be held to account for its role in the disruption earlier this year. It will make no profit in this financial year, and we have capped the profit that the operator can make for the remaining years of the franchise. It will contribute £15 million towards tangible improvements for passengers and work with local rail user groups representing the passengers most affected by the disruption in determining where the money is spent. That is in addition to the £15 million that the operator has already contributed towards compensation for passengers since the May timetable disruption. I am pleased that those steps will hold GTR to account appropriately and will directly benefit the passengers who were most affected during the disruption.
There was a timetable change last week. The December 2018 timetable change was a scaled-back one, but it was nevertheless significant because it was implemented using changed procedures, in the light of the learnings from May. Compared with the 15 July interim timetable, this new timetable, which has landed well, brings an increase in services for Welwyn Hatfield, focused mainly on the off-peak periods. Compared with before May ’18, passengers in my right hon. Friend’s constituency now see an extra service in each off-peak hour from Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield to Moorgate, additional peak services between Welwyn North and King’s Cross, and additional peak services between Brookmans Park, Welham Green and Moorgate.
Grant Shapps
Briefly, I do not want the House to be misled in any way by those numbers. It is certainly true and very welcome that the additional service is being laid on. The Minister mentions Welwyn Garden and Hatfield. It would be unreasonable to expect the Minister and others to know the full layout of stations, but there are other stations along this line in my constituency. Curiously, two of the smaller stations have been removed from the daytime off-peak stops entirely, whereas nearly everywhere else along the line to Moorgate is included. That is an unacceptable position.
I have been working with some of the rail user groups, which point out that it is possible to stop those trains at those stations and—particularly using the new 717 trains with the faster speed-up and slow-down times—still meet the timetable, without preventing other trains from running along the line. I would be grateful if the Minister would check back on that with his Department, to see whether we can get those other stations included.
Andrew Jones
Of course, I will take a number of points back from this debate, as I do with any debate, and take action to help colleagues to improve their services. I undertake right away to do just that.
We now have a timetable that appears robust and has landed well. We are continuing to monitor performance on a daily basis. My right hon. Friend has expressed concerns that Brookmans Park and Welham Green stations are seeing a reduction in services compared with the level of performance pre the May ’18 timetable, from three trains per hour during off peak to two trains per hour. Officials in the Department have discussed the issue with the operator. GTR has been using loading data and passenger count data to check whether that decision was correct. It found that very few passengers boarded at those stations during the day, and there was not the level of demand to justify three trains per hour.
The operator has to provide the timetable that most effectively balances the often competing demands of different passengers at different stations. In the latest station usage figures published only last week by the Office of Rail and Road, Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield both have more than 10 times as many entries and exits than Brookmans Park and Welham Green. In that context, it seems reasonable for GTR to provide a half-hourly off-peak service at Brookmans Park and Welham Green, and a service every 15 minutes at Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield.
Grant Shapps
I know the Minister has several remarks to make, but I need to challenge him on those figures. At Brookmans Park and Welham Green, passenger numbers have been increasing over a period of time. I have the numbers here, and I will leave them with the Minister. I do not accept that we should accept a worse service than pre May, when the overall purpose of the timetable is to improve the service across the network. I have now spoken to Govia, subsequent to the data that the Minister has, and suggested a system to allow trains to stop there without disrupting the rest of the timetable. If that can be done, I would appreciate the Minister taking a close interest in achieving it, as long as it does not destroy any of the rest of the network.
Andrew Jones
I have been looking through the usage data, so I will look at his data with some interest, because it is not entirely consistent with the picture that I have been considering. Perhaps we are looking at different timescales, but I would be grateful if he would give me the data, so that I can compare and contrast. As it stands, I know that GTR has been in discussion with local rail users and has made some changes. Previously, the two services were at 19 and 37 minutes past the hour. That meant that if a passenger missed the train at 37 minutes past, they had a long wait of 40 minutes for the next train. Now the services are at 19 and 49 minutes past the hour. Therefore, it is a half-hourly service.
My right hon. Friend mentioned weekend services, and I recognise that they remain a significant issue. I understand that the situation will be much improved as part of the next timetable change in May. That is still being worked on, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend and colleagues along the line are kept informed of the change. In May, when there will be a bigger timetable change, more services will come online and more of the planned enhancements will become available for passengers.
Bringing Transport for London services to Welwyn Garden City was a key part of my right hon. Friend’s speech, and I know that he has campaigned for services between Welwyn and Moorgate to be transferred to TfL. I am very glad that the announcement of the Oyster and contactless extension has landed well. I am afraid I cannot give him exactly the Christmas present he asked for—the date when it will land—but I can confirm that it will happen next year. At the moment, our target date is no more specific than the autumn. If it can be brought forward, I will do that, because I recognise that it is of benefit, but it has taken a significant amount of work to get to this point. Again, I will keep him posted on progress. I know that this has been a long piece of work that he has focused on, but it is coming good for his constituents. It will allow commuters and other passengers to have seamless journeys into the capital. It is an early step in the Department’s commitment to expanding the availability of pay-as-you-go ticketing. Customers like it, it boosts usage and it makes it easier to manage peak-time flows through busy stations, so this is an important positive.
On the transfer of services to TfL, the Department is actively considering the future of the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchises. We are working closely with the Williams Rail Review, which is examining the most appropriate organisational and commercial models for the future of the rail industry. This work is at an early stage, but it is fair to say that nothing is off the table. It is a very wide-ranging review. It is an important review, because although our current system of privatisation has led to a fantastic burst of investment and passenger growth across our network, and has taken us from A to B with 1 billion more passenger journeys per year, are we really set up to take the rail industry from B to the future? How do we cater for future growth, and what is the right kind of structure for achieving that? That is what Keith Williams’s review is about, and nothing is off the table. It is a very big piece of work, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend’s concerns and questions are fed into it.
I must mention that we will see some new trains on this route—brand new trains will enter passenger service on the Moorgate route. The class 313s that currently operate on the Great Northern line were built in the 1970s, but passenger numbers have increased substantially in the decades since, so there is a need for new trains that can meet current capacity demands. The new trains have been designed to provide much more capacity to meet the demand on the busy suburban Moorgate line. The new trains carry 943 passengers, compared with 640 for the old trains. That is automatically a significant increase in capacity.
However, it is a question not just of capacity, but of quality—a point made by my right hon. Friend. The quality of the new trains is much higher. They come with air conditioning, plug sockets, wi-fi and real-time passenger information screens. They are also designed for the improved modern safety and accessibility standards. I believe these trains will substantially improve the quality of service on the line, while addressing the core underlying need to put more capacity into the network, to serve his constituents.
I will follow up with the Department on my right hon. Friend’s point about data, and I will keep him posted. I am aware of the pressing nature of it, which he has highlighted. I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate.
Grant Shapps
I notice that the Minister is wrapping up a minute early, so I just want to press him on this point. I did not hear a commitment there, but I heard about a long, wide-ranging review with nothing off the table. However, as I pointed out, we need a decision on data provided by Govia to TfL by the end of February next year. Therefore, a long and wide-ranging review does not sound entirely hopeful. I would like to press him, if I may, a little bit harder on that. Is he saying that a long-winded review would miss that timetable?
Andrew Jones
The Williams review is a bigger piece of work, but I also said that I would take back the points about Govia and TfL and keep my right hon. Friend informed. That is what I was referring to, so I have not missed it. Let me just finish by saying that the performance on Great Northern after May was unacceptable. Action has been taken against GTR in respect of that, and we continue to monitor performance closely. Additional Moorgate services were introduced last week, providing additional capacity in Welwyn Hatfield. I hope that 2019 will see further improvements, including the very popular introduction of pay-as-you-go ticketing. I will follow up all the points raised by my right hon. Friend and keep him posted.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am pleased to say that this debate does not qualify for delay and repay, and we have arrived at our destination on time.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the performance of Govia on the Moorgate to Welwyn Garden City railway line.
Firefighters: Mental Health Support
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Dent Coad (Kensington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered mental health support for firefighters.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak out on behalf of members of the fire service. In so doing, I do not wish for a moment to minimise the effect of shock and trauma on our other emergency services, or on the victims, the bereaved and survivors, for whom I hope to speak out at a future date.
We must never underestimate the potential danger of untreated or poorly treated mental health issues. Nearly half the 39 people who died in an accidental fire in 2017, excluding Grenfell, had mental health issues. I am personally devastated to have to report that very recently, a member of our community in north Kensington has sadly taken their life. We have all failed that person, their family and their friends.
I was acquainted with several firefighters before the terrible events of 14 June last year, and since then I have spoken to many others. As a councillor in Kensington and Chelsea, I was active during a cross-party campaign in 2012-13 against the fire service cuts of the previous Mayor of London. I visited our fire stations and spoke to their teams. I analysed breakdowns of response times to specific fires from specific fire stations. I looked in detail at fire deaths statistics, which, though diminishing, reflected a new method of calculation that meant that only those poor souls who died on the scene of a fire were counted, not those who died subsequently in hospital.
In submissions to the then Mayor, we demanded that particular stations under pressure were not closed and that staff budgets were not cut. Most of our demands fell on deaf ears, although it seems that our campaign to save north Kensington fire station from closure was heard, as it was saved. The red watch from that station was first on the ground at the Grenfell Tower fire.
Following the cross-party work I carried out in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, I was appointed by the current Mayor of London to the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. During my time there, we monitored pilot schemes on co-responding, whereby firefighters respond to medical emergencies, particularly cardiac arrests, when an ambulance is not available. Co-responding is unpopular among firefighters, not only because their responsibilities increased as their pay was frozen, but because they were concerned about a lack of training to deal with some of the issues that they were called to deal with.
Some felt it was inefficient to send a fire engine worth half a million pounds to a medical emergency purely because it was equipped with a defibrillator. Many told me that they were emotionally unprepared for some of the things they had to deal with, such as suicides. One told me of an incident where, for 40 minutes, while waiting for an ambulance, they carried out resuscitation on a child who had clearly already died. That officer told me that they had been put on light duties for a long period while they struggled to process what had happened.
I have talked to many of the firefighters who attended Grenfell Tower, many of whom are still struggling emotionally and some of whom may choose to leave active duty altogether. I have had a full briefing from the London fire brigade and I am aware of the new focus on mental health awareness, which is fully supported by the commissioner.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Do you agree that stress, anxiety and depression are now common features in the fire service—especially the London fire service—according to organisational listings? That should not be the case.
Emma Dent Coad
I concur absolutely with my hon. Friend. The London fire brigade has appointed additional counsellors and set up Mind blue light champions, who are volunteers from within the service who can signpost colleagues to the counselling and trauma service.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She raises a pertinent point, which we should all pay attention to. She mentions the appointment of counsellors, which is absolutely crucial. The way to help someone to avoid mental health problems is for them to have somebody to talk to when they are experiencing the problems. There is no point in them just sitting there and experiencing the problems on their own; they need somebody to share them with and to help them.
Emma Dent Coad
I concur absolutely with the hon. Gentleman.
I hear that firefighters who came from fire stations near the fire are getting a higher standard of care than those from further afield. Call centre staff—many of whom spoke to people trapped by the fire, as we heard during the inquiry—are also traumatised, and some are not getting the support they need.
Let us remember that more than 300 firefighters were involved in the rescue attempt at Grenfell, and that it was not one single, terrible, catastrophic event. The fire raged for more than 12 hours, in which firefighters continually risked their lives in their attempt to save the lives of others. Some of the scenes they saw, and the choices they had to make, are with them every day.
Despite that, the psychological help that those brave men and women, including the call centre and support staff, so clearly need is very uneven. Some have received talking therapy. I have previously told the House that I have received that treatment myself, and it did not help me at all, although I accept it may help others. That treatment is available within the fire service.
Some people have been fortunate enough to receive eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing therapy, which I am told has been helpful, but it is usually available only from the Fire Fighters Charity, so capacity is limited—we are dependent on charity. Some have had very little treatment. I am told that many firefighters from stations across London who attended the fire have not had the support they need, and certainly not the emotional support from the community that many local officers have benefited from.
Three days after the fire, I dropped into one of our fire stations late at night. I drank tea and heard their stories. The team, who had fought back-to-back shifts on Tuesday and Wednesday, had had no time off. All leave had been cancelled. They were emotionally drained and physically exhausted. All I could think was, “Where is the back-up they’d need if there was another Ladbroke Grove train crash now?”. The terrible answer is that there is none.
Cuts to frontline staff mean that, even after a disaster such as Grenfell, there may be no capacity for compassionate leave. While nearly 20% of staff have been lost since 2010, incidents have decreased by just 12%, so fewer operational firefighting staff are attending more incidents each.
Janet Daby
Even though the Government continue to state that a decrease in staffing is based on demand, do you agree that incidents have increased by 14% since 2014? We need to invest more in our fire services and our emergency services.
Emma Dent Coad
I concur absolutely with my hon. Friend; thank you.
Pay restraint and a squeeze on pensions mean that many firefighters have to work second jobs on their days off to pay their household bills. My specific experience relates to the London fire brigade, but I am aware that those issues affect fire services across the country.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I know my hon. Friend is talking about her own experiences, but when I was first elected in 1997, I visited the fire station in Stroud. Then, their appliances were always staffed by eight members, but they would go out with seven. When I talked to them recently, they were talking about going out with four on an appliance, and sometimes three. That is the result of cuts; they have an immense impact. Does she agree that they really affect the stress that firefighters are under?
Emma Dent Coad
I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. The cuts and the shortage of staff are huge issues.
Mental health support is still often seen as an afterthought or an add-on and its provision is expected to be funded from the ever-diminishing funding that services receive. The mental health charity Mind tells us that an incredible 85% of fire and rescue personnel have experienced stress and poor mental health at work. That figure has risen by one third in the last six years. Although fire and rescue personnel are more at risk from mental health problems because of the nature of their work, they are less likely to take time off, which can affect their home life as well as their physical health.
Mind also tells us that repeated exposure to traumatic events, physical injuries, increased workload and financial pressures are affecting fire and rescue services personnel more and more. For the first time, the most common cause of absence in the London fire brigade is stress, anxiety and depression. That cannot continue. Surely, we have a duty of care to support those who risk their lives to save ours. It is not enough to expect each service across the country to tackle this growing problem individually with no additional financial support. Firefighters should be able to rely on us to protect their mental health, so they can be at their best when we need them.
We have seen how firefighters as well as call centre staff have had to relive those hours in painful detail under relentless questioning at the inquiry, and we have heard how that has retraumatised them. We have also heard how retired firefighters watching footage of the Grenfell Tower fire on television or online have also been retraumatised, demonstrating that trauma follows people into retirement unless it is properly dealt with by qualified psychologists.
We depend on firefighters to save and protect the public from flooding, building collapse, road traffic accidents, train crashes, passengers under trains and terrorist attacks, as well as fire. I therefore ask the Minister to increase funding of the fire and rescue services that we depend on, so that support for their mental health can be delivered fairly across the country. We rely on fire and rescue personnel to save and protect us from danger. It is time for them to be able to rely on us, to ensure that they have the help and support they need.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Just before we continue, may I gently remind Members that we speak in the third person? “You” means me, and I am not a participant in this debate.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Roger.
I thank the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) for raising this very important issue. I do not have a confession, but from the outset I have to declare an interest—that would be the best phrase—as I served for 31 years with Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service, and it was a proud journey through my working life. In retirement, I became a local councillor who sat on the fire board, so I continue to have a great fondness and a great respect for the firefighters of today, although I am—quite clearly, for those who can see me—a firefighter from yesterday. I joined in 1974 and served until 2005.
Frontline firefighters—whether they are whole-time, retained or volunteer firefighters—who respond to emergencies, and those with specialist roles within the fire service such as fire investigators, frequently encounter seriously injured or even fatally injured persons in their day-to-day work. Preservation of the scene, particularly if it is a potential crime scene, may mean that anyone who is declared medically deceased must remain in situ, with firefighters having to work in close proximity to them.
Some incidents result in multiple fatalities. I will touch on some in the west of Scotland, but there are many others that I could cite between John O’Groats and Land’s End. For example, there was the Chinook disaster on the Mull of Kintyre, in which 29 individuals died. The first responding appliances to that incident were carrying retained personnel; they were not full-time professionals, but men and women who held down everyday jobs. There was the Lockerbie air disaster, in which 270 persons lost their life, 11 of whom were in the town of Lockerbie, particularly but not exclusively in Sherwood Crescent. Again, the first responding appliances to that disaster were carrying retained personnel, and I absolutely applaud the work that retained personnel do. There was the Rosepark care home fire in Uddingston not so very long ago, in which 14 residents died, and that was a modern facility, and there was the Stockline plastics factory explosion in Glasgow, which was attended by whole-time personnel; nine people died in that fire. That is to name but a few incidents, none of which I personally attended. However, having been part of the fire service, I have followed the stories about them with great interest.
There are also incidents that firefighters endure in which our colleagues are injured, or even fatally injured, in fires. It does not happen that often, but when it does, what a sad and dark day it is. We can even go way back to the Cheapside disaster in Glasgow in the late 1960s, in which I think 15 firefighters and four salvage personnel lost their life. That was an exceptionally horrific incident, but we have improved safety a lot since then.
Such repeated experiences without appropriate ongoing support from external counsellors or medical professionals may result in some firefighters and other emergency responders—I do not exclude other emergency responders who suffer similar pressures—succumbing to stress-related illness, leading to absence from work and, in the worst cases, to their being medically retired; indeed, as the hon. Member for Kensington said, they may even lead to firefighters taking their own life, which in itself is an absolute tragedy.
Believe me: firefighters give their all at incidents, both physically and mentally. They have to be constantly alert at an ongoing incident—alert for their own safety; for the safety of their colleagues; and for the safety of the general public. If the outcome of an incident is not what firefighters would wish for, their initial adrenalin rush turns to what I would describe as a devastating disappointment that they have not achieved their goal or what they had hoped for. Their bodies and minds must cope with sudden emotional changes.
There are also occasions when the judicial process exacerbates firefighters’ exposure to potential stressors, in that the police and, in Scotland, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service may be reluctant for immediate debriefs of crews to take place until they have met with individuals and taken their statements, to ensure that their evidence is not compromised. It is an added stress when firefighters have to speak to people in authority about what has taken place. We have seen on our televisions the grilling of some of the officers at the Grenfell fire. Those individuals did their very best that night, yet they are being grilled through the courts service and various inquiries.
Debriefs have immense value, not simply so that crews can learn lessons in relation to how an incident went—what they could have done better, and so on—but to provide individuals with the opportunity to express their feelings to their peers. They may not wish to burden—or may not be able to burden—their family and friends with those feelings, or confidentiality might prevent them from offloading those concerns on those outwith the service. All of these things may be worse for retained or volunteer firefighters, who live in the very communities that they serve; on many occasions, they may know the victims of an incident.
I will touch on two poignant road traffic crashes that illustrate that. In one incident, a firefighter said hello to four young individuals at a shopping centre in a small town. He knew the four individuals and their parents. An hour after a courteous conversation with the four individuals, his pager was activated and he responded to a road traffic crash in which two of those young individuals had died. As one would expect, he conducted himself professionally, but weeks, if not months, later that incident came back to haunt him. I am pleased to say that he received assistance from Strathclyde Fire and Rescue Service, and he made a full recovery.
There was another incident that had a good outcome. The driver of a retained appliance approached a road traffic crash and spotted his wife’s car; it was his wife who was trapped. As I say, there was a good outcome, as she made a full recovery. I attended that incident and it was quite a tense situation. I give credit again to those who serve their own community.
John Howell
What my hon. Friend is saying is very powerful. Does he believe that there is more that the fire service can do—I encourage my own local fire stations to do this—to have public exhibitions of what they do and show how they go about their work, because once the public understand that, there is a tremendous amount of additional support for the fire service and for the actions that they take? It would help if we gave firefighters a lot more encouragement to do that.
Bill Grant
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Yes, a lot is already being done to encourage people and to raise awareness. The fire service in Scotland used to have an annual event at the old Strathclyde regional station, with the slogan, “Reckless driving wrecks lives”, where we brought along fifth and sixth-year schoolchildren. All the emergency services took part. We also make home safety visits now and we are very much part of the team that tries to prevent these events before they happen, through accident and fire reduction. Also, let us not forget the introduction of a very simple thing in people’s homes, which is the smoke detector. In Scotland, we fit them free of charge for anyone who approaches us, and they are worth their weight in gold; they are very effective. A lot has been done on the preventive side. It is a failure if the fire engine goes out; we should prevent all the fires and reduce the number of accidents.
Recently, while out driving in my constituency with a staff member, I turned to them and told them that we had just passed the site of a fatal road accident. The accident had happened 30 to 35 years ago, but decades later I could still vividly envisage the two deceased persons in that vehicle. What triggered that, I really do not know. For some people, there will be no trigger; regrettably, an incident will live with them and haunt them for the rest of their lives constantly. I am able to put such an experience back in the box and reflect on it; perhaps I am very fortunate in that way.
It is so important that rescuers themselves do not become later in life the people who have to be rescued from extensive mental trauma. Let us be proactive and protect, to the best of our abilities, our firefighters from mental trauma or mental harm. The Health and Safety Executive defines stress as
“the adverse reaction people have to excessive pressure or other types of demand placed upon them.”
That can apply to a lot of emergency responders, including the police, but it applies to firefighters in particular.
Most people, including most firefighters, can cope with the challenge of work demands, but when other life pressures are added accumulatively—for example, debt problems or marital problems—sometimes it just gets too much to bear and a tipping point is reached. Many workplaces offer stress management courses. In my time in the service, we introduced welfare officers as far back as the 1990s, along with external counselling. I am sure that continues today, probably in an improved way. Many workplaces also have in-house occupational health staff. The hon. Member for Kensington mentioned the fire service benevolent fund, which has been going for more than 100 years and is now called the Fire Fighters Charity. It offers invaluable support through its psychological rehabilitation service for serving and retired firefighters.
While people may be screened and tested for underlying illnesses, susceptibility to stress, as I understand it, may not be immediately apparent and the individual themselves may not know or wish to admit—that is one of the very sad things, and it was a very male-dominated service when I was in it, although I am pleased to report that that was changing for the better when I left—that their illness may be stress-related, given the previous stigma around mental health issues. To some degree that stigma remains.
When we see someone with an injury to their leg or a broken arm, we can see the physical injury, but we cannot see or feel a mental injury. Firefighters may wrongly perceive such an admission as a weakness on their part. It certainly is not. According to the mental health charity Mind, 37% of firefighters think colleagues would treat them differently in a negative way if they conceded or admitted that they had a mental health issue. The black humour and banter of my days—days gone by, fortunately; it is no longer politically correct, and that is quite right—was once a release valve and coping mechanism behind closed doors for firefighters, but they still have the camaraderie and they still work as a team. That is a form of therapy in itself, and it has immense value. When a whole-time firefighter returns to the station, they have that group. It is different for retained and volunteer firefighters. They return to their partners and wives individually, and that gives a different dimension to the situation.
According to Mind, 85% of people in the fire and rescue services—it is an inordinately high number—experiences stress and poor health at work. They are twice as likely as the wider workforce to identify problems at work as the main cause for their stress. Statistics obtained by Members of the Scottish Parliament through a freedom of information request indicated that in 2016, 137 employees of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service—firefighters, control room staff and support staff—were recorded as taking sick leave due to stress. Regrettably, those figures appear to be on the rise, as the figure for those recording stress as a reason for absence was 77 in 2015 and only 27 employees in 2014. That is despite an apparent fall in the number of fires and incidents. We are doing well on fires, but we have got road accidents, factory accidents and farming accidents—there is a whole range of special services. We need to discover what has changed since 2014. What are the root causes and contributing factors? Most importantly, we need to address them.
An article in a recent Fire Brigades Union magazine, Firefighter—I am an out-of-trade member and I still receive it—highlighted a need for ring-fencing moneys within NHS budgets for mental health. That is a prudent thing to request. The Prime Minister said last year:
“I want to use the power of the government as a force for good to transform the way we deal with mental health problems right across society, and at every stage of life. Tackling the injustice and reducing the stigma associated with mental health conditions is a priority for me, which is why today I set the goal of providing 1 million members of the public with basic mental health awareness and first aid.”
That goal has to be welcomed. I understand that NHS England got a top-up of £50 million over five years, which is most welcome, but I do not know whether that will be enough to address the issues and the incident of Grenfell, the consequences of which will be felt for years to come, sadly.
When we consider how much it costs to train and equip a firefighter, together with the potential costs of their ill-health, such as absence or early retirement—they may even go to the extreme of taking their life—surely it makes economic sense to invest in appropriate support measures. Firefighters are the finest example of an asset to society. They serve it on a daily basis, and they must be properly supported. Should they stretch out their hand for help, we must grasp it and give that help. Better still, let us prevent them from needing to do that in the first place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) for securing this debate, thereby giving us all an opportunity to participate in it. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). He has vast knowledge from his life as a firefighter over the years, and we all appreciate the wealth of experience he brings to these debates.
I want to focus on where we are with mental health support for firefighters and give some examples of what we are doing in Northern Ireland. When we have debates such as this on issues that cross the whole United Kingdom, there is an opportunity to contribute to the wealth of the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
During the worst of the troubles, which went on for 30 years, firefighters worked alongside soldiers, sifting through rubble and making bomb sites safe. They saw sights that they never thought they would have to deal with. Like our soldiers, the sights they have seen and the work they have done can never be rightly understood by anyone who has not done it. The hon. Gentleman has done it. Friends I speak to have done it, too. Like our soldiers, firefighters deserve the utmost respect and support. The terrible danger that they willingly face to save others is incredible. Their efforts, courage and sacrifice deserve the utmost honour to be given to them.
I take this opportunity to think of all the firefighters who have paid the ultimate price for their heroism—some have—and to remind their families that we have not forgotten their sacrifice. I have a very good friend who is a wee bit older than me who was a firefighter during the worst of the troubles. Even today in our discussions he will often tell me stories of what took place. Sometimes he tells the stories because he wants to just talk about them. Some of those memories are from 30 or perhaps 40 years ago, but they are very real to him on the day he tells them and reminds people of what took place. Often, he will just shake his head when he is asked about his work. Sometimes he cannot talk about it, but the fact is that it is good for people to talk about things. For mental health, it is vital to have an accessible support network in place.
I read a media report recently that stated that the number of firefighters taking long-term sick leave because of mental health problems has soared by almost a third in the last six years. The hon. Gentleman referred to that. The study was carried out in the light of the Grenfell tragedy, which the hon. Member for Kensington referred to, but it is comparable to the situation UK-wide. Indeed, in 2016-17—the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock had a different figure, but this excludes the back room—97 Scottish fire staff took long-term mental health sick leave. In Northern Ireland, that figure was 111 for active firemen on the frontline.
I always remember another good friend of mine telling me a story. The hon. Members for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock and for Kensington referred to some of the horrors that firefighters see. The troubles are one part of that, but road traffic accidents are another. The ones that probably leave a lasting mental scar are those that involve children. When my friends tell me their stories, it is heart-rending how the incidents have affected them. Another friend said, “You know, Jim, so-and-so”—I will not mention his name—“just had a total breakdown.” These things affect people in different ways, but what we are really saying is that road traffic accidents, whether it is children, women or men who are killed, can and do leave lasting effects.
There have been many traffic accidents over the years. I remember one very well, where a young boy from my neighbouring village died and another young fellow had life-changing health issues as a result, and still has them today. Whenever it involves local people, we can understand what they are thinking, and we can think about the firemen who have seen horrible things in that road traffic accident and about how it affects them.
There is a feeling within the fire brigades that more must be done to raise awareness of the fact that it is good to talk. One such action is firefighters from Northern Ireland aiming for a Christmas No. 1, after teaming up with colleagues from across the United Kingdom to release a charity single. I am not sure whether hon. Members are aware of that. The group is known as the Fire Tones—what other name could they call themselves? The group has released its version of Band Aid’s “Do They Know It’s Christmas?” to raise money for the Fire Fighters Charity and the Band Aid Charitable Trust. The charity provides physical rehabilitation for firefighters recovering from injury or illness, as well as mental health support for those who have experienced psychological trauma, as many have. The single has been released on iTunes, Spotify and Amazon Music, and can also be purchased from Tesco. I will buy a copy this year, and would urge other Members to get one as well and, by doing so, to help the charity.
In 2017, the Government provided an additional £1.5 million to pay for mental health support through Mind’s blue light programme, to ensure that our emergency services and workers have the counselling and the emotional support that they require. However, the fact that firefighters are fundraising suggests that they are not seeing the benefits of that and so, as is becoming normal, they are teaming up with other charities to fill the gap. It is good to do something physically, and it is important to do so.
The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service has teamed up with two other local charities, Northern Ireland Chest Heart and Stroke and MindWise, on a new initiative called “Healthy Body, Healthy Mind”, to raise awareness of the importance, which we know well, of people keeping both their mental and physical health in good shape. On the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service website, Group Commander Keith Black, occupational health and wellbeing, explains:
“As Firefighters, we know the importance of maintaining physical fitness throughout our careers. What is equally important, however, is our mental fitness”.
Someone can run a mile or 10 miles, but they need to have the mental capacity as well. Keith Black continued that
“through this new initiative we hope to remove some of the fear people may have about talking about their mental health, both amongst our own staff and in the wider public.”
Part of that initiative was the station-to-station cycle, the brainchild of firefighter Noel McKee, who is also a trained counsellor. Noel and three other firefighters cycled to every fire station, and together with the charity partners delivered a talk at two secondary schools each day of the 10-day cycle.
It is wonderful that people are attempting to fill the breach and to fill the gap through voluntary, charitable work to raise money and awareness. However, I believe that more should be done by this place to see dedicated support as a matter of right for the 111 long-term sick firefighters in Northern Ireland, and for the hundreds of others who are struggling to process the job that we called on them to do. I always look to the Minister for a constructive response, which I know I will get. I sincerely urge him to look at how we can step up to the mark in this House in the way that we are asking our firefighters to step up to the mark in real life.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) on securing the debate, and in particular on the way in which she dealt with this very sensitive subject. She shocked us all when she told us about the individual who has subsequently taken their own life; our thoughts go out to their family and friends.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) on 31 years in the fire service. He has some particular expertise that I could not possibly cope with and it gave me something further to think about. I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group, and the hon. Member for Kensington, who probably never sought such high office, is co-vice chair of the group. We are absolutely delighted that she has joined our group, and in a short time has demonstrated, by today’s debate, that she is making a real contribution.
I remember hearing the hon. Lady’s maiden speech last year, when she was a newly elected Member. Maiden speeches can be challenging for all those who have to make them, but the way she coped with the situation that she was in with her constituents was very telling. She has done a first-class job since in raising the whole range of concerns resulting from that horrendous disaster. We all witnessed the repeated efforts of firefighters entering and re-entering the tower to undertake rescues of people trapped by the fire. We can only begin to imagine, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock said, how the firefighters must have felt when they returned home after attending those events.
It is acknowledged that firefighters have a stressful and traumatic job, and when they undertake the job they are advised that that is the way it is. However, I still think that we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for everything that they do, and we must do even more to support them than we are already. I remember three terrible incidents that firefighters attended in Basildon, when I was the Member of Parliament for that constituency.
I say gently to hon. Members, “Never take your children canvassing.” I took my eldest daughter canvassing. She was not asking anyone to vote for me, but she happened to come along—I think my wife and I had an issue; someone had to look after her. We knocked, but no one came to the door. It was in a tiny, rural part of the constituency. We knocked next door, and all of a sudden there was smoke. We went to the original door that we had knocked on, and we saw a human being alight. The fire service was absolutely fantastic. My daughter and I were in a state of shock, but they dealt with the situation and were absolutely brilliant.
There were two other incidents, both involving children. Firefighters found four children in a hut in a playground. They had lit a match and lost their lives. I remember another traumatic one, which was unbelievable. A gentleman had had some sort of breakdown. His wife had gone out and she came back to find that he had smothered their five children. It was not the police, but firefighters who attended. However tough a person is, I do not think that those experiences can be got over easily. That is why this subject is so important.
The Minister will probably correct me, but my understanding is that individual fire service authorities are responsible for ensuring that they have appropriate health and wellbeing support for their staff. The Fire Brigades Union has advocated for all fire authorities to have specific mental health policies. I do not know whether the Minister can enlarge on that and give us a report.
I am also advised that support is available to firefighters from various charities and professional bodies, including the Fire Fighters Charity and Mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock touched on the fact that research from Mind has found that 85% of people in the fire and rescue services have experienced stress and poor mental health at work. That is a truly shocking figure, which is totally unacceptable.
Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire & rescue services has committed to assessing how the fire authorities meet the wellbeing needs of their staff as part of the inspection question set for the year 2018-19. As my hon. Friend also touched on, NHS England announced on 9 October that up to £50 million would be made available over five years to provide ongoing physical and mental health services for those affected by the Grenfell fire, including long-term screening.
This is the season of good will when we all go round our constituencies and hypothetically appear as Father Christmas for one day. Last week, I visited our local fire station in Leigh-on-Sea twice—once to see the staff stage a community event at which they built the best Santa’s grotto ever, and then formally in a suit to thank them for all that they do. The best Christmas present they could have would be for my hon. Friend the Minister, as a result of this debate, to pledge that our Government will do whatever they can to ensure that our firefighters receive the best possible help for their mental health needs. They do a wonderful job on our behalf and risk everything. We have to bear in mind that they have their own lives and their own families to go back to, who know the scars that they bear.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger, and to speak in this important and timely debate. I thank the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) and congratulate her on bringing it to Westminster Hall. She detailed the background thoroughly, set out what needs to be done and spoke poignantly about the traumatic impact of the Grenfell tragedy on her constituency and on the firefighters who attended the scene. I thank her for doing that. I am sure they are watching the debate and will note how seriously we take this issue. We are working collaboratively to take these issues forward and ensure that we get the best practice to support them.
My father-in-law was a firefighter in Edinburgh for almost 30 years, and he is extremely pleased that we are having this debate. Firefighters go out and do their job every day, and do not ask for much from us. They put their lives on the line, and never know what they are going out to each day. It is important that we recognise that they put themselves on the frontline and never know what they will come across. Their work can not only traumatise but retraumatise them, as they repeatedly go out to incidents. It is incumbent on Members of Parliament to recognise the traumatic impact of their role and that of the other emergency services. We must therefore provide adequate services in a timely manner to ensure that firefighters are supported.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for arriving a little late, Sir Roger. Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the problem is that we have 11,000 fewer firefighters in the service because of cuts, and that 40,000 days have been lost due to mental health? That puts extra pressure on the firefighters who are still in the service. Perhaps it would be a good idea for the Government to issue a minimum ratio of counselling services to firefighters so they know that they can access a counsellor whenever they need one.
Dr Cameron
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention. It is extremely important that firefighters and all emergency service personnel can access timely treatment when they need it. My experience from working in the NHS and my father-in-law’s experience is that shortages put additional stress and strain on those who do the job every day. Days lost due to physical or mental ill health put additional pressure on those who continue to keep the service going. Like all emergency services, the fire service is a vocation as well as a job. People in the emergency services always do much more than we expect them to do every day of their working lives. It is therefore incumbent on us to support them to the best of our ability right across the United Kingdom.
I worked as a psychologist, including with key emergency services and at the high-security State Hospital in Scotland. I know that, right across the emergency services, people put themselves on the frontline to protect the public. We must recognise that some of the issues that they have to deal with are out of the ordinary for most people. The images that they see and their experiences can stay with them for decades—right into retirement. When they are in the workplace, they may not want or feel able to seek help, but support should be available at any time, including in retirement. These symptoms may come to the fore in the form of post-traumatic stress, and individuals may feel ready to access treatment at any time.
Mental health services are a priority for the Scottish National party Government in Scotland. The Scottish Budget this month reflected that: it included more than £1 billion of funding for mental health, and funding for 800 additional mental health workers. That is a recognition of the fact that the public have become more aware of mental health. Today, we are speaking about mental health services for a specific group of workers. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether there are examples of best practice that we can roll out throughout the United Kingdom. I am also interested in hearing about his collaboration with the Scottish Government and the Minister for Mental Health in Scotland on emergency service workers.
Cognitive behavioural therapy and EMDR, which the hon. Member for Kensington mentioned, are treatments recommended for trauma, and other forms of counselling are helpful in tackling symptoms of anxiety and depression and other presentations that come from trauma. What kinds of specialist treatments are being made available to firefighters and other frontline emergency service personnel? We must ensure that they access the treatment that is recommended for the conditions that they present with.
I always enjoy listening to the contributions of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He said that the experiences of firefighters are similar to those of veterans; they may live with those experiences for a long time. Firefighters may work alongside soldiers and other service personnel who work together in this realm and have experiences that most of us do not have. Will the Minister comment on whether there are any peer support mechanisms that might be helpful? My husband served in the armed forces, and I am aware that veterans often find it extremely helpful to speak to others who have had similar experiences. Professionals do not always advocate such treatments, but it can be extremely helpful to speak to other people and have peer-to-peer support groups that are supported financially and resourced so that they can speak to others who have had similar experiences. I think that could be helpful.
When I was reading about the background to this debate, I found that stigma is an issue. With mental health issues in general, there is stigma attached to coming forward. We think of firefighters as being strong, working on the frontline and dealing with whatever happens—we have that stereotype. Added to that are the west of Scotland stereotypes that men should not come forward and speak about emotions and feelings. We are breaking that down, slowly but surely, but I think it is still there, so I can understand that the research is saying that 37% or so of firefighters feel unable to come forward to discuss their emotions, and the impact. We need to do more to break down the stereotypes and attitudes, and to increase mental health awareness—and actually mental health is on a continuum, with an impact on everyone. Then we will all feel able to come forward, but particularly those who are exposed, and re-exposed, to trauma.
I have been reading about the blue light programme, which I understand was funded from March 2015 until 2018. Will the Minister comment on the funding for that programme moving forward into 2019 and on whether, once again, there is any best practice implementation guidance from it that could perhaps be rolled out across the rest of the United Kingdom?
I thank the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant), who served for decades as a firefighter, and who brought his experience into the debate, for his service and dedication in that role—and subsequently in his role as an MP. He spoke about retained firefighters, which is important. Retained firefighters perhaps do not have the same level of training or support as other firefighters, and I should like to be assured that services—mental health support, but also other support—are available to them at the same level.
I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford, who paid a special tribute to those who have given their lives in the service. That is an extremely important point. He spoke about the tragedy of firefighters having to deal with the deaths of children, and the lasting impact on them, which we can all understand.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) chairs the important all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group, which is considering the issues in question, and I thank him for that work. I am sure that it will be extremely important for us to work collaboratively across the House to take matters forward, and to continue to work on improving services for all and getting the best practice that people deserve.
I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. I am keen to work with the Minister and to take part in a collaboration between the Department and the Scottish Government, to make sure that across the United Kingdom best practice is followed on service access, treatment and research.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) on securing the debate. I am pleased that she was successful in applying for it. In view of her expertise, given that the Grenfell disaster happened in her constituency, no Member is better placed to lead the debate.
When I took the shadow fire and emergency services post, I wanted to visit as many fire services as possible to learn at first hand what firefighters’ main concerns are. I expected to hear about problems with funding, staffing, pay and pensions, but I was taken aback by the deep concern about mental health. Firefighters are on the frontline. It is their job to deal with life-threatening situations. I acknowledge that it is highly demanding and stressful work, but it is also invaluable for our communities. Mind, the mental health charity, has done some great work in supporting firefighters through its blue light programme. Its workplace criteria for identifying the potential for mental illness correspond to the risks that are posed to firefighters daily: the repeated exposure to traumatic events, the potential for physical injuries, workload pressures, suffering loss, and worries about money. Invoking those criteria helps to explain why the potential for mental illness in the fire service is extremely high. The distinct lack of direct central Government action and focus, when the evidence is clear, is astonishing.
I acknowledge that the responsibility for ensuring the health and safety of firefighters rests with individual fire and rescue authorities, and the Chief Fire Officers Association supports them in that work through its lead on fire and rescue occupational health matters. I am sure the Government will point to the commitment of £7 million to pay for mental health support through Mind’s blue light programme. That is positive, but in 2017 the number of fire and rescue staff taking long-term sick leave because of mental illness had risen by nearly a third over the previous six years. Mind has found that 85% of fire and rescue personnel have experienced stress and poor mental health at work, and firefighters are twice as likely to identify problems at work as the main cause of their mental health problems. However, that does not only affect the firefighters; there is a big impact on their families.
Fire services work hard to ensure that the support infrastructure is available. I have heard of brilliant examples of that happening, including in the London Fire Brigade and Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service, but the evidence shows that more has to be done to provide support to fire services. I do not doubt that the Government have acted, but any action cannot be separated from their wider attack on the service. Their ideologically-based austerity agenda has put more pressure on emergency services, and firefighters are bearing the burden. I am told time and again by the Minister that the number of fire incidents is decreasing but, as we know, that is not the full story. The overall number of incidents that the fire service responds to has decreased by 12.6% between 2010 and 2018. However, 11,854 firefighters have been cut in the same period, which equates to 20% of frontline staff. Therefore, on average we have fewer staff responding to more incidents, and incidents have risen every year since 2014. Workload pressures have increased over the past eight years, and if the Government want to be effective they must consider a staffing review as part of their policy to address mental health issues.
The effects of sustained cuts have put a considerable amount of pressure on the workforce, but that pressure is also changing. National discussions are being held regarding the expansion of the role of the firefighter to include emergency medical response. That may be a positive step if it is properly funded and if training is made readily available. However, I am not optimistic that central Government will ensure that that happens. I am not opposed on principle to EMR, but it must be properly funded. It will increase firefighters’ exposure to traumatic events and potential of losses of life. If they are not prepared for that change, it could be catastrophic for their mental health.
As a nurse, I saw such events at first hand. I assure Members that if someone is not prepared to deal with such incidents, the consequences for their wellbeing could be devastating. I was a cardiac nurse for 12 years and had an advanced life support qualification. I used to carry a cardiac arrest bleeper, and we used to run across the hospital to arrests. At that time—this is going back five to 10 years—the success rate was about 20% of resuscitations. That was in hospital, so we were getting there quickly. When a firefighter arrives at a cardiac arrest more time will have gone between what we used to call down time and the start of resuscitation, so the chances of success will be lower. At least we were successful a proportion of the time. By virtue of the way their work will happen in the community, the firefighters will see more fatalities; they will have to deal with that regularly, so it is an even more important factor in their mental health.
Bill Grant
I thank the hon. Lady for her good work in cardiac services. That was in a controlled, measured environment, but the challenge for firefighters and ambulance personnel is that they operate in a quite unnatural environment, whether they are attending an accident at a farm or factory, or a car accident. They are exposed to the weather and elements, and there are other road users, and so on. That is an added dimension; it is not a controlled environment, although we would do our best to control it on arrival.
Karen Lee
Absolutely. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. After someone has attended an arrest situation unsuccessfully, they go through an algorithm and they know they have done everything properly, but they still feel bad about losing that person. My point is that going to more arrests with a lower likelihood of success—because of all the things that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—involves much greater pressure. When I was a nurse we had occupational health, and there has to be something like that for firefighters—proper support.
I have been told numerous times during visits that firefighters have less time to train because of their workload. That is another thing that is very important. People going to an arrest must feel they know what they are doing. I am very concerned at the possibility that if outstanding issues are not fully addressed and firefighters are not effectively prepared for a sustained change in their role and responsibilities, their wellbeing could be damaged.
Our firefighters are heroes, and their pay must be properly addressed. As I have said time and again, they cannot spend a pat on the back. Mind has identified money worries as a contributing factor to mental illness, and considering the sacrifices made by our firefighters, the last worry they should have should be about their pay packet at the end of the month—my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington made a good point about some firefighters needing a second job, which is utterly disgraceful.
The Grenfell disaster and its consequences for our firefighters are terrible. The work that the Fire Brigades Union and the London Fire Brigade are doing to support firefighters is outstanding, and includes support for the 80 fire officers giving oral statements at the Grenfell inquiry. As the “Journey of Recovery” report highlighted, alongside all those affected, firefighters who were at the scene may be at risk of PTSD. The consequences are clear: stress and depression have been identified as the main source of LFB sick leave post Grenfell. I commend the Government’s commitment of £50 million to tackle mental health post Grenfell, but what proportion of that money will specifically be invested in support for LFB firefighters? Eighteen months after Grenfell, those firefighters still line the route every month for the silent vigil, and they are to be commended.
I do not accuse the Government of not caring, but I believe that more could be done, and they must recognise that cuts to central Government funding and staffing levels have a subsequent effect on a workforce. Let us not get into the old argument about allocated and unallocated resources, or who is responsible for austerity—the fire service must be properly resourced. I recognise that the Minister has asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services to assess how well services understand and meet the wellbeing needs of their workforce, and how that can be improved. Will he provide an update on that and say when we can expect additional investment or support? How much of the £7 million committed to Mind’s blue light programme is included in existing fire service resources, and how much is new money? I look forward to hearing his response.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and may I say to the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad) how sorry I am to hear about the recent death of her constituent?
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing an extremely important debate. As she made clear—this was corroborated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess)—her long-standing interest in the fire service predates her arrival in this place, although it has continued here, and I know from our conversations that she has a genuine interest in issues of mental health. This debate has highlighted an important and growing issue, which, as she rightly said, is not restricted to firefighters. All our emergency services face similar challenges as a result of increasing pressure on wellbeing, and there is a greater recognition across those services about the need for the Government to step up and fulfil, in the words of the hon. Lady, their duty of care. She is right: we do have a duty of care, which I will now speak about.
I also pay tribute to the firefighter of yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). He entered the fire service on the same day that my dad entered Parliament, and his contribution was extraordinarily valuable. Many contributors to this debate spoke not from notes but from personal experience, whether as a nurse or someone with a father-in-law in the service. This was a particularly good debate, despite the terrible experiences behind it, and my hon. Friend’s contribution was extraordinarily valuable since he provided insights into the strain on body and mind that comes from seeing and hearing things that no one wants to see or hear. He also mentioned the surges and changes in emotional state that firefighters have to cope with, and he made the point—as did others—that the trauma remains and comes back.
Anyone listening to the testimony from firefighters at the Grenfell public inquiry will have heard not just about those who performed so admirably under the most unbelievable conditions when going up and down those stairs, but about those who sat in the call room taking terrible calls under unimaginably difficult circumstances. Anyone who has spoken to some of those firefighters will know that that experience will stay with them for the rest of their lives. Some of them will need support, and some will need to be told they need support—many Members mentioned the continued stigma that is attached to our emergency services, where the tradition can still be one of taking pride in coping and being fine, with the best therapy being more work. I think we recognise as a society, and certainly as a Government, that our heroic emergency service workers need more practical support that is relevant to their state.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) made an important point about the need not only to make services available, but to make available services that are right for each individual, and I am sure the hon. Member for Kensington will agree. Certainly, in my work with Grenfell victims, I have been disappointed at times to discover cases of individuals receiving treatment that is not right for them in that situation. That point was well made, as was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock about the landscape and nature of the workforce in the fire service, which is changing slowly and becoming increasingly diverse, and we must think hard about those changing needs.
My hon. Friend, and others, welcomed the Prime Minister’s statement of ambition and resource regarding more money for local mental health issues, which I think has cross-party support. I observe from my time in this place since 2005 that one of the great sea changes in this House has been a growing acceptance of the need for mental health to have parity with physical health, and decisive steps have been taken on that journey. Those steps have not gone as far as many of us would like, but they are decisive none the less. Again, that is part of a greater national societal awareness about the importance of mental health and the growing risk, and the demand for mental health support, not least for our emergency service workers.
Let me try to provide reassurance that the Government recognise the importance of this issue and stand ready to support and challenge the leadership in the fire service regarding the exercise of its duty of care. First, I confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, because there is now a requirement in the recently revised fire and rescue national framework for England, which sets out the Government’s expectations for a fire and rescue authority. It contains a new section on what should be considered part of the workforce strategy, and it states explicitly that each fire authority should have in place a people’s strategy that includes information on the availability of wellbeing and support services. I understand that most fire and rescue authorities, including the LFB, have workforce strategies in place, which is a good step forward.
My second observation is that although our fire service is widely recognised around the world as being among the best, we have an insufficient understanding of what good looks like. The creation of the Fire Standards Board, and the intention to create a more comprehensive and coherent set of professional standards—including in the area under discussion—is an important development. As the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow said, we need to know what good looks like in this context.
The third element is extremely important. Indeed, arguably the most important reform that we are introducing in our desire to seek continuous improvement in the performance of our fire service is independent inspection. That is similar to what we have introduced and strengthened for the police service, and with independent inspection and an increasingly clear framework of agreed standards, we will get a better picture of what is going on out there, and we will be able to compare and contrast the performance of fire services. With independent inspection comes greater transparency and greater accountability to the inspectorate, to the local fire authority, to the police and crime commissioner—where appropriate—to the Home Office and to Parliament. In our experience with the police, that framework of transparency and accountability is what really drives change. That is exactly the framework that we are setting up.
Various contributors to the debate talked about Mind’s blue light programme, and they were right to do so. I pay tribute to those who are working to deliver it. Since 2014 we have provided £7 million to pay for mental health support through the blue light programme, which was topped up after Grenfell. It provides advice through a network on mental wellbeing, stress and anxiety, seeking help for a mental health problem, supporting a colleague with a mental health problem, post-traumatic stress disorder and supporting someone as a friend or family member.
In addition—to speak to the point on the need for proper information about what works—every fire and rescue service in England now has access to a toolkit or framework called Oscar Kilo, which is also available to the police. It provides support and guidance for those who are responsible for wellbeing in each service, to assist them in developing and building robust, efficient and effective wellbeing support. As well as a framework of accountability and transparency, there is one of specific tailored support through the blue light programme and the Oscar Kilo toolkit. Those who are responsible for wellbeing and the local strategies have access to good information about what works, and that will grow.
Another entirely valid point was made about the need to ensure that the fire service has adequate resources to do its job. If we have insufficient capacity, or that capacity is too stretched, that will have an impact on wellbeing and people’s sense of confidence and professionalism in the job that they do.
I therefore confirm that fire and rescue authorities overall will receive around £2.3 billion in 2019-20. Single-purpose fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of 2.3%, in cash terms, and an overall increase of 0.3% since 2015-16. Bearing in mind that the debate is sponsored by the hon. Member for Kensington, in the Greater London Authority core spending power increased by 6.3% in 2019-20 compared with 2018-19, with an overall increase of 11% between 2015-16 and 2019-20. Reserves stood at £57.8 million in March 2018.
Although we have a healthy disagreement with the Labour Front-Bench team, we maintain that our fire services are adequately resourced for the demand that is placed on them. However, I have always made it very clear, and I continue to do so today, that as we move towards the next stage of fire funding—the comprehensive spending review next year—we are updating our understanding of demand, because the past is not necessarily a guide to the future. We will approach the Treasury with our bid for police and fire funding on an informed basis, to be absolutely sure that over the next three or five years—whatever the time of the CSR—our fire services have the resources they need to do the incredibly difficult job that they do, which includes ensuring provision for adequate support of wellbeing and the welfare of the most important assets in the system, which are our people.
On that note, I will close. I put on record the Government’s thanks to our firefighters for their work. At this time of year, when most of us are out there eating, drinking and making merry, our emergency services are working extremely hard to keep us safe. Our firefighters and police are the ones who run towards danger when most of us run away from it. As we have seen at Grenfell, at the terrible fire recently in Nottingham and on motorways up and down the country, they are often called to events that are absolutely terrible—in particular when they involve children—and will probably stay with them for all their lives. It is right that we as a Government are challenged to answer for what we are doing about our duty of care, but it is also right for us to take the opportunity to place on record our thanks.
Emma Dent Coad
I thank all my hon. Friends and other hon. Members for their contributions, especially on a day when so little is happening elsewhere.
I want to reflect on some of the very helpful contributions, in particular with reference to fire investigators and retained firefighters—of course, in London we do not have any, but they give fantastic service in other parts of the country, at huge expense to themselves. We heard a lot about stigma. Although the situation is better than it was, people still expect firefighters to be Hollywood superheroes, when we know they are flesh and blood, like us. We heard a lot about mental scars, such as flashbacks, which can be with people forever, and about the difficulties of dealing with that kind of thing in the long term.
Different kinds of mental health support are available. I have heard a lot about peer support. A local psychiatry officer said that what the firefighters went through at Grenfell was due more than anything to the longevity of the incident—it was not just one incident; it went on for the best part of a day—and that the effect on them was more akin to the experience of torture victims, rather than of people who went through something else traumatic. Things like peer support are hugely helpful in such cases, but she did not feel that it had been explored in that context. I hope that that will be taken into account.
I thank the Minister for his contributions on people strategies and what good looks like. I am afraid, however, that setting standards and targets will not really hack it in this case. Without the funding to support it, independent inspection and monitoring of what is already in place is not enough, because we know that enough support is not there at the moment. People are struggling.
I will buy the firefighters’ record, but the idea that they have to fundraise for the charity that they will then rely on—they have to support it—is gutting, actually. I feel very strongly that we should aim for a world without charity, and where we do not need charity. In the interim, however, charity should be backing up the statutory services and certainly not replacing them. We are in a very bad state when we have to rely on charities to do things that Government should provide.
To summarise, existing services are clearly inadequate. We hear that from community members and firefighters. Today, we have heard lots of comments to back that up. We must indeed honour the brave men and women who keep us safe, but we cannot do that with words of praise alone; we have to act to take better care of them. Will the Minister please review and increase the funding, or work towards ways of doing so, rather than only setting standards and targets that are unobtainable under the existing funding regime? We need to tackle the issues that have been laid out today, and I hope he will reflect on that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered mental health support for firefighters.
Harrow Council Funding
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future funding of Harrow council.
I have lived in Harrow all my life and I feel immensely proud of my community. Although I have disagreed a number of times with decisions Harrow Council has taken, I have always been grateful for the hugely important job that it and its staff do for my constituents and the wider borough. Harrow Council should be better funded, and I look to the Minister and his Department to begin to make a significant difference in that regard.
The council faces a number of distinctive challenges in the delivery of public services, which the lack of central Government funding is exacerbating. Harrow is the second most religiously diverse and the fourth most ethnically diverse borough nationally, with 61% from a black and minority ethnic background. Some 157 different languages are spoken in Harrow schools, and 28.5% of residents do not have English as their first language. That is significantly higher than the London average of 20% and the national average of 8%.
The number of Harrow residents aged over 85 is predicted to increase by more than 60% by 2029, and 15% are already aged over 65, compared with the London-wide average of 12.5%. We have the fourth largest EU population in London—it is estimated that around 50,000 EU nationals are resident in the borough. Low wages and in-work poverty are particular problems in Harrow. Wages paid in Harrow workplaces average £575 per week for full-time workers compared with the London-wide average of some £692.
Those challenges mean there is huge pressure on Harrow Council to deliver effective public services. Earlier this month, the council published its draft budget for next year, which spells out both the important work the council is doing and the dire situation it has been put in by Government cuts. After seven years of constant cutbacks, Harrow Council has had to find a further £17 million for the upcoming financial year. Harrow will have seen its main source of central Government funding—revenue support grant—fall by some 97% by 2019-20. It is estimated that over the four-year period from 2015-16 to 2018-19 the council needed to fund an £83 million budget gap to achieve balanced budgets. If we extend that period, it is estimated that by 2020-21 the council will have had to find £125 million to balance its budgets.
In addition to the cuts in revenue support grant, further money has been required to fund growth as a result of demand pressures, including rising homelessness, increased special needs placements and rising social care costs. Moneys have also been needed to fund the impact of inflation, capital financing costs and other reductions in specific grants, such as those to support schools. Under the new methodology for calculating revenue support grant, Harrow was the sixth hardest hit of the London boroughs in 2015-16 and 2016-17, losing some £10 million annually.
Harrow Council is one of the lowest funded councils in London. In 2015-16, its revenue spending power per head was £159, 17% lower than the London average, ranking it 26th out of the 32 London boroughs. A similar comparison with the England average shows Harrow’s revenue spending power per head was £127, 14% below the average, ranking it 105th out of 120 local authorities. Quite how the Prime Minister can claim that austerity is over is beyond me. In Harrow, as nationally, it feels unrelenting—frankly, it is getting worse.
In July, Harrow began the full transition to universal credit. More than 17,000 residents are expected to be on it by the time the transition is completed. Our housing market is under intense pressure—for many, rents are very difficult to afford—and in some parts of the borough 40% of children live in poverty. As in other parts of the country, demand for adult social care outstrips savings, as councils are asked to provide ever more with ever-diminishing resources.
Other public services in the borough with a significant interface with the council are also under severe pressure. Harrow is having to cope with a significant increase in violent crime at a time when police numbers are set to decrease further and funding for youth services has been cut by more than 75% in cash terms since 2010. The clinical commissioning group faces a deficit of approximately £50 million and has already cut popular healthcare services such as the Alexandra Avenue walk-in service in my constituency. With the highest proportion of over-85s in London, the absence of a local NHS service that might absorb with less fight some of the financial pressures arising from having proportionately more vulnerable older adults exacerbates the pressure on the council.
Schools, too, face ever-increasing financial pressures, making it harder for them to accommodate as many requests to help children with special needs as they might want to. As I mentioned, Harrow is having to cope with a significant increase in violent crime. We have already lost just short of 200 police officers, and the fear is that we will have to lose even more.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour, for giving way. He is painting a bleak picture of the funding position. May I put two points to him? First, if the council were more business friendly and encouraged businesses to invest in Harrow, more business rates would come in. Business rates income in Harrow has been declining for many years, and it is forecast to reduce further.
Secondly, I believe I am correct in saying that at the moment the budget is balanced for next year, but the forecasts for future years are very challenging indeed. Has the hon. Gentleman seen any documentation from Harrow Council that sets out that dire picture? That may lead to a lobbying strategy in which he and I go to see Ministers together, with the aim of securing more money not just for the council but for specific issues such as those he describes—it may lead to our supporting each other to get more money for the services that all our residents depend on.
Gareth Thomas
I say gently to my neighbour that I will come on to Harrow’s excellent reputation among businesses and the recognition it has received for its performance in that area. The figures I quote are figures that I sought from the council—I am sure it would be willing to provide him with them were he to approach it. There is one specific issue on which the Minister would be able to assist if he wanted to, and I intend to come to that in due course.
Harrow has always been a prudent borough. Despite its challenges, the council has not overspent for 11 years. Its leadership and supporting councillors have been determined to shield frontline services from the axe as far as they can, but the cuts are now so deep that the council is unable to balance the books without reducing those vital services to the bare bones. Local residents are understandably concerned about the impact of funding cuts on the council’s ability to keep the streets clean and to help to deal with antisocial behaviour, among other things. By continuing to make cuts of such scale, the Government are leaving councils such as Harrow in an impossible situation and leaving our most vulnerable people at risk.
To be fair, the council has already made large efficiency savings and taken great strides to increase revenue. It has led the way in digitalising many services—87% of customer transactions are carried out online, leaving extra resources to look at the most complex and difficult cases. Council tax has been increased year on year—sadly, it is now the third highest in London, but the collection rate is above 97%. The council has commercialised services and looked at innovative ways to supply residents with additional quality services that generate new income while not endangering existing businesses and the private sector. From offering services such as training, a cookery school and gardening services to MOT testing and dealing with food and trade waste, the council has been very innovative. It has also marketed itself successfully for major film locations and for commercial events in our parks. It is a leader in shared services and is working with a number of councils to make significant efficiencies for frontline and back office services together.
As I indicated, Harrow is blessed with very dedicated and hardworking staff; in 2017, its children’s services attained a “good” rating from Ofsted, putting Harrow in the top 25% of councils across the country for performance in that fundamental service—a remarkable achievement in the circumstances. However, the council cannot be expected to deliver first-rate services with a third-rate budget level of funding, and local people know that.
Cuts are already having a big impact. Harrow has closed four libraries and significantly scaled back its work in public health. Drug, alcohol and smoking cessation services have been reduced, and all discretionary grants to the charity sector have been ended. The council has also been forced to reduce taxi card provision for the disabled to the lowest level in London. There has been a significant reduction in the number of children and families that the borough’s children’s centres are able to support. Lack of funding is holding back any ability the council might have to respond appropriately to other identified local needs, such as meeting the needs of young people.
The Young Harrow Foundation, in partnership with the council, conducted a survey of school-aged children between 10 and 19, which received an astonishing 4,500 responses. The results are very worrying. Mental health and violent crime were serious concerns for Harrow’s young people; 10% said they have suicidal thoughts and 15% said they need support relating to self-harm. We all know that lives are blighted when vulnerable members of society cannot access the help they need, and when people are unable to achieve their potential, everyone loses out.
In response to some of the acute issues facing councils, the Government have offered occasional one-off payments to, at best, paper over the cracks. For important services, that means councils are unsure of whether they will have the funding for key provision, and residents do not know whether vital services will continue to exist, from one year to the next. In short, it leaves local authorities unable to make long-term spending commitments to deliver some of the preventative work that would really benefit residents.
Harrow has had success in bidding for some such external funding to tackle some of those challenges. It secured £500,000-worth of investment from the Home Office to help fund early intervention services for young people at risk of joining gangs and becoming involved in youth violence. It also secured £760,000 to help support economic growth locally and was recently granted some £32 million by City Hall to build just over 600 new council homes. While this type of funding is of course welcome, these too are one-off payments for specific activities, offering no guarantees of continued funding, and the council may find itself having to cancel successful programmes if funding is not renewed. I gently suggest that that is not a grown-up, sensible way of funding local government.
Bob Blackman
The hon. Gentleman points out, rightly, that the budget in Harrow is balanced this year by one-off payments, I believe, as opposed to long-term arrangements. That is one of the things leading to future problems. Can he also answer this? Harrow is one of a very small minority of councils across the whole of England that failed to sign up for the multi-year settlement, which, although it is not always easy, gives certainty about funding over a number of years. Where councils have done that, they have known and been able to forecast what their income level will be. Harrow refused to do so, and has never answered my question why it refused. That brings the uncertainty of not knowing how much money will come in each year.
Gareth Thomas
With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he will recognise that even councils that have signed up to the arrangement with the Government that he describes have still faced significant additional pressures from all sorts of sources, be it social care or homelessness, as I have already outlined, exacerbating the difficulties in setting sensible long-term budgets that meet needs. It would certainly be extremely welcome to hear him putting pressure on his ministerial colleagues to allocate additional funding for the London Borough of Harrow.
Despite the difficulties I have set out, the council has continued to play its part in trying to foster economic growth, supporting the regional and sub-regional objectives for business, employment and skills set out by the West London Economic Prosperity Board. The investment pot of £1.1 million from business rates retention is going into supporting businesses in accessing online services. Furthermore, Harrow Council is supporting that by investing £480,000 to try to help to develop the skills of low-paid, low-skilled and self-employed residents in the borough. Indeed, the council has been recognised for its work in this area, winning the Best Small Business Friendly Borough award. The council is also building new housing, making use of the new homes bonus, and has set out a major regeneration programme to maximise use of council-owned sites to support sustainable housing growth, as a result of which it will get some additional income from council tax.
I recognise that Harrow Council is not alone in facing challenges of the scale that I have set out. Surrey, Torbay, Lancashire and many other councils are already in serious financial problems. Commissioners were called in to Northamptonshire council after it ran out of money. Other councils are privately warning of similar difficulties soon. Many councils are having to prop up their budgets with funding from reserves, something that Harrow has not been able to do. I gently ask how many more signs the Government need before they wake up to the crisis in local government.
One area where the Minister could help immediately is financial assistance to help the council to cover the cost of subsidence arising from the sinkhole discovered under Pinner Wood School, which has cost the council some £5.2 million and has obviously exacerbated its already very difficult financial position. We urgently need fairer funding for local government. It is not good enough for the Government to preside over the managed decline of local services. I know that in Harrow and elsewhere councils are doing some great work, but on a shoestring, and the time has come for the Government to reverse the cuts and give councils, particularly my council, Harrow, the proper levels of investment they need.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) on securing this debate. His pride in his home is evident to all, and I pay tribute to that. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) here; he is also a champion of his constituency, particularly when it comes to matters of local government. We are grateful for and appreciate his particular experience and insights in our debates.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the important points that the hon. Member for Harrow West raised. In doing so, I thought it would be helpful to use a framework that I like to use—my vision of the role of local government, which consists of three main areas. The first is to drive economic growth, the second to help the most vulnerable in our society and the third to build strong communities. If hon. Members will allow me, I would like to take those areas in turn, specifically in relation to Harrow, and address the points raised.
The draft local government finance settlement, which was published last week, confirms that core spending power across the nation is forecast to increase from £45 billion this year to £46.4 billion next year, representing a cash increase of 2.8% and a real-terms increase in resources available to local authorities. In the next financial year, Harrow Council’s core spending power will rise to £180 million, representing a 3.7% cash increase, which is substantially above the average for England and, indeed, other London local authorities. Core spending power is the standard measure of a local council’s financial resources, and it includes money from central Government grant, council tax, business rates baseline and further specific grants for adult social care and the new homes bonus.
Beyond grants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, driving economic growth is the only way to ensure the vibrancy of our local communities and to raise the vital funds we need to sustain our public services. Business rates retention is one such opportunity. Under the current business rates retention system, local authorities estimate that they will retain around £2.5 billion in business rates growth this year, which is a significant revenue stream on top of the core settlement funding.
This year, all London boroughs, the Greater London Authority and the City of London are jointly piloting 100% business rates retention. Based on their forecasts, the London pilot pool would retain an additional £348 million compared with the current system. This vital incremental income supports a number of strategic investment projects in London, including investment in high-speed broadband in Harrow and other west London boroughs.
As we confirmed in the provisional settlement, all London authorities, including Harrow, will continue to pilot increased business rates retention at the level of 75% in forthcoming year. I am confident that, when it comes to supporting growth and financial sustainability, Harrow is getting what it needs.
Beyond growth, one of the most undeniably crucial roles that local government continues to play is in helping the most vulnerable in society. It is local authorities that support the elderly, the disabled and our children in need. I am in no doubt about how challenging it has been for councils to drive efficiencies, particularly in the face of growing pressures on social care, as they contribute to rebuilding our economy and tackling the deficit we inherited from the last Labour Government.
I pay tribute to the work of councillors up and down the country, which is why I was delighted that the Budget committed another £1 billion of extra funding for local services, with a strong focus on supporting some of our most vulnerable groups, including £650 million for adult and children’s social care in the next financial year. Of that, £240 million will go towards easing winter pressures, with the flexibility, as requested by councils, to use the remaining £410 million for either adult or children’s services and, where necessary, to relieve demands on the NHS. I am pleased to confirm that, as a result of these payments, Harrow Council will receive an additional £2.63 million in the next financial year. That is on top of the £240 million announced in October to address winter pressures this year, of which Harrow Council received a further £1 million.
I am pleased to say that the focus on this area and the better joined-up collaboration between the NHS and local authorities, through the Government’s better care fund, is paying dividends. Social care across the country has freed up 949 beds a day since the February 2017 peak—a 39% reduction in social care-related delayed transfers of care. I am also pleased that Harrow performed well, achieving a 58% reduction in social care-related delayed transfers of care since August last year, and now has delayed transfers of care levels significantly below the England average.
The Government’s troubled families programme is also making amazing strides in supporting our society’s most vulnerable families. I am proud to say that £920 million has been committed to the programme during this spending period. As of September this year, nearly 130,000 families have achieved significant and sustained progress against the problems identified when they first entered the programme. Some 1,400 families have been working with the programme in Harrow alone during this period, and the council is forecast to have benefited from more than £3 million over the course of the scheme.
We all see that local authorities’ vital work in building strong communities that thrive is beneficial not only to them, but to wider society. Strong communities are cohesive, and it was with that in mind that the Government announced a £100 million fund to help to ease pressures on local services resulting from recent migration. The fund has so far committed a total of £832,000 to Harrow to contribute to better public services and a more cohesive society.
Gareth Thomas
I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging some of the council’s very good work on social care and working with troubled families. Will he acknowledge that managing the sinkhole underneath Pinner Wood School—a significant and important primary school that had to be moved—is costing the council considerable sums of money? Will he be willing to meet me and a deputation from the council to discuss whether the Government could provide any further funding to help the council manage some of those costs?
Rishi Sunak
With all the will in the world, there is little I can do to help on that particular matter. As the local government Minister, I have no authority or control over the schools budget. The issue he raises relates specifically to a school.
I know that council officials have been in conversation with officials from the Department for Education, but I am obviously not privy to those conversations. I am of course happy to meet him and his deputation, but I think he may be better directing that conversation toward the Department for Education. I know that close to £10 million has been invested in maintained and voluntary-aided schools in Harrow over the last few years, and that the Department for Education is refurbishing or rebuilding about 10 different schools in Harrow through the priority schools rebuilding programme, although not the particular school that he mentions.
Beyond schools, £434,000 has been committed to support Harrow in caring for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, further helping to strengthen community cohesion. However, strong communities need to be connected. The roads that our constituents travel on daily form a key part of their lives, which is why at the Budget the Chancellor announced that an extra £420 million will be made available for local authorities such as Harrow to fix potholes and carry out other road repairs, ensuring safer and better roads across our communities.
Strong communities also need well-built, affordable homes, which is why, through the Budget, the Government are supporting local authorities such as Harrow to get much-needed homes built, including through the widely welcomed lifting of the housing revenue account borrowing cap. I am pleased that we were able to maintain the new homes bonus baseline for the forthcoming year. Harrow will receive more than £4 million in new homes bonus funding in the forthcoming financial year. I am also pleased that Harrow is in conversations with the Department to receive a housing infrastructure fund grant worth almost £10 million to help with the delivery of more than 600 homes at the Grange Farm site.
Strong communities also need vibrant high streets to bring us together and ensure our towns have a beating heart. The Budget provided a boost for our high streets and a new future high streets fund. I strongly urge the local authority, in conjunction with its MPs, to bid for that fund and see what it can do to drive growth along the high streets in its community.
The hon. Member for Harrow West was right to highlight the funding formula. The current funding formula needs to be updated and replaced with a robust, straightforward approach that involves a strong link between local circumstances and the way that we allocate resources. The latest round of that consultation was issued alongside the provisional settlement last week. I know that Harrow Council has contributed to our consultations in the past, and I will be delighted to hear from it again on the particular pressures that it feels it suffers from and that should be captured within a new formula. I am sure that it will be happy to see that some things it talked about in its previous submission are covered, such as the rapidly changing population dynamics that councils such as Harrow experience on the ground. Those are absolutely things that the new formula should accurately capture, to make sure that it is sustainable not only for this year but for years into the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Harrow West for calling the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for contributing. It is my privilege to have this job and to champion local government here in Westminster. Whether it is driving economic growth, caring for the most vulnerable in our society or building those strong, cohesive communities that we cherish, local authorities in London and across the country do an amazing job.
Bob Blackman
I gently remind my hon. Friend that Harrow suffers a particular problem of businesses moving out of the area, and it therefore has a declining income from business rates. What will the Government do to help local authorities such as Harrow that suffer this problem?
Rishi Sunak
The business rates retention pilots and the extra incentive to retain more business rates, combined with the infrastructure investment that comes through the housing infrastructure fund and the growth funds, give councils the exact powers they need to drive growth and then rewards them with the retained business rates. I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to talk through any other ideas that he has. The high street fund will be an excellent place to start.
I am grateful for the dedication of hon. Members and councils. I will continue to ensure that their voices are heard in this place and that they get the support that they need.
Question put and agreed to.
HBOS Reading: Independent Review
(6 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the independent review of HBOS Reading.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. There are some fundamental business principles that underpin any free market economy: we compete on a fair and level playing field; we all have a fair, fighting chance of success; we all play by the same rules; and our regulations and the rule of law ensure, where injustices occur, that justice is done and is seen to be done.
Many people in the Public Gallery today no longer believe in those principles. They have been subject to scandalous, criminal fraud perpetrated by senior bank managers at Lloyds and HBOS. They have had to suffer further scandal at the hands of those at the highest level in the bank who, when made aware of the fraud, instead of holding their hands up to what had gone wrong, denied any wrongdoing for 10 years. Indeed, there is clear and compelling evidence that the most senior management sought to cover up the fraud, suppressed evidence, and used the HBOS review process, which is supposedly there to compensate the victims, to minimise payments and perpetuate the cover-up. Incredibly, our system—our regulators—stood by and allowed the fraud against the victims to continue.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman knows my view of him. He does an enormous amount of work on these issues, and I pay tribute to him for all that work. He will be aware of my constituent, Mr Alun Richards, whose business went under through the Lloyds Banking Group. He has mentioned public bodies, including the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Serious Fraud Office, turning a blind eye. He and I have been working for a number of years to try to get those organisations to deal with these complaints. Millions and millions of pounds have gone missing. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a need for a fundamental review, led by the Treasury, of how we can get a better banking system that works for customers and is a lot more ethical about how it conducts its business practices?
Kevin Hollinrake
I do agree. The sector is so far away from the banking sector that we need that fundamental reform is needed not only in the regulatory process, but in the mechanisms that enable victims to hold the banks to account, which I will come on to soon.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. One of my constituents, Michael Field, has been a victim of the banks as well. He borrowed from Lloyds to finance the building of several houses. He maintained his payments and fulfilled the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, yet Lloyds seized his assets and foreclosed on him. He then discovered that his assets had been sold on to another organisation within the bank. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government need to have parallel and very specific inquiries about the operation of Lloyds in relation to these and similar matters?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes his case very well. The difficulty goes back to my point about justice being seen to be done. There is no mechanism currently. I cannot judge the guilt or innocence in the business relationship between his constituent and his bank. The key is to allow mechanisms for these people to take their complaints forward, without having to be subject to the one-sided, partial process that they are subject to today. That is what the Griggs review is.
I will now make a little progress, if I may.
Alex Cunningham
I just want to make the point that my constituent fulfilled all the terms and conditions and maintained his payments, yet he has no recourse. I take the point about being able to make a complaint, but what happened should never have been allowed to happen.
Kevin Hollinrake
I agree, and there are many cases like that. I will talk about the redress processes shortly.
There are three elements to what we are discussing: the fraud itself, the potential cover-up of the fraud, and the review that supposedly provides justice for the victims of the fraud. There were finally convictions for the fraud in January 2017. Six people, including three former HBOS employees, were convicted of defrauding business customers over 10 years earlier. More than £250 million in total was defrauded, and the people who were guilty of the crimes got 47 years in jail.
Many people lost millions of pounds—in some cases, it was tens of millions—yet these issues did not come to light because of the regulators. They came to light because of individuals who were so persistent and determined; I am thinking particularly of Paul and Nikki Turner, journalists such as Ian Fraser, and Sally Masterton, who worked for Lloyds. Had it not been for them, the issues would never have come to light. Of course, their efforts have taken a great toll on them and come at great cost to them.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He has referred to the people who are in jail at the moment. One of my constituents was working for a company called Carringworth. Through its dealings with those people who are in jail now, her company was forced into administration. Now, after 10 years of hell, the administrators are putting huge pressure on her to settle. Is it not wrong that she should be forced to settle before the establishment of an independent set of organisations that can adjudicate and ensure that she gets the justice that she deserves?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he touches on the human cost of these issues as well as the financial cost, which is critical. What we want to see, which I will come on to, is an opening up of all the cases that have been through the Griggs review by means of examination through a completely impartial arbitration process that will fairly adjudicate and arbitrate the claims.
As if the fraud were not bad enough, there was a cover-up. HBOS and Lloyds became aware of the issue from 2006 onwards. The current chief executive, António Horta-Osório, was made aware of the fraud as soon as he took up his post in 2011 by the Turners and many others. Famously, in September 2013, Sally Masterton, a senior risk officer at Lloyds Banking Group, on the instructions of her line manager, produced a report called the Project Lord Turnbull report. Its findings were shocking. There was a corporate strategy within Lloyds and HBOS to conceal the fraud, which caused substantial loss to shareholders and investors.
At that point, there was another opportunity for the bank to hold its hands up and say, “Right, enough is enough. Let’s get all of this out in the open and get to the bottom of these issues.” Did that happen? No, that is not what happened. Sally Masterton was suspended from her job and discredited to the Financial Conduct Authority. Scandalously, she was prevented from working with the police, despite being told that she was vital to the investigation, and then she was fired. The senior management did not make the report available to non-executive directors or the chair of the board for three years. Finally, last month, the bank reversed its position and confirmed that Sally had
“acted with integrity and in good faith at all times”.
There were other elements of cover-up. Thames Valley police said that Lloyds had led them a “merry dance” in their £7-million investigation of these issues. There is evidence of a wider fraud, certainly from victims going through the Griggs review to whom I have spoken. They talk about other senior managers, including Paul Burnett, high risk managing director at HBOS Edinburgh, personally having involvement with HBOS Reading. HBOS compliance officers were embedded in the fraudsters’ operations, and of course gagging orders are used across the board to prevent more disclosures from coming to light.
Let me move on to the review. It was supposed to be an independent review and was headed by Professor Griggs—that is why we call it the Griggs review. It was supposed to provide swift and fair compensation to the victims. However, the SME Alliance, which has done so much work for so many of the victims, instructed Jonathan Laidlaw, QC, who names among his clients the Bank of England, to review the review itself. He determined, in a short report, that the review is “procedurally defective”, and its principles are “flawed and appear partial” to the bank’s interests. That description is consistent with the experiences and stories of the victims. They have described the review to us as corrupt, disgraceful, one-sided and evincing an absence of due diligence, with manipulated documents and lies about evidence. Agreed payments are not met, and the process makes life as difficult and unpleasant as possible. These are victims of fraud.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman add one more element, namely deliberate over-complication? It seems that this whole saga has been made so opaque that it is difficult to get to the bottom of what really happened. Does he agree?
Kevin Hollinrake
I totally agree with that. I will come on to the disclosure of evidence shortly, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the bank could have dealt with this summarily many years ago, as soon as it came to light, but it chose not to. Why it chose not to is an open question.
The basic assumption of this review was laid out by Professor Griggs himself, who was quoted as saying that when he deals with these businesses, he is
“invariably dealing with the financial equivalent of a car crash.”
How can that be the basis for any judgment that these businesses were viable? The judge in the case stated that some “were capable of rescue” and that there was
“deliberate mismanagement of these companies”
by the advisers—by the fraudsters. He added that there were “plunderings made from them”, and that
“fees and any useful assets”
were taken from them. Why would the review ignore a High Court judge? Only four of the 76 cases have been dealt with by means of a consequential loss. All the rest have been dealt with through distress and inconvenience—in other words, all those businesses were dud businesses. That is simply not statistically possible.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very forceful speech. This subject is close to many business people’s hearts. Does he agree that because the bank has refused to pay for forensic accounting, victims are left powerless, even if the bank was willing to look at this? As he has just said, the bank simply labelled most of the businesses as failures. It is deliberately making it impossible for the victims to be heard properly with forensic accounting.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is completely one-sided. It means there is a complete imbalance of power in what is supposed to be an independent review, because the bank itself has phalanxes of advisers, whereas the victims clearly cannot afford to provide for the same number or calibre of advisers.
Offers are not made on an open basis; it is a take-it-or-leave-it offer. Imagine, Sir Christopher, that you have been stripped of all your assets over a period of 10 years. You are desperately trying to seek justice, and finally somebody offers you a cheque. Your only other option is to go to the court. What do you do? It is a take-it-or-leave-it offer. If you say, “Actually, I don’t think that is enough,” you get a secondary meeting, but there is no interrogation of the facts; it is simply take it or leave it. That is the nature of the review.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling this debate. In fact, I called a debate on this very subject 10 years ago, when my constituents Justin Riggs and Karl Capp told me how they were being treated by their bank. This is one of the biggest frauds to hit many hard-working small business people in this country. The simple point is that the bank, rather than hiding behind regulations and technicalities, should be giving generous and quick compensation to many people who have lost their businesses, because of a fraud that was covered up and hidden for years by senior members of that bank.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The levels of compensation should be determined by an independent third party, not by the bank itself, because there is no methodology. Nobody can contest the findings of Professor Griggs. There is no way of interrogating how he has arrived at a number. They simply say—I have heard this so many times from Lloyds directors—“Well, we settled most of the claims,” as if that is somehow an endorsement of the process. The fact is that the victims had no other option—no appeal process—other than going to court, which would have cost millions of pounds.
Victims cannot even get access to the evidence. In a normal court process there would be disclosure of evidence, so that they could see the evidence they are being judged against. There was no disclosure of evidence. Lloyds has found a better way, according to a letter it sent me on 20 September. It said it had “created an alternative approach” to disclosure, “to protect customers interests”. That is its approach. It is complete obfuscation.
Eligibility is determined by the bank itself. It decides who is eligible for the review and who is not by invitation only. Only directors get to decide, not shareholders or suppliers, nor Her Majesty’s Treasury, which must have lost a lot of money through this process in respect of tax. It only dealt directly with the individuals who were convicted, not their deputies or other people who may well have been involved in the fraud. This is not an independent review. Professor Griggs is paid by the bank. His remit is determined by the bank. I have seen evidence that determinations he has made have been overruled by the bank.
This is in no way an independent process. Of course, everybody who goes to it is subject to a gagging order. The bank provided us with confirmation that clause 4 in its settlement agreements does not prevent victims talking to it or to the press. However, I have seen another agreement, completely different from the one the bank provided to the Treasury Committee, which contains extra clauses that do prevent these victims speaking to the press or to the authorities. Justice must be seen to be done. Lloyds bank is the judge, jury and executioner. The all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, of which I am now co-chair, said right from the start that this is the wrong way to deal with the process, but Lloyds pushed on anyway.
Moving on to a solution to these problems, the APPG believes that all cases—anybody who has been subject to the Griggs review—should be re-examined through a completely independent process. The APPG has recommended a financial services tribunal, which would judge cases based on a fair and reasonable test, with one-way cost shifting, so the banks cannot simply keep people out of court by writing huge cheques out to their own lawyer. That would mean that people would get an independent examination of their case. Victims can then get compensation and move on.
We believe that a tribunal is required, with an arbitration process for past claims. There have been four different reviews this year of how we can fill this gap, make this process fairer and get back to a more balanced situation, with restitution and redress. Three of those reviews recommended a financial services tribunal, as we do. The one report that did not was sponsored by the banking industry itself and it simply says that we should increase the powers, remit and jurisdiction of the ombudsman schemes. While that is a good step forward, we do not feel that it is enough.
That addresses compensation, but we need to go further. We need to change the culture in the whole sector, as the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) said. In terms of the Lloyds management, I do not see how the position of the chief executive, António Horta-Osório, is tenable. Given the way that the effective whistleblower has been treated, the way this has been covered up and the way that the process has been deliberately partial, I do not see how the Lloyds management have been consistent with the behaviour required under the senior managers regime. I think António Horta-Osório should resign. I also think he should face investigation under the senior managers regime.
Finally, the Financial Conduct Authority itself—our regulator—has many questions to answer. Why did it approve the scheme? Did it approve the scheme? We have heard conflicting evidence on that. It is a national disgrace that Lloyds has been allowed to operate this sham of a review process. Andrew Bailey himself has questions to answer. Why did he allow the process to continue? Why was he not aware of the patent defects in the process? Nevertheless, the FCA should take charge and undertake an investigation of the senior management under the senior managers regime.
We in this place are defenders of free markets. For me, this is the most important issue that any of us will ever deal with. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, I cannot rest until the matter is settled. My life has been transformed through the opportunities of free markets. In the main, the bankers I have dealt with over 25 years have done a tremendous job—a fair job—to help my business to thrive through some difficulties. I was one of the lucky ones. Not all bankers are the same. Most people in the industry are decent people trying to do the right thing, so it is even more important to hold those who are not to account. We have to make sure that everyone has the opportunities that I have had—that we have had—including all our children and grandchildren. We must all demand, for the sake of the victims, that justice is done and is seen to be done.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing the debate. I echo his concerns about the failure of the Griggs review and whether it really provides an outcome for the victims of this terrible fraud, many of whom have suffered far more losses than just financial ones.
The Griggs review was established to offer fast and fair compensation to the victims, but its reality is very different. The all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance has received many representations, as have I, that have described it as a farce, a cynical whitewash and, above all, not fit for purpose, because it is an internal scheme with complete control held by the bank.
We have seen that tactic time and time again in the financial industry. It establishes an internal compensation scheme and conducts an internal investigation to give an illusion of accountability, when the reality is that it can maintain significant control with minimal independent oversight. That is evident from the Dobbs review, which was intended to establish whether issues relating to the HBOS Reading fraud were properly investigated and appropriately reported to the authorities, and whether individuals in the Lloyds Banking Group deliberately tried to conceal or cover up information relating to the fraud. Although we are not questioning the integrity of Dame Linda and her team, the fact remains that they operate within the scope and parameters set by the bank, and they do not have the statutory powers required for a robust and thorough investigation of the matters.
Worryingly, as has been mentioned, the review will consider events only between 2009 and 2017, thereby ignoring the damning conclusions of the Turnbull report, which states that the cover-up of the fraud commenced as early as 2005. There will also be no interim report and the findings might not even be published. Lloyds bank must ensure that the findings are made public, otherwise the public and Parliament will simply not have confidence in the review.
That still leaves some important questions. Where are the regulators and the investigative agencies in that? The Financial Conduct Authority, the Serious Fraud Office and others seem comfortable to simply outsource their regulatory responsibilities to the organisations being investigated. In a recent letter to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, the director of the SFO, Lisa Osofsky, stated that it would not be appropriate for the SFO to comment on those matters, given the work that is currently being undertaken by the National Crime Agency and the Dobbs review. It cannot be acceptable that the organisations responsible for investigating fraud at the highest level are content to allow the bank that is under investigation to set the parameters and scope of their investigations. That cannot be right.
UK Finance has recently announced that the industry has agreed to establish a new ombudsman scheme for larger small and medium-sized enterprises with a turnover between £6.5 million and £10 million and a balance sheet up to £10 million. The APPG has written to the Minister with several concerns about the proposals. Crucially, there will still be a gap in accessing justice for those businesses with larger claims above £600,000. The FCA’s consultation on SME access to the Financial Ombudsman Service clearly shows that an award limit of £600,000 would exclude 41% of complainants because their claims would be above that level. The activities of the Global Restructuring Group were upwards of £1.7 million, so the limit would mean that a lot of people would not gain access to justice. Other people watching and experiencing that are questioning the responsibility of our banking system.
We require an independent mechanism for resolving such disputes that can decide cases on a fair and reasonable basis, capture unregulated entities, force the disclosure of information and the attendance of witnesses, and make those decisions in the public domain. That is what a financial services tribunal could do. I am afraid that I believe that is the only mechanism that would give businesses the confidence they require to borrow, that would give justice to those people who have come here today and who are watching outside this place, and that would put the banks back where they belong—as cornerstones of our communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) on securing the debate. He has been really engaging on the subject and he has been thorough in his investigation. We all appreciate his efforts. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), who made a valuable contribution to the debate. The hon. Members who are present are the ones who are usually present when there is a debate to do with banking. It is also good to see the Minister in his place. We have met and discussed these matters on many occasions. We have had copious correspondence—maybe enough to destroy a rainforest in Brazil or something, the letters have been so numerous. It is important that we discuss these matters and bring them forward.
I am conscious of the time, so my comments will be brief. I want to talk about the key point of the debate, which, for me, is in the final substantive paragraphs of the Minister’s letter of 3 December to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. The letter states:
“From conversations, meetings, and debates over the course of my tenure, I have seen that there are a number of businesses who feel that they have not already had access to a process which can address their complaints. This is why I am glad that the banking industry propose to put in place a method of addressing unresolved historic cases. Established independently of the banking industry, and overseen by a former senior judge, the scheme to consider these cases will make decisions on a ‘fair and reasonable’ basis, be adequately resourced to deal with more complex disputes, and operate in a transparent manner. The industry have also committed to producing proposals on the implementation of the voluntary scheme for future complaints from larger businesses, and I look forward to the next steps in this work. I trust that you welcome these developments, and will continue to work constructively with UK Finance on the delivery of these schemes by September 2019.”
I have two observations on that letter, which I hope the Minister will take note of. My first observation was expressed in part of my published statement that went to The Times’ journalist James Hurley last week, on Monday 3 December, following the publication of the UK Finance report. The article states:
“The Democratic Unionist Party”—
which I am privileged to be a member of, and which has been clear about where it stands—
“is among those who still believe a tribunal is needed.”
I was quoted as saying that my concerns about UK Finance’s exclusion of the tribunal were
“compounded by the legitimate concerns of many SMEs about the independence of past bank-led redress processes”.
This debate is founded on exactly that concern about the Griggs review. Many right hon. and hon. Members have already spoken, and probably will speak, here and elsewhere about the substantive evidence on that matter, including legal opinion, as referenced in The Times. I will return to that shortly.
My second observation is that the Minister clearly believes that the APPG on fair business banking and finance is being actively involved in the process of the development of these schemes with UK Finance. Page 4 of the UK Finance report states:
“UK Finance has been working with member firms, the Government and regulatory authorities to consider the proposals set out in the Walker Review and to consider how the industry can address the important issues raised.”
There seems to be an undertaking and a willingness from the Minister to do that. UK Finance refers to working with the Government, but, respectfully, that comment does not seem to underpin any active recognition or involvement of the APPG and parliamentarians in the development of the process. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has put that forward clearly in his correspondence. It is my view and that of the Democratic Unionist party that it is a fundamental error to exclude parliamentarians and that it will not help the development of a sound, independent solution. So we look to the Minister to address that issue. He appears to share my view and that of many others that the APPG and other parliamentarians should be actively engaged with UK Finance in compelling a fair solution. When he responds today in this debate, I urge him to reinforce his position for the public record in Hansard.
Finally, I come to my key point. Let me put it to the Minister today that we need a decision in his response to this debate on independent redress. Will the Government fully support the involvement of a truly independent public body—the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators—as central in these voluntary redress schemes? For the DUP and—I believe—the public interest, that makes considerable sense, and should both allay SME victims’ legitimate concerns and receive public support from UK Finance, as the institute will be truly independent and competent in considering this subject matter.
The institute would be available for all the historical cases and would be an available choice for complainants in the future, where they prefer not to proceed to an ombudsman for cases below the £600,000 limit, inclusive of the maximum claim limit of £100,000 in consequential damages. So a three-person tribunal is what we are seeking. It could hear cases with an upper compensation limit of the £10 million set out in the APPG’s position statement on 14 November. That is what I would like to see and I believe that is what the hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton and for East Lothian want to see. Indeed, I believe that it is what all of us in this Chamber want to see.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s affirmative response in support of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators today, so that we can all—please—move forward with confidence and belief that we can actually get somewhere, and so that this particular subject of truly independent redress is finally behind all of us.
I am very conscious of some of the headlines that we have seen recently, such as “Lloyds’ compensation scheme ‘defective’”. The article continued:
“A compensation scheme set up by Lloyds Banking Group for small business owners ruined by a banking fraud has been labelled ‘defective’, based on a ‘flawed’ methodology and ‘partial’ to the bank’s interests.”
It went on to say:
“Legal advice prepared…says that…the level of compensation being paid out ‘gives rise to a real sense of injustice’.”
I will finish with a last comment. The ombudsman-led approach would ensure that small businesses were able to challenge the banks for their past mistakes, while also protecting them in the future, and without the added costs of a tribunal. That is why I believe that it would be the best approach to rebuild trust between business owners and their bankers.
I support what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton has put forward and I seek a positive response from the Minister; I am sure that it will be forthcoming. However, after all these years of ill-doing—for want of a better word, and I am trying to be very careful with my words—or wrongdoing against people, almost putting them to the wall in banking deals, what I want to see, and what I think our constituents want to see, is a compensation scheme that fully enables people to seek full redress for what they have lost. Those who carried out these despicable acts also deserve to be made accountable for their indiscretions and criminal behaviour.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Thank you very much for chairing this debate, Sir Christopher, and I thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing it.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested, this is a debate that we have had a few different times on a few different but related topics. I also thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton for his diligence and for continuing to raise these issues. I hope that he continues to do so until we get a suitable resolution, preferably from the Government taking action in relation to this issue.
I will just say a few things from the point of view of the Scottish National party and explain our position on this issue. However, I will start by saying that it is absolutely necessary for the economy that banks lend to small and medium-sized enterprises, and it is absolutely necessary for the economy that SMEs can have a good relationship with banks, but that is never going to happen if banks are not trustworthy and are not proving themselves to be trustworthy. If there are issues such as the one that we are considering, the best thing that banks can do is to be as transparent as possible about past issues, to make it clear that they cannot possibly happen again in the future. And if banks such as HBOS-Lloyds were to do that, it would be less likely that other banks would do similar things in the future and make the same mistakes. So, the transparency issue is important on many levels, not least for gaining the support of the public and SMEs for banking institutions.
The way that the cover-up has happened, and the lack of transparency, has meant that the pain has been elongated for those people who have gone through this process. Instead of the banks holding their hands up and saying, “Yep, we made a number of mistakes; here they are and here is the redress that you deserve”, they are trying, at almost every opportunity, to hide things. I do not think that is a very sensible way forward for the banks.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned some of the people who had come forward and who had to work incredibly hard, in order to have their voices heard and their problems raised. I will just take this opportunity to thank those people, too, for the hard work that they put in to make sure that these issues saw the light of day, albeit not yet in the way that we would have liked them to see the light of day. Nevertheless, those people have worked incredibly hard to bring that about and I thank them for it.
The SNP has been clear that we want to see as much transparency as possible in the internal review documents that have been produced, which means ensuring that they are published so that we can see the full position. I know that there are issues about the positions taken in the internal review, but the more of those documents that are published, the better the access to justice there can be for those people who are campaigning.
I will also highlight the fact that the decisions that were taken around a lack of transparency have meant that the public purse has had to pay a disproportionately high cost in relation to this issue. It has meant that any investigations that have taken place have cost more money than they should, because the evidence that was requested has not been provided to them. That is a pretty damning indictment.
The other major issue that I will highlight is the pressurising of people to settle and to sign non-disclosure agreements, which is an abhorrent practice; it just should not happen. To ensure transparency in the future, it is really important that people are able to talk about what happened to them, so that it cannot happen again to anybody else and so that people are not allowed to get away with committing fraud such as this again.
The SNP has called for several policies that would help in the future on this issue. We have repeatedly called for the reinstatement of the reverse burden of proof; the SNP has been incredibly strong on that. Our manifesto also talked about strengthening whistleblowing legislation for those people working in banking organisations, and I will continue to make the case to the Minister that the existing legislation needs to be strengthened.
Lastly, we have pushed hard for a permanent commercial financial dispute resolution platform, an argument not dissimilar to the cases that have been made today. It is so important that SMEs and those individuals whose lives have been ruined do not have to go through an immoral and financially unviable court process to get the redress they should receive, and the Government can take action on that today.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Sir Christopher, for calling me to respond to this debate for the Opposition.
I also thank the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for securing the debate and for his work in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, as well as for all the APPG’s continued efforts on this matter; its commitment to securing justice for victims of banking fraud is commendable and important.
The hon. Gentleman, along with some other Members—especially my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—outlined clearly the challenges that people face in making sure that the victims of this scandal receive the redress they deserve through the current compensation scheme.
The actions of HBOS Reading and the then head of the impaired assets division and its corrupt partners were absolutely disgusting. I have read the accounts several times, but each time I reread the testimonies of the victims in advance of a debate such as this one it gives me a sense of rage. I find the injustices and the cynical destruction of other people’s lives unconscionable.
At a minimum, we must offer proper redress to those affected. It should not have been down to those victims to force action to be taken, but unfortunately that is not what we have heard today. Instead, we have heard about the difficulty in appealing against compensation decisions; about the lack of clarity and transparency over decisions; about documents that underpin judgments being hidden from victims; and about a fundamental lack of accountability and independence. Lloyds must explain how it plans to address those ongoing and legitimate concerns. I would like that response to be sent to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton and for Members present today to be copied in.
The number of contributions today, as well as their depth and detail, shows how pertinent and urgent the matter continues to be. It is important that it does not fall off the agenda, given the political situation, but I do not think it will, looking at the Members present today. We all have a responsibility to keep up the pressure to ensure that victims’ voices are heard. We are talking about much more than financial losses. Victims lost entire livelihoods, their health and, in some cases, their relationships on the basis of what happened to them.
Ten years on from the financial crisis, it is widely agreed that too many people were able to walk away from the serious damage they caused without any form of personal censure. It is clearly a good thing that the perpetrators of the fraud were brought to justice, and Thames Valley police deserves quite a lot of credit for that, as do Paul and Nikki Turner. Without securing a fair outcome for the victims, however, we have no hope of properly rebuilding trust between businesses and their banks in the long term.
Research shows that frighteningly low numbers of small businesses trust their banks to do the right thing by them, and we have to look at how we can improve that trust. We need to restore confidence that there is a level playing field for businesses when they find themselves in conflict with their banks, especially if those working at the bank have committed fraud, as was true in this case. All that makes it even more important that we agree a comprehensive package to properly address the legacy banking scandals that this country faces.
We can rebuild trust in business banking. We need a full public inquiry into all the scandals. We need an independent tribunal system for SMEs. Lastly, we need a much better and more robust system to protect and enable whistleblowing. I will briefly reiterate the case for each of those.
The first step has to be securing proper redress for SMEs that have been mistreated by their banks. Scandals such as this and RBS GRG, which we have all been present to debate in the past, have seriously dented confidence in our banking sector. That is why we have always called for a full public inquiry so that victims can get proper redress. Many colleagues in this room have argued for the same. It is not just about getting to the bottom of who was responsible for such scandals; it is about examining the wider systemic issues that allowed these events to take place. I was struck by the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) making the point that he raised these issues 10 years ago. It is simply too important for us to sweep them under the carpet without securing the ability to say to people, “This will never happen again.”
In terms of disputes, part of the problem is definitely that the gap is too big between the Financial Ombudsman Service for individuals and the full legal process for very big firms. We have all seen the recent report from Simon Walker, alongside the response from UK Finance, arguing that an expanded Financial Ombudsman Service would be sufficient to meet that need. As the Opposition, we believe that, given the severity of the damage done in such cases, we need to go further.
We support the proposals from the all-party group on fair business banking and finance to establish an independent tribunal to help create that level playing field between businesses and their banks. That is also supported by the Treasury Committee, as outlined in its report on SME finance published on 26 October. We share the Committee’s ultimate conclusion that an independent financial services tribunal is needed to handle more complex disputes, complementing the expansion of the ombudsman’s remit. In our experience so far with voluntary redress schemes, they have been beset by issues. We would not be here today if such schemes were sufficient to meet the need. Ultimately, I do not believe we can convince our constituents that the industry is in a position to self-regulate. That is why an independent tribunal system is necessary.
Lastly, a potential answer could lie in exploring our approach to whistleblowing in financial services in this country. We have to look at why the fraud took so long to uncover and how we can improve internal systems and processes to stop such things ever happening again. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton raised a specific example of how a whistleblower was treated in this case. In the US, the Dodd-Frank Act, introduced as a central piece of post-financial crisis legislation in 2010, is a demonstration of how much more robust the whistleblower protection framework could be. Whistleblowers are entitled to awards if their information leads to enforcement action. It is structured in such a way as to disincentivise false reports and to provide protection in the event of dismissal. The UK legislation, on the other hand, is much thinner. While the Financial Conduct Authority can assist whistleblowers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, that has not been enshrined in financial regulation in the way Dodd-Frank has been used in the US. There is a case for examining whether specific financial services whistleblower protection could be a starting point in seriously improving conduct in banking from the inside out.
In conclusion, if we are to restore trust in UK business banking, two outcomes must be achieved. First, we must ensure that the victims of the HBOS scandal get proper redress for the damage done to their businesses and livelihoods as a result of the appalling conduct by individuals who worked in the bank. The same is obviously true for victims of the RBS GRG scandal. The second responsibility we all share is to ensure that such a flagrant abuse of the bank and business relationship can never happen again on such a scale. The combination of a full, comprehensive public inquiry with a broad enough scope to capture the full breadth of victims, the establishment of an independent financial services tribunal and a radical rethink of how we treat whistleblowers could begin that process. The victims of this scandal were badly let down. I want to be able to stand here and say that they will all get justice and that this can never happen again.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) in securing this debate and making an excellent speech, as he has done on several occasions this year in this place, and setting out a case that was well reasoned in many elements. I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), who made fine contributions to the debate.
As we have heard today and in previous debates this year, incidents of banking misconduct and fraud have had a severe impact on some small and medium-sized enterprises. It has been and remains a top priority of mine in office to face up to the issues that have been generated by the cases that have been raised. I am conscious that many of the eight Back-Bench Members who have taken part in this debate will have heard sad and unfortunate stories from their constituents about how the actions of banks have affected them and their businesses. That includes not only the events at HBOS Reading, but the actions of the RBS Global Restructuring Group and the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products.
I begin by reminding Members that we expect the highest standards of behaviour across the financial sector. That is why the Government have introduced a number of necessary changes to restore public trust in financial services, such as the senior managers and certification regime. Before I address the substance of today’s debate, it is important that we pause for a moment to recognise the contribution that banks make to both the UK economy and our society. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) rightly said, it is necessary for banks to lend to SMEs. Lloyds Banking Group has, for example, increased its net lending to SMEs by £3 billion since 2014 and plans to triple that by 2020. Lloyds is the market leader in providing basic bank accounts, which help vulnerable customers, and its “Helping Britain Prosper” plan sets out a number of commitments on behaviour, diversity and charitable support.
However, I recognise that there has been a great deal of justified anger, within Parliament and beyond, regarding the fraud that was perpetrated against small businesses through the actions of individuals at the HBOS Reading branch. It is important to remember that the events at HBOS Reading constituted criminal activity. As such, it was right that those responsible were brought to justice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton pointed out. The FCA continues to conduct an enforcement investigation into the events surrounding the discovery of misconduct at HBOS Reading, resuming an investigation placed on hold at the request of Thames Valley police. I will be keenly following the progress and outcome of the investigation.
In addition, Lloyds Banking Group has appointed Dame Linda Dobbs, a retired High Court judge, as an independent legal expert to consider whether issues relating to HBOS Reading were investigated and appropriately reported to authorities at the time by Lloyds Banking Group, following its acquisition of HBOS. It will consider issues raised by the Project Lord Turnbull report referred to by my hon. Friend. Dame Linda’s findings will then be shared with the FCA.
It is right that Lloyds set up a compensation scheme for businesses affected by the events at HBOS Reading, overseen by Professor Russel Griggs. That scheme has seen offers made to all customers within its scope, with 90% of customers accepting the offer. However, I acknowledge the concerns that Members have raised about the Griggs scheme. Those concerns have certainly been heard, and I am pleased to announce that Lloyds has agreed with the FCA that Lloyds will commission a post-completion review to quality-assure the methodology and process of the Griggs scheme. [Interruption.]
Overseen by an independent person, that review will go above and beyond a normal lessons-learned exercise. The independence of the person appointed to lead the review is vital. In particular, I would expect that person not to have been employed by Lloyds in any way, and to be able to demonstrate complete operational independence from Lloyds. I am pleased that Lloyds has committed to publishing the review once it has concluded, and I welcome Lloyds’ commitment to implementing any recommendations it produces. I have been consistently clear that it is vital that we get the right processes and procedures in place, to ensure that SMEs can obtain fair redress and resolve disputes with their banks.
Mr Vaizey
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) will wind up the debate, so I feel a bit premature intervening on the Minister, who is a good friend. However, he will have heard the reaction in the Gallery to his announcement. It seems to me that it is just a re-wrapping of the current problem. Perhaps he will meet some of the Members in the Chamber, and some of the business owners affected, to hear and see what has actually been going on.
John Glen
I will happily meet my right hon. Friend—a distinguished former Minister who has been fighting on these matters for many years—and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. Of course I acknowledge the cynicism and concern of those present about the independence of this mechanism, but, as I said, Lloyds has committed to publishing the independent review once it is concluded and implementing any recommendations that it produces. My officials have been working with the FCA to ensure that that comes to pass. I take the concerns about how it progresses very seriously, and will happily meet Members to discuss them.
In the recent Budget, the Chancellor stated the Government’s support for the FCA’s plans to expand eligibility to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service to small businesses as well as micro-enterprises. Expanding the remit of the FOS will ensure that from 1 April 2019 well over 99% of all UK businesses will have access to fast, free and fair dispute resolution. I am aware that concerns have been raised about the capability of the FOS to adjudicate effectively in such cases, and I discussed those concerns with the Chair of the Treasury Committee just last week.
The FOS has announced its plans to create a ring-fenced, specialist unit to take on the additional cases, and for that unit to be supported by a panel of external SME experts. I welcome those plans, and I will visit the FOS early in the new year to check on how they are progressing. The FCA has also committed to reviewing the expansion of the FOS remit within two years of its coming into force, in addition to its usual oversight processes. I trust that that will reassure some hon. Members who have voiced concerns about the capability of the FOS.
I have also been clear that banks need to work hard to restore businesses’ trust in their institutions. That is why I welcome the banking industry’s recent commitment to establishing two independent voluntary ombudsman schemes, in response to Simon Walker’s review of dispute resolution for SMEs. One of those schemes will address complaints from SMEs with a turnover of £6.5 million to £10 million. The other will address unresolved historical complaints from SMEs that have not already been through a formal process.
I am pleased that the banking industry has set out the key principles for the operation of the scheme to address unresolved historical complaints. Independence, expertise, transparency and the right to an appeal are all hallmarks of a fair and robust process, and it is right that they underpin any approach to dispute resolution. I welcome the banking industry’s commitment to having those schemes up and running by September 2019. I look forward to seeing progress on establishing the implementation steering group very soon, and I am pleased that representatives from the all-party parliamentary group will have a role in that process.
The benefits of an ombudsman-style approach are clear, but I recognise that some hon. Members have advocated again today for the establishment of a tribunal to resolve disputes between banks and SMEs. An ombudsman-style approach can deliver fast, free and fair dispute resolution for SMEs, making decisions based on what is fair and reasonable. I believe that a tribunal, on the other hand, would need the regulation of SME lending, potentially restricting SMEs’ access to credit. It would still require SMEs to pay for expensive legal expertise, and it could make decisions only on a strict legal basis. That is why I believe that an expanded FOS remit, alongside the establishment of further independent ombudsman schemes as announced by UK Finance, will ensure the best outcomes for SMEs.
I highlight again that the Government, financial regulators and industry have done considerable work to tackle bad practice and to ensure that SMEs have access to appropriate dispute resolution and redress mechanisms. The all-party group on fair business banking and finance has been a key part of that work, and I sincerely commend its determination in the work that it has undertaken to ensure that SMEs are fairly treated.
The events at HBOS Reading constituted criminal activity. As such, it was right that those responsible were brought to justice. However, more clearly needs to be done to restore SMEs’ trust in the financial services industry. From the numerous meetings that I have had this year with a wide range of stakeholders, it is clear that we are all determined to deliver the best outcomes for SMEs.
I will closely follow the review of the Griggs scheme. I understand the concerns, but it is a significant step forward that that review will take place, and I will monitor the implementation of both the expanded FOS remit and the industry’s independent voluntary ombudsman schemes. I am confident that we have the right regulatory regime and dispute resolution mechanisms in place for the future. Events similar to those at HBOS Reading should not occur again, and I will do everything in my power in office to ensure that we learn the lessons from those appalling incidents years ago.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank the Minister for his comments. I hope the people watching the debate, either in the Gallery or at home, understand that they have many friends in Parliament who want this issue to be dealt with. I know that he does as well. There is such universality of support for dealing with it properly that we will get there in the end, although we are not yet where we need to be.
I appreciate that the Minister is going further than others have gone in the past. Nevertheless, people will be sceptical about the ability of a bank or an independent reviewer, as he called it, to look at the issues and to provide proper redress and a proper method of investigating the complaints. I tried to illustrate in my speech that it was not just about fraud, but about how the corporation itself sought to suppress evidence and a proper investigation of the issues. People are simply not going to accept that anything done voluntarily is fit for purpose.
The Minister is right that I think that a tribunal is the right way forward, rather than simply expanding the ombudsman scheme. For historical cases, it sets a limit of £350,000 as compensation, but every case we deal with is over that figure, so that does not go anywhere near addressing our concerns. It is not the compensation scheme that we need.
I also do not accept that small business lending will suffer if we have more regulation. We simply need a fair and reasonable test for deciding the claims. Ireland introduced regulation for small business lending a few years ago, and its lending has increased significantly since then, so the Minister’s fears are misplaced. We need to ensure that small and medium-sized business interests, which are the most critical interests to our economy, are protected and supported through the process.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the independent review of HBOS Reading.
Written Statements
Brydon Review of Audit Standards
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
Today, Sir John Kingman has published the final report of the Independent Review of the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published an interim report on its market study into the audit market.
The independent review of the FRC is a comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness of the regulator for audit and accounting, and the Government will take forward the recommendations set out in the review to replace the FRC with a new independent statutory regulator with stronger powers.
The CMA’s interim report on its study into the statutory audit market makes recommendations to improve competition and increase capacity in the audit market. This is central to improving audit quality and I now look forward to the publication of the final report.
There is also a need to consider the standards expected of audits, including whether auditors are assessing the right information, and utilising the right technologies. This question was first raised by industry itself, who proposed a review to look at the future of audit. However, audit reports are prepared for the benefit of shareholders and investors, and it is critically important that they are involved in shaping the future of audit.
This is why I am today announcing a Government-commissioned independent review to consider how to improve audit effectiveness. I have asked Donald Brydon, chairman of the London Stock Exchange Group and Sage Group, to chair this review.
This new review, building on the work of the FRC and CMA reviews, will now consider audits as a product and what the future, standards and requirements should be for audits in the future. To ensure the UK’s audit sector remains world leading by constantly looking to upgrade standards, the Brydon review into UK audit standards will consider:
How far audit can and should evolve to meet the needs of investors and other stakeholders, putting the UK at the forefront;
How auditors verify information they are signing off;
How to manage any residual gap between what audit can and should deliver; and
What are the publics expectations from audit.
The new review will also test the current model and ask whether it can be made more effective as well as looking at how audit should be developed to better serve the public interest in the future, taking account of changing business models and new technology.
[HCWS1193]
Public Spending
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
HM Treasury, along with all of HM Government, are committed to ensuring that we make a success of EU-exit. At Autumn Budget 2017, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer committed £3 billion to help Departments and devolved Administrations make necessary preparations for EU-exit in 2018-19 and 2019-20; this was subsequently increased by £0.5 billion in the 2018 Budget, meaning the Government have invested over £4 billion in preparing for EU-exit since 2016. Working with colleagues across Government to deliver on the referendum while protecting jobs, businesses and prosperity and to support Departments in planning for EU-exit, HM Treasury has allocated the following funding to Departments for the financial year 2019-20: Department £m(*) Attorney General’s Office 3 Cabinet Office 59 Competition and Markets Authority 20 Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy 190 Department for Culture, Media and Sport 30 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 410 Department for International Trade 128 Department for Transport 25 Department of Health and Social Care 50 Department for Work and Pensions 15 Food Standards Agency 16 Foreign and Commonwealth Office 45 HM Revenue & Customs 375 HM Treasury 35 Home Office 480 Ministry of Defence 12 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 35 Ministry of Justice 30 Northern Ireland Office 1 Office for National Statistics 2 Police Service of Northern Ireland 16 Scotland Office 0.3 Single Intelligence Account 3 The National Archives 2 The Supreme Court 1 Wales Office 0.3 £m(*) Northern Ireland Executive 20 Scottish Government 55 Welsh Government 31 *Numbers rounded to the nearest million unless otherwise stated
This has generated the following Barnett consequentials for the devolved Administrations:
[HCWS1205]
Bovine TB
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)
Today I am updating the House on the implementation of the Government’s strategy to eradicate bovine TB in England by 2038.
Bovine TB remains one of the greatest animal health threats to the UK, causing devastation and distress for hard-working farmers and rural communities. We are therefore continuing to take strong action to eradicate the disease.
Professor Sir Charles Godfray’s independent review of the strategy highlighted a number of potential further actions while noting the level of challenge associated with eradicating bovine TB. We continue to consider the review’s advice in detail and will publish a formal response in due course.
In the meantime, I am today announcing plans to enhance biosecurity on farms and when trading, introducing earned recognition into our testing regime and inviting further applications to our badger vaccination grant scheme. I am also reporting on the outcome of 2018 badger control operations. All of the cull areas satisfied the level of badger removal that was required by their licence conditions.
Our joint industry-Government biosecurity progress report has been published today. As part of our commitment to improving this important element of our wider TB strategy we will be investing £25,000 to improve the TB hub website which is hosted by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and which provides farmers and others with practical biosecurity advice. Furthermore, early next year we will carry out our first ever TB farm practices survey which will help us to get a better understanding of the extent to which biosecurity and other farming practices currently contribute to our efforts to control bovine TB.
Since January 2018 many herds in the edge area of England have been subject to six-monthly surveillance testing. From May 2019 we will give recognition to herds that have managed to stay clear of bovine TB restrictions in the last six years and herds that have achieved accreditation based on standards laid down by the Cattle Health Certification Standards body. We hope allowing these lower risk herds to revert to annual testing will incentivise others to take steps to reduce their TB risks.
There is broad scientific consensus that badgers are implicated in the spread of TB to cattle. This year, effective, licensed badger removal operations were completed by local farmers and landowners in 11 new areas and 19 existing areas. Alongside our robust cattle movement and testing regime, this will allow us to achieve and maintain long term reductions in the level of TB in cattle across the south-west and midlands, where the disease is widespread. The pace at which farmers and landowners came together to deliver an effective badger removal operation in Cumbria, part of the TB low-risk area, alongside enhanced cattle measures, has given us the best opportunity to stamp out the disease in this hotspot.
Badger BCG vaccination can provide a level of protection against disease and has a role to play in limiting TB spread to healthy badger populations. Therefore, a second round of applications for the “badger edge vaccination scheme” is now open, with grant funding available to private groups wishing to carry out badger vaccination in the edge area of England. Groups will receive at least 50% funding towards their eligible costs. This builds on the three initial four-year projects we have funded, which successfully carried out badger vaccination in 2018.
We remain determined to implement all available measures necessary to eradicate this devastating disease as quickly as possible.
[HCWS1195]
Resources and Waste Strategy
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
Today I am publishing the new Resources and Waste Strategy for England.
In the 25 Year Environment Plan, the Government pledged to leave the environment in a better condition for the next generation. Our ambitious new strategy will help us meet that commitment and sets out how we will eliminate avoidable plastic waste and double resource productivity. We will go further and faster to reduce, reuse and recycle and support the move away from being a ‘throw-away’ society.
Businesses and manufacturers have a key role to play. Our reforms will make certain that both the responsibility for and the cost of recycling or disposal of post-consumer packaging sits fairly and squarely with producers and not taxpayers. The money raised will be used to boost household recycling and make sure that any packaging used is recycled and disposed of properly. This will complement a tax on plastic packaging with less than 30% recycled plastic, announced in the Budget, which will stimulate demand for recycled plastic.
These reforms, and others, will be complemented by improvements to local authority collections systems. Householders want to recycle more, but materials collected for recycling vary from council to council and people are confused. This strategy will tackle this and we will consult shortly on legislating to allow Government to specify a core set of materials to be collected by all local authorities and waste operators at the kerbside, and supporting comprehensive and frequent rubbish and recycling collections.
This strategy sets out robust measures to tackle waste crime and will crackdown on food needlessly going to waste. We will consult on weekly separate food waste collections for every household and mandatory food waste measurement and reporting for businesses, including retailers.
I will place a copy of the new Resources and Waste Strategy in the Libraries of the House.
[HCWS1200]
Alleged Serious and Significant Offences (Diplomatic Immunity)
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
In 2017, 12 serious and significant offences allegedly committed by people entitled to diplomatic or international organisation-related immunity in the United Kingdom were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection of the Metropolitan Police Service, or other law enforcement agencies. Five of these were driving-related. We define serious offences as those which could, in certain circumstances, carry a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or more. Also included are drink-driving and driving without insurance.
Around 23,000 people are entitled to diplomatic immunity in the UK and the majority of diplomats and dependants abide by UK law. The number of alleged serious crimes committed by members of the diplomatic community in the UK is proportionately low.
Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961, we expect those entitled to immunity to obey the law. The FCO does not tolerate foreign diplomats breaking the law.
We take all allegations of illegal activity seriously. When the police bring instances of alleged criminal conduct to our attention, we ask the relevant foreign Government to waive diplomatic immunity where appropriate. For the most serious offences, and when a relevant waiver has not been granted, we request the immediate withdrawal of the diplomat.
Listed below are alleged serious and significant offences reported to the FCO by UK law enforcement agencies in 2017.
2017
Driving without insurance
Finland 1 Saudi Arabia 1
Driving without insurance (and not in accordance with a licence)
Sierra Leone 1
Driving under the influence of alcohol
Austria 1
Commonwealth Secretariat 1
Possession of a firearm with intent to injure
Cambodia 1
Blackmail
Egypt 1
Sexual assault
Algeria 1
Rape (a)
Other (b) 2
Attempted rape (a)
Other (b) 1
Malicious communication (a)
Other (b) 1
(a) These are allegations made against the same person, who was subsequently expelled from the UK after a waiver of immunity was requested and rejected by the sending state.
(b) Details have been withheld because the number of diplomatic personnel in the mission concerned is so small that disclosure could lead to inaccurate speculation that other members of the mission were involved.
We also wish to record a further seven alleged offences.
Three allegations each of conspiracy to cheat the public revenue and of conspiracy to launder the proceeds of crime between 31 December 2009 and 1 January 2013, made against a former Cameroonian diplomat and two locally employed members of staff of the High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon. We did not record these alleged offences in previous written ministerial statements because the cases were under investigation.
One additional count of driving without insurance made against a member of staff of the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia in 2016. This was not reported to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office until later.
Figures for previous years are available in the Secretary for State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs’ written statement to the House on 11 October 2017 (HCWS155) which can be found at: https://www.parliament.uk/business/ publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-10-11/HCWS155/.
[HCWS1197]
Diplomatic Missions and International Organisations: Debts
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has held meetings with a number of missions about outstanding parking fine debt, outstanding national non-domestic rates payments and unpaid congestion charge debt. The director of protocol raises the issue in his introductory meetings with all new ambassadors and high commissioners whose missions are in debt to the relevant authorities. FCO officials also press diplomatic missions and international organisations to pay outstanding fines and debts. Earlier this year, protocol directorate wrote to diplomatic missions and international organisations concerned giving them the opportunity to either pay their outstanding debts, or appeal against specific fines if they considered that they had been issued incorrectly. Diplomatic Mission/International Organisation 2017 Amount of Outstanding Fines (excluding congestion charge) High Commission for the Federal Republic of Nigeria £39,225 High Commission for the Republic of Zambia £20,450 Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia £18,535 Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia £12,920 Embassy of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire £11,145 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan £10,885 Embassy of the United Arab Emirates £10,825 Embassy of the Sultanate of Oman £9,650 Malaysian High Commission £8,965 Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan £8,735 Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan £7,885 Embassy of Libya £7,075 Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan £6,890 Embassy of France £4,960 Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan £4,485 Embassy of the State of Qatar £4,055 Embassy of the Republic of Iraq £3,685 People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria £3,010 Embassy of the Republic of Liberia £2,940 Office of the High Commissioner for India £2,835 High Commission for Sierra Leone £2,445 Embassy of the State of Kuwait £2,415 Embassy of the People's Republic of China £2,290 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania £2,090 High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan £2,030 Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia £2,005 Embassy of Romania £1,785 Embassy of the Russian Federation £1,770 Embassy of the Republic of Angola £1,750 Royal Thai Embassy £1,625 Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan £1,510 Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam £1,320 Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria £1,210 Embassy of Georgia £1,210 Embassy of Ukraine £1,200 Embassy of the Republic of Uzbekistan £1,120 High Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania £1,070 Embassy of the Republic of the Sudan £137,122 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran £123,570 Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe £101,694 Embassy of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria £74,933 Embassy of Libya £76,304 High Commission for Sierra Leone £67,573 High Commission for the Republic of Zambia £56,325 Embassy of the Republic of Iraq £55,015 Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt £53,977 Uganda High Commission £44,489 Embassy of the Republic of Angola £38,074 Malaysian High Commission £37,793 High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan £36,560 Embassy of the Republic of Liberia £32,806 High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon £32,196 Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia £35,061 Embassy of the Republic of Albania £26,831 High Commission for the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka £26,278 Embassy of Ukraine £23,602 Embassy of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire £22,602 The Commonwealth Secretariat £18,496 Embassy of the State of Qatar £17,573 Embassy of the Republic of Lithuania £12,143 Country Number of fines Total outstanding Embassy of the United States of America 99,150 £11,925,920 Embassy of Japan 66,783 £8,021,190 High Commission for the Federal Republic of Nigeria 56,085 £6,724,405 Embassy of the Russian Federation 48,136 £5,653,955 Office of the High Commissioner for India 43,940 £5,394,580 Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany 36,770 £4,288,680 Embassy of the People’s Republic of China 34,256 £4,337,295 Embassy of the Republic of Poland 33,350 £4,065,250 Office of the High Commissioner for Ghana 30,080 £3,655,695 Embassy of the Republic of Sudan 27,016 £3,160,730 Embassy of the Republic of Kazakhstan 25,281 £3,116,930 High Commission for Kenya 21,729 £2,569,330 Embassy of France 18,188 £2,172,845 High Commission for the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 17,010 £2,105,395 High Commission for the United Republic of Tanzania 16,621 £1,945,100 Embassy of Spain 16,112 £1,927,350 Embassy of the Republic of Korea 15,527 £1,907,655 Embassy of the Republic of Cuba 13,442 £1,650,310 Embassy of Algeria 13,395 £1,590,040 High Commission for the Republic of South Africa 13,359 £1,555,650 Embassy of Romania 13,327 £1,581,930 High Commission for Sierra Leone 12,535 £1,470,390 Embassy of Greece 12,093 £1,428,025 Embassy of Ukraine 12,014 £1,412,810 Embassy of Hungary 9,314 £1,118,250 High Commission for the Republic of Cyprus 8,971 £1,081,995 High Commission for the Republic of Zambia 7,840 £928,580 Embassy of the Republic of Yemen 7,700 £919,630 Embassy of the Republic of Bulgaria 6,971 £812,180 High Commission for the Republic of Cameroon 6,069 £712,515 Embassy of the Republic of Belarus 5,877 £691,840 High Commission for Botswana 5,832 £710,440 High Commission for the Republic of Malawi 5,803 £694,645 High Commission for the Republic of Mozambique 5,535 £660,870 Embassy of the Slovak Republic 5,522 £644,985 Embassy of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 5,429 £634,600 High Commission for the Republic of Namibia 5,380 £602,145 Embassy of the Republic of Zimbabwe 5,350 £606,395 High Commission for Kingdom of Swaziland 5,175 £602,440 Embassy of the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire 4,979 £594,655 Embassy of the Republic of Turkey 4,926 £606,645 High Commission for Malta 4,723 £574,890 Embassy of the Republic of Lithuania 4,617 £556,695 Embassy of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea 4,493 £527,795 Embassy of Austria 4,481 £538,875 High Commission for Mauritius 4,434 £521,990 High Commission for the Kingdom of Lesotho 4,087 £479,600 Embassy of the Republic of Liberia 4,045 £492,485 Uganda High Commission 4,026 £483,530 Embassy of Belgium 3,661 £438,575 Embassy of the Czech Republic 3,602 £418,780 Embassy of the Republic of Guinea 3,574 £181,630 Embassy of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 3,471 £411,520 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 3,440 £409,465 High Commission for Jamaica 3,080 £368,945 Royal Danish Embassy 3,049 £365,045 Embassy of the Kingdom of Morocco 2,953 £377,535 Embassy of the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2,839 £353,530 Embassy of the Republic of South Sudan 2,729 £351,005 High Commission for the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka 2,724 £344,725 Embassy of Tunisia 2,613 £322,495 Embassy of the Arab Republic of Egypt 2,300 £243,220 Embassy of Portugal 2,297 £282,130 Embassy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea 2,249 £259,380 Embassy of the Republic of Latvia 2,247 £271,850 Embassy of Finland 2,224 £266,550 Embassy of the Republic of Iraq 2,206 £280,190 High Commission for Antigua & Barbuda 2,151 £255,060 Embassy of Luxembourg 2,029 £244,770 Embassy of the Republic of Slovenia 2,009 £245,590 Embassy of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 1,826 £200,150 High Commission for Belize 1,779 £220,740 Embassy of Estonia 1,455 £180,115 Embassy of the State of Eritrea 1,266 £150,530 Embassy of the Dominican Republic 1,231 £147,690 High Commission for Guyana 1,186 £139,635 The Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the International Maritime Organisation 1,095 £80,510 High Commission for the Republic of the Maldives 1,074 £132,445 High Commission for Seychelles 1,052 £128,005 Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Mauritania 1,025 £109,050 Embassy of El Salvador 964 £115,330 Embassy of the Republic of Moldova 838 £100,225
Parking fines: In 2017, 4,737 parking fines incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in London were brought to our attention by local councils, Transport for London and the City of London. These totalled £444,618.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has held meetings with missions which have substantial outstanding parking fine debts. In addition, in May this year we wrote to diplomatic missions and international organisations concerned giving them the opportunity either to pay their outstanding fines or appeal against them if they considered that the fines had been issued incorrectly.
Subsequent payments (including amounts waived by the above authorities) totalled £173,443. There remains a total of £271,175 in unpaid fines for 2017.
The table below details those diplomatic missions and international organisations which have outstanding fines from 2017 totalling £1,000 or more, as of 31 July 2018.
National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR):
The majority of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom pay the national non-domestic rates (NNDR) due from them. Diplomatic missions and international organisations are obliged to pay only 6% of the total NNDR value of their offices. This represents payment for specific services received such as street cleaning and street lighting.
Representations by protocol directorate of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to missions in 2018 led to the settlement of outstanding debts by a number of missions.
As at 20 September 2018, the total amount of outstanding NNDR payments, due before 31 December 2017, owed by foreign diplomatic missions and international organisations as advised by the Valuation Office Agency is £1,507,576, an increase of 43% over the 2016 figure, as reported in the 2017 WMS (£1,049,999). However, £73,589 of this outstanding debt is owed by Syria—which is not currently represented in the UK and we have therefore been unable to pursue this debt. Three missions are responsible for over a fifth of the remainder. We shall continue to urge those with NNDR debt to pay their dues.
The missions listed below owed over £10,000 in respect of NNDR.
London Congestion Charge: The value of unpaid congestion charge debt incurred by diplomatic missions and international organisations in London since its introduction in February 2003 until 31 December 2017 as advised by Transport for London (TfL) was £110,069,300. The table below shows those diplomatic missions and international organisations with outstanding fines of £100,000 or more. FCO officials continue to press diplomatic missions to pay congestion charge and any other outstanding debts. The director of protocol raises the issue in his introductory meetings with all new ambassadors and high commissioners whose missions are in debt to TfL. Officials also write to diplomatic missions and international organisations with large congestion charge debts to encourage payment.
Figures for previous years are available in the Secretary for State for Foreignand Commonwealth Affairs’ written statement to the House on 11 October 2017 (HCWS154) which can be found at: https://www.parliament.uk/business/ publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-10-11/HCWS154/.
[HCWS1204]
Foreign Affairs Council: 10 December 2018
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), attended the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 10 December. It was chaired by the High Representative and Vice-President of the European Union (EU) for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HRVP), Federica Mogherini. The meeting was held in Brussels.
Current Affairs
The HRVP made reference to Human Rights Day which fell on 10 December. We supported the Dutch proposal for an EU global human rights sanctions regime.
Western Balkans
Ministers discussed recent developments in the western Balkans. On Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministers recalled the need for Governments to be formed at all levels and ensure that there was progress on the reform agenda. Ministers underlined the importance of supporting efforts to implement the Prespa agreement between Skopje and Athens and expressed their support for the EU’s strong focus on the Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. Finally, Ministers noted concerns about the Kosovo Government’s decision to increase the tariffs on goods from Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to 100%, in clear violation of the central European free trade agreement.
EU-African Union co-operation
Ministers discussed EU-African Union (AU) co-operation ahead of the first inter-summit EU-AU ministerial meeting, which will take place on 21 and 22 January 2019 in Brussels. The meeting will cover three main themes: political aspects (peace, security and governance), economic aspects (investment, trade and skills) and multilateralism (strengthening co-operation in support of a rule-based global order). Ministers expressed their clear interest in reinforcing the EU strategic partnership with Africa. They highlighted the importance of engaging with youth and noted the progress already made on co-operation on peace, security and governance, including through the signing of an EU-AU memorandum of understanding on 23 May 2018. On migration and mobility, they highlighted the work done in the framework of the joint Valletta action plan. Ministers also underlined the crucial role of the private sector and private investment to boost EU-Africa relations. They welcomed the proposed new Africa-Europe alliance on sustainable investments and jobs.
Ukraine
Ministers recalled their deep concern about the dangerous increase of tensions in the Azov sea and Kerch strait and reaffirmed that the EU does not recognise the “elections” of 11 November 2018. The Council were joined by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin, focusing on the latest developments in the Azov sea and the security situation in Ukraine, as well as on possible EU support to assist the affected regions in south-east Ukraine.
Iran
During discussions about Iran, Ministers focused on the implementation of the joint comprehensive plan of action, including ongoing EU efforts to preserve effective financial channels to Iran and to pursue legitimate trade relations against the background of the re-imposition of US sanctions on 5 November 2018. Ministers also discussed concerns about recent behaviour by Iranian actors on European soil, Iran’s ballistic missiles programme and other regional security aspects.
Venezuela
The HRVP updated Ministers about ongoing work to consider establishing an international contact group with Venezuela that could, if conditions were met, help facilitate a political process. The Council also confirmed its firm stance on the targeted restrictive measures in place on Venezuela. Ministers reconfirmed that the election on 20 May 2018 had lacked any credibility and agreed to find a common EU approach to the start of President Maduro’s second term on 10 January 2019. The Council also recalled its commitment to supporting the population of Venezuela and, in neighbouring countries, to supporting the socio-economic inclusion of Venezuelans and the resilience of host communities. To this end, Ministers welcomed the additional €20 million allocated by the European Commission on 4 December.
The Council agreed a number of measures without discussion:
The Council adopted conclusions on Libya;
The Council adopted conclusions on the situation in Myanmar/Burma;
The Council adopted conclusions on an EU strategy on India;
The Council adopted conclusions on women, peace and security (WPS);
The Council added nine persons to the list of those subject to restrictive measures over actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine and because of their involvement in the so-called “elections” in the so-called “Donetsk People’s Republic”;
The Council extended the implementation period of its decision on the provision of satellite imagery in support of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPWC) missions in Syria for 12 months;
The Council adopted a decision to provide the EU’s assistance to the United Nations office on drugs and crime (UNODC) in Vienna and the United Nations office of counter-terrorism (UNOCT) in New York for the sustained promotion of universal adherence to and effective implementation of the international convention for the suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism (ICSANT);
The Council extended the restrictive measures currently in place against the Democratic Republic of the Congo until 12 December 2019;
The Council decided to repeal the EU restrictive measures against Eritrea following the adoption on 14 November 2018 by the United Nations Security Council of resolution 2444 (2018) terminating, with immediate effect, all UN restrictive measures against Eritrea;
The Council amended its decision and regulation concerning restrictive measures against Somali, following the adoption of the United Nations Security Council resolution 2444 (2018) of 14 November 2018. It is now possible to designate persons committing acts involving sexual and gender-based violence;
The Council amended its decision and its regulation concerning restrictive measures in respect of the situation in South Sudan, following the update of 21 November 2018 by the UNSC committee on the information relating to one of the persons subject to restrictive measures;
The Council approved the position of the EU, in view of the fifth meeting of the Association Council with Ukraine that will take place in Brussels on 17 December 2018;
The Council adopted the position to be taken on behalf of the EU within the association council set up by the Euro-Mediterranean agreement establishing an association between the EU and Jordan;
The Council adopted a declaration concerning transport costs for land, sea and air deployment of battle groups, which renews for two years the same commitments as in the previous Council declaration. The Council therefore accepts that the Athena mechanism will bear as operational common costs incremental transport costs for land, sea and air deployment of battle groups at short notice to the joint area of operations;
The Council extended the mandate of the EU capacity building mission in Somalia, EUCAP Somalia until 31 December 2020. The Council also agreed on a budget of €66.1 million for the period 1 January 2019 until 31 December 2020;
The Council amended the mandate of the EU military training mission in the Central African Republic (EUTM RCA), to include an interoperability pillar;
The Council established the EU common position for the third meeting of the EU-Kosovo Stabilisation and Association Council;
The Council established the EU common position for the fifth meeting of the EU-Serbia Stabilisation and Association Council;
The Council decided not to oppose the adoption of a Commission regulation amending annex IX to regulation 999/2001 and annex XV to Commission regulation 142/2011 as regards health certification at import into the Union concerning transmissible spongiform encephalopathies;
The Council decided not to oppose a Commission regulation amending annex III to regulation (EC) 110/2008 as regards the registration of the spirit drink “tequila” as a geographical indication.
[HCWS1196]
Committee for the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Economic Crime (Mr Ben Wallace)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for the Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) has today made the following written statement:
I am pleased to announce that Professor David Main has been appointed to the Committee for the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes (commonly referred to as the ASC) as its new Chair. This appointment is for three years, beginning on 1 March 2019. Professor Main is a Professor of Production Animal Health and Welfare at the Royal Agricultural University and a veterinary surgeon.
The ASC is an independent public body sponsored by the Home Office. It provides independent advice about issues relating to the use of animals in scientific procedures within the context of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Professor Main will replace Dr John Landers, whose term as Chair ends on 28 February 2019.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr Landers for his dedication to the role of Chair of the ASC for the past five years.
[HCWS1199]
Building Safety: Implementation Plan
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
The Grenfell Tower fire represents the greatest loss of life in a residential fire in a century. The Government have taken considerable action since the fire to make sure people are safe and feel safe in their homes. We have identified unsafe buildings and ensured there are appropriate interim measures in place. We have sought expert advice and made this widely available to building owners and those involved in refurbishing buildings. We have issued advice to building owners on known risks and on how to remediate buildings and incentivised remediation by providing funding to social sector landlords. Where necessary, the Government have intervened into markets for products and taken action to have unsafe products removed from the marketplace. As well as dealing with current issues, we have commissioned a review of the whole regulatory system, received two reports and taken forward the recommendations of the interim report of the independent review of building regulations and fire safety (the review).
However, there remains much to do. The review identified failings in the regulatory system and made recommendations to address them. We have heard from over 200 people in response to the review and have analysed those responses. We have also learnt from the remediation process and from other issues that have been investigated over the last 18 months to formulate our response.
In addressing the challenges laid down by the review, the Government want to make sure the identified failings are addressed:
We will create a stronger and more effective regulatory and accountability framework for buildings in scope, which will have at its core clear responsibility and accountability for keeping people safe. We will prevent people from flouting the system through tougher oversight and a stronger and more effective sanctions and enforcement regime.
We will facilitate better understanding of what is required to ensure buildings are safe through clearer standards and guidance, as well as improving the rigour of the product labelling, testing and marketing processes to ensure people working on buildings use safe products.
We will ensure we put residents at the heart of a new regulatory framework through better engagement between them and those managing their buildings, as well as providing more effective routes for escalation and redress when things go wrong. We will ensure building owners reassure residents by providing them with better information about the protection measures in place in their buildings.
Working with industry, we will drive changes to its culture to encourage greater responsibility for building safety, by improving the competence of those undertaking building work on high-rise residential buildings to complement the tougher regulatory oversight regime, and encouraging the sharing of good practice.
The implementation plan that I am publishing today commits the Government to a programme of reform over the next few years. While legislation will take time to implement, the Government are already acting. We recognised the strength of feeling on combustible cladding and have laid regulations to give effect to a clear ban on the use of combustible materials on the external walls of new buildings over 18 metres containing flats, as well as new hospitals, residential care premises, dormitories in boarding schools and student accommodation over that height. This also rules out the use of assessments in lieu of tests (also known as desktop studies) for cladding and wall systems of such buildings.
Today, we have also published amended guidance which further restricts the use of assessments in lieu of tests, following consultation earlier this year. This ensures transparency and applies much tighter and more restrictive conditions; requires that any assessments are properly evidenced on the basis of test data; and restricts who can undertake them.
In the summer, we published a clarified version of the building regulations fire safety guidance in “Approved Document B” for consultation, and we received a substantial number of detailed comments on the clarified guidance which the Department is currently analysing. We also committed to undertake a full technical review of “Approved Document B” and today we have launched a call for evidence, which is the first stage, and we will gather expert advice on the full range of fire safety issues within the guidance which need to be reviewed.
A number of landlords and firms have already responded to this call for action by reviewing the state of their buildings, proactively engaging with residents and documenting safety features. The Government have established an early adopters group to take forward some of the review’s recommendations. We welcome the work that industry has done to date and look forward to engaging with those living and working in these areas to design a new system that will provide greater assurance to those living in high-rise residential buildings.
The Government have driven significant progress in remediating buildings in the social sector. At the end of November, remediation had started or completed on 116 of the 160 social sector buildings with unsafe aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding systems. There are plans and commitments in place to remediate the remaining 44 buildings.
In the private sector, there has been strong progress since the summer in putting remediation plans in place. At the end of November, there were plans and commitments in place to remediate 203 of the 272 privately owned buildings with unsafe ACM cladding systems, including buildings where remediation has started or completed.
This progress is the result of action we have taken to put pressure on building owners and developers to make their buildings permanently safe, including the creation of a remediation taskforce, chaired by Ministers.
We are also taking decisive action to deal with the remaining buildings where owners are not fulfilling their responsibility to remediate unsafe ACM cladding. To give local authorities confidence to take enforcement action on such buildings, we laid an addendum to the housing health and safety rating system operating guidance and are providing a Local Government Association hosted joint inspection team. I have written to local authorities, with buildings where the owner refuses to remediate unsafe ACM cladding, to offer them our full support to take enforcement action. This will include financial support where this is necessary for the local authority to carry out emergency remedial work. Where financial support is provided, local authorities will recover the costs from the building owner.
I have repeatedly made clear that building owners should protect leaseholders from bearing the cost of remediation. There is a growing list of owners and developers who are doing the right thing and agreeing to fund remediation. This includes Barratt Developments, Mace Group, Legal & General, Taylor Wimpey and Peabody. I have urged all other owners and developers to follow their lead. The implementation plan I am publishing today sets out the far-reaching programme of work the Government now intend to take to ensure people who live in residential high-rise buildings are safe and feel safe, now and in the future. That work is broken down into four distinct but co-ordinated areas:
A more effective regulatory and accountability framework: Addressing Dame Judith Hackitt’s finding that the regulatory framework around the construction, maintenance and ongoing use of multi-occupied, high-rise residential buildings was not fit for purpose, the implementation plan outlines how the Government intend to create a stronger and more effective regulatory framework. The framework has, at its core, clear responsibility and accountability for keeping people safe, as well as tougher oversight and stronger, better enforced sanctions to prevent people flouting the system. We will not wait for legislation to start this work—we will be testing and trialling elements of the new system soon and I intend to establish a joint regulators group to develop and pilot new approaches and, in due course, to assist with the transition to a new regulatory framework.
Clearer standards and guidance, and product safety: The review identified problems caused by complex and inconsistent standards and guidance, and highlighted the importance of taking a holistic view of building work. The implementation plan provides an update on our work to support better understanding by those who undertake building work of what is required to ensure that buildings are safe through clearer standards and guidance. The implementation plan also makes clear my intention to consult in the spring on options for a new governance structure for the oversight of building regulations and guidance.
The Government also intend to provide greater oversight to ensure products are safe where they are being marketed as safe to those that provide materials used in construction. The implementation plan sets out my intention to establish, over the next 12 months, a “standards committee” to advise me on new and existing construction product and system standards; bring forward proposals to establish consistent legislative powers which cover construction products; and consider options for national regulatory oversight of construction products to ensure that construction products are manufactured to the standards they should meet.
Putting residents at the heart of the building safety system: a stronger voice for residents is at the heart of the new system, and the implementation plan sets out how Government intend to empower residents through better engagement with those managing their buildings, as well as more effective routes for escalation and redress when things go wrong. We will also provide reassurance for residents through better information about protection measures in place in their buildings. And we are launching a call for evidence on how residents are supported to meet their responsibilities to keep their homes and buildings safe.
In the spring, informed by ongoing research and input from the residents’ reference panel, the Government will consult on requirements for duty holders to proactively provide residents with critical safety information about their building, and put in place a resident engagement strategy. We will also consult on options for a clear and quick escalation route for building safety concerns, including the relationship with a new regulatory framework for building safety and the interactions with existing regulators and redress schemes.
Driving culture change and a more responsible industry: The implementation plan sets out measures to work with industry to drive culture change to increase responsibility for building safety, including by improving competence of those undertaking building work. an industry safety steering group, chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt, has been established to challenge and push the sector to drive forward culture change.
The Government will take action to support industry as it leads the way, championing the efforts of those who are doing the right thing and challenging those who have further to go. The implementation plan includes our commitment to review industry proposals and take a view on whether they deliver a coherent approach to assessing and providing assurance on competence across the construction sector. We will also continue to consider whether legislation is necessary to give effect to a new system of assuring competence.
In addition to this, my Department will continue to build on the achievements of a group of early adopters in industry, which I announced in July. Early adopters working with the Government will commit to signing a new building safety charter on culture change and trial and test the implementation of the recommendations of the review in advance of legislation.
This is a major programme of work, but it is necessary to achieve the systemic overhaul that we are aiming for: requiring all parties to change and putting residents’ safety at the heart of the system. I am clear we want a change that lasts—we are determined to learn the lessons from the Grenfell tragedy and bring about a fundamental change in both a regulatory framework and the industry culture that will make people safe—and feel safe—in their homes.
[HCWS1201]
Grenfell Update
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
The independent Grenfell recovery taskforce continues to provide challenge and advice to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) in their response to the tragedy. I recently received their third report, which I am today depositing in the Library of the House and publishing in full at gov.uk.
I am pleased to see that the council has made some important progress since the second taskforce report in March 2018, notably:
The council’s leadership is strongly committed to Grenfell recovery:
Governance changes are beginning to bear fruit;
Many council officers have a good relationship with the people they serve. This is a testament to their humanity, skills and hard work;
There are pockets of innovative practice.
However, the taskforce is clear that pace remains an issue and that it was to be expected that RBKC would have been further forward by this point than it currently is. The taskforce has recommended that the council needs to:
Complete the recovery strategy as soon as possible, so that they have a clear road map to achieving recovery:
Ensure they have the capacity and capability to deliver the recovery strategy, whilst at the same time responding appropriately to the public inquiry and associated media interest:
Carry on with their work to repair and improve relationships with their communities, and get the basics right in how they communicate with them;
Remain focused on their programme of culture change to show that they have learnt the lessons from the Grenfell Tower tragedy:
Prioritise the rehousing effort in order that all those made homeless by the tragedy are resettled in good quality permanent homes as soon as possible.
I have asked the taskforce to continue their work in supporting and challenging the council and providing assurance to me; and to report to me again in spring 2019.
[HCWS1202]
Rough Sleeping
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
In August, we published a cross-Government Rough Sleeping Strategy, setting out how we will halve rough sleeping by 2022 and end it altogether by 2027. The strategy has three core pillars of prevention, intervention, and recovery, with a preventive approach towards rough sleeping at its heart.
Today, the Government are announcing the locations of 11 Somewhere Safe to Stay hubs, warm and dry centres where people at crisis point will be able to seek shelter, while their housing and support needs are quickly assessed by specialist staff. This follows an expression of interest round which closed at the end of October, and includes the most innovative proposals, from local authorities who can mobilise and deliver services from this winter. A full list of the early adopter areas can be found here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/rapid-rehousing-pathway-somewhere-safe-to-stay-early-adopters. Somewhere Safe to Stay hubs, allowing for a quick and effective assessment of needs, are central to these local authorities’ “Rapid Rehousing Pathways”. In the 11 early adopter areas, we will be providing funding for a range of policies alongside the hubs—including specialist “Navigators”, supported lettings, and local lettings agencies—to ensure that there is a full and functioning pathway in place to help people into sustained accommodation and appropriate wrap-around support.
These hubs will not only take people off the streets into a safe environment but, crucially, will also take in individuals who have been identified as being at risk of sleeping rough, stopping them having to sleep on the streets in the first place. In this way, the “Somewhere Safe to Stay” model builds upon the success of the “No Second Night Out” model of rapid assessment hubs.
This approach fits with the Government’s objective to intervene sooner, and move towards a preventive approach towards rough sleeping.
The full programme of funding will enable local areas to connect people with the right support, and sustainable housing. It encompasses funding for specialist Navigators, who act as a single point of contact to support people from the streets into settled accommodation; the establishment of local lettings agencies to source, identify, or provide homes and advice for rough sleepers or those at risk; and funding for a supported lettings programme, which will provide flexible support to help individuals sustain their tenancies.
The announcement of the “Somewhere Safe to Stay” early adopters represents key progress against the delivery of the rough sleeping strategy, as set out in the “Rough Sleeping Strategy Delivery Plan” on 10 December. These pilots will be the first step in testing innovative structural change to local systems and the move towards a rapid rehousing approach, bringing us a step closer to the 2027 vision of putting an end to rough sleeping.
The Government will invite a wider bidding round in 2019, for other local authorities to improve and implement their “Rapid Rehousing Pathway”, and will announce the details of this in due course.
[HCWS1203]
Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Edward Argar)
Today I am pleased to publish the terms of reference for the review of the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
Compensation has long been an important part of the Government’s response to supporting victims of violent crime, and the criminal injuries compensation scheme provides payments to those who have suffered serious physical or mental injury as the direct result of violent crime. Our scheme remains one of the most generous in Europe—something of which we can be rightly proud. While no amount of money can ever repair the harm done to an individual through violent crime, we know that compensation offers an important public acknowledgment for victims of the harm they have suffered. Compensation, alongside victims’ services and other practical and emotional support, helps victims of violent crime to start to rebuild their lives.
In 2017-18, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority made decisions on over 40,000 applications, and paid out £154 million in compensation awards. It is essential that the scheme continues to offer access to compensation for victims injured through violent crime, and in considering whether the current scheme remains fit for purpose, we will be driven by the following principles:
Compensation should be protected for those most seriously affected by their injuries, including in cases where injuries are not immediately evident nor their impacts easily quantifiable.
Compensation offers a public acknowledgment of harm suffered by victims of violent crime.
Compensation is an important part of Government provision of end-to-end support for victims of violent crime, which also includes emotional and practical assistance for victims.
The scheme offers support for victims of violent crime who have been unable to seek compensation by other means.
The scheme complies with domestic and international legal obligations to provide compensation for victims of violent crime.
The review will examine, specifically, the scope of the scheme, the eligibility rules, requirements in relation to decision making, and the value and composition of awards. This will include looking at the balance the scheme strikes between serious and less serious physical and mental injury, and the impact of the scheme’s rules on particular groups of individuals, including victims of child sexual abuse and victims of terrorism. We will also take this opportunity to consider whether the scheme can be further simplified to provide easier access to compensation for eligible victims. We will also consider issues of affordability and financial sustainability.
A copy of the terms of reference for the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available online at www.gov.uk. We intend to publish a full consultation on the reform proposals in 2019.
[HCWS1198]
Pensions and Long-Term Savings Trials (Self-Employed)
(6 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Automatic enrolment has transformed pension saving among today’s workers. Almost 10 million workers have been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension by their employer, and only 9% of those enrolled chose to opt out. And, this success is continuing with automatic enrolment continuing to be delivered and implemented successfully by employers, and increasing individual pension participation and savings levels as highlighted in the 2018 Automatic Enrolment Evaluation Report published today.
As part of the 2017 review of automatic enrolment the Government committed to scope, develop and test targeted interventions aimed at establishing what works to increase retirement saving among the self-employed.
I am pleased to announce that following the Government’s Good Work Plan published yesterday the Government are publishing the “Enabling retirement savings for the self-employed: pensions and long term savings trials! report. This report sets out our delivery plan for delivering research and trialling activity as a step towards implementing the Government’s manifesto commitment to increase retirement saving by the self-employed. This will provide an evidence base for future policy development, using insights from the success of automatic enrolment.
Our plan focuses on testing behaviourally inspired messages and tech tools, which may prompt self-employed individuals to save through a range of approaches in relation to both joining a pension scheme, and facilitating and making regular saving into pensions or other savings vehicles. The preparatory work has already started and trialling activity will go forward into 2019.
It will focus on three areas: marketing interventions aimed at people who are saving or have previously saved to encourage them to continue or recommence their saving behaviour; marketing interventions using trusted third parties to promote the value of saving and provide an easy connection to an appropriate savings vehicle; and behavioural prompts, such as messages delivered through payment mechanisms and/or banking interfaces, to seek to engage self-employed people to think about starting a regular saving habit.
The Department for Work and Pensions will be working with a range of delivery organisations and service providers for the self-employed to commence a programme of research and trialling activity, following preparatory work already done. The report published today is also a call to action to organisations in sectors including payment services; accounting services; self-employed workspaces and growing fintech firms, to work with Government to co-design and test interventions.
The report complements our agenda to empower and improve the consumer experience, in particular through the pensions dashboard and the Single Financial Guidance Body.
The Government’s long-term ambition is for future generations to have confidence in retirement saving—no matter what type of employment or self-employment they experience during their working lives—so that they can prepare for greater security in later life.
I will place a copy of the report in the House Library. These papers will be available later today on: www.parliament. uk/writtenstatements website.
[HCWS1194]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Nigeria: Intercommunal Violence
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Suri
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are providing to the government of Nigeria in its efforts to end the violence between herders and farmers in that country; and what assessment they have made of the impact on that country of the continuance of such intercommunal violence.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we remain deeply concerned by the escalation in intercommunal violence across Nigeria, which has a devastating impact on lives and communities and is a barrier to that country’s development. Insecurity and the politicisation of the violence risk localised disruption of the 2019 elections. We urge the Nigerian Government to develop a clear strategy to address the underlying causes and we continue to develop options for how the United Kingdom could further support dialogue and peacebuilding efforts.
Lord Suri (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his learned response. Will he agree to work with the international community, including the Commonwealth, to encourage and support the Nigerian Government to mobilise their security forces in response to violence and to develop a comprehensive plan which addresses the different factors affecting the conflict, such as population pressure, climate change and religious tensions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I assure my noble friend that we will continue to work with European partners and, as he rightly articulated, with other members of the Commonwealth. He will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister recently visited Nigeria, as did His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. These visits were also intended to strengthen the support we are giving to the Nigerian authorities and Government in addressing the violence which has gripped the country for far too long. In terms of military support, we have been engaging directly in assisting with the training of up to 30,000 members of the Nigerian security forces.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the underlying causes, as well as helping on the security side. Does he agree that one underlying cause of friction is the alarming increase in Nigeria’s population? What help are we giving the Nigerian Government with family spacing and women’s reproductive health?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is right to raise that issue. There are many underlying reasons for the conflict in Nigeria but its population growth and the challenges that that poses to the country’s public services, wealth and economy are well known. I assure him that we are working through a series of initiatives with the Department for International Development to provide support in health and education to address some of the challenges caused by the country’s population growth.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, following Amnesty International’s report yesterday which confirmed that more than half of the 3,600-plus deaths over the past three years of the conflict in Nigeria have occurred this year, what discussions are the Government planning with their Nigerian counterparts about the failure of their security forces? I note the Minister’s comments about the 30,000 who are being trained. Will he also comment on the negative impact that the corruption among senior officers is having on the welfare and security of their troops? Does he agree that it contributed to the recent massacre at Metele, which was not helped by the ineffectiveness in these matters of the ex-general, President Muhammadu Buhari?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is right that there has been an escalation in violence and the number of deaths in Nigeria in a variety of different conflicts, and it is extremely concerning. I assure him that we have raised the issue at the highest level with President Buhari, who has not only condemned the violence but is investing government time, effort and resource to ensure that he is speaking to the regions impacted and has convened a meeting of the different states. Equally, as I said, we are working with European partners to see what policies and plans can be developed in that respect. That is work in progress. Most recently, we have been encouraged that the Nigerian Government are planning to introduce a government Bill to address some of the events that have occurred, particularly between the Fulani and the farmers in Nigeria. It will look at reforms relating to farmland and private-property protection and at ensuring that agriculture is protected. It will seek to build a positive relationship and co-operation between communities not only in different states but across the country as a whole.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may press the Minister further on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, about the report published yesterday entitled Harvest of Death. It says that,
“these attacks were well planned and co-ordinated with the use of weapons like machine guns and AK47 rifles”.
Will the Minister tell us what ideology is underpinning this and who is providing these weapons? Will he also update the House on the position of the women who have been abducted, primarily by Boko Haram, and on the case of Leah Sharibu, who is being held captive by Islamic State in West Africa?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is right to raise those matters. On the case of Leah Sharibu, we are continuing to press the authorities for her release. There is some positive news in that we understand that more than 70 of the 110 Dapchi schoolgirls who were kidnapped have been released. We continue to implore for and work towards the release of the others, and back-channels are open. The noble Lord is also quite right to raise the issue of arms. As he will know, there is a major challenge regarding the trafficking of weapons, particularly from nearby states, including the flow-through from places such as Libya. As to the ideology, there are, as was said earlier, various factors underlying the different conflicts within Nigeria. However, it is an indisputable fact that both the Islamic State in West Africa and Boko Haram operate in certain states, and their philosophy and ideology are perverse. They are hijacking the noble faith, and it is important not just in Nigeria that we collectively work to eradicate such a philosophy.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, on Friday the most reverend Primate initiated a debate on reconciliation; and, of course, the two key elements of the very complex situation in Nigeria are security and development. Can the Minister tell us a bit more about how DfID and the Foreign Office are working together to ensure that we actually have the strategies to deliver on reconciliation and development?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I agree with the noble Lord but would add a third element in terms of delivery strategies, regarding security. On all three fronts—whether it is our work through the Ministry of Defence or through diplomacy and direct contact with the Government, and he is right to raise the important work of DfID—our work in Nigeria includes a strong focus on, for example, tackling inequality and exclusion, increasing employment and livelihood opportunities, and improving governance at the local level. We are working across all the different areas to ensure that, as we invest in Nigeria, we work with it and look to build not only its key economic sectors but the key elements of its justice system and governance.
Scotland: Transport Policing
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Scottish Government about the future of transport policing in Scotland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the Scotland Act 2016, following the Smith agreement, devolves responsibility for railway policing in Scotland. Noble Lords will be aware that the Scottish Government have announced that, although full integration of British Transport Police into Police Scotland remains a long-term ambition, other options are now being explored. We continue to work with the Scottish Government as they develop their plans, and we remain committed to ensuring the continuing effectiveness of railway policing across the network.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect that the Minister agrees with me that merging Police Scotland with British Transport Police was not the greatest proposal in the Smith commission report, and it is a pity that we did not stop it when we had a chance in 2014. Since then, an enormous amount of time, effort and money has been spent, particularly on things like consultancy fees—Police Scotland paid £700,000 to Ernst & Young—to pursue something which not only makes no sense in policing terms but which would have reduced the safety of the travelling public on trains between Scotland and England. Can the Minister confirm that the joint programme board is now focusing on retaining the role of the BTP in Scotland and enhancing statutory accountability to the Scottish Government through the British Transport Police Authority, and does he also agree that that is exactly what many of us in the House have been asking for over the last four years?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
In response to the noble Lord’s first question, he may very well say that; unfortunately, the Government could not possibly comment. On the second point he raised, we have taken a long journey and have passed through many deep and dark tunnels—
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am sorry—it has been a long day. We are now moving toward a solution which I believe will work for all concerned. It will work within the established legal framework and will ensure that the network itself remains fully integrated, that security remains the primary focus, and that there will now be an accountability, through various structures, to ensure that there is a Scottish dimension to that without undermining the vital focus of the force itself.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, for obvious reasons, such as terrorism and all the other factors, security on public transport is of the utmost importance in the present state of the country. It is therefore extremely important that police officers are able to act when necessary, and clearly it would be wrong for people to get on the train at King’s Cross and for security to cease once they got beyond Newcastle. I think that is very obvious to everybody. I can remember the days when police officers were allowed to travel on the train free simply to encourage them to travel on public transport. Does this practice still exist? It is a great help to the guard, who knows that when he checks tickets he has officers on the train he can call for assistance.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
On the wider change, it is a cliché but now is not the time for such change—there are too many security considerations. The points the noble Lord raises are valid today and will continue to be valid tomorrow.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that British Transport Police does a magnificent job in maintaining security on our trains, in particular between Scotland and England, and that for the Scottish Government the root of this problem has been the name? Had it not been called British Transport Police, we would not have seen so much objection and such a waste of resources as the result of nothing less than political prejudice on the part of the Scottish Government.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My noble friend makes a very valid contribution. The success rate of British Transport Police is considerably higher than that of the other police forces. On the reasoning behind the Scottish Government’s move, it is not for me to seek to define the indescribable workings of the Scottish Government. None the less, I suspect there might be something in what he says.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the Scottish Government have been struggling for years with the consequences of the flawed creation of Police Scotland. It is abundantly clear that integrating British Transport Police into Police Scotland is beyond the capacity of the Scottish Government to manage. Do the Government take the view in these circumstances that they should either postpone this until it can be done without disruption or recognise, if that is not possible, that they should abandon the plan altogether?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The Scottish Government will not progress with their initial plans; that is the first thing to emphasise. The important thing, which I stressed the last time I commented on this matter, is: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his positive action on this issue since I first raised it in the Grand Committee on the statutory instrument. I am most grateful to him. Does he not agree, however, that out of this debacle something positive could come if it is seen as a model for devolution? British Transport Police and other UK organisations could remain intact operationally but report for all their operations in Scotland to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament. That would be a model for many UK institutions and organisations.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord has been dogged in his pursuit of this matter and I am obliged to him for continuing to be so. He is absolutely correct in emphasising again that this could well be a model that could work across a whole range of devolved areas.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, even under devolution there has been increasing centralisation in Scotland, including of Police Scotland, which has resulted in failures to respond to incidents in which there has been loss of life. The idea of that body incorporating British Transport Police as well is very worrying. Does the Minister agree that significant expertise exists within British Transport Police that needs to be kept separate?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The expertise within British Transport Police is specific to transport issues and related concerns. It cannot easily be accommodated into general policing.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and other speakers on the progress that has been made, but will the noble Lord tell the House whether the pensions rights and obligations of the existing BTP staff will be protected in whatever shape or form the end result occurs?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That is a vital question and the answer is yes, they will be fully protected.
Operation Conifer: Sir Edward Heath
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the reply by Baroness Barran on 11 December (HL Deb, cols 1329–32), whether they will reassess the case for an independent inquiry into the seven unsubstantiated allegations against Sir Edward Heath left unresolved at the end of Operation Conifer.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have given careful consideration to a review of Operation Conifer but have concluded that there are no grounds to justify review or intervention by the Government.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Will the Government heed the view expressed unanimously across this House in a debate last week that justice for Ted Heath demands the establishment of an inquiry, which they fully accept they have the power to set up? Will they stop evading their responsibilities?
Baroness Barran
I thank my noble friend for his question and respect the strength of feeling that he has on this matter. However, he is aware that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already set out his reasoning for not instituting an inquiry, in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, of 10 October. To recap on that: he has considered carefully the proper role of the Government in what is clearly a very sensitive matter; he notes the extensive scrutiny to which Operation Conifer has already been subject; he points out the national guidance that is being reviewed by the College of Policing; and, most importantly I think, he reflects that the inconclusive nature of Operation Conifer cannot be resolved in the absence of Sir Edward’s account of these events—that cannot be resolved.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, from my reading of the Minister’s speech on 11 December, it appears that the reputation of a deceased person cannot be cleared because, sadly, he obviously cannot be interviewed. In view of the dangers of historic complaints and the concern expressed in your Lordships’ House, will the Government seek further specific advice from the College of Policing on appropriate guidance in the exceptional circumstances of naming a deceased person before charge?
Baroness Barran
The noble and learned Lord makes an important point. Clearly, the question around deceased persons is a subject of topical debate among a number of chief constables. The Government’s position is that it is right to investigate properly what are very serious allegations, but the decision on whether or not to investigate must be based on the merits of the individual case. Given the important independence of the police, it is for the chief constable or chief officer to decide.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, in producing the Operation Conifer closure report in October 2017, the Wiltshire chief constable said that in his view a judge-led review of investigation would not provide value for money, as opposed to the £1.48 million spent on his investigation. Did any of the seven outstanding complainants make an application for criminal injuries compensation? If so, did the Wiltshire police advise them to do so or support those applications, as they would be consulted after a complaint was made? If the Minister cannot answer, is it not possible that an inquiry might establish these very salient facts?
Baroness Barran
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am afraid that I am unable to say whether any of the seven complainants making allegations applied for compensation, but I will check that and write to the noble Lord, placing a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I note the Government’s refusal, for which they must take responsibility, but surely the Home Office has a duty to ensure that police forces have the capability to run just and professional investigations into historical sex crimes that take account of the rights of the accused, the victims and the public good. What progress has the Home Office made in developing such a holistic approach?
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord is quite right that the balancing of the rights of different parties in these cases is extremely important. He will be aware that the Home Office has raised child sexual abuse and sexual exploitation as the sixth national threat and has applied significant funding, including from the police transformation fund, to address it. The Government remain committed to ensuring that victims receive quality support for both those who access the criminal justice system and those who do not.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I realise that this is a difficult Question for my noble friend to face at, I think, her first time at the Dispatch Box, and she can get the feeling of the House very clearly. However, does she not accept, and would she not advise the Home Secretary, that what we have here is an example of an official state agency destroying the reputation of a deceased statesman, which is not a very healthy thing in a democracy? Will she pass back to the Home Secretary the fact that, aside from all the details of passing the buck on who is responsible and so on, good government has a responsibility to ensure that what is clearly a yawning injustice is corrected by an independent review?
Baroness Barran
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has acknowledged very clearly that the situation as it stands today is unsatisfactory for all concerned. However, I reiterate what he wrote in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong: that in the absence of hearing Sir Edward’s account of events, it will be impossible to resolve this matter but that no inference of guilt should be taken from the findings of the closure report. In response to the request from my noble friend Lord Sherbourne during the debate the other day, I have sent a copy of Hansard to the Home Secretary, highlighting the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her second innings on this crease, and I can assure her that she can look forward to many more. It is unsatisfactory that the former Home Secretary declined to mount an independent review of this matter, saying it was a local matter for the local police and crime commissioner, who in turn said it was a national matter; he would like to see a review, but feels it is for the Government to do. We need to resolve this. I suggest to the noble Baroness that she get in touch with that police and crime commissioner and suggest that, if he commissions a review, the Home Office will pay for it. That is consistent with what happened in the original Operation Conifer, more than half of which was funded by the Home Office.
Baroness Barran
I respect the noble Lord’s thoughts on this, but as my noble friend Lord Young said the other day, this is well above my pay grade. It is not for me to overrule the Secretary of State, whose view is that this was a large operation involving several forces, but it was an investigation into one individual—albeit a very high profile one—and there remains no justification for the Government intervening in the case.
NHS: Waiting Times
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effect of NHS Foundation Trusts offering private healthcare services on waiting times for NHS patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, since the founding of the NHS in 1948, NHS hospitals have been able to generate small amounts of additional income by treating both international and British private patients. Since 2010, this has remained well below 1% of hospitals’ total income. Any surplus created is used to improve the services that NHS patients receive.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer. I declare an interest: I am an ordinary user of the NHS. I do not have any private medical care, nor do I make any private payments. Is it not true that there are now over 4 million people on queues waiting for treatment in the NHS? Did he see the article in the Times last Thursday headed “Patients pay £1bn to jump NHS queues”? Chelsea and Westminster Hospital recently offered me insurance, terming it the best of both worlds. How many trusts offer opportunities for people to go private, and what is the effect on ordinary users of the NHS? Surely with the shortage of resources, it can mean only that they will wait longer than at present.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am not familiar with the type of insurance the noble Lord is talking about, but would be delighted to see what he has been offered. The 2012 Act obliges income from non-NHS activities to be tied to a foundation trust’s principal purpose, which is,
“the provision of goods and services for the purposes of the health service of England”,
and that is the standard by which it should be held. He is right that waiting lists have been growing. The NHS is doing more than ever—2 million more operations in 2017-18 than in 2010—but we realise that we need to do more, which is why the Prime Minister made the historic commitment to increase funding in the NHS by £20 billion in real terms in five years’ time.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that people who can afford to see a consultant can jump the queue? In a civilised society, is that not wrong?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Lord well knows that we live in a society which has a mixture of public and private provision. That is true of every public service in most countries of the developed world. The critical point is that we need to invest in our National Health Service, and that is something the Prime Minister is determined to do.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Has the time not come for a further review of the previous policy when the right honourable Member for Rushcliffe, as Secretary of State, allowed for a tax reduction or costs to be set against tax for those who take themselves off the NHS list for a particular ailment, thereby freeing up the NHS to carry on the work it should be doing and does so well?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am grateful to my noble friend for the suggestion. I do not think that now is the time for such a use of public resources, but it is notable that over three-quarters of subscriptions for private medical insurance are paid for by companies as a benefit that they provide to their staff. That is an enlightened approach to looking after the welfare of staff that we want to encourage.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has not answered the Question put by my noble friend, which was about the effect of this on waiting lists. Using the private sector to relieve waiting lists, particularly during the winter crisis, which hospital trusts were told they could do, suggests that the understaffing and underresourcing of the NHS is the problem. Who pays for that private sector use? Is it trusts or NHS England? Is the cost of the use of private hospitals set against the cost of providing enough funding to ensure that hospitals and primary care are fully staffed and resourced?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
With respect to the noble Baroness, I think I did answer the noble Lord’s Question because there are two different issues. One is the offering of private healthcare services and the second is the use of private providers to carry out NHS-funded provision—something that has been going on in the NHS for a long time and was accelerated under the last Labour Government. Of course, if private or independent providers are used to reduce waiting lists under the NHS, the NHS pays and the patient does not pay anything.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, there is also a problem with the pipeline. Hospital beds are not clearing as patients recovering from surgery wait to get home or to less intensive settings. Had the Government’s Green Paper been published when it was due two years ago, NHS treatment might be available for those requiring surgery, so how long after its publication does the Minister expect the ideas in it to be fully implemented, so helping this situation to go away?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Is the noble Baroness talking about delayed transfers of care? Of course, it is a major issue. We know that there needs to be better integration between health and social care. The better care fund provides that. We have seen some improvement in delayed transfers of care and the Government made an investment for further beds to come on stream this winter, to ensure that there are more beds for people and that we discharge people faster from them.
Voyeurism (Offences) (No. 2) Bill
Tuesday 18th December 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 View all Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 130-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF) - (22 Nov 2018)
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie)
My Lords, I want to make one or two observations. This is a simple but important piece of legislation with a clear purpose; namely, to close a gap in the law around the taking of upskirt images.
I am grateful for the positive way in which noble Lords have engaged in debate over the Bill. There is clearly a strong consensus that this behaviour be addressed, and I am pleased that noble Lords and Members of the other place have agreed that the Bill works as drafted, and that it will pass through this House unamended.
I would like to thank a number of noble Lords for their engagement with the Bill: the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her support throughout the process and for her commitment to ensuring that the Bill passes through this House rapidly; and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for engaging in the debates, for challenging us to think about whether the purposes of the Bill are, indeed, fit for purpose and for raising the important issue of the onward sharing of non-consensual intimate images. I remain confident that we have taken the right decision on that matter by agreeing to review this first with the Law Commission. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for their contributions to the debate and discussion.
I consider that the review in two years’ time that we committed to in the other place will be a good opportunity to assess how these offences are working in practice. With that, I beg to move.
Student Tuition Fees and Maintenance Loans
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury:
“After its review of the treatment of student loans in government finances, the Office for National Statistics has decided that some of the spending on student loans will be included in the deficit when the money is first lent to students. This is a technical accounting decision by the ONS, whose independence we support and whose diligence we commend. It is for the independent OBR to decide how to reflect this decision in future forecasts, but the ONS has made it clear there is a lot to decide before the numbers are finalised.
I point out that this decision does not affect students’ ability to receive or repay loans. They can still get access to money to help with fees and the cost of living, and they will only start repayments when they are earning over £25,000. Moreover, this decision does not have any implications for public debt as the data and forecast already include the impacts of student loans, including repayments. The Government make decisions on taxes and spending at Budgets, and the OBR judges whether the Government have met their targets.
At the recent Budget, the OBR forecast for headroom was higher than its estimate of the impact of the student loans accounting change. The recent Budget also showed that the Government are meeting their fiscal rules with room to spare and that debt is beginning its first sustained fall for a generation”.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, this may be a technical issue but the decision helps to make the Government clean and honest in a crucial respect. The Minister will appreciate that what it does is to end the fiscal illusion of keeping student debt off government books.
The amount is not trivial: the ONS identifies £12 billion, which is just about equal to the sum the Chancellor treated as a windfall from the OBR when he was constructing his Budget. Of course, it gave him the chance to go on a small spending binge, mainly to the advantage of the better-off in our community, rather than those in greater need. Will the Minister explain how the Government will respond to this rupture in their fiscal targets? As I say, it is not a minor figure. What damage do the Government anticipate will be done to future student prospects and the service our higher education community provides? He will know that the decision has occasioned considerable anxiety in those circles. Does he welcome the end to the Government’s rather despicable practice of selling off part of the student loan book for a song, thereby ensuring that government coffers are filled but that the taxpayer foots the bill in the long run?
Lord Bates
It is not correct to say that student loans are not on the Government’s books. Of course, the national debt does take into account the full cost of student loans—they are listed there. The question at issue, which was addressed by the ONS, was whether the repayment rates should be reflected in the deficit—the total is in the debt but not in the deficit—and it came down on the side of believing that that ought to be recognised in the year in which the loan takes place, rather than waiting until the end of 30 years to figure that out.
We do not mark our own homework on this. We follow the existing rules, as all Governments have done. The ONS has offered a view and made a recommendation, and we will follow that through.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, what most worries me is the distortion in decision-making that results in this silly game-playing with accounting standards. We saw it with PFI and with Network Rail and now, there is a great fear around the House that the student loan programme might be curtailed to improve the cosmetics of the deficit. Will the Government finally simply overhaul the way they handle the public accounts so that they are genuinely clear and transparent? The financial markets that are supposed to be most fooled by this managing of the deficit number simply deconstruct it so that they can see the underlying reality, so there is nothing to be gained except PR—and the danger of distorted decision-making.
Lord Bates
We accept the ONS’s rules. The rules that she criticises are the same as those that were in place during the coalition years. People have pointed this out, and there is a debate about whether it is correct to book a loss that might or might not occur in 30 years in the year in which the loan is made. That is a reasonable debate to have. We do not make the decision; the ONS does. It has decided and we will follow it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this was a recommendation of the Economic Affairs Committee of this House? One of the issues it focused on was the effect of counting the interest on student loans as income, which flattered the deficit and therefore provided some explanation as to why students were being charged as much as 6.3% on their loans. Given that we now have honest accounting on this matter, can we look forward to the Government implementing the committee’s recommendation that there be an immediate cut in the interest rate for student loans to 1.5%—the cost the Government bear in borrowing this money?
Lord Bates
We of course looked at the report, as I am sure the ONS did, and its recommendations were influential. I take the point my noble friend makes about the interest rate at one level, but at another, it is graduated so only those earning more than £45,000 a year will pay the full 3% above RPI. Those earning over £25,000 would pay only RPI. All of these things can be looked at in the post-18 education review, which is under way and due to report next year.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, when is the review is expected to report? Could the Minister also give us the Government’s precise percentage figure for the proportion of loans expected to be repaid? My understanding is that the assumptions regarding that percentage are declining, which is part of the reason why the ONS has made this judgment.
Lord Bates
As I said, the Augar review is due to report during 2019. It was set up in February 2018 by the Prime Minister and it will report to the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and, of course, the Secretary of State for Education. Regarding the assumptions, the ONS still has some work to do, as it said in its announcement; it will not come out with the correct figure until September next year. The working assumption on the amount of loans that will not be repaid, as used in the current calculations, is 45%. It is a matter for the OBR and the ONS to review that when they make their recommendations, which we will follow.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Sheffield Hallam University. This is a welcome change to clarify the proper accounting treatment of what is a loan but not a loan in reality. This is the right way forward. Could the Minister clarify whether government policy on the Augar review will change in any way? It would be inappropriate for what is an accounting change to influence the policy decisions that come from that review.
Lord Bates
The review will continue. Its terms of reference were set out by the Prime Minister in February, and they remain that inquiry’s terms of reference. To that extent, this is a separate issue. These factors might be taken into consideration in the wider debate on the shape of post-18 education. It is perfectly possible to do that.
Lord Christopher (Lab)
My Lords, where loans are bundled and sold off, does that exclude the possibility of any of them being written off?
Lord Bates
It does not make any change to the programme of student loan sales, which will continue as has been set out in the Budget.
Lord Christopher
My Lords, I do not understand that. The loans are sold off and the buyer expects to make a profit. He is not going to make a profit if he then finds that some of the assets are now withdrawn.
Lord Bates
Perhaps I misunderstood the question—I do apologise. I thought the noble Lord had asked what the effect was on the programme of sales of student loans—to which the answer is that there is no change. He is asking a different question: what about loans that have already been sold and will there be an effect? Of course, for those loans the value of the assets will be a matter for the institutions and organisations that have purchased the loans to account for in the correct way on their balance sheets. If that is still not the correct answer, I will be very happy to meet the noble Lord and write to him to clarify.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that, had this change not been made, in 2050 the write-off in cash terms on the student finance book would be £1.2 trillion?
Lord Bates
I cannot confirm that number: I will have to look at it. The reality with these things is that we set them out, we follow the rules set down by the ONS and the OBR and we report accordingly in the Budget Statements.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister responsible actually confirm that should the Augar report recommend a reduction in the amount of student loan to £6,500, the amount that the ONS reclassification would result in would thereby be much smaller, but the majority of students would actually pay exactly the same amount, thereby disadvantaging universities without advantaging students?
Lord Bates
I am sure that, for all those reasons, those arguments will be taken into account by the Augar review.
Operation of Air Services (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sugg
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 October be approved.
Relevant document: 4th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A). Debated in Grand Committee on 21 November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations will be made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and will be needed only if the UK leaves the European Union next March without a deal. It is the duty of a responsible Government to prepare for a wide range of potential outcomes. A key element of this preparation is to ensure that the statute book continues to function, irrespective of the outcome of negotiations, and that there continues to be a well-functioning regulatory oversight regime for aviation. We set out in technical notices in September how this would work, and these regulations deliver some of those outcomes.
Specifically, the draft regulations before us ensure that the UK will be able to provide EU air carriers with the permits they would require to operate to the UK in the absence of a deal. Rules on ownership and control mean that UK-licensed airlines can continue to be licensed by the UK after exit day, and that the CAA continues to be able to deliver effective oversight of UK-licensed air carriers. The draft regulations also ensure that UK carriers can continue to wet-lease aircraft freely from the EU, meaning that they will have as much stability and continuity as possible regarding their ability to lease foreign-registered aircraft, and can continue to use their fleets as flexibly and effectively as possible. Finally, they ensure that rules governing public service obligations in aviation, which provide essential connectivity to outlying areas, can continue to operate as they currently do.
This SI is not about our negotiating position; it is purely correcting the regulations to ensure that we have a functioning statute book in the event of no deal. We are providing UK air carriers with certainty regarding the validity of their operating licences, stability regarding their ability to lease foreign aircraft, and continuity with regards to their regulatory oversight from the CAA. These regulations, along with others, aim to ensure that there is no disruption to air travel in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
At end insert “but regrets that the effect of a no deal exit from the European Union risks grounding all civil aircraft after 29 March 2019; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to seek United Kingdom membership of the European Common Aviation Area in its own right to prevent such an outcome.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the awful spectre of a no-deal Brexit grows relentlessly day by day. Like lemmings, the Government are heading blindly towards a cliff edge. There is paralysis in the House of Commons. The Prime Minister seems to be manoeuvring to get what she wants, irrespective of what is best for the country. I am pleased that we have this debate on the Floor of the House. That is why I negatived it in Grand Committee, when the Government were trying to slip it in quietly behind the scenes in the Room next door.
However, most of the talk about a no-deal Brexit is fairly abstract to most people. The implications have not been sufficiently discussed or understood. They are potentially quite disastrous and this is only one of them—we are not talking about the lorry parks, the medicines or all the other problems. This relates just to aviation. Whenever anyone tries to raise practical issues in this realistic way, they are shouted down with the usual cry from the Brexiteers of Project Fear. We saw that in Scotland in 2014. In fact, there is a great deal to be feared from no deal—and this, as I say, is just one example.
The basic question is whether planes will keep flying between the United Kingdom and European Union destinations, and elsewhere, after 29 March 2019—and, if so, on what terms and at what cost. We have already discussed this on two previous occasions. It is no reflection on the Minister personally that satisfactory answers have not yet been provided, because she cannot provide what does not exist. I will try again to see whether she can do her best—I know she will.
As I have pointed out previously, there is a straightforward way of resolving Brexit-related aviation issues, at least in the short to medium term, if we go ahead with no deal. Access to the EU’s internal market for air transport could be retained by the United Kingdom simply joining the European Common Aviation Area, which is not restricted to European Union member states. However—and it is a big “however”—membership would require the United Kingdom to accept EU aviation laws, which ultimately would come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. So what was seen by the Prime Minister as a red line has in fact become a straitjacket in which the Government have put themselves so that they are unable to take this sensible action.
Surely this is an example of where realism should triumph over dogma. Is there anyone in this House—or indeed the whole country—who would deny the common sense of accepting that one condition in return for the guarantee that, after 29 March, whatever else happens it would be business as usual for aviation—a very simple way forward?
Whatever you think of Michael O’Leary in other contexts, he certainly knows his industry and needs to be listened to, and his company provides cheap flights for millions of people in this country and others. He says that if there a no-deal Brexit, flights will be grounded. So can the Minister give an absolute guarantee now that this will not happen? I say this now and I will say it again: whatever she says will be recorded in Hansard and when it comes to 30 March, we will be able to see—if we go ahead with no deal, which I hope we do not.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Is my noble friend aware of anyone in the aviation industry who thinks that Brexit is anything other than an extremely negative and potentially disastrous step forward for this country?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I do not. It is not just Michael O’Leary who has said that. I am trying to be briefer than usual, but if I was going to go on for longer I could mention many other examples. But if Michael O’Leary is wrong, we need to be told unambiguously that this is not one of the real threats from a no-deal Brexit.
Among the 700 statutory instruments required for the crazy prospect of a no-deal Brexit, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew special attention to these regulations because they,
“give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.
That is why I negatived them in Grand Committee, so that we could have a debate in the House. That statement is certainly true, and the more we know about the potential implications, the greater the interest will be in this—and, I think, the greater the anger is likely to become. For example, how many people realise that it is not only flights within the European Union that are threatened by a no-deal Brexit? The whole basis of our aviation relations with the rest of the world is via the European Union. In all, the EU governs direct UK aviation access to 44 other countries, including the US and Canada. My second request for a guarantee is: what guarantees can the Minister give today on a smooth transition, which means no groundings or delays, for these routes beyond? Remember—we are going to keep careful note of this.
Also, what steps have been taken to guarantee that our safety and maintenance regimes, which again are framed within the EU regime, will be acceptable to every country in Europe and the wider world after 29 March? According to the European Aviation Safety Agency, certificates previously issued by the CAA before exit day would no longer be automatically accepted in the EASA system after 29 March. Has there been any progress on a definitive answer to the massive implication of that statement? How is it to be resolved?
When we last discussed these matters, the Minister was unable to say how many extra staff the CAA has taken on, or will take on, for its hugely increased workload. This is one of the many costs of preparing for Brexit; it is already taking on more staff. Can she give us an indication today of how many staff will be needed to deal with route licensing in that hugely increased workload, as well as its other responsibilities? These are huge questions. We are only three months away from our potential exit from the European Union, unless some hand of fate intervenes. We do not want vague assurances that discussions are continuing. They will guarantee nothing, and both business and private travellers now need specific, hard and clear assurances from the Government who have led us into this cul-de-sac.
I am not going to press this to a vote today. I would have liked to have done so, but some of my colleagues have said, “Let’s give the Government an opportunity to answer these points”. It is not because I am in any way satisfied, but I will give the Government the opportunity to make their explanation and give us the guarantees today. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that this in no ways absolves the Government from finding a solution that avoids a no-deal Brexit, thereby eliminating the extremely serious threats to civil aviation that we are discussing. Let us hope that sense prevails and we are not faced with a no-deal disaster—otherwise I believe that the kind of things I have predicted today will cause tremendous problems after 29 March. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that this little debate has been called. I declare my interests at the outset, as a former transport spokesman in the European Parliament and a one-time rapporteur on a civil aviation report. Subsequently, I was a spokesman in the House of Commons for the Conservatives when in opposition.
I would like to put a number of small questions to my noble friend the Minister today. The House has been particularly well served by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report on these regulations, which raised a number of policy issues that need to be addressed. I must say that I find the amendment to the Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has put before the House quite attractive.
My question relates to the implications for air service agreements with the EU and the EEA. There is also a broader question which does not seem to have been addressed in these regulations which I know is causing great concern. I omitted to say that at the time I married my husband he was an airline executive and is now in receipt of a pension from Delta Air Lines. I have not consulted him on my notes today, but perhaps it would have been better to have done so.
American carriers are concerned about cabotage and their right to fly internally within the EU. We are currently part of the common travel area. Will my noble friend address what happens when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union on 29 March regarding the fourth and fifth freedoms and US and other international carriers? That does not seem to be addressed in this regulation, but I know it will be exercising many of the airlines at this time.
Page 4 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report raises a number of issues and I think the House will take a great interest in the Minister’s reply. Paragraph 16 states:
“In the event of no agreement, EEA airlines will now also need to apply for a foreign carrier permit to operate in the UK”.
As suggested, I would like to press the Minister about the basis on which these expectations are founded and what co-operation and negotiations she is having with EU carriers to ensure that the necessary permits will be in place before 29 March so that there is no gap in aviation post Brexit. How long does the Minister think it will take to apply for these permits? What cost will there be to the airlines in this regard? Will she take this opportunity to correct what I hope are incorrect newspaper reports over the weekend that passengers are being told not to fly after 29 March next year because it is all too difficult to know what rights will be in place and what permits will be required for passengers to apply for visas or permits to travel?
I would also be grateful for a response from the Minister on this question. When she referred to the current wet leasing arrangements, she said that this will be in relation to reciprocity. How will this carry on after 29 March, particularly as it is understood that carriers may not benefit from the current arrangements once we have left the European Union?
The amendment to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asks for UK membership of the European common aviation area. Does my noble friend have a date for the application that we intend to make to that area?
I shall conclude with a general point. I understand that these regulations might have been put forward as a draft negative, in which case I am not sure that we would have had the chance to consider them. If that is the case, the House was given a very clear understanding during the passage of the EU withdrawal Bill that no policy should be decided by secondary legislation and that all policy should be decided by primary legislation. My fear is that the statutory instrument before the House today is getting perilously close to determining policy. I hope that the Government will put down a marker that when it comes to other Bills, such as the Agriculture Bill and the environment Bill, no policy will be applied through regulation but will be in the Bill. When we were in opposition that was always our very clear understanding.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I can well understand the sense of frustration that led the noble Lord to table his amendment. Indeed, “sense of frustration” is a massive understatement. The chaos which has prevailed in the Government for more than two years has turned lately to a deliberate intention to frustrate the will of the people and a determination to stifle debate in the other place and run down the clock to a point where MPs will be denied any meaningful vote. The chaos is not helped by the antics of the leader of the Official Opposition, to whom we would normally look for some guidance. A completely blank space is there, so it is good to see the spirit being shown here by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
I was in Brussels at the weekend—I go there frequently for family reasons. I talk to people who live there, both British and many other nationalities. Over the months, I have noticed their sense of sadness turn to irritation and then to frustration; now, they are almost laughing at us, because of the chaos we are in. They are doing it with great sadness, because they have always looked to the British as the people who would get on with it and make the sensible decisions.
Last week, the EU Sub-Committee on the Internal Market, of which I am a member, reviewed the evidence that we had a year ago from representatives of the aviation industry. Then, they had brushed aside the possibility of a no-deal Brexit when we put that question to them as simply not a likely scenario or not credible. They also stressed the need for their industry to have the deal done by the end of August or September this year at the latest. We are now 70 working days away from 29 March. We are asking our businesses and our industries, and not just the aviation industry, to do an impossible job. Unless we just carry on as we are, it is too late for them to prepare for any change in situation.
This SI is part of the Government’s rather pathetic preparations for a no-deal scenario. When we discussed it in Grand Committee a couple of weeks ago, the Minister still managed to sound pretty confident, but a lot of plans have come unstuck since that time.
In Britain, we have the third largest aviation industry in the world. We are a nation that loves to travel and we have a highly competitive aviation market based largely on cheap air fares. If there is no deal, UK and EU airlines will lose the automatic right to operate services between the UK and the EU without the need for advance permission from individual states. The Minister told us that the Department for Transport expects to grant permission for EU carriers to fly to and from UK airports and for that to be reciprocated by other countries in the EU. However, a more recent report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on another, related SI—the draft aviation safety regulations—indicates that the European Commission has confirmed that licences, certificates and approvals issued by the CAA before 29 March will no longer be automatically accepted in the EASA system by other EU countries after exit day. The DfT’s hope of mutual recognition after a no-deal Brexit may be overoptimistic.
One thing is for certain: the CAA will have to shoulder many more responsibilities, some of which are set out in this SI, in the other SI to which I referred and beyond. We will have to consider those other SIs in future. Can the Minister explain to us in detail what additional resources have been given to the CAA already and what more resources the Government plan to give it in future?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I extend my commiserations to the Minister for having to defend an impossible policy today. Nobody engaged in this business thinks that what we are discussing today is anything other than ridiculous: dismantling our entire existing system of civil aviation regulation, mutual recognition and European supervision and the rights of carriers to operate in different countries, all for the pursuit of an ideologically crazed venture which never at any point focused on issues of aviation and travel within the European Union.
None the less, having extended my commiserations, I point out that the Minister does have great responsibilities to the House and to Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, so rightly said, people are making real travel decisions based on their fear of what may or may not happen from the end of March next year. It is almost unbelievable that people should be cancelling their travel plans and not arranging holidays for next Easter and summer, due to their fears of what will happen because of inadequate government preparations for our relations with our European partners. In the House of Commons yesterday, the Prime Minister herself ramped up the real possibility of a no-deal Brexit in a big way and posited it as the main alternative to the passage of her deal. It is hard to exaggerate how irresponsible that was on her part, because almost nobody in Parliament believes that this deal is going to go through in a month’s time. The Prime Minister is saying to Parliament, and to the country, that the most likely scenario now facing the country is that there will be no deal at the end of next March.
All of the concerns raised in the reports we have been debating today, leading to profound discontinuities and companies and individuals in this country experiencing massive economic and social damage, will come to pass. At the moment, we are just talking about one small fraction of aviation, but we face an extremely serious situation. As the noble Baroness said, this is just one set of regulations. There is a string of regulations relating to the complex and difficult area of aviation safety which I hope will come to the Floor of the House because they involve extremely important issues. There are dozens of other transport regulations.
I am told—because I know one or two things about what goes on in the noble Baroness’s department—that a significant proportion of the staff in the Department for Transport are now working solely on Brexit-related issues. This is part of the reason for the massive cost overrun on Crossrail, which is not being delivered on time. We have inadequate supervision of HS2—we could continue down the list. There is only a certain amount of expertise, energy and capacity in Whitehall and at the moment, it is all being sucked in by Brexit, including the extremely valuable time of the noble Baroness and other Ministers in her department, which is having to be spent dealing with proposals for what happens if we crash out of the EU in three months’ time, rather than staying in. I suspect that the noble Baroness agrees with almost everything I have said, although she cannot say it quite like that. All this is worth saying because we are going to have this time after time, day after day, between now and the end of next March if we carry on with this present process.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes has done a great service to the House by bringing up this matter and moving his amendment. I was surprised when he said he was not going to push it to a vote. Indeed, I was little short of astonished, as my noble friend never knowingly undersells when it comes to fulfilling the duties of opposition. I cannot believe that, at this late hour, he is going to wimp out of pushing this to a vote. I hope he has not come under pressure from these people called Whips, who apparently exercise some influence in this House. I cannot think of any good reason for not pushing it, since the matters raised in his amendment are of profound public policy concern. I cannot think of an issue that this House has more of a duty to raise than this: it goes to the heart of the continuity of our transport arrangements. It may be that the noble Baroness gives such an impressive and detailed reply that my noble friend will not feel he needs to press this further. However, to give him some slight encouragement, if the reply is not of the calibre he would expect, giving give him absolute assurance of continuity in our transport arrangements at the end of next March, he might think of pressing the amendment. He might find that one or two other noble Lords will be with him in the Lobby. I might even be prepared to be a Teller with him.
It is not just about a vote at the end of this debate. We have got to send a message to the Government that we are on their case, regulation after regulation, when issues of this variety come before the House between now and the end of next March.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
As my noble friend said, there are going to be dozens, scores—maybe hundreds—more of these SIs. We need to keep a very close watch on them in Grand Committee and make sure that the important ones are negatived and come here. We may have many other opportunities for considering them, moving amendments and even voting. Even if he does not have the excitement today, I think there are going to be many other opportunities.
Lord Adonis
I entirely agree with my noble friend and with the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who rightly said that issues of first-order public policy were being raised in regulations. At the moment, whether they come before the House is almost entirely random. I also say in passing that there is a growing sense of frustration about this. The House is about to go into Recess in what is—let us be frank—a national crisis. It is going into Recess on Thursday and not coming back until the second week in January. By then, we will have literally a matter of days before we leave the European Union. We should be doing our duty and assembling here in Westminster and debating these issues regulation by regulation from the beginning of the new year. I might have something further to say about that when the Motion for the Adjournment comes forward on Thursday.
Turning to the specific issues at stake here, the situation is very serious. The report of Sub-Committee A of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which examined the regulations and—I echo the Baroness—did an excellent job on these and others, says of air carriers that,
“in the event of ‘no deal’ the UK expects to grant permission to EU carriers to operate at UK airports”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said that part of the reason why we have such a big aviation sector is cheap airlines. They are part of the reason, but it is also that in Heathrow, we have Europe’s preeminent hub airport. It is one of the biggest earners for this country in terms of international income and the promotion of inward investment, because it is so successful. Anything that promotes discontinuity in operations at Heathrow will be lethal to its success, to our ability to attract inward investment and to be an aviation world leader in future. If our European partners and other European airlines think that we are not going to put in place all the regulations necessary to ensure that Heathrow operates completely smoothly and with no discontinuity whatever, they will very rapidly—the noble Baroness is nodding because she understands this completely—move their operations to Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle, Dubai or other international hub airports that are at least as accessible as Heathrow in terms of facilities. The stakes are extremely high: one of our major national industries could be at stake if we get this wrong.
The Select Committee said that,
“in the event of ‘no deal’ the UK expects to grant permission to EU carriers to operate at UK airports. We expect this to be reciprocated by EU states granting permission to UK air carriers to operate to points in the EU. If a multilateral agreement with the EU can’t be reached, we would seek bilateral agreements with individual states”.
Buried in those words are matters of huge complexity and difficulty. Not only would we need a bilateral arrangement for each of the 27 other member states of the EU in the event of no deal; as my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, there are also the other 144 arrangements that we have in place which govern our international aviation. When the Minister replied to the heated debates in Grand Committee on these issues and was invited to give an update on the state of the negotiations with our 27 EU partners on the reciprocal arrangements and the other countries that are covered by them, she was unable to give a great deal of information. She said that,
“we are having conversations with the Commission and the member states about a wide range of issues. I am not able to give further detailed information at this moment”.—[Official Report, 21/11/18; col. GC 21.]
Viscount Waverley (CB)
Is the noble Lord able to say when the discussions can be kicked in with the member states, or does the Commission have total ownership of the situation until such time as Brexit actually comes about?
Lord Adonis
That is actually a question for the Minister, but my understanding of the situation—the Minister might correct me—is that we are, at this moment, having bilateral discussions. Indeed, they are, in effect, negotiations, because we have to make preparations for what will happen in the event of no deal with our 27 other member colleagues in the EU and the other countries with which the EU currently has bilateral arrangements. They must be taking place, because if they are not, we risk, in the event of no deal, having no legal basis for the operation of a substantial part of our aviation industry from 29 March.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken so far have raised serious concerns about the future of the air services after 29 March. People will take very seriously the statement at the weekend advising people not to travel by air after 29 March—which I am sure was denied by everyone in whose interests it was to deny it. Apart from not knowing whether flights will operate, if you are going on holiday or on business there is an equally serious question as to whether, if you have booked a flight after 29 March, you will get any compensation if it does not fly, and from whom one will get compensation. It could be the complete end of the cheap holidays and cheap flights as we know them, which have been so successful here.
I will not repeat what other noble Lords have said, but a statement came to me last week from people in the ports sector, which I think is probably the same in that it covers all sectors. It said that all industries involved had to sign non-disclosure agreements before government would talk to them. This might be why we do not hear too much from the sector: it is frightened of saying things that, frankly, the Government might not like and of thereby being excluded from further negotiations. Perhaps the noble Baroness, when she responds, could explain why the Government think it is necessary for industries, which will be severely affected by this, to sign non-disclosure agreements. Their businesses are at stake and it is perfectly reasonable that they should know from the Government, with maximum transparency, what is going to happen, why and when. They can then judge what the effect will be on their businesses. My gut feeling is that it would be very unwise to book a holiday or a business trip after 29 March, until we receive the kind of assurances from the Minister that many noble Lords have requested.
Viscount Waverley
My Lords, the Minister might care to respond to another point. I recognise that the issue of air services is before us, but does she agree with—or can she comment on—the words of the Minister for European Affairs in France, who has said that the same issues apply to the Eurostar which will not be able to travel post-Brexit? Perhaps she would be kind enough to give some consideration to that point.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, the whole House should be grateful to my noble friend for having alerted us again to this crucial issue. There has been a lot of talk about holidays, but we must remember that a lot of families cross boundaries with sick or increasingly frail relatives; certainty about travel is actually crucial to their way of life. I cannot help feeling a little cynical; I believe many members of the public who have been blindly supporting the idea that “we must get out” will have a rude awakening when they are hit by the realities of what will happen on the travel front.
This is not just about air traffic, which we are talking about today. What disruption will happen to other means of communication, such as Eurostar or the ports? No definite information is available. Over and over again, those of us who are active in the community hear, for example, from business people, “Please just get some certainty into the situation; it is impossible to operate in the current atmosphere of uncertainty”. That also applies to universities and higher education.
There is one thing we must be very careful about: if one set out to design a nation that was utterly dependent on international relations in all aspects of its economic, private and social life, it would be difficult to come up with a better example than the United Kingdom. Central to a Government’s approach to what is happening should be how we get this right and preserve what we have. We must be careful not to join, inadvertently, a sort of emergency operation that asks, “What are we going to do about the catastrophe about to overtake us?” The real challenge is to say, “We must not let this catastrophe overtake us”. It is immensely urgent that we ensure an opportunity is given to all sane people in Britain, and in Parliament, to say, “No, we cannot go on with this nonsense; we really have to think again about leaving the European Union”.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest. I am in receipt of what is, for me, a substantial British Airways pension and, if this disruption were such as to cause British Airways to go broke, I would not get all of it. I have consulted the Registrar of Members’ Interests and am assured that the interest is sufficiently tenuous to allow me to speak. I have a rather more acute interest in the fact that my wife has planned a holiday in the Canaries on 18 April.
I will speak from a presumption of no deal. There is an acceptance that the execution of the intent of this SI will depend on agreements. As I have to take part on probably 70-plus SIs between now and the end of March, I usually avoid general debates on Brexit, but when agreeing these SIs, it is necessary to look at two issues. First, are they technically valid? I have looked through them and there has been a good debate on them in Grand Committee, and I think that they are technically valid. Secondly, what is their chance of being successfully executed? I will speak to only the second question.
The whole of this SI depends on there being agreements to carry on flying. Indeed, in Grand Committee the Minister said that the Government would be seeking multilateral agreements with the EU in order to allow aviation to continue. However, she said that, failing that, we would have to fall back on bilateral agreements. There will be a requirement for 27 bilateral deals with the EU and, if I have read the briefings properly, 17 bilateral deals with non-EU countries presently enabled by EU agreements, including the US—a US under a President who strongly believes in America first. This would mean that if a multilateral agreement were not concluded, 44 sets of negotiations would have to be completed by 30 March next year.
The logic of why that will work is set out in a number of places, including at one point in the Explanatory Memorandum before it was revised, but I thank the Government for publishing a document called Flights to and from the UK if there’s no Brexit deal, which was published on 24 September 2018. It explains the logic of why we will succeed in achieving, first, traffic rights and, secondly, appropriate safety recognition. The paragraph on traffic rights states:
“If there is ‘no deal’ with the EU, airlines wishing to operate flights between the UK and the EU would have to seek individual permissions to operate from the respective states (be that the UK or an EU country). In this scenario the UK would envisage granting permission to EU airlines to continue to operate. We would expect EU countries to reciprocate in turn. It would not be in the interest of any EU country or the UK to restrict the choice of destinations that could be served, though, if such permissions are not granted, there could be disruption to some flights”.
So, if there is not a multilateral deal, the whole concept falls back on an expectation that the EU will reciprocate. A similar section on the same page relating to safety says:
“The UK would expect this recognition of equivalent safety standards to be reciprocated by the EU in its ‘Part-TCO’ authorisations”.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for initiating this debate, and other noble Lords for their contributions. Following the speculation in the media over the weekend, I am also grateful for the opportunity to provide clear reassurance on the Floor of the House that planes will continue to fly after 29 March 2019, and that people can continue to book their holidays with confidence.
As I said, these regulations are an important element of this Government’s sensible contingency preparations. Obviously the debate has not focused quite on the detail; as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said, we focused on that in Grand Committee, so I will address my comments to the contributions from noble Lords.
In the amendment to the Motion, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, calls on the Government to seek membership of the European common aviation area. That is a multilateral agreement and, as he will know, signatories to it are the EU and its member states, Norway, Iceland and the western Balkan states. We are already putting in place replacement arrangements with the eight non-EU signatories for that agreement. We have got three—very nearly four—of those agreements signed, and others are progressing well.
It would not be straightforward for the UK simply to sign up to the ECAA agreement. That would require the active consent of all the EU 27 and the eight non-EU parties to that agreement. As I said, we have arrangements in place with many of the non-EU parties. As for the EU 27, the Commission has been clear that it will negotiate separately on that. As the noble Lord points out, the ECAA agreement also necessitates full and continued application of EU legislation and, with regard to the interpretation of the agreement and the associated legislation, it is the European Court of Justice that will decide. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Prime Minister has set out red lines for the UK’s future relationship with the EU, one of which is to end the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK.
Civil aircraft are not at risk of being grounded after 29 March. That would be in nobody’s interests and is entirely avoidable. As Donald Tusk said earlier this year, he is,
“determined to avoid that particularly absurd consequence of Brexit that is disruption of flights between the UK and the EU”.
That confidence is shared by industry as well as the UK Government. Ryanair, to whom the noble Lord referred, last month reported that its forward bookings for flights to and from the EU remain strong, as we have seen across the sector. Its chief marketing officer was quoted as saying that even if we were in a no-deal Brexit, flying would be fine.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned Heathrow. He is quite right that we need to ensure that we have these regulations in place to avoid disruption. John Holland-Kaye of Heathrow said yesterday that he was confident that planes would still fly and people could book with confidence. But I understand noble Lords’ concerns and it might be helpful if I set out in a little more detail our position and the Commission’s published position on this.
We set out in September in our technical notices, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, referred, that we envisage granting permission to EU air carriers to operate to the UK. In its own contingency action plan published on 13 November, the Commission set out that it would also bring forward measures to ensure that UK air carriers could operate to the EU. Explicitly, in its contingency planning note of 13 November regarding traffic rights, to which this statutory instrument refers, the Commission said that it will propose measures to ensure that air carriers from the UK are allowed to fly over the territory of the EU and make technical stops, as well as land in the EU and fly back to the UK. The Commission said that these measures would be subject to the condition that the UK applies equivalent measures, and we have provided that reassurance as set out in our technical notices and as this SI actually delivers.
On aviation safety, which is of course important both to ensure that planes keep flying and that we keep our passengers safe, the Commission has said that EASA will be able to issue certificates only once the UK has become a third country, which will not be until after we have left the European Union. But it said in its notice on 13 November that it would propose measures to ensure continued validity of such certificates for a limited period. Those measures will be subject to the condition that the UK applies similar measures. Again, we have set out that we will recognise the EASA certificates for up to two years in our technical notices. That position was detailed in the aviation SI that was laid earlier this month and will be debated in your Lordships’ House in the new year.
I can give an update since Grand Committee to show further progress. On 29 November, following a meeting between the EU 27, we received a further update from the Commission on its position. On market access, the Commission has confirmed that it will propose a regulation to ensure basic connectivity for EU-UK flights on the basis of reciprocity. On aviation safety, the Commission will propose a regulation for continued validity of type certificates and organisation approvals, and for UK certified parts and appliances placed on the EU market before the withdrawal date. On aviation security, the Commission has confirmed that it will adopt an implementing Act to list the UK for the one-stop security system, which will include cargo security. We do not yet have a timeline on that, but we are working closely with the Commission to deliver it. Noble Lords are quite right to point out the importance of the reciprocity in this, but we are delivering our commitments through this programme of secondary legislation. The EU has confirmed that it is doing the same.
Not all our aviation relationships are governed through the EU. We already have in place 112 separate bilateral agreements with other countries. They will continue as they are today as we leave the European Union. I can provide noble Lords with some updates on further negotiations around bilaterals. We have recently concluded a new bilateral air services agreement with the UK and the US. That is confirmed and signed. That will come into effect once the EU-US air transport agreement ceases to apply to the UK. That is a good deal that guarantees the continuation of our really important transatlantic routes. It means that airlines can continue to operate as they do now and it will allow them to develop new services.
We have also concluded agreements with many countries where the current arrangements are governed by EU-level agreements. We have concluded agreements with Albania, Canada, Georgia, Iceland, Israel, Kosovo, Montenegro, Morocco and Switzerland. We are working very closely with other international partners to agree replacement bilateral arrangements designed to come into effect with the other countries currently governed under an EU agreement. Those countries are Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Moldova, Norway and Serbia. Talks on those are progressing well. We expect these arrangements to be in place well ahead of exit day.
Some noble Lords asked about resources for the CAA. The CAA is of course making appropriate contingency preparations to deliver the continuity of service we want. That includes ensuring it has the appropriate staffing levels to deal with any increase in workload. It is recruiting 59 additional staff in preparation, 39 of whom are already in position. It is important to remember that the additional functions the CAA would take on in a no-deal scenario are limited. They are mostly for aviation safety, particularly in design certification. The EASA system works for the most part on the basis of automatic recognition of certificates issued by national authorities, so the CAA is already our competent authority for most approvals. As I said, both our and the EU’s positions have said that we will recognise those certificates for a limited period after we leave the European Union.
I turn to some questions from my noble friend Lady McIntosh. I again add my thanks to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its continued work on our lengthy SI programme. It brings many SIs to the House’s attention, and I thank it for doing so. My noble friend asked about the CAA burden. I have already mentioned its resourcing. Specifically on route licences, as I said, the CAA already provides regulatory oversight on all UK-licensed air carriers and has the resource in place to ensure it can continue to provide that oversight. All holders of a type A operating licence, which is the majority of aircraft over 20 seats, already hold a route licence. All holders of type B operating licences have already been individually contacted and invited to apply for a free route licence from the CAA. The CAA is absolutely confident that those route licences will be issued in advance of exit day.
My noble friend also asked about reciprocity of wet leasing. Maintaining the current wet-leasing arrangement is the right thing to do for the industry as a whole, as well as for passengers. We are making every effort to minimise disruption to aviation on a no deal. Maintaining the current system for wet leasing of foreign aircraft is part of that effort.
Noble Lords raised some questions about the transport SI programme. We are expected to lay approximately 65 EU exit SIs. That number is approximate because ongoing EU business means that further legislation might come into force. Of those 65 SIs we have laid 36 to date. That is over half. Of those laid so far, 18 have been affirmative and have been debated on the Floor of the House or in Grand Committee, and 18 have been negative. There are 14 aviation SIs, 10 of which have been laid so far. Noble Lords have referred to the important issues of safety and security, and passenger rights and compensation. Those SIs have been laid and will be debated early in the new year. The remaining SIs will be spread between now and exit day to make sure we have a fully functioning—
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am very grateful for my noble friend’s response. I asked a rather techy question about fourth and fifth-freedom rights, but currently there are routes that fly, for example, from London through Shannon to the US. Has that been resolved in the context of the new UK-US agreement to which my noble friend referred?
Baroness Sugg
The current direct operations from the UK to the US will continue to stand. Obviously, if there are flights through the EU, that will be subject to the negotiations.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To be very clear, I am asking about routes that I think still operate from London via Shannon in Ireland to the States: has it been resolved that they will continue?
Baroness Sugg
I am sorry if I was not clear. No, the current UK-US deal deals only with direct flights between the UK and the US. Obviously, a flight that stops off at Shannon will be part of our discussions with the EU.
I hope I have been able to provide reassurance on this. I think that the EU Commission has been very clear in setting out its position and we have been very clear in setting out our position. They are broadly the same position: they both rely on reciprocity. We are delivering our position through this series of statutory instruments and, as I said, the EU is working on a timeline of when it will deliver its position. While we are working hard to get parliamentary agreement to the deal with the EU, we of course have to continue to make responsible preparations to ensure that, in the absence of that agreement, we will be able to avoid disruption. This SI and the others we have debated and will debate over the coming months are a key part of those preparations. Both we and the EU have published contingency plans, of which these regulations are just one small element. Taken together, those plans will ensure that planes can continue to fly to and from the EU in the event of a no-deal exit. They will ensure that our legal and regulatory framework for aviation is ready so that flights can continue whatever the outcome of the negotiations.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, the Minister has been more helpful than she was in Grand Committee, and my noble friend on the Front Bench made a splendid speech referring to this guidance of 24 September. It says right at the end:
“This notice is meant for guidance only”.
If I were booking a flight to the Canaries in April I would take account of the next sentence:
“You should consider whether you need separate professional advice before making specific preparations”.
I am sure that that will be helpful for my noble friend. However, we have noted what the Minister said. All this work is being done, all these great people in the Department for Transport are working very hard indeed and it really is quite outrageous, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, that they are being deployed on this work which we hope will be totally unnecessary when they could be doing something really useful. However, in light of the Minister’s helpful reply, I do not intend to press my amendment to a Division.
Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:19 - Division on Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 90 / Noes: 187 - Amendment to the Motion disagreed.
18:31 - Division on Lord Beecham’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 186 / Noes: 161 - Amendment to the Motion agreed.
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 5 November be approved.
Relevant documents: Special attention drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 40th Report, 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the title is instructive: “Non-contentious”. The purpose of the draft order before us today is to implement a new, more progressive banded structure of fees for a grant of representation, commonly known as a grant of probate. The banded fees relate to the value of the estate. These new fees come under the category of “enhanced fees” and noble Lords may be aware that in Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, Parliament has given the Lord Chancellor the power to set certain court and tribunal fees above the cost of providing the service. The income generated by these enhanced fees must be used to fund an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals.
Noble Lords will recognise the importance of a fair and functional justice system not only to court users but to society as a whole. The decisions made in the courts and tribunals convict the guilty, protect the innocent and help ordinary people take back control of their lives. This Government are committed to providing a world-class courts and tribunals system that supports victims and vulnerable people, is easy for ordinary people to use and maintains access to justice for all.
However, such a system requires proper funding. It has long been the case that users of our courts system contribute towards its costs, and we believe that this remains both relevant and reasonable as it reduces the burden on other taxpayers. Crucially, by asking those who use the courts to pay more where they can afford to do so, we are able to fund areas where we charge no fees to vulnerable victims and users: for example, for domestic violence and non-molestation orders, and for cases before the First-tier Tribunal concerning mental health.
The Government are investing £1 billion to modernise and upgrade the courts system so that it works even better for everyone, including victims, witnesses, litigants, judges and legal professionals. This includes introducing changes to our probate service, which offers an important, valuable and supportive service to those who are bereaved. The change to the probate service will aim to reduce the burden on those who are applying for a grant of probate. Some examples of how we are doing this include providing the public or their representatives with the option to initiate cases online; enabling applicants to pay more conveniently; and replacing the swearing of an oath with an online statement of truth.
In 2017-18 the running costs of Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service were £1.8 billion. We recovered only £710 million of that in fee income. That position is unsustainable, and it is right that we look to the users of that service to contribute more. Parliament understood the importance and value of our world-leading justice system and the financial pressure that the Courts & Tribunals Service faces, which is why it passed the power in the 2014 Act to which I referred a moment ago. It is under this power that the Government have laid this draft order.
The order introduces a new, fairer banded structure for probate fees. The fee payable is no longer a flat fee but instead relates to the value of the estate—a more progressive proposal. The new fees are fair and proportionate. Under the new structure, we are raising the threshold below which no fee is payable from £5,000 to £50,000, so that more modest estates are protected. That will lift around an additional 25,000 estates per year out of having to pay fees altogether. Overall, more than half of all estates will pay nothing, either because they are exempt or because they do not require a grant of probate. For those which pay, around 80% of estates will pay £750 or less. Moreover, the new model will mean that the revised fees will never be more than 0.5% of the value of the estate.
As noble Lords will know, the previous Government initially announced their plans to introduce enhanced probate fees on 24 February 2017, following a public consultation. The relevant draft affirmative SI was laid in Parliament soon after. The order was debated and passed by the Commons Delegated Legislation Committee on 19 April 2017, but the announcement of the general election meant that there was no time for it to be debated and considered for approval in both Houses.
Various criticisms were made of the previous order, and the Government looked very closely at these in deciding to reintroduce changes to probate fees. These concerns were centred largely on the level of fees rather than on the principle of a banded structure. The criticisms were that the fees were excessive. The Government accept this point and the revised fee scheme we are introducing has reduced fees payable at all bands. The highest fee payable has reduced from £20,000 under the previous proposal to £6,000 under this proposal. The new banded fee structure does not amend the underlying policy rationale and will retain the same progressive banded structure as the earlier proposal, in which the fee payable relates to the value of the estate. This represents a fair and proportionate fee payable for obtaining a grant of probate.
I acknowledge that the JCSI has drawn the attention of the House to this order, and the SLSC also reported concerns. I have also noted the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, in his amendment, which are related to the SLSC report. Furthermore, I acknowledge the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which echoes points raised by the JCSI. I will therefore address these points in turn, which I hope will outline clearly the Government’s position in relation to these arguments.
The JCSI reported the draft SI for doubtful vires and unexpected use of powers, as it felt that the new fees amounted to a tax and questioned whether the imposition of this level of fees was anticipated when the primary power was approved. It went on to argue that the basic premise of a fee is directly related to the cost of the service. The SLSC also made these points but went further, arguing that, as a result of the savings envisaged as part of delivering a reformed probate service, the fees were disproportionate. I must respectfully disagree with both committees.
Section 180 gives the Lord Chancellor the explicit authority to impose enhanced fees to,
“prescribe a fee of an amount which is intended to exceed the cost of anything in respect of which the fee is charged”,
and that is what this order seeks to do. In doing so, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to, among other factors,
“the financial position of the courts and tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible, including in particular any costs incurred by those courts and tribunals that are not being met by current fee income”.
The Act is also clear that any income from these fees,
“must be used to finance an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals”.
These provisions clearly demonstrate Parliament’s intention that the Lord Chancellor should be able to set fees above cost in one part of the system to subsidise other parts of that system, and to maintain the effective operation of the system as a whole.
The JCSI has suggested that the concept of a fee is subject to inherent limitations in relation to the service for which it is charged. Again, we do not accept this. The specific legislative provision in Section 180 of the 2014 Act breaks the link between the cost of the service and the fee that may be charged. This was clearly the intention of Parliament in making such a provision. The proposals in the order are consistent with the primary power and the assurances given to Parliament at the time the Bill was considered. This is not the first time that the Government have sought to introduce enhanced fees or fees which relate to the value of the issues at stake—for example, fees for certain civil money claims. For these reasons, we do not consider that the draft probate fees order is an unexpected use of the Section 180 power. We are using it in exactly the way that Parliament intended.
Finally, I have made it clear that, as the fee is not tied to the cost of the service under the enhanced fee powers, I disagree with the idea that the fee changes are disproportionate, in light of reform to the probate service which aims to make the service more efficient. As we have already made clear, users will experience a better system which has benefited from significant investment from the taxpayer. It is still right that the additional income is used to cross-subsidise in other areas where vulnerable users and victims are charged either no fee or a nominal fee.
More specifically, we have significantly reduced the fees at all levels compared to our previous proposal, which I believe responds to concerns about what fee is proportionate. We are clear that this is an application fee for a specific service: to obtain a grant of representation to deal with a person’s estate. This is distinct from general taxation, which is paid into a consolidated fund held by HM Treasury. Charging fees is justified as a way of funding our courts system to provide access to justice, which the Government are committed to maintaining.
I have already reminded your Lordships’ House that the Lord Chancellor, when setting these fees, is required to have regard to the financial position of the courts and tribunals. Another factor that must be considered is the principle that access to the courts should not be denied. In considering this fundamental principle of access to the courts, we have been careful to ensure that nobody will find themselves unable to apply for a grant of probate on account of the fee. These fees will never be unaffordable. The probate fee and any reasonable expenses are recoverable from the estate and determined by the value of that estate, so the executor will not be permanently out of pocket. Any difficulty in paying the fee will, by definition, be one of cash flow rather than affordability. I would nevertheless like to take this opportunity to set out the safeguards in place to support executors.
In most cases, we believe that the executor will be able to access funds in the estate to pay the fee—including, for example, bank accounts and savings belonging to the estate. HMRC data indicates that the average estate is around 25% cash, and the fee will never be more than 0.5% of the value of the estate.
We have been working with UK Finance, the Building Societies Association and the Money Advice Service. The industry has set out bereavement principles to encourage its members to support the bereaved and allow necessary payments to be made where it is possible to do so within the law. Furthermore, where an executor is not successful initially in accessing funds from a bank or building society account, the probate service is willing to write to the relevant institution to provide reassurance that the assets are needed to pay the fee. Other avenues of funding will also be available, including a personal or executor’s loan. In those cases where executors are unable to take advantage of any of these options, they can apply for a limited grant of probate to provide them with partial access to specific assets of the estate for the sole purpose of paying the fee. This application would not attract an additional fee.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
Leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Order, because it would be an abuse of the fee-levying power, since the proposed increased fees substantially exceed the cost involved in making grants of probate and would amount to a tax, which should only be introduced, if at all, by primary legislation.”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, my amendment is fatal, and I do not move it lightly. The Government propose to increase fees for probate applications from the current flat rate of £215 for individuals or £155 for solicitors’ applications on all estates worth £5,000 by introducing a sliding scale of fees rising from £250 to £6,000 on all estates worth £50,000 or more. The fee is to be banded with a maximum £6,000 fee kicking in at £2 million. These are dramatic increases. According to the impact assessment, the existing fees reflect average administrations costs. That is why a solicitor’s application costs less than an individual’s application, simply because it costs less to administer. For estates above £2 million, the increase is twenty-eightfold. Just that increase would be 27 times the actual cost of administration. The Government expect these so-called enhanced fees to generate a profit of £145 million a year, rising as estate values increase.
The noble and learned Lord relied in his all-Peers letter and relies today on Section 180 of the 2014 Act as, “clear authority to set fees above cost to cross-subsidise other parts of the courts and tribunals system”. He says, “The level of fee does not have to be related to the cost of the service and all additional income raised from enhanced fees can only be used to fund an effective and efficient courts and tribunals system”. He is quite right to point out that Section 180 permits,
“a fee of an amount which is intended to exceed the cost of anything in respect of which the fee is charged”,
but it permits only a fee, not a tax. These are probate fees and not court fees. The element of cross-subsidisation on which he relies is wrong in principle, because he is using a totally different part of the system to subsidise court fees.
The Minister has pointed out that a similar proposal was made in 2017, but with an upper fee of a massive £20,000, and he understated the outcry that it provoked. The proposal was not pursued to conclusion—anyway, the 2017 election intervened. Then as now, the draft SI was considered by both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and by your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Your Lordships’ committee’s current report, published on 21 November, states:
“The Government estimate that the revised fee structure will generate over £145 million in additional fee income in 2019–20, which they plan to use to pay the running costs of other parts of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Services. We wonder whether the House envisaged the power being used for this degree of cross-subsidy when the Act was passed. This Committee’s concern about the revised fee structure remains the same as it was for the draft instrument laid in 2017: ‘while section 180 … permits the levying of enhanced fees, we are surprised to see it used to this extent. To charge a fee so far above the actual cost of the service arguably amounts to a ‘stealth tax’ and, therefore, a misuse of the fee-levying power.’”
As for the difference between the £20,000 fee proposed in 2017 and the £6,000 fee proposed now, the committee expressed the view, with which I agree, that,
“the underlying principle behind the charge has not changed”.
The Government explain:
“Even the highest fee in our scheme would represent no more than 0.5% of the value of the estate”.
The Minister repeated that today. The committee thought that this sentence, relating the fee to the value of the estate,
“gives the fee the appearance of a tax rather than a fee linked to the actual cost of providing the service”.
The Joint Committee reported on 5 December even more strongly, stating:
“The Committee draws the special attention of both Houses to this draft Order on the grounds that, if it is approved and made, there will be a doubt whether it is intra vires, and that it would in any event make an unexpected use of the power conferred by the enabling Act”.
It reminded Parliament that it had called last year’s draft order to the special attention of both Houses, on the grounds that,
“(a) the charges prescribed by it would in substance constitute a tax on estates, rather than probate fees, and may therefore be ultra vires; and (b) the Committee doubted whether Parliament contemplated that the enabling powers would be used in the way proposed by the Lord Chancellor”.
It distinguished enhanced court fees intended to pay for the Courts Service from enhanced fees for probate applications intended to subsidise the running of the Courts & Tribunals Service generally. The committee stated that,
“applying for probate is not to be compared with the commencement of proceedings. A person can choose whether to litigate, and therefore whether to incur the fees payable on issuing a claim—which may be recoverable from the defendant if the case succeeds. In contrast, executors have to obtain probate to allow them to administer an estate, and the fee for doing so is not refundable. This is an administrative process, akin to the registration of a life event. Nobody applying for an uncontested probate would think for a moment that they were engaging in litigation. That makes it difficult for the Committee to accept that a power to charge enhanced court fees can be extended naturally to require probate fees to reflect the general costs of the court and tribunal system”.
The point that executors have no choice but to apply for probate was powerfully made by the Law Society in its briefing for today’s debate. The committee thought these probate fees were like stamp duty and used the phrase “dressed up as ‘fees’”. It reminded Parliament:
“It is an important constitutional principle that there should be no taxation without the consent of Parliament, which must be embodied in statute and expressed in clear terms. In the Committee’s view, the 2018 Order is a measure of taxation for which there is no clear statutory authority”.
The committee referred to the 1921 case of the Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies. However, there is older and more fundamental authority on the point of that case. In relation to tax-varying measures proposed in Clause 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee complained that the powers would enable the creation of what it called tax-like charges. It said:
“Fees and charges for services or functions should operate on a cost-recovery basis, leaving taxation for a Finance Bill”,
which it rightly described as,
“a principle enshrined in Article 4 of the Bill of Rights 1688”.
The question for this House is whether it is appropriate to treat the enhanced fees proposed in the draft order as fees or a tax. I invite the House to accept the view that what the Government are intending to do here is, impermissibly, to introduce a tax by secondary legislation by a misuse of their power under the 2014 Act.
I accept that a fatal amendment is unusual. However, the Cunningham committee, in its report Conventions of the UK Parliament in 2006, concluded that there are situations in which it is right for the Lords to threaten to defeat a statutory instrument, citing as an example,
“where special attention is drawn to the instrument by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments or the Lords Select Committee on the Merits of SIs”.
That is so in the case here for both those committees. Both committees took that course. I would add to the specific examples in the list produced by the Cunningham committee that where a proposed SI offends against the fundamental principle that taxation requires primary legislation that is fully amendable, that is a matter of constitutional importance which entitles this House, in our role as guardians of the constitution, to reject an SI on that basis.
I have two further short points. First, these charges are to be paid up front. There is no provision, as there could have been, for the Government to defer payment where necessary until the assets of the estate, often real rather than liquid assets, are realised. Executors are not always beneficiaries; they are often friends or relatives of the deceased acting out of kindness. I see no reason why they should be subjected to these substantial charges payable before—often years before—the assets of the estate can be realised. This is a point well made by the briefing prepared for today by the Institute for Family Business, which cites asset-rich but cash-poor farming businesses as an example.
The Minister’s response to this point is that they can borrow the money, and he made that point again today. Perhaps they can in certain circumstances, perhaps even in most circumstances, but at a cost that is often considerable, both financial and administrative. The burden of obtaining a loan is often very significant. The alternative response that the noble and learned Lord gave at the all-Peers meeting that he kindly arranged to discuss this SI was that solicitors would no doubt offer credit. I have to say that that does not match my experience of solicitors paying disbursements for their clients.
My other point is that there are specific remissions of fees proposed in respect of deaths in the 2004 tsunami and deaths as a result of the July 2005 terrorist attacks. I suggest that if there were to be prescribed remissions, there ought to be a power to remit far more widely in other cases. The power to remit fees in exceptional circumstances, the safety net mentioned by the Minister, does not seem to me to answer that criticism.
However, this last was a minor point in respect of this SI, which is of course unamendable—and the fact that it is unamendable is something that noble Lords may well wish to take into account when deciding how to vote on this Motion. My principal point is one of constitutional importance, however, and I suggest that on that basis this House should decline to approve the order. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I should inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest in the subject of this debate, albeit a posthumous one. Ultimately, I will not be affected by the proposed changes, although my daughter and son will be. I ought perhaps also to refer to my interest as an unpaid consultant to the firm of solicitors of which I was a senior partner in the light of the closing comments of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the professional aspect.
If ever there was a competition for the chronic misnaming of a piece of secondary legislation, the Non-Contentious Probate (Fees) Order 2018 would be a runaway winner. There is nothing non-contentious about it. As we have heard, the order, while exempting estates of £50,000 or less from the payment of fees, increases the cost for larger estates in a range from £250 for estates up to £300,000—or £150, as we heard, when an application is made by a solicitor—to £6,000 for estates above £2 million, generating a profit of £145 million a year over and above the £49 million fee income collected in fees for the service in 2016-17. That is effectively a fourfold increase.
Admittedly, this is somewhat less than the estimated £250 million which would have been garnered by the original proposals in 2017, as outlined in the government consultation document of 2016, and less again than the £300 million extra in additional fee income set out in their response to that consultation in February 2017. If there were a Nobel Prize for elasticity, the Ministry of Justice would, uncharacteristically, be a strong candidate.
The original proposals ignited a blaze of opposition among the general public, the media and both the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The former declared:
“To charge a fee so far above the actual cost of the service arguably amounts to a ‘stealth tax’ and, therefore, a misuse of the fee-levying power”.
The latter averred that it had,
“a real doubt as to whether the Lord Chancellor may use a power to prescribe noncontentious probate fees for the purpose of funding services which executors do not seek to use—namely those provided by courts and tribunals dealing with litigation”,
a view strongly supported by the Law Society and the Bar Council, the latter pointing out that,
“the grant of probate … is not in reality a judicial or court act at all. It is a simple but authoritative piece of paper, bearing a stamp, produced by a civil servant on a relatively low pay grade in a relatively short period of time, the average cost of which is £166”.
That reads as a mild rebuke compared with the critique proffered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its report of March 2017, shortly before the Prime Minister called the election which cost the Government their majority, and reiterated in its report of 21 November. The committee deals with the Government’s assertion that,
“it is necessary to fund the wider courts and tribunals system to ensure an efficient and effective service”,
and responds by citing the Government’s guidance to departments in Managing Public Money, a government document stating that,
“different groups of customers should not be charged different amounts for a service costing the same”.
It also cites Managing Public Money’s statement that:
“Cross-subsidies always involve a mixture of overcharging and undercharging … So cross-subsidised charges are normally classified as taxes”,
and concludes:
“To charge a fee so far above the actual cost of the service arguably amounts to a ‘stealth tax’ and, therefore, a misuse of the fee-levying power”,
under Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and that the order represents,
“a significant move away from the principle that fees for a public service should recover the cost of providing it and no more”—
a damning judgment which I have included in the amendment in my name. This view is endorsed by the Institute for Family Business, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, an organisation which is not, to my knowledge, affiliated to the Labour Party—at least not yet.
There is certainly an important principle here. The Ministry of Justice is struggling with an overcrowded and underfunded Prison Service, an overstretched probation service, court closures and diminishing access to justice. Of course the justice system desperately needs better funding, but this should be provided not by a stealth tax but out of general taxation including, possibly, inheritance tax. If the Government go ahead with the provisions of this order, how can we rely on them not to adopt similar stealth taxes to fund other key services, for example by increasing prescription charges to a level exceeding the cost of the treatment supplied by the health service?
The Minister’s letter of 12 December asserted that the fees are being introduced under Section 92 of the Courts Act 2003 and Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, both of which he has referred to this afternoon. He said that they,
“provide clear authority to set fees above cost to cross-subsidise other parts of the courts and tribunal system”.
Section 92 refers explicitly to anything dealt with in the family court, county court or magistrates’ court. No mention is made of probate. Section 180 of the other Act refers to senior courts, county courts, magistrates’ courts, the Court of Protection and tribunals. Again, no mention is made of probate. The noble and learned Lord has argued the case for a deeply flawed order today.
However, while I can well understand the temptation to seek to annul this order, there is a real problem for this House in so doing. I understand that there have been only four occasions in the last 60 years on which the affirmative procedure has led to an order being struck down in your Lordships’ House. One such occasion, which some noble Lords will recall, was in relation to an order under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act—then a Bill—in 2012. My noble friend Lord Bach successfully moved such an amendment and was roundly denounced by the relevant Minister, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who was then a Justice Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats. That amendment was not a simple repudiation of the order. It was tabled because the Government had reneged on a promise to amend the proposed provision they were bringing forward and was to give them the opportunity to revert to their earlier position.
Regretfully, we cannot support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but if he presses it to a vote we will abstain. In that event, and assuming that the amendment is then lost, I will seek to test the opinion of the House on the amendment in my name.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to the statutory instrument on so-called non-contentious probate fees. As a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I am very concerned that—as other noble Lords have said—the SI appears to be introducing a hypothecated tax on estates for use in subsidising parts of the HM Courts & Tribunals Service that will not at all be used by the fee payer. The SI introduces a huge increase in the cost of probate, which is just a document to enable the executors to administer the estate. It is nothing to do with courts and tribunals, which obviously involve vast costs.
The current fee of £155 if the application is made by a solicitor, and £215 if it is made by the executors in person, completely covers the cost of the probate service. Until now the fee has rightly not included any tax element at all, so this is a major departure from the way probate fees have been exercised in the past. Will the Minister explain why we suddenly need an entirely new approach to probate fees? Has it something to do with the massive cuts in the Treasury’s support for the courts service? I presume it is, but I do not think that makes the action of the justice department acceptable.
As other noble Lords have said, the proposed new fees are going to be on a sliding scale, up to £6,000 for estates of £2 million. This is a hike of 3,770% on larger estates. All but about £200 of the fee will in fact be a tax.
The committee accepts that Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 allows a fee to be prescribed that exceeds the cost of the provision of the service. I imagine that this probably allows for, for example, exempting very small estates from the fee at all, so then you need to have a slightly higher fee on bigger estates. That is perfectly reasonable. But the term “fee” has a clear connotation of recovery of costs incurred in the provision of the service. Although Section 180 permits enhanced fees, it remains a power to prescribe a fee, which clearly limits it to a relationship with the costs incurred.
The word “fee” does not equate to the term “tax”. A fee surely cannot comprise £200 to cover costs and £5,800 to the individual as a tax on the estate. If Parliament had intended the Lord Chancellor to be able to raise taxes in this way, it would have included such provisions very clearly in Section 180 to acknowledge that charging such a tax might be ultra vires. In the committee’s view, the 2018 order is a measure of taxation for which there is no clear statutory basis. Indeed, the committee could find no evidence that the Government suggested to Parliament during the debates on the Bill for the 2014 Act that the Section 180 powers would be used to prescribe probate fees in order to fund the operation of the courts generally or to provide for such huge and immediate increases in fees—let us call them “taxes”—in the way now proposed.
Furthermore, our committee’s view was reinforced by the report of the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned. This points out that the proposed fees do not appear to conform to paragraph 3.6 in chapter 6 of Managing Public Money, the standard guidance to government departments from HM Treasury. Of course, that guidance makes it very clear that a fee should be equal for everyone involved and should represent the cost of the service. There should not be a sliding scale of a fee: that is made very clear in the Government’s own guidance.
As others have mentioned, the original proposal was to have a sliding scale up to £20,000. That was dropped as a result of the objections of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Can the Government can explain why, when they now accept that £20,000 is unreasonable, they think that £6,000 is somehow reasonable in this context? I suggest that the importance of this issue is that it could represent a precedent for other government departments. Just imagine the implications for citizens if government departments increased fees by some 3,000% for a wide range of services in order to incorporate a tax element to fund public services more generally. This would of course be ultra vires, as they are meant to be fees, as they are in this case. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance to the House today that the department will revisit the proposed probate fees and reduce them to bring them within the permitted limit.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly my having been a practising solicitor for more than 50 years. During that time I have dealt with many estates and made many applications to the probate registry. Looking around the Chamber, I see several of your Lordships who have very kindly given me the honour of naming me as one of their executors. I am not seeking any further orders this evening, but this year, for example, I have been in constant touch with the probate registry in dealing with the estate of one of our colleagues who, sadly, died a little while ago.
I want to say at the outset how much I compliment the staff of the principal registry and the district registries, who give a service second to none. I want the House to be aware that they give considered, careful advice and guidance to anyone who contacts the registry. They are to be commended on that first-class service.
Baroness Meacher
Does the noble Lord accept that under the Government’s own guidance this will in fact be a tax, and that taxes should be raised in primary legislation and debated properly in both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Hunt of Wirral
No doubt the Minister will give a more considered reply, but I certainly do not regard it as a tax, particularly as it is described as, and actually is, an enhanced fee. I have to admit that I was troubled by the original proposal, but the Government have listened to those concerns and have significantly reduced the enhanced fees from that proposal.
Lord Deben (Con)
I genuinely ask out of misunderstanding: surely the point about probate fees is that you have to pay them, whereas other cases in the courts are of a wholly different kind. This is a payment you have to make if there is to be probate. Would my noble friend agree that it would be odd if we had a fee for the registration of birth—which is also compulsory—that was connected with the amount of money that the person registering would be able to pay? It seems odd to call a fee something which is connected with the value of something you have to do. It is the having to do it which makes it different from any other court situation that I can think of.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
I can think of many other court situations; I anticipate that the Minister will have a great list for my noble friend Lord Deben. There are many occasions on which you pay a fee; at the end of the day, it is intended to cover the costs of the system. This goes slightly further, I agree, but within a ring-fenced system—if I could have my noble friend’s attention—the money cannot go just anywhere. It has to go toward enhancing the Courts & Tribunals Service. I think this is the right way forward to ensure we have the access that I described earlier. I warmly commend my noble friend the Minister and I support his order.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, this order relies above all on Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. As that name perhaps suggests, it was a great Christmas tree of an Act. One recalls its passage all too well; it occupies no fewer than 231 pages of the Queen’s Printers’ copy, with 186 sections and 11 schedules.
This House discharges its scrutiny function very carefully, with great conscientiousness, but perhaps, just occasionally, Homer nods; did we perhaps nod here as we reached towards the end of this mammoth Bill? Of course, we must now construe and apply Section 180 as enacted. That said, while Section 180 contains apparently no limits whatever to the extent of its permissible use, provided always that the excess funds raised are devoted to the efficacy of the Courts & Tribunals Service, ought we not to construe it somewhat fastidiously so as to guard against its use for what is essentially a tax-raising exercise?
Of course, cross-subsidisation is permissible, but is it no less obviously the case that a point will come at which what is purportedly an enhanced fee with a view to cross-subsidisation becomes truly a tax, improperly raised without primary legislation? Suppose that the proposed maximum here of £6,000 were, not the £20,000 suggested last year but, say, £60,000 for estates over £20 million. What would we say? We know that £145 million is to be raised by this order for cross-subsidisation, but why only £145 million? The deficit in the service is something like £1 billion, so why should £500 million not be raised for cross-subsidisation?
Is the proposed schedule truly a schedule of fees or does it at some point, disguised as such, descend in reality into a schedule of taxes? That, I would suggest, is the question for your Lordships. I shall listen carefully to the Government’s arguments—indeed, to all the arguments. Only at the end of the debate shall I decide how to vote. I recognise that that may be regarded as a somewhat unusual approach in this House, but I have a certain nostalgia for my earlier occupation.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I too declare an interest, as a solicitor. I have not practised for some time, so I will not hand out cards suggesting that colleagues consult my old firm. It was the suggestion about advances made by solicitors from their office accounts that consolidated my interest in this topic. However, I want to make a wider point and to ask one very specific question.
I believe that tax is a good thing. It is the price of a civilised society and so on but it must be transparent. It is a question of trust and honesty on the part of government. It is all part of the very topical but for ever issue of citizens’ trust in the Government and how that Government raise money. It is also part of joining up across departments and subject areas, and asking departments to look for their own income generation in the way that this proposal does. Income generation is important but it is not helpful if it is completely siloed.
The Minister refers to Section 180 of the Christmas tree Act, but I rather think that the public—I do not include the subset who understand the origin of the probate service and the family courts—would find it not immediately obvious that fees for the grant of probate should finance the court service generally. They might not say that they are doubtful about whether it is intra vires, but questions will be raised in their minds.
As I understand it, currently there is full recovery of the costs of the probate service. The Minister has referred to improvements to the service, and those must be welcome, but I believe that I have read somewhere that they will lead to savings, not costs, although I dare say that an initial investment is involved. As has been said, there is no option but to use the probate service, which adds to the question of whether one is paying for a service or paying a levy, and that perception is compounded by the administration being the same, regardless of the value of the estate.
My specific question is about Section 180. Subsection (3)(a) requires the Lord Chancellor to have regard to,
“the financial position of the courts and tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible, including … costs incurred by those courts and tribunals that are not being met by current fee income”.
The subsection goes on, joined by the word “and”, to paragraph (b), which states that the Lord Chancellor must also have regard to,
“the competitiveness of the legal services market”.
I do not believe that there is a market in grants of probate administration. I will be grateful if the Minister can explain to the House how that provision has been considered, what regard the Lord Chancellor has had to the competitiveness of the legal services market and what conclusion the Lord Chancellor has reached.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I agree with much of what has been said this afternoon. In my mind, this enhanced fee is a death tax, and I should like to take this opportunity to shine a light on what, in practical terms, this will mean for a particular group of people—the people in the middle. It is always the people in the middle whom one has to pay attention to. Clearly, it is a very good thing if people at one end of the scale are taken out of the tax or fee altogether, and I suspect that there will not be a lot of sympathy for those with multimillion pound estates having to pay an additional 0.5% charge. However, we should look at how the scale has changed for an estate of about £500,000. At £500,001 the fee goes up from £215 to £2,500, which is quite a considerable hike. Who are these people with estates of, say, £500,000, who will be subject to this fee? What do they look like? What sorts of lives do they lead? That is a lot of money.
We know from the Lord Chancellor’s briefing to us that about 25% of an average estate is in cash or liquid assets. We can assume that on a £500,000 estate, £125,000 would be in cash or investments—money saved over a lifetime, perhaps some capital taken from a pension after a hard-working life—and a family home of some £375,000. Across the country, that would be regarded as a fairly modest estate. In fact, only a few years ago people were throwing up their hands in horror that those who had bought their council houses were now subject to inheritance tax.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, there are two aspects to this debate. There is the suggestion that these regulations are unconstitutional, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has argued, and there is the argument as to whether this is fair, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham.
When the noble Lord, Lord Marks, tells the House that something is of constitutional importance, I normally get excited and follow him eagerly into the Division Lobby—but I cannot do so today. These regulations are not ultra vires but plainly valid and within the scope of what the House approved in Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The point of that provision was to confer power on the Lord Chancellor to charge fees which are higher than the cost of the services being provided.
Section 180(1) states the Lord Chancellor may,
“prescribe a fee of an amount which is intended to exceed the cost of anything in respect of which the fee is charged”.
It could not be clearer. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, then says that one part of the courts system cannot be used, even under that provision, to act as a cross-subsidy for another part of the courts system. My answer is look at Section 180(3), which says that the Lord Chancellor, when he sets these charges, must have regard to,
“the financial position of the courts and tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible”—
in the plural. It is general, not specific. And if there is any doubt about that, look at Section 180(6), which adds what the purpose of the fees must be. The fees,
“must be used to finance an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals”.
The whole purpose of these provisions as I understand them is to confer a power on the Lord Chancellor to charge a fee higher than the cost of a service, in order precisely to provide funds that will enable the courts and tribunals system in general to be financed. There is no question of a lack of validity in these regulations.
It is then said that this is unfair; the noble Baroness made a powerful speech. But let us be realistic. Lawyers—and non-lawyers as well—have been complaining with increasing power and force in recent years that the legal system is in desperate need of additional resources. We need more money for legal aid, for improvements to the courts estate—which is in a disgraceful condition—and for improved judicial salaries to ensure that the high quality of our judiciary is retained. That money has to come from somewhere—and the choice is very simple.
Of course you could raise general taxation, but the same people about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, is rightly concerned would equally complain if their taxes were raised. The money is needed; the legal system—the courts and tribunals which the Lord Chancellor has to protect—are in a desperate position. The money is desperately needed. I am no more enthusiastic about these regulations than other noble Lords, but it seems to me that, given the problems we face, these regulations do impose a charge which is reasonable in its content and is a reasonable means of raising some of the revenue required to fund the courts and tribunals system of this country.
Baroness Hamwee
The noble Lord has construed parts of Section 180; I think he has got it in front of him because he has been reading from it. My question about Section 180(3)(b) was addressed to the Minister, but the House respects the noble Lord and I wonder whether he has views about the Lord Chancellor having to have regard to the competitiveness of the legal services market in this situation.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her observation. My answer to the noble Baroness is that, yes, the Lord Chancellor is obliged to have regard to,
“the competitiveness of the legal services market”,
but I understand that to apply only in a context where there is a competitive market. Of course, in many contexts there is. But, like the noble Baroness, I do not understand there to be a competitive market for probate, and in my judgment that provision does not require the Lord Chancellor to have regard to a factor which is simply not relevant to the topic we are discussing.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am not a lawyer. I have never applied for probate, I know nothing about the operation of the probate service and I come at this as a babe in the legal wood. But having read the paperwork that was put down and heard this afternoon’s discussion, I see four things. I see us helping the poorest in our society by eliminating any charge for estates between £5,000 and £50,000. I see us ensuring that the maximum charge is never more than 0.5%, and sometimes less than that. I see a maximum of £6,000 on even the largest estate, and I see this providing a degree of cross-subsidy to ensure that we have an efficient courts and tribunals system—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just made. So I say to my noble friend Lady Browning, with the very greatest respect, that those seem to be perfectly good Conservative principles, and I therefore support what the Government are trying to achieve here.
If we chase down the vires point which the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, focused on, surely any amount of return above cost is not allowable in his argument. We are about to have a reduction in the cost, as I read the papers, of £9.30—the estimated reduction in the average unit cost of applying for probate—as a result of the new system. I am not clear—perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me when he concludes—about whether his proposal is now to reduce the fees, because of course they will be above the cost of providing the service.
I have been involved in the charity and voluntary sectors. I have worked on their behalf, written reports to the Government, supported them and fought their corner in third-party campaigning and other areas. The reports have been well received by the sector, and sufficiently well received that the Government immediately banned any idea of bringing them in—but never mind about that. The point is that they have made a great case about the impact on charities and charitable donations of the imposition of these particular charges. I must say that, however I work the maths and however I try to work through the ideas, I do not see the logic of the more extreme and indeed scaremongering issues that have been raised by many parts of the sector.
It must surely be perverse that under the present system we are charging the same fee to someone who has a £5,001 estate as to someone who has a £20 million estate. That must be perverse and the present system must not be right. This must be a way of improving it.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will not join in the discussion about what is or is not a Conservative principle, but it is clear that this measure is in fact highly contentious, drafted as it is by the irony division of the Ministry of Justice.
Its 2016 predecessor was also highly contentious, as it attempted to impose probate fees of up to £20,000. The consultation response, which has not so far been mentioned, to the 2016 proposal was overwhelmingly negative. It was opposed by both the Law Society and the Bar Council, among others, and both Houses were, to say the least, worried and unenthusiastic about the proposal.
The grounds for opposition were clear. The proposal was a tax poorly disguised as a fee. It may well have been ultra vires. The use of Section 180(3) of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 as a legal base for the absolutely enormous increase in costs may well not have been within what Parliament envisaged. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, noted, there was no indication at all as that Bill proceeded through Parliament that the power in Section 180(3) would be used to prescribe probate fees to fund the courts and tribunal service generally.
The 2018 version of the SI that we debate today is different from its 2016 predecessor in only one main respect: its charges are lower. In the abandoned 2016 version, the probate fee for estates of £2 million was set at £20,000. In this version, the fee is £6,000. That is a reduction in the quantum only. It does not address the objections raised to the principle of such a charge, so very far above the cost of providing the probate service.
As noble Lords have said, the current probate fee is flat across all sizes of estate. It stands at £155 for an application made by a solicitor and £215 for an individual application. Those fees are based on cost recovery. The principle of cost recovery as the basis for charging for the service is abandoned by this new SI. An estate worth £2 million will pay nearly 40 times the actual cost of the service.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I want to say just a little since the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has dealt with the law and I happen to agree with him. As your Lordships all know, I frequently disagreed with him in a previous existence. Whenever I did, he appealed to a higher court and was always right. This time I agree with him because I happen to agree with him. I will not repeat the reasons.
I will take a slightly different stance. The debate we have had, assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right—as I say, I agree with him—is whether section whatever it was of some 235 sections produced the power the Lord Chancellor now seeks to exercise. If it did, the problem is not with this statutory instrument, which we are all attacking and which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has indicted ferociously and accurately, but with the primary legislation, which, I am sorry to say, we probably did not analyse with sufficient care. I was not here at the time, so I do not bear any personal responsibility.
I am sorry to say this, but we were vesting in statute after statute vast powers in the Executive. We do it and we let it happen. We cannot complain if the Executive, having been vested with these powers, choose to exercise them. We vest powers in not just this Executive, but the next one, the one after and the one after that. That seems an aspect arising from the present order that we really should not overlook. We should be more alert when powers are being vested in the Executive to do almost anything by secondary legislation.
That has got that off my chest. Now I declare an interest. Because of the office I once held, I am perfectly well aware of the fact that our civil courts system is in a shambles. It needs funding. It needs much more funding than this funding would provide. If the Lord Chancellor has the powers—as I said, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that he has—this seems a sensible use of them to achieve a very important societal purpose.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, the 2014 Act was passed by Parliament when there was a coalition Government in power. I had the privilege of bringing in enhanced fees that, it has been suggested, should be viewed in rather a favourable light compared with the probate fees that are the subject of this statutory instrument. I certainly do not remember that being the response at the time, although the arguments—namely cross-subsidy—were the same. Indeed, I specifically remember making the point that it was always an option whether you chose to litigate. That has been raised as a favourable point in support of this statutory instrument, where obviously there is no question of choice.
The reality is that both these provisions were there to subsidise the much-needed court system. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, will remember that the coalition Government came to power facing an economic crisis and that a number of cuts had to be made, particularly to the Ministry of Justice budget, which the Liberal Democrats went along with happily, as did the Conservative Party, as a result of which the courts have been feeling the strain and are continuing to in a way that a number of noble Lords have pointed out. This is an attempt to at least alleviate some of that strain.
My noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned the case for cross-subsidisation. I respectfully suggest that he is right. He mentioned a number of areas. I could mention more: non-molestation orders, occupation orders, forced marriage protection orders and female genital mutilation protection orders. There are all sorts of tribunals involving family immigration and asylum that do not pay for themselves but need cross-subsidisation.
Crude though it may be, this order will be a valuable addition to our beleaguered legal system, about which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and all in your Lordships’ House share concern. The Government have responded to the initial outcry, if I might describe it as such, about the amounts involved. They have been lowered. I respectfully suggest that the Minister has made out the case.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, clearly, after an hour and 20 minutes, this non-contentious probate order is misnamed. It is interesting that opposition to it unites the noble Lords, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Beecham, and the Daily Mail. I am also in strong agreement with my noble friend Lady Browning that it is a distinctly un-Conservative policy that will alienate our natural supporters once a lot of them have woken up to what is going on.
I will not talk about the order in detail because everyone else has discussed it, but the fee of £6,000 for an estate of £2 million is high if, for instance, a main residence is taken into consideration. It is not just I and other noble Lords in this House who disapprove of the order. A helpful Law Society brief which I do not think has been touched on so far states:
“The service involved in a grant of probate is the same whether an estate is worth £50,000 or £2 million. However, under the new proposals, some estates would face a charge of £6,000. This is excessive … It is unfair to expect the bereaved to fund/subsidise other parts of the court and tribunals service, particularly in circumstances where they have no other options but to use the probate service”.
Echoing the Law Society’s concerns, as many other noble Lords have stated, our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has stated that it has very serious concerns that the order,
“arguably amounts to a ‘stealth tax’ and, therefore, a misuse of the fee-levying power”.
Similarly, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as other noble Lords have stated, raised concerns as to whether the order is intra vires, noting that it makes an unexpected use of the power conferred by the enabling Act.
The Law Society wholly agrees with the two committees that the current proposed fee is a misuse of the fee-levying power under Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. I will not join in the debate about this section and the different views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, except to say that once you start levying this sort of thing, what is to stop any amount being levied by way of an extra fee, or even applying to other aspects of the legal system?
Lord Garnier (Con)
Surely the point therefore is to take on board the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge: attack the primary legislation, not the secondary legislation. We have rather missed the boat on the primary legislation.
Lord Northbrook
I thank my noble and learned friend. Obviously tackling the primary legislation would be quite a major manoeuvre, and I feel that the only easy way of tackling it is by restraint.
The Law Society says that although the powers under the Act allowed the levying of a fee, it does not confer a power on the Lord Chancellor to impose a tax. This steep increase amounts to a tax, not a fee. Failure to pay a fee means a person is precluded from benefiting from the service offered. However, a tax is a levy by the Government for the benefit of the whole population. It is compulsory and cannot be avoided.
Like other noble Lords, I have also received a briefing from the Institute for Family Business, which emphasises all the Law Society’s issues. It also stresses the difficulties in raising the cash to pay the fees as they have to be paid up front before probate is granted. Could the Minister respond to the Law Society’s and the IFB’s concerns?
In short, this is a most un-Conservative measure that will alienate our natural support, and is a stealth tax by any other name. The individual tax burden is now the highest since the 1980s. I quote from an article by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in the House magazine of 3 December:
“It is not a fee but a radical graduated tax, which in these times of crazy property values will hit families of modest incomes hard when a family member dies. There should be a far fuller debate than will be afforded through a statutory instrument taken late in the evening away from the gaze”,
of public scrutiny.
I shall certainly support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and consider supporting that of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. His argument that, as it is a tax by any other name, it should have been included in the Budget, has strong validity. However, can the Minister confirm that the other place has not opposed it? I am conscious of the constitutional consequences of voting down an order, so reluctantly I will not be supporting the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that I have been in this area before. Indeed, in my time there was a very serious question as to whether the courts service should be dealt with at all by fees. It was thought that it was a public service for which the taxpayer should pay. However, that contention has gradually passed away. The only occasion on which I was overturned in judicial review was in relation to a fee that was being charged under regulations which were signed as approved by the heads of division as well as myself. Notwithstanding all that, we did not succeed: the Divisional Court held that our fee structure was slightly defective and we immediately tried to put it right. An interesting result of that, which I must say is dear to me, about the administration of justice at the time when I had responsibility for it, was that the advocate, the barrister who defeated me and the others in the court, was nominated for silk shortly after and wrote to me to say how fair the system seemed to be.
The point as I see it is that the ordinary rule is that an amount charged as a fee which is substantially more than the cost of the service would be a tax, unless authorised by statute. That is where Section 180 comes in, as has been very clearly explained. Exactly what is done about it is a matter of discretion given to the Lord Chancellor. Here, there is a distinction between the bigger estates and the small estates justifying that kind of approach, which my noble friend Lady Browning referred to. She is a bit anxious about the middle and might prefer to see the bigger bit at the top and a smaller bit at the middle. However, I am not going to enter into that; I am just saying that it is quite impossible, in my view, to say that this is unconstitutional. The matter is one for the discretion of the Lord Chancellor and I entirely agree with the view that the courts service urgently needs as much money as it can lawfully get.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I understand the concerns expressed by noble Lords, but I also believe that these measures deserve support. I declare an interest as an executor of the estate of a relative who would need to pay these higher fees. Nobody likes the idea of paying fees but someone has to pay for the courts system and, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay have both explained, as have other noble and learned Lords, this is a valid use of ministerial powers.
I was critical of the previous proposals in 2017, which seemed to me excessive, but I am delighted that the Government have listened. Some 60% of estates will pay just £250—not that different from now—and 25,000 more of the poorest estates will be lifted out of probate fees altogether. More than half of all estates will pay nothing. If we pass the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the entire proposed reforms would fall, so more of the poorest estates would pay higher fees while the largest estates would escape the higher fees. The other place did not oppose this. How will it look if this House prevents a measure that would ask higher-value estates to pay more to help lower-value estates? This money will be ring-fenced and it will help secure access to justice, which is a fundamental British value that has to be paid for.
I understand that there is concern about the level of fees. I think there are times when we have to recognise that there are issues for which cross-subsidies are relevant. In terms of fees, if we look at other areas of the economy, estate agent fees and solicitors’ fees are very often charged as a proportion of the value being transacted, if you like. An estate agent probably does not have to do a lot more work to sell a house worth £500,000 than one valued at £5 million, yet they will be paid much more in so-called fees. So I do think that there is an element of proportionality here. A £500,000 estate will pay £750. The consumer group Which? estimates that an estate worth £500,000 would face enormous legal fees. For example, the bank will charge £20,000 on average; solicitors will charge £10,000 on average; the funeral, which has to be paid for, will cost £5,000 or £10,000, perhaps more. So the idea that the maximum amount of £6,000 is being charged in order to help access to justice for domestic violence victims, mental health review tribunals or social security and child support does not seem to me to be disproportionate. I hope noble Lords will accept the idea that this is a necessary change that fulfils an important social purpose about which the Government are entirely entitled to take such decisions.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to all parts of the House for contributions to the debate on this order. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, correctly identified that there are two issues. One is whether the proposal is constitutional or unconstitutional. The second concerns fairness. Of course, at times the two arguments have merged. I will endeavour, however, to address each in turn.
On the question of whether the instrument is intra vires or not, I have to say that it is quite clear that statutory justification for it is given by Section 180 of the 2014 Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, may, for reasons he has expressed in the past, deprecate the extent to which Parliament has given powers to the Executive in this regard: I think that in this instance it is entirely proper. Nevertheless, the power is there. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with reference to Section 180(3)(a) and (b), subsection (b) was referred to in the impact assessment, where it was determined that there was no identifiable or significant impact upon competitiveness in this context—which is hardly surprising in the circumstances.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, suggested in the context of the vires of the instrument that it was necessary that the fee should be equal for all involved, otherwise it would be a tax. With great respect, at present there is no fee for estates worth less than £5,000: the current system is not equal in that respect. It is certainly my recollection that the probate fee was progressive until about 1999. The fixed fee came in only in the recent past, less than 20 years ago. Again, one has to see this in context. Let me be clear: the idea of progressive fees is not exceptional or unusual. A civil money claim for £1,000 may often be far more complex and demanding than a civil money claim for £100,000, but the fee in respect of civil money claims is progressive by reference to the sum to be recovered. These elements already exist in our system.
With this instrument, we are intending to remove more than half of all estates from any probate fee whatever, yet the logic of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would be that we cannot do that because if we did the fee would not be equal for all involved. It is entirely appropriate that there should be a progressive fee system, just as there has been in the past and just as there is with other elements of judicial and related claims. In that context, an application for probate is an application for, in essence, a determination of status in order that somebody can ingather an estate and distribute it, so it is in a sense a judicial process, albeit, as it has developed over the years, it is seen as an administrative application.
There is clear statutory authority for the making of this order and the introduction of these sensible and proportionate fees in this context. The provision is there; I will not seek to repeat it. On the issue of fairness, I emphasise that more than half of all estates will be taken out of any fee whatever, the maximum fee will be £2,500, and the fee can never exceed 0.5% of the value of the estate.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised some of the observations that have been made with respect to charities. Let us be clear: if a legacy is left to a charity and it is of a fixed sum, it will not be impacted at all by the provision. It would arise only in those—perhaps exceptional—circumstances where the entire estate is left to the charity. One has to appreciate that it is only in those exceptional circumstances that there could be any indirect—I emphasise that—effect on the value of the legacy itself.
At the end of the day, we are taking a proportionate and sensible approach to the need to ensure that we can maintain access to justice throughout our entire courts and tribunals system. We have been fair with regard to the level of the fees which have now been fixed for this purpose. I emphasise that we are dealing with a question of fees, not with the issue of a tax. In that regard, therefore, I invite noble Lords to concur with my Motion.
Lord Beecham
How does the Minister reconcile the position the Government have taken with the guidance to departments in Managing Public Money, to which I referred?
Lord Keen of Elie
There is clear statutory authority for the fixing of these fees in order that there can be an element of cross-subsidy between the various elements of the courts and tribunals system. It is justified by that statutory permission.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, the Minister put his case, supported by other noble Lords, on the basis that these probate fees will be used to, in effect, cross-subsidise the courts and tribunals system, and for increased spending on access to justice. Your Lordships will know that I am a staunch advocate of access to justice, that I believe in spending on legal aid and in renewing the court estate, and that I am concerned about the quality of judges. But the spending for those laudable aims ought to be met out of general taxation, raised in the ordinary way envisaged by the Bill of Rights and other statutes since: by amendable primary legislation subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament, not out of the hypothecation of excessive fees—which are, to use the committee’s phrase, taxes “dressed up as ‘fees’”—to subsidise that sort of spending. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that the Government’s guidance on managing public money, which compares fees with the costs of producing a service and says that that should be borne in mind by government, is apposite.
I usually agree with the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—which has persuaded the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and, to a certain extent, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay—on statutory construction. However, it escapes me how he managed to construe Section 180 of the 2014 Act without looking at the meaning of “fee”. Section 180(1) provides:
“In prescribing a fee under an enactment specified in subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor may with the consent of the Treasury prescribe a fee of an amount which is intended to exceed the cost of anything in respect of which the fee is charged”.
The noble Lord says that he can infer from that—and the Minister jumps on that statement—that it does not matter by how much the fee exceeds the cost of providing the service. I respectfully commend the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who asked that very question. There has to be a stage at which the amount charged so far exceeds the cost of the service that the Government are not charging for a service but are seeking to raise money. That is what is involved in the cross-subsidisation and at this level I suggest it has to be a tax. That is the way that it was treated by Managing Public Money, the Government’s guidance, and that is the way that both the Joint Committee and your Lordships’ committee saw it. I do not accept the construction contended for by the noble Lord.
It is disappointing that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, suggested that the Labour Benches will abstain. I hope that noble Lords on the Labour Benches will in fact support my fatal amendment. Of course, it is a serious matter, but I suggest that this statutory instrument ought to be struck down precisely because it is seeking to dress up taxes as fees in a way that is impermissible. That is a wrong use of the statute. In answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the statute may be slightly carelessly drawn—it could have been more specific—but that should not be used by Ministers to drive a coach and horses through the statute when seeking to rely on the enabling powers to pass statutory instruments. That is what they do when they use the permission to exceed the cost to drive through a wild, excessive charge such as this one.
Striking this statutory instrument down is the correct course to take. A regret amendment will not achieve the end that ought to be achieved. The Government will be at liberty to reconsider their position and bring back revised fees, certainly, but not fees on this scale, which many noble Lords have deplored. I have heard nothing that dissuades me from seeking to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Beecham
At the end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Order will introduce a revised non-contentious probate fee structure considered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to be “so far above the actual cost of the service [it] arguably amounts to a stealth tax and, therefore, a misuse of the fee-levying power” under section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; and that this Order represents a significant move away from the principle that fees for a public service should recover the cost of providing it and no more.”
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House on the amendment in my name.
Gaming Machine (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocation) Regulations 2018
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 November be approved.
Relevant document: 7th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s response to their wide-ranging consultation on proposals for changes to gaming machines and social responsibility measures, published in May this year, set out a comprehensive package of measures that will strengthen protections around gaming machines, online gambling, gambling advertising and treatment for problem gamblers. The Government made it clear that their intention in the review was to strike a balance between socially responsible growth and the vital endeavour of ensuring that the most vulnerable, including children, remain protected from gambling-related harm.
As noble Lords will know, the headline measure in May was the Government’s decision, following consideration of all relevant evidence, to reduce the maximum stake on sub-category B2 gaming machines from £100 to £2. The decision was met with enthusiasm in many quarters. Local authorities, charities, faith groups, interest groups and academics all submitted opinions in favour of a £2 limit. This House was no exception in expressing its emphatic support for the Government’s intentions. We are here today to discuss and debate the regulations that will give effect to that decision.
Let me turn first to the evidence which led the Government to their conclusions on B2 stakes. Under the Gambling Act 2005, B2 gaming machines have a maximum stake of £100—by far the highest for any gaming machine in Great Britain—and the maximum prize that can be won as a result of a single use is £500. The next-highest limits on the high street are B3 machines, with a maximum stake of £2 and a maximum prize of £500.
Almost 14% of players of B2 machines are problem gamblers, currently the highest rate by gambling activity in England. In addition, the highest proportion of those who contact GamCare, the main treatment provider, identify these machines in betting shops as their main form of gambling. Gaming machines in betting shops also account for one of the highest proportions of all those in treatment for gambling addiction.
In October 2017, the Government published the consultation on proposals for changes to gaming machines and social responsibility measures, which invited views on proposals to reduce the maximum stake for B2 machines. The consultation received more than 7,000 responses and closed in January 2018. The Government published their response on 17 May 2018 and, after giving due consideration to all information and evidence received, they decided that it would be appropriate to reduce the maximum stake for sub-category B2 gaming machines to £2.
In comparison to other gaming machines on the high street, B2 machines are an outlier because of the speed at which it is possible to lose large amounts of money. These machines generate a greater proportion and volume of large-scale losses—for example, more than £500 in a session—and the losses are larger and sessions longer for those who bet at the maximum stake of £100 than for those who play at a lower level.
Even cutting to £10 would have left problem gamblers and those most vulnerable exposed to losses that would cause them and their families significant harm. In particular, the Government noted that more than 170,000 sessions on B2 roulette ended with losses of between £1,000 and £5,000. These sessions persist at average stakes of £5 and £10, but by contrast, none involved average stakes of £2 or below. In addition, the Government considered that the reduction to £2 was more likely to target the greatest proportion of problem gamblers and protect the most vulnerable players, including those in areas of high deprivation.
Having considered these and other factors, the Government concluded that they would reduce the maximum B2 stake to £2. This was supported by the Gambling Commission’s advice that action on B2s should involve a stake limit of between £2 and £30 if it was to have a significant effect on the potential for players to lose large amounts of money in a short time, with any further decrease a matter of judgment for government.
It is fair to say that the date on which these regulations would come into force generated not a little opinion and debate. It was right that those who had strong views and evidence on the issue, including many noble Lords, should have the opportunity to share them. We have said all along that protecting vulnerable consumers is our prime concern, although it has been necessary to take account of the effect that the reduction will have on the gambling industry and those employed by it.
Having conducted the process of engagement with the industry, the Government announced in November that they would implement the stake reduction on 1 April 2019, a date specified in these regulations and which they consider provides sufficient time to allow for relevant changes to be made by industry. Industry has now known about the Government’s intention to reduce stakes to £2 since May this year, and the date announced last month provides further clarity to allow it to continue its preparations.
Noble Lords will also know that the draft Finance Bill was amended so that the increase in remote gaming duty, paid for by online operators, comes into effect in April 2019 alongside the reduction in the stake to cover the negative impact on the public finances and protect vital public services.
I will explain the effect of the draft regulations and the legislative context in which they operate. The Gambling Act 2005 established a new system for the regulation of gambling in Great Britain, with the exception of the National Lottery and spread betting. Section 235(1) of the 2005 Act defines a gaming machine as a,
“machine which is designed or adapted for use by individuals to gamble (whether or not it can also be used for other purposes)”.
The Categories of Gaming Machine Regulations 2007 define four categories of gaming machines, known as categories A, B, C, and D. For the purposes of the 2005 Act, category B machines are divided into sub-categories. These regulations amend the Categories of Gaming Machine Regulations 2007 to reduce the maximum stake permitted for B2 gaming machines from £100 to £2 from, as I said earlier, 1 April 2019. In consequence of this amendment, these regulations also amend the definition of a sub-category B3 gaming machine so that B2 and B3 gaming machines can continue to be distinguished from one another by reference to the different places in which B2 and B3 machines are allowed to be made available.
The regulations also make consequential changes to other secondary legislation, amending the Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) Regulations 2007 and revoking the Gaming Machine (Circumstances of Use) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 to remove requirements that no longer apply as a result of the stake reduction.
Millions of people enjoy gambling responsibly, and the Government are committed to supporting a healthy industry, but we need the right balance between freedom and protections. As I have said, the Government’s intention in our wide-ranging gambling review was to strike a balance between socially responsible growth and protecting the most vulnerable, including children, from gambling-related harm.
I want to be very clear that the review and this legislation do not mark the end of government action. We recognise that harm is not about just one product. We will act where there is evidence of harm and we will always keep issues under review, as is our responsibility. We will also continue to work together with colleagues from other departments, such as the Department for Education, to ensure that we are co-ordinated in our approach to young people, and the Department for Health and Social Care, to improve links between gambling treatment and other services. I am proud that the Government are taking forward this decisive measure, and I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, having campaigned against fixed-odds betting terminals for many years, I am truly delighted that this statutory instrument is now before us, reducing the maximum stake from £100 to £2. The Minister has laid out some of the reasons why this is so important. I do not intend to repeat them, other than to remind the House that there are 35,000 of these machines in our often poorly supervised betting shops around the country, with more than twice the number in the poorest boroughs of this nation than there are in the more affluent boroughs. It is also worth reflecting that research shows that 80% of fixed-odds betting terminal gamblers exhibit problem gambling behaviour at stakes in excess of a £13 spend.
The Minister has pointed out that the Government now accept that these machines have wrecked lives, torn families apart and caused enormous damage in our communities, but I have to say that the tone of the Minister’s introduction rather implied that the Government had been keen supporters of change in this area for a very long time. The truth is that that has not been the situation. It was back in 2010 in the other place that I first advocated a £2 stake, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones introduced legislation in your Lordships’ House in 2015 that sought to have the stake reduced to £2. Since then many people have been campaigning for change, including local government, the Church of England—I pay particular tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—mental health charities, academics and many others. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals, very effectively led by Carolyn Harris MP, has played an influential role in persuading the Government—eventually—to act as they did on 17 May this year when they announced the cuts.
All of us having welcomed the Government’s announcement that the stake was to be cut, we were collectively appalled to hear that they were proposing a delay in its implementation until October 2019. Despite accepting that FOBTs were a social blight that harmed individuals and communities, they were proposing to wait 18 months, with further suicides being predicted and more lives to be wrecked. We found it hard to believe that the Government seemed to take so much notice of the bookmakers with all their arguments about how difficult it was to change the machines, how much money the Exchequer was going to lose and how many jobs were going to be lost. The Government seemed to fall for it hook, line and sinker, yet every one of the arguments that were made has now been discredited. To take one example, we know that changing the stake will actually be of huge economic benefit to this country. We know that gambling and problem gambling cost this country a fortune: £1.5 billion to deal with the problems that problem gambling is causing us. We also know that because people will spend less money on fixed-odds betting terminals, that money will be spent in other parts of the economy, which is infinitely more productive in helping the economy to the benefit of a significant amount added to the gross value added.
So the Government have at last changed their mind and of course that is welcome, but let us not forget that that was after months of campaigning after amendments being tabled to the Finance Bill signed by over 100 Members of Parliament, the threatened resignation of 12 Parliamentary Private Secretaries and then, very sadly, the actual resignation of the excellent former Minister for Sport and Civil Society, Tracey Crouch, who deserves great credit for the stance that she took. Only after all that happened did the Government agree to do the right thing and bring the implementation date forward to April 2019.
Despite the absurd process that we have had to go through to see the stake cut delivered, I am genuinely pleased to be welcoming the change that is to take place in April next year, earlier than the Government originally planned. However, since the Government began consulting on fixed-odds betting terminals three years ago, a staggering £3.6 billion has been lost by people in this country, often the poorest in our society. For me and for many others, ending the harm caused by these toxic machines simply cannot come soon enough.
Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hope that I can bring a certain expertise on this matter to the debate this evening, not because I was professor of gambling studies at Salford University—although I was—but because I go into betting shops, which is probably not true of many noble Lords here. However, I must say that I have never been even faintly tempted to put £2, let alone £100, into one of these infernal machines.
I want to use this occasion to draw attention to three lessons that I think should be learned by different people. First, we should understand that Parliament is partly to blame for this. We should never have introduced the £100 limit. It was under a Government I supported at a time when gambling liberalisation ran away with itself. We would not be here tonight, and many people would not have got into great difficulty, had the Government of the time set a more sensible limit.
The second group of people who ought to learn lessons from this are the bookmakers. I am afraid that I could not disagree more strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, about their lobbying powers. When I came into Parliament 20 years ago, the bookmakers were formidable lobbyists. There were many Members in both Houses whom they were careful to brief very thoroughly with sane arguments. I remember the days of the great Tom Kelly, when he was running the Association of British Bookmakers. He did not use emotional arguments, he used evidence. He put his case strongly and well—and, rightly, we took that into account.
This has been a complete shambles by the bookmakers. I spent some time trying to persuade them that they had to take a more flexible approach and find something acceptable to everyone by way of a stake—and I wasted many hours of my time talking to them because of their sheer greed. I understand the greed because, actually, if you go into the figures—I went deep into the accounts of one leading bookmaker—it was true that they were taking a lot of money from the big bets and that a large share of revenue was coming from the big bets, not the small bets. Still, it was unsustainable, as were its effects.
They should have woken up much earlier—instead of which they went on trying to make as much money as possible for as long as possible and have now found that instead of the half a loaf that they might have had, they have merely a shrivelled, dried-out crust in the shops. We will lose a lot of shops as a result, and some of those who find that an attractive proposition may find, when they look at the high street in a few years’ time, with all the other things that are going on, that those shops which now seem dens of iniquity will stand out as reminders of a more prosperous time on the high streets—but that is just speculation.
The third thing I must say—here I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foster—is that the mess the Government got into over what date to apply this from was absolutely tragic. They should have sorted this between themselves: the Chancellor, the Culture Secretary and the Sports Minister. Instead, they went to and fro, looking about as wobbly as any Government could and, in the course of it, we lost one of the greatest Sports Ministers we have ever had. Tracey Crouch was a superb Minister. She was irreplaceable, but we have lost her simply as a result of poor government communications, poor policy-making and poor decision-taking.
I hope that, while passing these regulations, we will take those lessons to heart.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I join the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Foster, in paying tribute to Tracey Crouch. In a previous incarnation, when she first came into the House of Commons, we worked together on a bipartisan, bicameral amendment to the mesothelioma legislation. She showed great courage at the time in defying the Whips and being willing to stand up to say what she believed. I have watched her progress over the distance and have continued to admire her contribution to parliamentary affairs. Like the noble Lords, I regret that she had to resign as a Minister—but it showed a great sense of honour on her part, which is something that all of us would wish to see recaptured in the way that we conduct our politics.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster, talked about the disproportionate effect that these gambling arrangements can have in impoverished and deprived neighbourhoods. A few years ago, the Merseyside directors of public health funded research into problem gambling, and fixed-odds betting terminals in particular. The outcome of that research was published in 2014 and makes sober reading. It reported that problem gambling not only deprives individuals of their money but has an impact on their families. They stated:
“Gambling issues affected relationships—they led to mistrust, and caused arguments within the family, or with friends … One respondent said that his wife had described FOBTs as being like ‘the other woman’. Gambling caused problems with respondents’ families when they spent all night on the fruit machine, ignoring family etc … Gambling can lead to problems with sleep, due to anxiety, or to people being distracted whilst trying to carry out other tasks ... Gambling has a ‘ripple’ effect, and one person’s gambling problems can impact upon a lot of people”.
This research was published more than four years ago, so the change we are debating today is welcome—if too late for many who have struggled with their use of FOBTs.
Only a week ago, the same collaborative group reported that in Cheshire and Merseyside alone there are more than 5,000 problem gamblers. Respondents across the Liverpool city region reported a wide range of negative impacts from problem gambling, including, again, impact on family life, relationships and employment, and on personal and family finances. The report said:
“Problem gambling can lead to mental health problems … Staff who worked with people who had problems with gambling reported that their families were at risk of anxiety and depression”.
This is not a localised problem. As a one-time Northern Ireland spokesman in the House of Commons, I am particularly concerned that, when the maximum stake is reduced from £100 to £2 next April in England, Wales and Scotland, no such imperative will apply in Northern Ireland. This is particularly worrying given that the problem gambling prevalence figures in Northern Ireland are higher than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I know that the £2 stake was on the agenda of the Northern Ireland Assembly—indeed, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, who is unable to be here this evening, tabled the Long Title of a Bill to address that matter in Stormont.
In the absence of a functioning Assembly, I commend Ladbrokes—perhaps chastened after paying out £975,000 to victims of a gambling addict in a case that was not reported to the Gambling Commission. It has announced that it will voluntarily reduce the maximum stake in Northern Ireland to £2 from April. In this instance, Ladbrokes has done the right thing, and I wonder whether the Minister will join me in calling on all other gambling providers in Northern Ireland to do the same and to reduce their maximum stake from £100 to £2 in Northern Ireland from April. In putting this matter to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, I completely appreciate that, as this is a devolved matter, it is not his direct responsibility. I know that he cannot legislate; I am simply asking him to affirm what Ladbrokes has done and join me in calling on other gambling providers in Northern Ireland to follow that example.
When these regulations were debated in the other place yesterday, the Minister said:
“Let me be clear: the review and legislation do not mark the end of Government action”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee; cols. 5-6.]
I am reassured by that and hope that the noble Viscount will set out today what other actions the Government are taking to support problem gamblers in betting shops. I know that local authorities have wanted powers to restrict the number of betting shops on the high street, especially in deprived areas that have been referred to, as there is evidence that that is exactly where they are placed by companies. I am disappointed that the Government do not support additional powers for local authorities in their planning decisions.
Earlier in the year, in the Government’s proposals on FOBTs and wider social responsibility measures, they stated that,
“the bookmaking sector, and indeed the wider industry, has provided little evidence that self-regulatory measures introduced since 2013 have made any significant impact on the rates of problem gambling or on the degree of harm experienced by individuals”.
In December 2016, a review of the self-exclusion scheme for betting shops was published. It found that the position of the machines in the betting shops made it difficult for staff to realise that a person who had self-excluded was using the machines. The evaluation recommended reforming the system so that self-exclusion would rely on membership cards or electronic IDs, which could be used on the FOBTs.
A further report, published by GambleAware last year, was also critical of the industry-led responsible gambling initiatives. Commenting on its publication, GambleAware said that it showed that the gambling industry as a whole is,
“poor at giving staff suitable training in how to promote safe gambling amongst customers. The report also revealed customers felt existing responsible gambling messages are often confusing and unclear”.
I know that these comments were made before the Government’s report was published in May. Will the Minister give an update on how the industry is dealing with this poor track record and on the implementation of self-exclusion measures in betting shops?
When the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, Sub-Committee B, published its report into the regulations on 29 November, it said that:
“Given the costs, both financial and societal, with problem gambling, the House may wish to ask the Minister what steps the Government are taking to reduce harmful gambling across the UK, and what work is being undertaken to improve the availability of data so that any policy initiatives can be accurately evaluated”.
Noble Lords will recall that this House debated gambling addiction only a few weeks ago and a number of us took part. Just last week, the Gambling Commission launched a consultation on a new national strategy to reduce gambling harms. That is very welcome and I will review the document carefully, along with others. I know that there will be a focus on children and young people, and that is much needed. The latest data showed that the problem gambling rate among 11 to 16 year-olds in Great Britain is 1.7%, with 2.2% at risk of problem gambling, whereas the national rate is around 0.7%.
Part of the Gambling Commission consultation will be on a change to the licensing requirement so that money given by licensees for research and support must go to commission-approved organisations. Clearly there is a need for these funds to be used effectively, but this change does not address the fact that they are voluntary. I raised this point in your Lordships’ House on 30 October and I raise it again today. This change to the licensing conditions, although welcome, is tinkering around the edges and is not addressing the fundamental issue. The Minister who dealt with that debate said, in an Oral Question on gambling advertising on 12 September, that if the Government thought there were not enough funds being raised through the voluntary arrangement, they would legislate for a statutory levy. How much money do the Government consider “enough”? On what basis do they calculate that and how much is being raised in practice? I look forward to the noble Viscount’s reply.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I am very glad to be here today and wholeheartedly support the Government’s proposal to reduce the stake for B2 machines—fixed-odds betting terminals, or FOBTs—from £100 to £2. This is an overdue acknowledgement that these gaming machines have caused significant harm to some. I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whose Gambling (Categorisation and Use of B2 Gaming Machines) Bill provided the House with a legitimate mechanism for reducing the maximum stake from £100 to £2. I was delighted to support it when it was debated on 11 March 2016.
I recognise that many people enjoy gambling, but it is the Government’s responsibility to meet the three objectives of the Gambling Act 2005, one of which is to protect children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling. There is no statutory objective to encourage industry growth. That is for the businesses involved to achieve.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, it is important that someone from this side of the House says very clearly to the Minister—and I am sorry that it is this Minister to whom I have to say it—that one is really ashamed of the Government over the time they have taken to do what was clearly necessary. One only has to think what would have happened if the Government had agreed to double the stake. The gambling companies would have changed those machines as rapidly as you could think—they would have done it just like that. Yet the Government were taken in by people who told them that they could not do it in time. The second thing that the Government did was to make it perfectly clear that they were happy to go on raising money from the poorest and most deprived sections of our community in order to safeguard the public finances; and that until they had got their new system into operation, they were prepared to go on taking that money, when they could have put it right so much more quickly.
Like so many others, I am very sad at the loss of Tracey Crouch as a Minister. I am even sadder that the Government, having understood the seriousness of this particular form of gambling, managed to pretend that they had to spend months putting it into operation. Even today, we are supposed to be supporting something that does not come into operation until April. So it has taken them a year to do something that could have been done in two months, and something that would have been done by the industry in two months if it had been to their advantage. Somebody from this side has got to say that this is not the Government’s finest hour. Indeed, it is, for me, one of the saddest moments to see a Government who recognise the problem but then spend this sort of time trying to put it right.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, who has rightly said that this is only the beginning of what we dealing with. We saw a couple of months ago the outrageous picture of the woman who runs one of our biggest online gambling organisations paying herself more than a quarter of a billion pounds as a year’s salary. That is a disgraceful situation. Here is somebody who has paid herself a quarter of a billion pounds, much of which has been earned on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society. That leads me to be very concerned about the noble Viscount’s comments about getting a balance. I find this “balance” a pretty peculiar concept. I do not want to stop people gambling if that is what they want to do. What I want to do is to return to a situation in which you have positively to decide and go through a series of hoops to get yourself into a position to gamble and then to be restricted in the ability to gamble with money that you do not have.
This is a social evil which we should, as a Government, not be prepared to continue to condone. To use it as a means of shoring up the public finances, and to use that as an excuse, seems to me to be just as ridiculous as the people who answered my tweet when I dared to suggest that this good lady had behaved very badly. They said, “Ah, but she is the biggest employer in Stoke-on-Trent, and therefore that excuses the fact that she has paid herself this money and made that kind of profit”. I am sorry, but I have to say to my noble friend the Minister that it does not excuse it. It is about time that we really did say the following about the gambling industry. First, it cannot be trusted to look after and control itself. That is a point that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, rightly made. Secondly, it is very difficult to see that its contribution to the society in which we live is anything but evanescent. It is a pretty difficult contribution to capture. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, suggested, money spent on gambling is not going to disappear if it is not spent on gambling: it is there and can be spent on other and much more useful things in society.
I am not a puritan at all, and the noble Lord who is going to answer for the Opposition knows perfectly well that I find the puritanism that still exists in this society not terribly attractive. I am, however, a practical person who looks at what gambling does to people, sees what the damage and the cost to society are and therefore laments the pathetic pace at which the Government have proceeded to deal with the things that need to be dealt with. I just hope that my noble friend will take back to his department the fact that people on his own side, as well as others, really feel that action is urgent. We have known about online gambling for years and we are still talking about it. We still have people taking money away from the poorest in the most despicable circumstances and we do nothing. I am glad that the Government have brought this forward, but it is about 10 months too late and it has been forced on the Government. It is not a happy moment for the Minister or for those of us who believe that we have to take stronger measures more rapidly. We will continue with this until the Government step up to the mark and recognise that improved public health and public good will result from proper, timely, urgent and widespread action on what has become one of the social evils of our time.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, like others who have already spoken in this debate, I very much welcome these regulations, which will bring new and welcome protections to people living in Great Britain. It is regrettable indeed that the Government have taken so long to introduce effective legislation to protect the poor and most vulnerable in our society. I simply note that when, in April 2019, the maximum stake on fixed-odds betting terminals falls to £2 in Great Britain, the new legislation will not impact Northern Ireland. Like every other region of the United Kingdom, families in Northern Ireland have been shattered and individual lives have been ruined by the blight of gambling.
I very much regret that the Northern Ireland Assembly is suspended at present. I know that Members of your Lordships’ House will rightly say, “Well then, why doesn’t the Assembly get up tomorrow?” I say on behalf of my colleagues in the Democratic Unionist Party that we would be delighted if the Assembly were to be up and functional tomorrow. However, we need to lay clearly before your Lordships’ House that the intransigence of one party alone in Northern Ireland—Sinn Féin—is the reason why the Assembly is not functioning. To members of that party, it seems that an Irish language Act is more important than providing a health service capable of looking after the health of people, education for our children or adequate services or protection for the most weak and vulnerable members of our society, which these regulations would provide. I know that if the Assembly were operating, it would be addressing the matter before your Lordships’ House. It is time that Sinn Féin moved away from its childish activity and allowed the Assembly to function again. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Morrow tabled the Long Title of a Bill in Stormont to address this very matter.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, it is time to move towards putting this statutory instrument to bed. We have heard a lot of passion, as we might expect on a subject so charged with emotion. My fellow catholic the noble Lord, Lord Deben—we are both catholics, not puritans—expressed views that I have heard certainly on our side of the fence, and others have also spoken with deeply felt emotion.
I found the framework offered by the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to be a helpful way of approaching this matter. It reminds us of course that the House might just be of interest in this subject—in fact, it was the House, largely, that put the poor Minister in the predicament he finds himself in in the first place. He will of course bat with a straight bat, as we expect him to as a professional, but we know also that he is a man not without deep passion on this matter as well. We are therefore delighted that, at long last, this matter has now reached the point of getting on to the statute book.
We note the matter of money: the gross gambling yield is £1.8 billion, and the impact on the business will be £540 million. But we must remember that the industry has had a long time to consider and to understand that this was going to happen—I would have laid great odds on it recognising it sooner, if I may use my metaphor very carefully. That £540 million is under 30% of the gambling yield, but it could have been phased over several years by an industry that is certainly able to make those calculations. The transition costs are put down as £3.8 million, which is of course nothing at all. There is therefore nothing to stop this thing going forward.
I was in the Gallery in the other place when I heard the Chancellor mention October 2019, and I simply could not believe it, because I believed that in this House we had come to a conclusion that would see government action from April of next year. Let alone asking ourselves whether it could have been sooner—of course it could have—but suddenly to go from April to October like that took me by surprise. I add my voice in expressing regret for the fact that the high price of the loss of a Minister of the integrity of Tracey Crouch had to be endured as a result of that action.
We now look at this matter and ask ourselves where we go next. The committee’s report says:
“The House may wish to ask the Minister how the Government will cooperate with the gambling industry”.
It seems that the Government have co-operated extremely well with the gambling industry and have certainly put its point of view before us again and again. The report also says:
“The House may wish to ask the Minister what steps the Government will take to ensure industry has sufficient advance notice of the increase”.
Once again, the industry has had plenty of notice of the matter before us.
Indeed, when I look at the report before me and I see:
“These benefits accrue via reduced gambling-related harm. It is impossible to accurately quantify these benefits given the data available”—
incidentally, I pass over the split infinitive quite deliberately, not wanting to show myself to be pedantic, but I cannot bear it and so must show myself to be very pedantic. With “given the data available”, regret is expressed that there is not enough data for us to see our way forward. Yet, when I look at the Explanatory Memorandum, I see that in a 2013 consultation the Government felt that they wanted to do certain things then but could not because of what are called “knowledge gaps”, and they asked the industry to be responsible for filling those knowledge gaps way back in 2013. We had a consultative process in October of last year, but that was 2017, was it not?
Therefore, over a long period of time, we have been labouring with an absence of the kind of empirical information that will lead us to an evidence-based set of conclusions, and I feel it necessary to point out that if we have reached where we are now, it is not before time. We can only be glad of the progress that has been made, and I echo the voices that have been raised around the House.
The final question is about the costs, both financial and societal, with problem gambling. I discovered another thing in the impact assessment, right at the top, which we have argued about over the years:
“Gambling-related harm produces several negative externalities including but not limited to: increased healthcare costs, welfare costs, and other costs to individuals associated with problem gamblers (e.g. family, friends and employers)”.
For years, I have been asking that that be seen as a material reason for us taking radical action to get the balance right in the whole way the gambling industry does its work. There are oncosts and society disadvantages that occur. It is a known fact that these harms are produced, and I am glad to see that the impact assessment begins with that fact.
What can we do now that we envisage the future? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has been mentioned; I know that he, with others, is seeking to get a special inquiry into gambling set up. So much is happening piecemeal across the whole range of gambling initiatives; we are tinkering with this here and that there, and perhaps now it is time for us to take a generic look. Perhaps this statutory instrument can be seen as a first blast in a bigger action that could lead to a better understanding and a far better set of regulations for our society at large.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short but important debate, and for the general support for the narrow basis for these regulations from many noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Foster, said, it has been—to put it nicely—rather a long-drawn-out debate on the important area of B2 machines. There has been such consensus about the harm they can do to individuals and communities, which may sometimes obscure the fact that millions of people in this country enjoy gambling safely and responsibly. I will be saying something more about the balance that my noble friend Lord Deben has raised.
I start by paying tribute to Tracey Crouch. I agree with much of the sentiment from across the House today; it is a great disappointment that she decided to resign. She was an effective and hard-working Minister and I have no doubt there will be an opportunity for her to return at some point, although that of course is above my pay grade. I also pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, who is not in his place. He has worked tirelessly to raise important issues in this area and I have no doubt that he would have wanted to be here today.
I will answer the questions that have been raised. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and others that I will also be making a few comments about the future; this is not about just today but about the future as there is still much work to be done.
The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, asked a direct question: why has it taken so long to bring about this change? This question has echoed around the Chamber. I also note what my noble friend Lord Deben said in some sharp comments against this side of the House, which are noted. I have also taken note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who put a little of the other side of the argument to imply that the length of time taken to get to this point is not wholly due to—but might have something to do with—the original decision of setting the maximum stake at £100. I do not want to make too much of that point.
I reassure the House that the Government are committed to policy-making that considers all available and relevant evidence. We have consulted widely; we have received thousands of responses and, having considered the evidence, we took decisive action to cut the stake to £2. As I said earlier, I am very proud of the progressive legislation that we are bringing forward today.
The noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Lipsey, asked about the change of date for implementation. We have said all along—as I said earlier as well—that protecting vulnerable consumers is our prime concern, although it was necessary to take account of the effect that this reduction will have on industry and those employed by it or in it. I do not see much sense in going over the ashes. A decision was made; we listened, and we consider that April 2019 allows sufficient time for relevant changes to be made by industry. The draft Finance Bill was also amended so that the increase in the remote gaming duty comes into effect in April 2019 alongside the reduction in the stake.
I will say a little more on this subject because, since the announcement in May, officials have met with the Association of British Bookmakers, and with individual operators. They have also met with the two largest machine manufacturers along with the regulator, the Gambling Commission. Discussions have covered the likely impact on shop closures, job losses, mitigations and the technological changes that will be required. Operators have also had meetings with HM Treasury, Ministers and officials regarding the remote gaming duty. This is where I want to talk about balance because we have to bear in mind that there are a number of jobs involved. We do not agree entirely with these figures; I have said in this Chamber before that more research needs to be done to nail down the precise figures. However, the ABB says that the changes could lead to 4,500 shop closures and 21,000 job losses; there is another side to the argument and it is important to say so.
Other points have been made, notably from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that the industry has known about the Government’s intentions to reduce the stake to £2 since May this year, leaving lots of time to April of next year. The date announced last month provides further clarity to allow it to continue its preparations. We expect the industry to mitigate employment impacts and provide the right support to those affected should it have anticipated any job losses. I reassure the House that officials will continue to work with the industry to ensure that it is prepared for the impacts of a B2 stake limit. This will include mitigating any employment impacts and providing relevant support to individuals affected where there are job losses.
Lord Foster of Bath
On this point, referring to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the Minister is correct to say that the Gamble Aware target is being met, but he will be aware that it is only one of the providers of help and support to people with gambling problems; there are many others which need funding. The reality is that there are 435,000 people in this country with gambling problems. Currently only 2% of them are getting support; clearly more is needed. I hope the Minister will agree.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I agree but I fall back to the point that we still have a considerable amount of research to do. At the moment we are quite content to take the regulatory approach on the voluntary angle. My noble friend Lord Ashton and I continue to keep this under review. If there is a need to legislate, we will have no hesitation in doing so because this is an important area.
The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord McCrea, asked whether I agreed with the example of Ladbrokes voluntarily reducing stakes in Northern Ireland. As the House might predict, and as the noble Lord acknowledged, gambling is devolved in Northern Ireland. I cannot comment further except to say that action taken by industry to improve protections and social responsibility measures is very much to be encouraged—
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but might I press him further on commending the decision of Ladbrokes to voluntarily reduce the level of the wagered sum from £100 to £2? Surely it is not unreasonable to say that others in Northern Ireland should do the same; it does not require legislation on the part of the Government to commend that. I do not think it is an unreasonable request to the Minister to think about putting that on the record as a matter of encouragement.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is pushing me. It would be nice to be able to say that but I am not going to be drawn on it. It remains a matter for Northern Ireland to make that decision, and I have gone as far as I wish to go on that point.
However, I promised to talk about the future and I hope to offer some reassurance to the House about the point leading on from this important but rather narrow statutory instrument. We will always need a regulatory system that protects the most vulnerable in our society. The publication of the gambling review did not mark the end of government action. We have an industry regulator with the core responsibility of licensing and regulating gambling to keep it fair, safe and free of crime. We will also work with colleagues from other departments—such as the Department for Education, to ensure that we are co-ordinated in our approach to young people, and the Department of Health and Social Care—to improve links between gambling treatment and other services. We will act where there is evidence of harm, and we will always keep issues under review, as is our responsibility.
Achieving a balance between industry growth and social responsibility needs to be a joint effort between central government, regulators, local councils and gambling companies. As we have discussed, B2 gaming machines are an outlier in the world of high-street gambling because of the speed with which it is possible to lose large sums of money. As I said earlier, there was extensive support for a significant reduction in B2 stakes, and many noble Lords have expressed strong support for the Government’s decision in May.
I mentioned earlier my admiration for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. To reassure the House, I know that he is due to meet my noble friend Lord Ashton and the Minister for Sport and Civil Society, Mims Davies, in the new year to discuss gambling-related issues. I also extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Chadlington for his continued work in this area. I gather that he has recently held a fruitful meeting with the Secretary of State at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, alongside my noble friend Lord Ashton—the ever hard-working Minister—and the Minister for Sport and Civil Society.
I will finish there but will just say that this is an important change. I have listened to the views in the House, going beyond the narrow point of these regulations. We have a chance to make a real difference to the lives of vulnerable people.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, before we consider the Statements, perhaps I may suggest an alteration to the way we handle business this evening. We are running a lot later than we expected. Three statutory instruments concerning health matters would have been moved en bloc at the end of today’s business but, if the House is happy, I am happy to postpone them to a date in January, when we come back, because they can then be considered properly as opposed to at a very late hour this evening. That means that we will do the two Statements, plus the BEIS statutory instruments, and I hope that we will then finish our business here at a reasonable hour. I hope that everybody can cope with that change.
Modernising Defence Programme
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the modernising defence programme. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, in July I made a Statement setting out headline conclusions from six months of intensive work on the modernising defence programme—the MDP. Since then, work has continued apace. First, I would like to welcome the extra £1.8 billion funding for defence, including the additional £1 billion that was in last month’s Budget. Today, I want to provide an update on the MDP and set out the work that will be ongoing. I have placed a full report on the MDP in the Library of the House.
First, I should put the MDP into context. The 2015 strategic defence and security review was the right plan for defence at that time. The Government put the defence budget on a firmer footing, increasing throughout the life of the Parliament. Defence is much stronger as a result. NATO is growing in strength and the UK is a leader. More allies are meeting the 2% spending guideline, or have developed plans to do so. We are the second-largest defence spender in NATO, one of only a small number of allies to spend 2% of our GDP on defence and to invest 20% of that in upgrading equipment. We can be proud of what we have achieved since 2015, but we must also be vigilant.
National security challenges have become more complex, intertwined and dangerous since 2015, faster than we anticipated. Persistent, aggressive state competition now characterises the international security context. In response to the growing threats, the MDP was launched in January, and in the last year our Armed Forces have demonstrated their growing capability, engaged globally and supported the prosperity of the UK. The Royal Navy has increased its mass and points of presence around the world. We have taken steps to forward base the Army, enhancing our global posture. The Royal Air Force has continued to innovate and has celebrated a proud past in the year of RAF100.
Progress has also been made in cyber and space, as the changing character of warfare makes both domains increasingly important. We have reinforced the UK’s position as a leading voice in NATO and European security, and our Armed Forces have led the line for global Britain, tackling our adversaries abroad to protect our security at home and nurturing enduring relationships with our allies and partners.
Through the work over the past year, the MDP has identified three broad priorities, supported by the additional £1.8 billion investment in defence. First, we will mobilise, making more of what we already have to make our current force more lethal and better able to protect our security. The UK already has a world-leading array of capabilities and we will make the most effective use of them. We will improve the readiness and availability of a range of key defence platforms: major warships, attack submarines, helicopters and a range of ISTAR platforms. We are adjusting overseas training and deployments to increase our global points of presence, better to support allies and influence adversaries. To improve the combat effectiveness of our force, we will reprioritise the current defence programme to increase weapon stockpiles, and we are accelerating work to assure the resilience of our defence systems and capabilities.
We can mobilise a full spectrum of security, economic and influence capabilities, and, where necessary and appropriate, we will make sure we are able to act independently. We will also enhance efforts with our allies and partners, aligning our strategic plans more closely with them, acting as part of combined formations, developing combined capabilities and burden-sharing. We continue to invest in, and grow, our global network of defence personnel and the education and training we offer in the UK and overseas.
Secondly, we will modernise, embracing new technologies to assure our competitive edge. Our adversaries and competitors are accelerating the development of new capabilities and strategies. We must keep pace and conceive of our joint force as consisting of five domains—air, land, sea, cyber and space—rather than the traditional three. We must modernise, targeting priority areas. A major new step will involve an improved Joint Forces Command that will better position defence for future conflict, improving the integration of offensive cyber across our Armed Forces and the rest of government, and providing advantage in the new information-rich environment.
This year the defence innovation fund put £20 million towards projects in areas including unmanned air systems, virtual reality training, and enhanced digital communications for the future commando force. The fund will grow to £50 million in the next financial year, increasing the scope, ambition and value of the projects it can support. We will launch new ‘Spearhead’ innovation programmes that will apply cutting-edge technologies to areas including sub-surface threats to our submarines, our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability, and command and control in the land environment. To drive innovation and change through the department, I am launching a transformation fund. Next year, I will ring-fence £160 million of the MoD budget to create this fund, which will be available for innovative new military capability. I will look to make a further £340 million available as part of the spending review. This fund will be available for new innovative military capabilities which will allow us to stay one step ahead of our adversaries.
Together, these and other steps will enable the acceleration of our modernisation plans. Thirdly, we will transform, radically changing the way we do business. We need to improve markedly the way we run defence. To sustain strategic advantage in a fast-changing world, we must be capable of continuous and timely adaptation. We will embrace modern business practices and establish a culture that nurtures transformation and innovation. We also need to create financial headroom for modernisation. Based on our work to date, we expect, over the next decade, to achieve the very demanding efficiency targets we were set in 2015, including through investment in a programme of digital transformation.
We will develop a comprehensive strategy to improve recruitment and retention of talent, better reflecting the expectations of the modern workforce. We will access more effectively the talents of our ‘whole force’: all three services, regulars, reserves, Civil Service and industry partners. Looking ahead, dealing effectively with persistent conflict and competition will increasingly hinge on smarter, better-informed long-range strategy. To help achieve these goals we will establish a permanent net assessment unit, as well as a defence policy board of external experts, to bring challenge to defence policy and strategy. Our achievements under the MDP have made defence stronger. The capability investments and policy approaches I have set out—with the £1.8 billion of extra funding—will help to keep us on track to deliver the right UK defence for the challenging decade ahead. Without a shadow of a doubt, there is more work to be done as we move towards next year’s spending review. We must sustain this momentum if we are to realise our long-term goals of increasing the lethality, reach and mass of our Armed Forces. I will do everything in my power to make sure that the UK remains a tier 1 military power in the decade ahead, and that we continue to deliver the strong defence and security that has been the hallmark of the Government. I commend this Statement and my report to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. When I first read it, I thought it was the sort of statement Pepys might have made—and probably with better reason. It is essentially a classic “We will try harder” statement. Let me illustrate. I was reading through it and trying to find something substantial, and I tripped over the phrase,
“the MDP has identified three broad priorities”.
I thought, “Well, that is different”. I went on to see what they were:
“We will mobilise, making more of what we already have ... We will make the most effective use of them … We will improve the readiness and availability of a range of key defence platforms”.
The noble Earl’s party has been in power for eight years. What has he done in the previous seven years, if not these sorts of motherhood-type things? It does say something tangible: namely, that,
“we will reprioritise the current defence programme to increase weapon stockpiles”.
I feel that “reprioritise” must have a specific meaning: to take from somewhere and give to somewhere else. One can hardly criticise increasing weapons stockpiles to more sensible levels—but can the Minister tell us where the money is being taken from to be reprioritised in weapons stockpiles?
Later in the Statement is the sentence:
“And, where necessary and appropriate we will make sure we are able to act independently”.
We are in the gunboat business again. What sort of independent missions does the noble Earl have in mind? To make that statement, defence must have developed a series of scenarios. Where does the noble Earl feel that acting independently would be a sensible thing for the United Kingdom to do?
Turning the page, the Statement says that,
“we will modernise, embracing new technologies to assure our competitive edge … targetting priority areas”.
This is 2010. Surely a good Administration who have been in power for eight years should have been doing that all along.
It is really only on the second page that there is anything new. We are going to have a “defence innovation fund” and a “transformation fund”. Can the Minister set out in detail what these funds are intended to do and what the difference between them is? The Statement reads:
“I will ring-fence £160 million of MOD’s budget to create this fund”,
and then talks of further funding. Previously, it speaks about “£50 million” in the “next financial year”. That is £210 million—a little over 0.5% of the defence budget. This is nothing like the amounts of money required to make a significant impact. Later, it says:
“We will embrace modern business practices”.
What are they? Why have they not been embraced before? I like this phrase:
“We will develop a comprehensive strategy to improve recruitment and retention of talent”.
Is that code for, “We are going to fire Capita?” It comes from such a low base that surely getting rid of it and having the MoD doing its own recruitment would be the way to go. Is it not true that, with Capita’s help, we are losing net numbers of trained personnel?
The Statement goes on to say something that might actually be meaningful—that a permanent net assessment unit will be established. That could mean a radical change in how the MoD makes its decisions. It could mean a movement towards the centre or it could mean that it is just some unit that passes comments. Can the Minister spell out what structural changes will be made to make this net assessment unit meaningful?
Earlier, the Statement reviews how the threat has become more significant in a whole series of areas and talks about £1.8 billion of extra money. I think that all this money has been announced before—I will be happy to be corrected on that. But can the Minister set out in some detail where and when the money will be spent? I have an uneasy feeling that it is just about enough to keep up with the increased threat.
The only glimmer of hope in the Statement is in the last paragraph:
“There is more work to be done as we move towards next year’s Spending Review”.
I hope that that is code for defence setting out to try again to get some more resources. The programme hinted at in the Statement—let us it call it “SDR 2015-plus-plus”—is unaffordable without cuts or more money, or are we going to muddle on yet again overpromising and underdelivering?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. I share many of the observations that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made in the last moment or two. This is the second time that I have heard the Statement, because I took the opportunity to go and hear it when it was first delivered in the other place. I have to confess that hearing it twice has not improved it, in spite of what I anticipated being the mellifluous tones of the noble Earl, for whom I have the greatest respect. Looked at in the round, the Statement could easily have been made at any time in the course of its nine months of gestation. It contains a whole list of promises but is largely silent about how the promises are to be delivered.
When we examine some of those promises, we see that they reflect things which the Ministry of Defence should be doing now as a matter of course. Surely we are currently enhancing,
“efforts with our allies and partners”.
Indeed, one would think that the very possibility of Brexit would surely make that an even more urgent requirement. Are we going to “act independently”? For example, if independent action in defence of an overseas territory were required, surely we would be capable of doing that at the moment. Why are those two issues focused on in that way that they are in the Statement?
Nor is there any mention of the immediate challenges that face the Ministry of Defence, such as the gap of billions of pounds in the equipment budget—an issue that the noble Earl will recall I have raised with him on two recent previous occasions. How will that gap be filled? I will return to the question of financial support in a moment or two, because the Statement contains a couple of sentences that justify careful reading and interpretation.
There has already been reference to the fiasco of Army recruitment. How will that be remedied? Is the company that has responsibility simply to be sacked? Why not go back to the previous system, which, as far as I recall, was effective? Was the idea of letting it out designed to save money? If it was, it has certainly not been successful in the sense of producing the promises that were made in respect of it.
Finally, there is the question of the continuing fall in and erratic nature of the value of the pound. How is that affecting the ability of the Ministry of Defence to continue with its programmes of acquisition? What steps, if any, has the Treasury offered in order to assist if necessary because of these fluctuations?
Perhaps the most important passage is the one to which I referred a moment ago and said that I would come to. Two consecutive sentences say:
“We also need to create financial headroom for modernisation. Based on our work to date, we expect to achieve over the next decade the very demanding efficiency targets we were set in 2015, including”—
here there is a typographical error—
“through investment in a programme of digitally enabled transformation”.
I know of no government programme of “digitally enabled transformation” in the recent past that has proved anything other than more expensive than intended and with delivery several years after it was originally projected. It is a pretty optimistic tool to use in the issue of finding headroom in defence spending. I suspect that that tells us that the Ministry of Defence is not expecting any more increase in expenditure.
In advance of today’s Statement and the publication of the report, there was an apparently well-sourced leak that the Secretary of State for Defence was going to announce that one of the ambitions would be to raise defence expenditure from 2% of GDP to 3% annually. That did not appear in the Statement. When the question was put to him specifically in the other place by the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, he very neatly sidestepped it. I suspect that that might well be an ambition of the department—but I equally suspect that the Treasury has made it pretty clear that that ambition is not capable of being resolved.
It is also a pity that we have had the Statement and that the publication of the report did not take place in sufficient time for it to be considered as a whole. I very much hope that the noble Earl will, through the usual channels, be willing to commit to endeavour to have a full-scale debate on the terms of the report. That is a much fuller indication of what the Government’s intentions are—albeit, so far as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and myself are concerned, that the report and the Statement leave a great deal to be desired.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their questions and comments, which, in some respects, have covered similar ground. I will endeavour to reply to as many of the points as I can.
It is a little unfair to level at the Government the accusation that we have been doing very little since we came into office. Chapter 1 of the report spells out the wide range of investment and procurement that the Government have taken forward since 2015 in particular. That programme continues on a rising budget, as is often overlooked.
The noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Campbell, asked about the additional money we were granted in the Budget. The first thing to say is that the additional money granted to us this year and next will enable us to proceed with programmes that we are clear are priorities. One of these is our defensive cyber programme; another is stockpiling and spares. A further priority is the work we are doing at pace on offensive cyber. The money will also enable us to proceed with a more cost-efficient profiling of payments relating to the dreadnought programme. More generally, the money is excellent news for our modernisation programme in a number of areas. The report spells those out. Some would say that the significant thing about the Budget settlement is that we are not anywhere near making or talking about the kinds of cuts to military capability that some commentators were predicting earlier in the year. That sends an important message.
Both noble Lords asked about the circumstances in which we might act independently. I would not want to place too much emphasis on that part of the Statement. In the vast majority of situations we plan on the basis of working alongside our allies in NATO—the cornerstone of our defence—or as part of some other multilateral force, hence the emphasis in the report on the theme of international by design, which was a key strand of policy articulated in the SDSR. We are the lead nation in the JEF, for example. We lead the framework NATO battalion in Estonia. However, the nation would expect that we should, in exceptional circumstances, be able to act independently, not least in defence of the realm and our overseas territories, and to respond effectively in disaster relief and humanitarian operations that our allies might not necessarily wish to take part in.
As far as the modernisation of defence practices goes, we in the ministry are aware that there is ample scope for more automation and digitisation in back-office functions more broadly. This is covered quite well on page 17 of the report. It is about instilling a culture in defence built on leaner structures and less cumbersome reporting lines, not least when it comes to our relationship with industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked what the practical difference was between the innovation fund and the transformation fund. Both are about improving our capability. The transformation fund will add to our ability to pursue promising new projects, technologies or equipment at the pace required to counter the threats. It will focus in particular on opportunities to increase our lethality and mass. The innovation fund, which of course emerged from the SDSR, is a 10-year programme. That is much more about seeing how new ideas can transform defence and testing the utility of those ideas at an earlier stage of their development. It is also about pump-priming good new ideas.
Both noble Lords asked me about the people programme and, in particular, about Capita and our recruitment and retention. We accepted the conclusions and recommendations of the recent NAO report. We await the PAC report before replying formally, but I will just say that the tone of the final report is disappointing and provides only limited acknowledgement of the work that the MoD has undertaken or has planned. The NAO recommendations largely address areas in which work is already under way or planned. As regards Capita, we accept, of course, that the recruit partnering project has not performed to the satisfaction of the Army or, indeed, Capita itself. Significant time and resource has been invested to improve that situation. Part of the problem is that the defence recruiting system let us down. Significant additional Capita resource has been deployed to improve the DRS performance and, while there continue to be issues, I can tell both noble Lords that performance has improved significantly.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the strategic net assessment. Strategic net assessment is an intellectual discipline. It looks across all dimensions of military competition and assesses how the choices of both friends and foes may play out over the short, medium and long term. Its conclusions can be used to develop more nuanced and better-informed defence strategy so that we can better anticipate our adversaries’ actions and counter them more effectively. That will be closely co-ordinated across government to ensure coherence.
My time has almost expired, but I want to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, about the funding gap in the equipment plan identified by the NAO. The NAO report reflects the unlikely situation where all the equipment plan financial risks materialise at the same time. We are confident that we will deliver the equipment plan within budget this year, as we did last year. We recognise the financial challenges that our programmes pose: they are ambitious and complex but we are addressing these after securing the financial boost arising from the Budget and reducing forecast costs through efficiency savings. We have taken steps to enable longer-term affordability by improving financial management of the plan. A new executive agency has been established to lead on procurement and in-service support and decommissioning of all nuclear submarines, as the noble Lord is aware. It is important to understand that the MoD manages a £5.1 billion equipment plan contingency and a £1.1 billion nuclear contingency within the £186 billion allocated to the plan precisely to manage those cost pressures.
As for the value of the pound, I believe that I have said on previous occasions that we benefit from being able to engage in hedging operations to shelter the fluctuations in sterling against the dollar, in particular. I will write to noble Lords on those questions that I have not had time to answer.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for repeating the Statement. There are some bits of the Statement that are, of course, welcome, such as further thought and action on cyber and on space. The noble Earl mentioned improved resilience, but I see very little indication of that. Will he spell out a little more what he means by improving resilience? One word that was not mentioned, either by the noble Earl or in the “Dear colleague” letter, which I have read, is the word “Brexit”. I wonder how the Ministry of Defence is dealing with this subject. Can the Minister give any indication of the possibilities that could impact on what we have heard today about the way the money is to be spent, for example if Brexit takes a turn in the direction of no deal?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I can deal very quickly with the second part of the noble and gallant Lord’s question. The Ministry of Defence stands ready to support other government departments if called upon, and if we find that the resources of those departments are insufficient in themselves. Having said that, we have received no formal bids as yet from other departments, despite the fact that we have asked them what they envisage requiring. There will be approximately 3,500 personnel standing ready in case of need to meet such situations.
Resilience has been a major theme of our deliberations. There are quite a number of strands to that. One is to look carefully at how we can enhance our chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defence capabilities, investing further in Porton Down. We are also, as the report makes clear, enhancing our ability to share submarine threat data with our closest NATO allies. We are improving our secure communications, protecting our networks from cyberattacks and improving our ability to exchange information with NATO partners, as I have said.
We are also clear that we need to invest in improving power-generation capabilities for both Type 23 and Type 45 Royal Navy ships, enhancing their overall capability and productivity. There has been criticism, as I am sure the noble and gallant Lord is aware, of the extent to which some Royal Navy ships have been kept in port rather than being deployed. We are clear that we need to enable the Royal Navy to do better in that area.
The other obvious example of improving resilience is increasing the provision of spares and support to enhance global deployability and presence, particularly as regards the helicopter fleet.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I woke this morning to the news of the transformation fund of £160 million. Clearly, that was what the MoD briefed last night from this Statement because that was what the Secretary of State wanted the media to focus on—and they have done, for most of today. So I too will focus on this in your Lordships’ House.
Since the Statement was first made, the MoD has briefed further that the fund will be used in part to look at artificial intelligence and its uses in a series of new programmes, as well as—this is the phrase that I understand was used—tackling threats to submarines. These must be new threats. The Statement itself expresses another ambition for it, saying:
“This fund will be available for new innovative military capability which allows us to stay one step ahead of our adversaries”.
This seems a heroic ambition for £160 million. I say that because, in 2014, Google paid £400 million for a University College London spin-out called DeepMind. The 2017 accounts of that business show that Google DeepMind staff costs are in excess of £200 million a year. So it does not seem that £160 million will go very far in that challenging environment.
In order that your Lordships’ House and others who will have to do so can assess what this money will be used for and whether that is a justifiable use with any significant result, can the Minister explain—either today or in writing—what series of new programmes this money will be deployed to develop? What are these new threats to our submarines that need to be tackled and are not already accounted for in the MoD budget?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the defence transformation fund means that £160 million will be available next year from within the MoD’s existing budget, and we are looking to make a further £340 million available as part of the spending review. That will be part of our bid. The transformation fund has been established, in general terms, so that we can respond rapidly to new opportunities to invest in technologies that are game changing, and projects that move us forward at pace in areas that represent priorities. It will complement the innovation fund, as I have explained, although that fund will in itself more than double next year. It is too soon for me to itemise the projects and technologies that this money will be spent on. This is work in progress, but we are clear that the fund will perform a very useful function in enabling all the commands to focus their minds on priorities and potentially game-changing areas of activity. As further information becomes available, no doubt noble Lords can ask me about that and I shall be happy to provide further details in due course.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
In the noble Earl’s judgment, what above all in this defence review distinguishes it from its 13 predecessors since 1945? As a footnote, I am greatly interested in the new tauter approach to strategic policy-making, with the new net assessment unit. To enable your Lordships to test the quality of this new approach, I wonder whether the Minister could place in the Library a copy of the new strategic assessment of the high north, undertaken as a pilot project, which is mentioned in today’s document?
Earl Howe
My Lords, if it is possible for the Ministry of Defence to share that document, I will certainly do as the noble Lord asks. In answer to his first question, there are two things to say about the MDP. First, this has been a major and very thorough piece of work. Secondly, the document is essentially strategic in its nature; it focuses on key defence capabilities and has affirmed the central elements of our strategy as articulated in SDSR 15, from which, as the noble Lord is aware, it emerged. It has also guided our investment decisions on capabilities, announced at the Budget, and updated our key policies. It is designed to keep us on track to deliver the right defence for the UK, and does so in what we see as a challenging decade ahead. As noble Lords read and reread the report, I am sure that it will make clear a lot of detail underlying the general proposition that I have just articulated.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Earl has just said, the present document is very detailed, yet in many ways it appears to be a glossy brochure with a lot of aspirations. These remind me rather of the vagueness that we get on what Brexit might look like. There do not appear to be clear strategies for where the Government want to go. Can the noble Earl explain what £160 million might actually be able to deliver? I think it is about the equivalent of two F35s, and I am not quite sure how will keep this one step ahead of our adversaries. I also come back to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell about the exchange rate because hedging is one thing, but we are moving towards a one-for-one rate in the pound to the dollar. Is it really credible to say that the Government have hedged all of our defence budget in that way?
Earl Howe
We have not hedged all our defence budget, but we have hedged a substantial proportion of it, particularly that which is payable in dollars. I was speaking to our finance director last week about this. Although she could never be sanguine about the way the pound is moving, she is much clearer now that we have an affordable equipment budget over the next couple of years, which is the period over which she aims to hedge. I have already made it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that it is, unfortunately, impossible for me to enumerate at this point those projects which will come under the umbrella of the transformation fund. It was said that £160 million is not a great deal of money—it sounds like a great deal of money to me, I must say—but one should not think of transformation simply in terms of platforms and assets. One has to think of it in terms of different ways of working and of modernising practices within defence. That is where this fund will score most heavily.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
In the Statement we are told that the Government wish,
“to improve markedly the way we run Defence”,
and that:
“Based on our work to date, we expect to achieve over the next decade the very demanding efficiency targets we were set in 2015”.
Can the Minister remind the House of how much money the 2015 defence review said would be saved by efficiency savings and over what period? How much has been saved to date? Have any service personnel been deployed to work in the MoD to fill vacancies caused by civil servants leaving because of efficiency savings achieved to date?
Earl Howe
I am afraid I do not have the information in my brief to answer the last part of the noble Lord’s question, but the target we set ourselves in 2015 was £7.4 billion of efficiency savings. We have achieved 70% of our target; we have achieved £5 billion. That was the target over a five-year period. We are now looking further ahead to see what further efficiencies we can generate over a 10-year period. That work is ongoing.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I do not normally wear a uniform for a Statement on defence, but I have just been at a commemoration of the Battle of North Cape, where the very modern German battle cruiser “Scharnhorst” was sunk on Boxing Day 1943 by a British battleship, two cruisers and 10 destroyers, which hit her with numerous 14-inch shells and 6-inch shells and 19 torpedoes before she sank.
There is lots of rain coming in. If the roof comes down, I will stop talking. It is a bit like being on “Ardent” under gunfire; I rather like it.
The reality is that numbers count, but that is not my point. I feel this is rather a damp squib, to be quite honest, and so was the Statement in July. It is full of platitudes—motherhood and apple pie-type statements. There are lots of things that I would expect to be going on anyway. If they were not, somebody ought to be taken out and shot. It is really very disappointing. The good thing is that the Secretary of State for Defence managed to get £1.8 billion extra for defence, which was fantastic, and he has managed to kick into touch, or into next year, when the really interesting things will happen in the spending review decisions about defence. Not long ago, it looked as if decisions would be made to cut things that would have been quite disastrous for the nation, so he has managed to slip that sideways. To be quite honest, this Statement is not exciting. It is like a glossy brochure, as the noble Baroness said, and I find that very disappointing. The £1.8 billion figure has been talked about before. The £800 million was for Dreadnought and has been pulled forward. We were told that the £1 billion was for Dreadnought, anti-submarine warfare and cyber. It seems that some of this has been purloined for other things. I will be interested in how much of it is for anti-submarine warfare, which is what was mentioned by the Secretary of State when he said we have an extra £1 billion.
The Statement refers to an increase in the “mass” of the Navy and the military. We have certainly got heavier because we have a bloody great aircraft carrier. In terms of numbers, the only difference is that, because we kept three OPVs, we have two extra ships—that is all over the next 10 years or so, because the 31e is replacing other ships. I find that a little misleading.
The Statement says that we are a “leading voice” in European security. Europe’s disgraceful decision on Galileo does not make me think that we are a leading voice in European security—we are in NATO, but not in European security. That is worrying.
My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe mentioned the increase in weapon stockpiles. The MoD has always been bad about that but, as soon you increase weapon stockpiles, you take money from somewhere else. We do not know where this money is coming from. Similarly with some other references to amounts of money, it is not clear where they are coming from, but what is quite clear is that we cannot meet the demanding efficiency targets. One knows that from talking with everyone in the MoD. To pretend that we can is wrong; it is no good fooling and deluding ourselves. Does the Minister really believe that we will meet all the efficiency targets and save the amount of money that we said we would? Yes, we can manage to balance the books over the next two years and manage to get equipment by slipping and sliding things around—the MoD has done that for years—but we have a real problem. Let us face it: there is insufficient money in defence at the moment to run the programme that we would like. Somehow that has to be resolved. It will be fought out in next year’s spending round—the Secretary of State has been clever in sliding it to then and not taking terrible decisions now, but, my goodness, we need to look carefully. To be quite honest, this Statement is really a damp squib.
Earl Howe
I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that way. I gently put it to him that the size of the document belies the depth and significance of its content. This was never going to be about a catalogue of future assets or platforms or number of ships in the Navy. As I said earlier, the programme is largely strategic, focusing on those key defence capabilities on which we think we should concentrate in the light of the threats facing us. In effect, it is a sense check of the SDSR of 2015.
The noble Lord rightly says that the spending review will be an important ingredient in our budget over the longer term, but the outcomes of the MDP will inform next year’s spending review in a helpful way. It provides a solid foundation on which to base the case that we will present for defence spending over the coming few years.
Noble Lords should not underestimate the importance of the Budget settlement. That settlement will undoubtedly enable our Armed Forces to modernise and meet the intensifying threats and risks that we now face, including prioritising investment in key capabilities. The spending review will come next year, but we have in the meantime the ability to move forward on a number of vital fronts, which is extremely valuable.
Lord Touhig
My Lords, the Minister was not able to answer my third point. Will he discover that information and write to me?
Good Work Plan
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made yesterday in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Statement is as follows:
“I would like to make a Statement on the Good Work Plan, published today, which sets out the Government’s vision for the future of the UK labour market and how we will implement the recommendations arising from the Matthew Taylor review of modern working practices.
The Taylor review was commissioned by the Prime Minister to examine the current labour market and employment law framework to help us understand the opportunities of future working practices as well as to identify areas where it has not been working for everyone.
The Government responded to the review in February, accepting the vast majority of the recommendations. Alongside this response, we also launched four consultations to seek views on how best to implement the recommendations. I am grateful to everyone who took the time to respond; their insights have been invaluable in informing our policy development.
The Good Work Plan that I am publishing today sets out a programme for ensuring that the UK labour market continues to thrive in future. The UK labour market has a very positive record in recent years. Since 2010 we have higher employment and lower unemployment in every region and every nation of the United Kingdom. Wages are now growing at their fastest pace in almost a decade. This success has been underpinned by an employment law and policy framework that combines flexibility with protections for workers. New ways of working and the rise of new employment models offer great opportunities, including innovative products and services for consumers as well as new ways in which individuals can find work, earn a living and develop their talents.
Our industrial strategy set out a long-term plan to embrace the opportunities presented by these changes and to boost the productivity and earning power of people throughout the UK. Good work and developing better jobs is at the centre of the vision of the industrial strategy, so I am proud to be the first Secretary of State to take responsibility for promoting the quality of work as well as the creation of new jobs. I have written to the independent Industrial Strategy Council to ask for its participation in considering the best ways to measure the quality of work in the United Kingdom, and I am very pleased that Matthew Taylor serves as a member of the new Industrial Strategy Council.
Another core element of the quality of work agenda is ensuring that we address the challenges for employment law and policy that the Taylor review identified. Most UK employers do the right thing and ensure that their workers benefit from the rights and protections to which they are entitled. We will not allow these high standards to be breached by a minority who try to deny workers their just entitlements.
Among these reforms are steps to improve clarity for both employers and workers. Matthew Taylor recommended that the Government should do more to help individuals and businesses to understand their rights and obligations. He highlighted that the existing employment status tests have contributed to a lack of clarity for both individuals and employers. We agree with this conclusion and will legislate to make improvements to reflect the reality of modern working relationships.
Matthew Taylor also recommended that a renewed effort should be made to align the employment status frameworks for the purposes of employment rights and tax to ensure that the differences between the two systems are reduced to an absolute minimum. Again we agree, and we will bring forward detailed proposals to align the two frameworks. We are also committed to addressing what Matthew Taylor termed “one-sided flexibility” where too much risk has been transferred to the individual, sometimes to the detriment of their financial security and personal well-being. We will legislate to give all workers a right to request a more predictable contract and address the obstacles that employees can face in building up continuous service. We will also legislate to end the injustice faced by waiters and waitresses and other staff in hospitality whose tips left for them by customers are diverted to their employer.
Another fundamental reform that Matthew Taylor proposed was the repeal of the so-called Swedish derogation, which exempts agency workers from equal pay requirements. The Government are therefore today bringing forward legislation to prevent this type of contract being used to avoid meeting the legitimate rights of agency workers. We are also today laying legislation to extend workers’ rights, including extending the right to a written statement to workers and making this available to all workers from day one. We are also bringing forward legislation to provide workers with a longer reference period for the calculation of holiday pay, and reforming regulations to make it easier for employees to have their voice heard in the workplace. This demonstrates how we are putting the Good Work Plan into action immediately.
We also recognise the vital role that effective enforcement plays in ensuring confidence to challenge when the law and regulations are broken, and in creating a level playing field between businesses. Matthew Taylor called on the Government to improve access to justice in the workplace. We have already committed to extending state enforcement on behalf of vulnerable workers to the underpayment of holiday pay, and the Good Work Plan sets out how this approach will mirror the tough financial penalties and enforcement approach that already apply to the underpayment of the national minimum wage. We are also taking steps to improve the effectiveness of employment tribunals, quadrupling the penalties that they can impose for persistent breaches of employment law.
We want to continue to improve the enforcement landscape further. In the light of forthcoming policy changes, we will also consider the case for creating a new, single labour market enforcement agency to better ensure that vulnerable workers are more aware of, and can exercise, their rights, and that businesses will be able to deal with a single body on matters relating to their workplace.
The Good Work Plan sets out a vision for the future of the UK labour market: a labour market that rewards people for hard work, celebrates good employers and is ambitious about boosting productivity and the potential for everyone in the UK to improve their earnings. I am grateful to Matthew Taylor and his panel, as well to the many other individuals and organisations who have contributed to the review of modern working practices and our subsequent consultations. Their input has been invaluable in helping the Government to ensure that the UK labour market is ready to embrace future opportunities without detriment to workers’ rights. I also thank the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the Work and Pensions Committee and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee for their continued contributions to the scrutiny of the recommendations and for their recommendations.
Alongside the Good Work Plan, the Government are today publishing their response to the first full strategy from the director of labour market enforcement. Sir David Metcalf’s strategy was published on 9 May 2018 and made 37 recommendations on labour market enforcement and raising awareness of employment rights. The Government’s response accepts the vast majority of the recommendations and sets out the steps that we will take on raising awareness of employment rights, improving intelligence gathering on abuses of those rights and on strengthening enforcement efforts. I will be placing a copy of this document in the Library of the House. The Home Secretary and I look forward to working with Sir David as the Government implement the recommendations that we have accepted as he prepares to set clear strategic priorities in the 2019-20 labour market enforcement strategy.
As Matthew Taylor concluded, the British model works. We have high employment, low unemployment and a long-standing and proud record of high standards for workers. We will consistently be in the vanguard of reform to maintain this reputation as new technologies and new opportunities for workers become available. This response to Taylor is in keeping with these high standards, and I commend the Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made yesterday by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Taken together, the Good Work Plan and the response to the first full strategy from the Director of Labour Market Enforcement make a very good start to putting flesh on the bones of the aspiration in the industrial strategy to put good work and developing better jobs at the centre of the vision for a full employment Britain. There is a lot to welcome in these documents. However, I venture to suggest that the most important decision announced yesterday was to accept the Taylor recommendation that the Secretary of State should take responsibility for promoting the quality of work. That should transform policy in the department, and we will be keeping a close eye as things go forward.
Indeed, Matthew Taylor should be very pleased that the Government have accepted the vast majority of his recommendations, and Sir David Metcalf ought to be similarly delighted that most of his 37 recommendations have also been accepted. Something must be happening in the water that they are drinking at 1 Victoria Street—or maybe that is the result of all this good news.
It is worth remembering, however, that nearly 4 million people are in insecure work in this country and 1.1 million work in the gig economy. At a time of low wages, stagnating productivity and growing insecurity because of Brexit, families across the country need reassurance and action so that our workforce feels valued and secure.
Some of the decisions announced yesterday—the introduction of labour market enforcement, abolishing Swedish derogation and ensuring that workers keep their tips—were originally Labour Party policies, but we welcome them without quibbling. We still have concerns about a number of points, which I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with when he responds.
First, although there has been some movement, can the Minister confirm that the question of abolishing the absurd difference between workers and employees in their employment status has been kicked into the long grass? If so, why? On zero-hours contracts, the Government will apparently legislate to allow workers to request a more predictable and stable contract, but the ability to request more stable hours exists already. Will the Government commit to placing an obligation on the employer to meet this request and, again, if not, why not? The agreement to the labour market enforcement recommendations is very welcome, but there is very little detail. Can the Minister confirm that the enforcement agency has the necessary powers and resources?
Finally, we welcome the increased penalties for successful employment tribunal claims, but these will make no difference if the current system for enforcing awards is not also strengthened. Some 35% of successful claimants currently do not receive their compensation. What additional action are the Government going to take to address the efficacy of tribunal award enforcement?
The Statement contains a very large number of instances of proposals for primary legislation to bring these announcements into being. I would be grateful if the noble Lord will confirm that, welcome though that is, realistic time will be made available for this in the near future. If so, can he give a recognised timetable?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Secretary of State’s Statement. There is perhaps an inverse law here. We are at the end of a long day in a long Session and very few noble Lords are left in the Chamber. Despite that fact, this stands to affect more people than anything else the House has debated this week. It is important and it will genuinely help to improve the lives of millions of UK citizens. For that reason, we welcome the Government’s response to the Taylor review. We welcomed the review when it came out and the Statement sets in motion a number of important steps in the right direction. This has been a long time coming and it is unfortunate that the Minister’s department, along with every other part of government, has a lot of things to do around Brexit, meaning that important work such as this takes too long and is slow to come out.
The Government are right to reject open hostility to flexibility in the job market. Many people want and need the right sort of flexible job environment. Hopefully, these steps will move that forward. Flexibility should not be open to abuse. Workers need real control and choice over the work they take, which means giving them new rights and enforcing existing ones more stringently. The Government’s response has been a bit underwhelming in some cases. If the Minister will excuse me, I will go over a few areas where we think more work should be done.
The Government have said that they will bring forward legislation clarifying employment status and aligning tax and rights, but there is scant detail. Will the Minister fill out the detail or, if not, the process by which it will be forthcoming? The Government have also failed to genuinely address the need for a “dependent contractor”, set out as an employment status for people within the gig economy. The existing status of “worker” needs to be updated and redefined for the sort of 21st-century work that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to. We need that status to guarantee gig economy workers minimum earnings, sick pay and holidays. The Government have ruled out a higher minimum wage for hours not guaranteed as part of a contract, and are now going through lengthy consultation. We welcome consultation and, in other environments, the Minister has been criticised for not consulting sufficiently—but it needs to be quick and direct and it needs to get to the point. Action to stamp out abuse of zero-hours contracts must be swift rather than convoluted and kicked into the long grass.
Ministers have refused to rule out reintroducing fees for employment tribunals after the Supreme Court ruled them illegal. They should take that step immediately and rule out reinstating those charges. The Government must show how they will help gig economy workers access occupational pensions. That does not seem to have been addressed and I will come back to it in a moment in relation to sexual equality.
To close, I have three other questions. The Taylor review said that those working in self-employment should receive the same state benefits as those in employment. Why, then, are self-employed workers with fluctuating incomes punished by universal credit? In a good month, their benefit is cut, but in a bad month, their benefit does not rise as much because the minimum-income floor kicks in. Therefore, will the Business Minister undertake to work with the Work and Pensions Secretary to ensure that universal credit is responsive to this kind of fluctuating income, perhaps by measuring incomes over a rolling 12-month period rather than on a month-by-month basis? This unfairness needs to be addressed.
Secondly, around 55% of workers on zero-hours contracts are female. The trade unions warn that the gender pensions gap now stands at about 40%. That means that disadvantages to pensions for zero-hours employees disproportionately affect female workers. Therefore, to avoid further disadvantaging women, the Government must act on Taylor’s recommendation to improve pension provision among the self-employed. What will the Government do to ensure that women in less stable forms of employment will be able to enjoy a secure retirement?
Finally, the University of Greenwich study from 2016 found that disabled workers on zero-hours contracts were often unable to get their bosses to make reasonable adjustments required by the law. They were often afraid to raise the issue because they felt that it might endanger their employment prospects and put them back on to benefits. What are the Government doing to protect disabled people in insecure forms of employment? How will they ensure that the 21st-century economy works for disabled people and not against them? I look forward to the Minister’s response to those questions.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Fox, for their general welcome of this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said it was a good start and that he was particularly grateful for the stress on quality; my right honourable friend takes pride in being the first Secretary of State to address that issue of quality. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his comments, particularly his opening remark about being rather sad about inverse laws meaning that, although a great many people were being affected by these policies, not many people—sadly, because of the timing and other business—are present for this debate. It reminds me of the remark that people used to make about discussions about money in certain local councils: namely, that the smaller the amount of money that was being discussed, the longer the item took. I will attempt to answer a number of the points, some of which obviously overlap.
First, both noble Lords were concerned about employment status and how we deal with the distinction between workers and employees. I can assure them that we are committed to legislation to improve the clarity of employment status to reflect the reality of modern working relationships. Obviously, more work needs to be done; we will bring forward detailed proposals on how the frameworks for employment and tax statuses could be aligned. It is, as has been made clear by many, very difficult, and I am not sure that we can ever get them completely aligned—but we will do our best. We are one of the first countries in the world to address the challenges in this area. As Matthew Taylor said, there are three levels of status. He believed that that was right and appropriate, but we want to bring a degree of greater clarity in this area.
Secondly, there were concerns from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the powers and resources available for enforcement in this area. We are increasing the resources available for enforcement: the budget for enforcing the national minimum wage was increased from £20 million in 2016-17 to some £25.3 million in 2017-18. The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate has also received a 50% increase to hire more inspectors. But again, as my right honourable friend has made clear on a number of occasions, we want to make sure that it can do that job and bring to book those who are not performing adequately. We believe it is right that successful claimants get what they are due fully, which is why yesterday we launched a new naming scheme for employers who do not pay the employment tribunal awards. Again, I believe that a naming and shaming policy is exactly the right approach.
On the question of employment tribunal fees, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, obviously I am aware of the case in the Supreme Court to which he referred. We are reviewing the fees strategy and looking at the balance between charging direct users and using taxpayer subsidy. The fee remission scheme—help with fees—is a crucial element of this strategy, and, again, we are considering whether the scheme needs to be adapted to facilitate better access to the courts and tribunals in the light of that judgment.
Lastly, on the question of zero-hours contracts, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in particular referred to the position of some women with regard to zero-hours contracts. However, zero-hours contracts can affect all people, of whatever age and gender. I point out to him that, as he will be aware, Taylor noted that banning zero-hours contracts altogether would negatively impact far more people than it would help.
Lord Fox
My Lords, I think there is a slight misunderstanding. I mentioned at the very beginning that people welcome flexible working contracts, so I ask the Minister please not to put those words in my mouth. My point was that because more women work on flexible contracts, under which pensions are harder to sort out, naturally more women than men will suffer from a pension point of view because more women are on flexible contracts.
Lord Henley
I accept the noble Lord’s point. He will be aware that we made a number of changes to pension arrangements, which one of the noble Lord’s right honourable friends was responsible for as a Minister in the coalition Government, and that will have benefited a great many women and helped them to meet their pension contribution record. I just wanted to make the point that Taylor noted that banning zero-hours contracts would negatively impact more people than it would help. I apologise if I put words in the noble Lord’s mouth, but he accepted that that flexibility in employment is important to a great many people, and I do not think that many of us would like to deny that.
I also note what the noble Lord had to say about disabled workers and the 2016 Greenwich study. I would certainly like to look at that more carefully and if possible write to him. If we go back as far as 1996 and the disability legislation of that year, and amendments and improvements such as the Equality Act 2010, we see that we have made great leaps forward. I hope that what we have set out here, which will be of benefit to all workers, will also be of benefit to disabled workers and to others in due course.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I too welcome the Government’s Statement on how they will implement the recommendations from the Taylor review as they open up the agenda on much-needed reforms to the labour market, particularly on the issue of one-sided flexibility where too much risk has been shifted on to the individual worker from the employer. The Government’s own Good Work Plan says:
“We will take firm action to tackle … where some businesses have transferred too much business risk to the individual, sometimes at the detriment of their financial security and personal wellbeing”.
I hope the Government will hold to that promise; people will watch closely how they honour it. There is strong evidence from both public and private sources on the levels of financial resilience that many workers lack, particularly in the face of income shocks. This lack of resilience is driven in part by a decline in the quality of the employment contract, whether that is revealed through variability in earnings, poor sick-pay provisions or ambiguous employment status. To begin to address financial resilience, one has to look at precisely what the Government have identified: the shift of risk on to the individual and the decline in the quality of the employment contract.
There are many questions I would like to ask but time does not allow. I refer to the part of the Statement that references Matthew Taylor’s call on the Government to improve access to justice, and I refer back again to the issue of tribunals. In their stated steps to improve the effectiveness of employment tribunals, have the Government decided to reintroduce fees for access to employment tribunals and employment appeal tribunals, so that the only matter being considered is how to reintroduce these fees, or are they still undecided on the reintroduction of fees? One has to bear in mind that, if workers cannot enforce their rights, these are rendered meaningless. We saw a staggering fall of 70% in claims brought to employment tribunals and a disproportionate impact of that fell on women, particularly low-paid and pregnant women.
The Statement also refers to the Government’s considering,
“the case for creating a new, single labour market enforcement agency”.
How would the remit of such an agency impact on the remit of ACAS and, in particular, on the ACAS role in conciliating on employment tribunal claims? When one reads what is intended for a new body, one can see an overlap with ACAS, so it would be useful to have some clarification. I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says that, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, the reforms that could come out of this Statement from the Government, and the reach of those reforms, could be considerable, affecting many millions of people. When we get into the detail of the legislation, one can be sure that the numbers attending will be far higher than at this late hour.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I will respond to the noble Baroness and I look forward then to responding to the noble Lord. That is the order in which we normally do these things. I welcome the positive approach that the noble Baroness took in her comments on the Statement by my right honourable friend, about where it is going and how it might develop. I am not sure that I can answer her questions in much more detail than I have already set out to the two speakers for the Opposition Front Benches. A lot of this is ongoing work. There is much to be done and there will be further consultation. I appreciate that at times noble Lords feel that there is almost too much consultation but this is the right way forward on this process, having had the Taylor review and consulted on it, and having taken certain things forward.
The noble Baroness started off by talking about the one-sided nature of some contracts. She and I probably come from a very different position in terms of how we think a Government should act. I am sure that she believes that the Government should act a great deal more than is the case with my rather hands-off approach. However, I agree with her that, particularly with employment contracts—although one has also seen it in the past with landlord and tenant contracts—there can be occasions for Governments to intervene to bring in a degree of equality between the two parties. This is the approach that my right honourable friend sets out in his Statement and in the general approach that he has taken to contracts.
The noble Baroness then asked about fees. I do not think that I can go much further than I did in what I said earlier to her noble friend. We are reviewing the fee strategy following the UNISON judgment and are looking at the balance between charging direct users and using taxpayer subsidy. There will be further thoughts in due course on how that will develop and I am sure that we will bring them to her attention.
Lastly, the noble Baroness commented on the new enforcement agency proposals and on the impact that they were likely to have on ACAS. If I could say anything more at the moment, I would, or I will write to the noble Baroness, but, again, I think that that will be ongoing work. I hope that she will be patient and look forward to the completion of that work. I will now sit down and wait for the noble Lord, Lord Lea, to make his intervention.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview. I would like to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lady Drake about the quality of employment contracts. My last few years at the TUC were dominated by an attempt to put flesh and bones on to the quality of the employment contract. This is an important study but there is a very shallow focus, and perhaps I may explain what I mean by that.
If you talk to anybody about the economy—indeed, if you talk to anybody in the Treasury—and you compare our economy with other leading economies across the channel, you will find that our productivity performance is a major source of deep concern. Of course, this is also a matter of statistics. A higher level of employment with a rate of economic growth of, say, 2%, will probably mean lower growth in productivity. The problem of low productivity is a statistical inversion.
The big question facing the country on this front is: what are we going to do about the rate of growth of productivity? Productivity is the basis of living standards. To say that there is a lack of productivity is another way of saying that there is a growth of inequality of outcomes in the British labour force and a growing disenchantment among young people. This might go back to a growing inequality of opportunity in education. It is no criticism of this report and the Government’s response to it to ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that there are some huge problems that are not within the scope of this report, and it is the productivity puzzle.
One of the recommendations—number 14, I think—is about an adjustment to the information and consultation regulations. This interests me, as many continental countries have much more statutory regulation in this field than we do. When the trade unions in this country had double or treble the membership they have now—which is partly to do with the new types of employment relationship—it was very difficult. Does the Minister recognise that although this report ticks a lot of the boxes set up by Taylor, and is a step forward—whether on recognition, zero-hours contract issues, recognition of the IC regulations and so on—it is not as if this country looks as if it has a happy future economically?
There is nothing here about works councils or anything remotely like that; that is a key example. A friend of mine went to Gothenburg in Sweden to visit the company he was going to take over, and was invited to a buffet lunch with the works council, whose leader said, “We have one question, Mr Struthers. If you take over our company, how will that improve our world market share?” He got home to Peterborough or wherever it was and reported this and people were astonished that, at a works council, a workers’ representative had asked that. It is almost inconceivable because the world market share is not brought within the purview of our workers or their representatives—that is true to this day. It is a million light years away. We are looking through the other end of the telescope when it comes to these sorts of questions—the fundamental questions facing Britain, its social inequalities, its morale and so on. That should be the wider template upon which this discussion goes forward.
Lord Henley
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention about the quality of employment contracts, the work he did 20 years ago when he was last at the TUC and his concerns about productivity, which he feels the Statement does not address. He connected those concerns about productivity with high employment, and I am grateful to him for stressing that we have high employment. I think there are now 32.48 million people in work, and that is something one can be very proud of. He is right to address productivity, but this Statement is not about productivity. I refer him back to the industrial strategy, which we published a year ago. He will remember our debate on it just under a year ago, on 6 or 7 January; I think that it was the first one we had when we came back from our Christmas Recess—let this year’s roll on. One of the things that my right honourable friend wanted to point to was the general problem that we have with productivity—to the extent that we can measure it, because it is a very difficult thing to measure. We accept that our productivity is not what it should be. In that industrial strategy we laid out a whole array of policies to address that point.
The noble Lord asked whether I would reflect on the problems of productivity. I give him an assurance and a guarantee that both myself and my right honourable friend—in fact the whole department and the whole Government, because that industrial strategy goes beyond the department and belongs to the Government —have concerns about productivity, and those concerns are addressed in that industrial strategy.
Accounts and Reports (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018
(6 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 31 October and 6 November be approved.
Relevant document: 5th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations aim to address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively, as well as deficiencies arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, in the field of accounts, reports and audits of UK corporate bodies.
I turn first to the EU accounting directive. The law in the UK on preparation and filing of accounts and reports by corporate bodies is compliant with the EU’s accounting directive. There is also a directly applicable EU regulation which relates to 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 EEA. The department will bring separate legislation to the House that will address how we intend to deal with the deficiencies presented by the IAS regulation after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
Although the fundamental elements of the current company accounts and reports legislation will remain the same after our exit from the EU, it still needs amendment to ensure that it remains effective and makes provision which is appropriate to reflect the UK’s new status outside the EU.
The accounting directive provides for reciprocal arrangements for company group structures. For example, exemptions from producing consolidated accounts are permitted to businesses if the parent is registered in the EEA and itself produces consolidated accounts which are compliant with EU law. In the absence of a negotiated agreement about the economic relationship between the UK and the EU containing reciprocal arrangements, it is inappropriate to continue with preferential treatment for EEA entities or UK entities with EEA parents.
This instrument will mean that businesses registered in EEA states will be treated in the same way as those registered in other third countries. UK businesses with EEA parents will no longer benefit from the exemption from having to produce consolidated accounts. However, UK businesses with parent entities registered in the UK will not be affected by these changes.
The regulations do not create new criminal offences. However, the amendments will extend the scope of the pre-existing criminal offences. 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 file accounts on time would mean that they would commit an offence and be liable to incur fines if prosecuted, as well as civil penalties. That is consistent with the approach for similar companies with parents outside the EEA.
The accounting directive sets out certain requirements for businesses to report payments to Governments worldwide relating to the extraction of natural resources, by way of logging and mining. Alongside this, it provides a power for the Commission to grant equivalence to third countries for their system of reporting payments to Governments regarding these activities. This instrument transfers this power to the Secretary of State.
Turning to the second of the two SIs, the law in the UK on regulatory oversight of the audit profession is compliant with the EU audit directive and the EU audit regulation. The audit directive sets out the requirements on the statutory audit of most businesses, as well a framework of standards for auditors’ work and independence. It also sets out the responsibilities of the competent authorities for statutory audit in member states. Meanwhile, the audit regulation sets additional requirements on the statutory audit of those businesses defined as public interest entities. It forms part of retained EU law under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act and will therefore continue to apply to the UK after the UK’s exit from the EU. Our aim is to ensure that the framework for the regulatory oversight of the audit profession in the UK works effectively following our withdrawal from the EU. The statutory instrument under discussion will help to facilitate this.
Under the audit directive, powers are provided to the European Commission to grant equivalence to third countries for their audit regulatory framework and adequacy to third countries’ competent authorities for their framework on audit regulatory co-operation. This instrument transfers these powers to the Secretary of State. Regulations will be made in the months immediately following the UK’s departure to set out a framework for future assessment of equivalence and adequacy by the Financial Reporting Council. In future, equivalence or adequacy decisions will also be granted by regulations. Following the UK’s exit from the EU, EEA states would be treated like other third countries.
This instrument also extends powers granted to the UK’s competent authority, the FRC. Certain powers have previously been granted to the FRC by the Secretary of State but now need to apply more broadly to reflect the UK’s exit. The instrument enables the FRC to enter into mutual recognition agreements to recognise audit qualifications with the EEA states. It also enables the FRC to register EEA auditors as third-country auditors where they audit businesses outside the UK that are listed on UK markets. This instrument transfers the European Commission’s power for the adoption of international auditing standards to the FRC. As the FRC already sets UK standards in line with the international standards, we anticipate no immediate changes.
This instrument provides certain transitional arrangements for the auditors affected and their client businesses. To ensure companies and investors remain confident in UK markets, these will apply until the end of 2020. During this period, we will continue to recognise EEA audit qualifications, firm registrations and approvals, EEA audit regulatory frameworks as equivalent and EEA competent authorities as adequate. These transitional arrangements will mean that there will be no cliff edge for EEA companies that list securities on UK markets. They will also allow the FRC the time to put in place the procedures necessary to assess the equivalence of EEA states, as well as the adequacy of their competent authorities.
The Government have carried out a de minimis impact assessment of these regulations, as the overall costs to business were expected to be small. The assessment confirmed that the impacts on business would be minimal. Only a limited sector will be affected by most of the substantial changes made in the Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors Regulations. This is because the amount of cross-border business affected by this instrument is small. The most significant effects are for UK businesses listed on EEA markets, whose auditors will have to register with the FRC, and for UK businesses that only trade securities in the EEA, as their auditors will be subject to less regulation than before.
The Government have worked closely with businesses and regulatory bodies to ensure the regulations achieve continuity wherever possible while addressing the deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. The instruments before us incorporate stakeholder views and insights.
In the unlikely event that the UK leaves the EU without an agreement, the measures contained within these regulations will be critical in ensuring that UK accounting, reporting and audit frameworks continue to provide transparency and certainty to investors. They will also ensure that companies operating in the UK have clear guidelines for preparing and filing their accounts. I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and his department for innovating and delivering two SIs in one package. I am not sure that this has been done before, but it is perhaps appropriate that the department that spearheads innovation should be leading on this.
I did a quick count back and I think that over the course of my career I have been responsible for 18 reports and accounts, all of which, I should say, were for UK-domiciled and listed companies, so many of the issues here do not apply. The Minister will be pleased to know that I will not be regaling your Lordships’ House with the benefit of that experience, because it is clear that there are many things that can be improved around financial reporting. There are an awful lot of deficiencies around reporting, but these are not the vehicles by which that improvement should be delivered, so the Minister can be pleased that I will not be using that for a long discourse.
I have two or three points on the annual reporting side and one very important problem that I think we have around the audit area. On the reporting side, the Minister mentioned the reporting protocols around payments to Governments for logging and mining activities. Will the Minister write to me and say what those are and underpin that there is no change planned between the two regimes as we move from one to the other? This is an area where a little more clarity would help.
Paragraph 7.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum covers where this instrument applies and when the change comes. I note that if a business is called on to restate its chart of accounts—which has happened in my knowledge, and happens from time to time—it has to go back through time and restate its accounts. I have to say that this change will make it an extraordinarily difficult activity in the event that any business needs to do that.
The Minister said that the Government have been working closely with business, but when we look at the consultation outcome we see that they have not been able to consult in order to minimise sensitivities in advance. It is not clear to me why they were not able to consult—perhaps the Minister will explain why it was felt not to be appropriate.
I turn to the audit side. This could hardly come on a more auspicious day, when we have the CMA making its comments about audit companies and we have the Kingman report with reflections on the fitness for purpose of the FRC. The Minister mentioned the FRC at least a dozen or 15 times. The role of the FRC in managing this rollover between the two regimes is crucial, yet we have, in the words of a very experienced practitioner in Sir John Kingman, the finding that the FRC is essentially unfit for purpose in how it is operating today, never mind with the extra responsibility that this SI puts on it. I would like to understand how the Minister thinks that this is going to be enacted by an FRC which is short of a leader and clearly short of the resources to manage its day-to-day job, without giving it extra responsibilities. I look forward to his response.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords I am very grateful, as was the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to the Minister for giving a very concise and important overview of these two SIs. We are trying out a slightly different method here—trying to cut down on the amount of speaking that the noble Lord has to do at the Dispatch Box. I think that it has worked, so I hope it will be a model for others to come.
The three points I wanted to make have been covered by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, so I will not repeat them, but I want to say one thing in relation to scrutiny. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has asked us to look at both these SIs with regard to a couple of points. I am happy that the Minister covered the points, so I do not need to delay the House on those matters. For the completeness of the record I also wanted to ask about extractive industries and whether there would be any impact in the way that those accounts will be treated consequent on the introduction of these SIs, if they are required. Again, a letter will be sufficient on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right. It is a bit intriguing to find that the principal body which would have been responsible for this is going to be abolished before it has the chance to implement the changes made in the statutory instrument. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that, as I understand it, the independent review of the FRC, which I read with interest—it is a very good read indeed, full of spicy and rather spiky comments—is suggesting that the FRC needs to be replaced by a new, independent statutory regulator with stronger powers. Is that right and, if so, will it be completed in the timescale that is envisaged for this statutory instrument?
There is a letter—which is not the same as the report—which was sent to the right honourable Greg Clark MP by Sir John in parallel with his report, which looks at whether there is a case for a fundamental change in relation to who appoints company auditors. There are a number of extremely interesting ideas, particularly for PIEs—again, accompanied by well-phrased and rather pointed comments about the current state of play. They suggest quite strongly—although it is not clear whether the Secretary of State is going to accept this—that there would be a case for moving away from companies having responsibility themselves for appointing their auditors to a situation in which an independent, strong regulator, presumably the new body replacing the FRC, will have a probably quite significant role.. I assume that this decision will be undertaken by the new review, building on the work on the FRC, and of course the CMA review, which is rather surprising because that was only an interim report. I am a bit surprised that that is being taken forward already. If it is, fair enough—but will that review being undertaken by Donald Brydon, the chairman of the London Stock Exchange and Sage, take on the letter element of the Kingman report we have received today?
I have also looked at the CMA report. There is a considerable interest in how that might work. Obviously, it will considerably affect the viability, profitability and operating activity of the large companies that have been very successful in building up accountancy and audit-related functions in this country. It may not be a fatal change—it may be a necessary change—but, again, I would be grateful to get a steer from the Minister as to what exactly is going on here and what the pace of that would be, if it was decided to move forward.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I suspect that I will keep mine pretty brief and will write to them in further detail, which I think they will be grateful for, bearing in mind the hour. Again, I emphasise that the SIs are there for continuity through exit should there be no deal. We need to provide a degree of certainty for businesses at a time of significant change.
I will deal with some of the points that were made. On logging and mining, which both noble Lords raised, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and copy that to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
On the question of working closely with business, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked why we did not consult more widely. Officials did consult with stakeholder groups, including preparers, users and auditors, but they were not able to consult more widely due to negotiation sensitivities at the time.
I am afraid that both noble Lords are ahead of me in that I have not yet read the independent review of the FRC, but that will be something to look forward to on my Christmas list. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, commented on the barbed nature of some of the comments. It certainly adds to the joys of reading these things when they are written in such terms. We will carefully consider and consult on the recommendations and, if there are any, ensure that a smooth transition affects these functions. But obviously the FRC exists at the moment and therefore we have to make these changes.
Lastly, the noble Lord asked whether the SI would be impacted in future by the range of ongoing reviews in the audit market. I recognise that there is quite a range of work going on to ensure that the audit market is as effective as possible, which may lead to later changes, but as I have said on many occasions—and will continue to say—we will consult on those issues in due course.
I think I have answered the questions that both noble Lords have put to me and, there being no further interventions likely, I commend these two Motions en bloc to the House.